LOS ANGELES — In a May 9 order, a California federal judge ruled that cancellation of four claims of a ridesharing patent by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board renders pre-existing infringement litigation over the same patent moot (Transport Technologies LLC v. L.A. Metro Transportation Authority, No. 15-6423, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78793).
CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. — A New York federal judge on May 8 granted in part and denied in part an insurer’s motion for summary judgment in a coverage dispute arising from underlying claims that the insured used five people’s images as part of its promotions on social media without their consent or payment, finding that coverage is barred for the claims of all but one of the underlying plaintiffs (Bullseye Restaurant, Inc., et al. v. James River Insurance Company, No. 17-2996, E.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77701).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 9 affirmed the conclusion reached by the International Trade Commission (ITC) that the “Segway” trademarks are infringed by a competitor’s “Swagway”-branded hoverboards (Swagway LLC v. International Trade Commission, No. 18-1672, Fed. Cir.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge’s decision to grant two copyright infringement defendants judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) at the close of evidence in a jury trial was upheld by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 8 (Universal Instruments Corporation v. Micro Systems Engineering, et al., No. 17-2748, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13797).
LOS ANGELES — In accord with an in-chambers order in which he trimmed the “excessive” number of motions in limine filed by the parties before a pending damages trial for online video-filtering service VidAngel Inc., a California federal judge on May 8 declined to permit the defendant to bring a sixth motion to counter a purported “unfair advantage” related to an extra expert witness provided by the plaintiff movie studios (Disney Enterprises Inc., et al. v. VidAngel Inc., No. 2:16-cv-04109, C.D. Calif.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A California federal judge’s determination that a Sandoz Inc. filgrastim biosimilar and proposed pegfilgrastim biosimilar product do not infringe an Amgen patent relating to Neupogen and Neulasta was not erroneous, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled May 8 (Amgen Inc., et al., v. Sandoz Inc., No. 18-1551, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13738).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Finding that “numerous” questions of fact exist on whether an internet domain was registered in bad faith and whether a purportedly infringed trademark merits protection, a California federal judge on May 6 mostly denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment in a cybersquatting lawsuit (Jeffrey Dean Black v. Irving Materials Inc., No. 5:17-cv-06734, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76418).
DENVER — In a May 7 ruling, the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals left intact a jury’s finding that an appellant is liable for copyright infringement in connection with its copying of a standard collection letter and service agreement (Advanced Recovery Systems LLC, et al. v. American Agencies LLC, No. 17-4202, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13591).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent belonging to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) that claims a searchable database using natural language input recites subject matter that would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, Amazon.com Inc. asserts in a May 7 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Amazon.com Inc. v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, No. IPR2019-01069, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 6 petition for inter partes review (IPR), Renesas Electronics Corp. maintains before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that seven claims of a Broadcom Inc. patent should be canceled (Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Inc., No. IPR2019-01040, PTAB).
HARRISBURG, Pa. — A Pennsylvania federal judge on May 6 held that a commercial general liability insurer has a duty to defend Hershey Creamery Co. against an underlying lawsuit alleging that the ice cream manufacturer unlawfully copied a competitor’s self-serve milkshake machine and its related marketing designs, display and verbiage (Hershey Creamery Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-694, M.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75760).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 3 divided ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a Delaware federal judge’s findings that assertions of patent invalidity raised by two generic drug makers in connection with the painkiller Opana fail (Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Actavis LLC, et al., No. 18-1054, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13348).
PROVIDENCE, R.I. — A federal jury in Rhode Island on May 3 awarded an Italian company $6.5 million in damages after finding that its former employee and competitor misappropriated certain of its trade secret information for its erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) analyzer technology (Alifax Holding SpA v. Alcor Scientific Inc., et al., No. 14-440, D. R.I.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on May 1 upheld a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that adopted an examiner’s rejection of three claims of a patent application relating to electroplating metals or alloys (In re: Uri Cohen, No. 18-1609, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13133).
SAN FRANCISCO — Although agreeing with a California federal magistrate judge that copyright claims levied against Microsoft Corp. that involve conduct taking place before the filing of a 2013 patent infringement action are subject to claim preclusion, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on May 2 found that a plaintiff may proceed with allegations that the software giant continued to infringe its copyrights through sales taking place after the patent case was filed (Media Rights Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-16509, 9th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13239).
LOS ANGELES — After holding that a product safety company adequately demonstrated the substantive merits of its claims for trademark infringement, violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) and other causes of action, a California federal judge on April 30 granted its request for a default judgment against entities and individuals it alleged used its marks on their hoverboard products and awarded it more than $2 million (UL, LLC v. Gangsong Group Corp., et al., No. 17-8166, C.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72782).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its April 29 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in a dispute over the genericness of the trademark “universal” when used in a religious context (The Universal Church Inc. v. Calvin Toellner, et al., No. 18-1159, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a May 1 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed an award of attorney fees on behalf of two patent infringement defendants who prevailed at a bench trial on the question of patent validity (ThermoLife International LLC, et al. v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., Nos. 2018-1657, -1666, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 13135).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a May 1 patent owner response, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC maintains before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that inter partes review (IPR) is not warranted because the patent in suit is neither anticipated nor obvious (Netflix Inc. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC, No. IPR2018-01227, PTAB).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — All six claims of a profile-matching patent owned by the operator of online dating websites www.match.com and www.okcupid.com should be canceled, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on April 30 (Bumble Trading Inc. v. Match Group LLC, No. IPR2019-1000, PTAB).