BOSTON — In a May 29 ruling, the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a grant of summary judgment in favor of San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto and the municipality of San Juan on allegations of trademark infringement in connection with the 2015 Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastián celebration (The Comité Fiestas de la Calle San Sebastián, Inc. v. Carmen Yulín Cruz Soto, et al., No. 17-1723, 1st Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15918).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 16 respondent brief, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) asks the U.S. Supreme Court to hold a petition for certiorari filed by an online travel website operator, stating that a pending high court case over parallel attorney fee issues, but in the patent context, will likely resolve the trademark-related fees issues in the present case (Booking.com B.V. v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1309, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 28 filing, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of a recently issued patent should be canceled (Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. v. NuCurrent Inc., No. PGR2019-00049, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 28 patent owner response filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, the owner of technology that purportedly solves the problem of “spoofing” — which occurs when a displayed caller ID number is not the actual number generating a phone call — maintains that its patent is not obvious (Next Caller Inc. v. TRUSTID Inc., No. IPR2019-00039, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An order by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that instituted inter partes review (IPR) with regard to one patent claim it previously declined to review, and a subsequent finding that the claim is unpatentable, “cannot stand” because the patent owner was denied an opportunity to file a patent owner response (POR), an appellant told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 24 (Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Kingston Technology Co. Inc., No. 19-1202, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on May 28 ruled that patent infringement allegations stemming from an application to make generic “Abraxane” should be heard in Delaware, not California (Abraxis Bioscience LLC, et al. v. HBT Labs Inc., No. 18-2019, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88752).
WILMINGTON, Del. — A federal judge in Delaware on May 28 rejected efforts to recoup attorney fees incurred in a successful defense of patent infringement allegations, deeming the case not exceptional under Section 285 of the Patent Act (Tangelo IP LLC v. Tupperware Brands Corp., No. 18-692, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88757).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Samsung Electronics America Inc. on May 10 urged the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to weigh in on the question of whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board can cancel claims as indefinite in the context of an inter partes review (IPR) because “the permissible scope” of a board final written decision is “broader than” the scope of an underlying IPR petition (Samsung Electronics America Inc. v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Nos. 19-1169, -1260, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Clarifying its position that the law cannot be copyrighted, the state of Georgia in a May 24 reply brief supporting its petition for certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether annotations accompanying the law, which in themselves lack the force of law, can be copyrighted (Georgia, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — Allegations that the British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) and three of its employees violated a pro se plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks when it used his music in a documentary and then credited him by his stage name were rejected May 23 by a New York federal judge (Juan Pablo Chavez v. British Broadcasting Corporation, et al., No. 17-9572, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87926).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 24 reversed and remanded a Texas federal judge’s dismissal of patent infringement allegations, indicating disagreement with findings that two of four patents claim ineligible subject matter (Uniloc USA, et al. v. Big Fish Games Inc., et al., No. 18-1132, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15507).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On May 21, the federal government filed an amicus curiae brief recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court deny certiorari to a genetic testing company that was unsuccessful in its petition for inter partes review (IPR) of a competitor’s patent, opining that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling at issue did not properly address the presented question regarding patent priority and prior art (Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Illumina Inc., No. 18-109, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 21 amicus curiae brief filed at the invitation of the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, on behalf of the United States, recommends denying a patent assignee’s petition for certiorari in a dispute over alleged patent infringement that happened abroad, arguing that Section 271(a) of the Patent Act pertains only to the sale of items that occur domestically (Texas Advanced Optoelectronic Solutions Inc. v. Renesas Electronics America Inc., No. 18-600, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 23 petition for rehearing, Juniper Networks Inc. told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that it “misapprehended the critical difference” between two competing constructions of the term “mobile protection code” (MPC) and, “as a result,” in a recent decision, “failed to resolve the key claim construction dispute between the parties as required” (Juniper Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., No. IPR2019-00060, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed May 23 takes aim at a patented surgical tool for use with a robotic system (Intuitive Surgical Inc. v. Ethicon LLC, No. IPR2019-01110, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Although Section 145 of the Patent Act does not explicitly mention attorney fees as a recoverable cost for the prevailing party in a patent validity suit brought under the statute, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) argues in a May 17 merits brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that such an award was precluded under the American Rule runs counter to the purposes of Section 145 (Laura Peter v. NantKwest Inc., No. 18-801, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petition seeking an order directing an Oregon federal judge to transfer a patent infringement case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California was denied May 23 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In Re: ASM International N.V., et al., No. 19-118, Fed. Cir.).
ST. LOUIS — In a May 22 holding, the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal of an order staying trademark litigation for lack of appellate jurisdiction and affirmed a Missouri federal judge’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief, in a dispute over the copyrights and trademarks associated with the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly (Phyllis Schlafly Revocable Trust, et al. v. Anne Cori, et al., No. 17-2115, 8th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 15123).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that declared two claims of a Sony Corp. patent invalid was vacated and remanded May 22 by a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Sony Corporation v. Andrei Iancu, No. 18-1172, Fed. Cir.).
ATLANTA — Although finding no error in a Georgia federal judge’s determination, following a bench trial, that a defendant infringed a plaintiff’s trademark, the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 21 disagreed that the infringement was willful (PlayNation Play Systems Inc. v. Velex Corporation, No. 17-15226, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14956).