SAN FRANCISCO — A California federal magistrate judge’s denial of post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and a permanent injunction was not erroneous, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 17, because although a plaintiff’s trademark was willfully infringed, the plaintiff filed suit outside the relevant statute of limitations (A.C.T. 898 Products Inc. v. W.S. Industries Inc., No. 17-56046, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14689).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on May 20 found that rejection by a debtor of an executory contract under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 365, has “the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy” and that such a rejection cannot rescind trademark rights that were previously granted (Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 16 ruled that a federal district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of PepsiCo Inc. and several of its affiliates on claims that they misappropriated another company’s aroma release technology trade secrets in developing their own in-house technology for failure to plead the necessary causation and damages required to sustain their breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation claims (ScentSational Technologies LLC v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., No. 2018-2091, Fed. Cir. 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14477).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 2 reply brief supporting his petition for certiorari, a videographer tells the U.S. Supreme Court that a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that invalidated the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA) requires high court review (Frederick L. Allen, et al. v. Roy A. Cooper III, et al., No. 18-877, U.S. Sup.).
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department decision that assessed a franchisor with an unpaid gross receipts tax of $344,672 was affirmed May 7 by the New Mexico Court of Appeals, which rejected claims by the taxpayer that it was acting as a disclosed agent for its franchisee (ATC Healthcare Services Inc. v. New Mexico Taxation and Revenue Department, No. A-1-CA-36081, N.M. App.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a requested amicus curiae brief filed May 9, the U.S. solicitor general tells the U.S. Supreme Court that a “patent risk management” company that initiated an unsuccessful inter partes review (IPR) of another company’s patent did not have standing to appeal the results of the review to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals because it had no interest in the patent and had suffered no injury from the IPR (RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC, No. 17-1686, U.S. Sup.).
ATLANTA — A Florida federal judge’s rejection of copyright infringement claims was reversed and remanded May 1 by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which concluded that genuine issues of material fact regarding the originality of a dentist’s before and after photographs of a patient should have precluded summary judgment (Mitchell A. Pohl v. MH 1 Sub LLC d/b/a Officite, No. 18-13233, 11th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13132).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A petition for inter partes review (IPR) of 19 claims of a patented system for recording medical data was instituted May 15 by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which found that a petitioner demonstrated a “reasonable likelihood” that it will prevail on its allegation of obviousness (Altamont Software Inc. v. Sorna Corporation, No. IPR2019-00218, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Intel Corp. recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that contrary to allegations made in a February appellant brief, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board correctly declared all challenged claims of a voltage regulator patent obvious (R2 Semiconductor Inc. v. Intel Corporation, No. 19-1031, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A New Jersey federal judge’s finding that two patents covering the pain-reliever drug “Vimovo” are adequately described under Section 112 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112, was reversed May 15 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Nuvo Pharmaceuticals v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 17-2473, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14345).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent directed to determining a name for a file based on a function of the file contents and determining whether the file is present on a computer would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, PayPal Inc. asserts in a May 14 request for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PayPal Inc., et al. v. PersonalWeb Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-01093, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations that the “Sport Court” trademark as it relates to plastic, interlocking floor tiles is generic and unprotectable were properly rejected by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 13 (James Maksimuk v. Connor Sport Court International, No. 19-1156, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14127).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 10 petition for certiorari, an online reseller of digital music files asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the “pivotal copyright issue” of whether the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine applies in the context of lawfully purchased digital music (ReDigi Inc., et al. v. Capitol Records LLC, et al., No. 18-1430, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A patented method of using the compound everolimus to treat advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was confirmed as valid May 13 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a win for Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. and Novartis AG (Novartis, collectively) (Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., et al. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., No. 18-1434, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 14122).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — While stating that it “adamantly defends” the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ finding that the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) is not copyrightable, a legislative resources website operator in a May 10 respondent brief asks the U.S. Supreme Court to grant a petition for certiorari by the state of Georgia to clarify application of the government edicts doctrine in the area of copyright law (Georgia, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 9 brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, an appellant maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in deeming 18 claims of a patented apparatus for improving solid-state imaging devices obvious (Collabo Innovations Inc. v. Sony Corporation, No. 19-1152, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 13 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld two final written decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that declared technology relating to a process for retrieving largescale images in low-bandwidth conditions unpatentable as obvious (Bradium Technologies Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, as Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Nos. 2017-2579, -2580, Fed. Cir.).
WILMINGTON, Del. — In a May 9 decision a Delaware federal judge agreed with a patent defendant that a plaintiff’s claims of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents are barred by the disclosure-dedication doctrine (Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Slayback Pharma LLC, No. 18-1953, D. Del., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78146).
LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A Kentucky federal judge on May 9 held that a franchisor has justified a preliminary injunction on its Lanham Act claims, further finding that that franchisor has shown that a preliminary injunction is proper on its claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) but limited the scope of that injunction compared to what the franchisor sought in its motion (JTH Tax, Inc., et al. v. Freedom Tax, Inc., et al., No. 19-00085, W.D. Ky., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78532).
SAN FRANCISCO — Allegations that Facebook Inc. and Twitter Inc. infringe a patent relating to data indexing will proceed, a California federal judge ruled May 9, lifting a stay entered in 2013 (Software Rights Archive LLC v. Facebook Inc., No. 12-3970; Software Rights Archive LLC v. Twitter Inc., No. 12-3972, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79674).