SEATTLE — A federal judge in Washington on Sept. 3 granted a trademark infringement defendant summary judgment upon finding that “the use of admittedly similar logos” by a bus manufacturer and a charter flight company “is nevertheless unlikely to result in any consumer confusion” (New Flyer Industries Canada ULC, et al. v. San Juan Airlines, No. 18-299, W.D. Wash., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 149689).
CHICAGO — In a Sept. 4 order, a panel of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals summarily affirmed an Indiana federal judge’s dismissal of allegations of copyright infringement levied against the Indianapolis Public Schools and two co-defendants in connection with their continued use of an educational program (Angela Brooks-Ngwenya v. Indianapolis Public Schools, et al., No. 18-2349, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26639).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 29 holding, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that a California federal judge did not err in construing various terms in a patent that describes and claims bifunctional molecules, as well as libraries of such molecules (The Scripps Research Institute v. Illumina Inc., No. 18-2089, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26202).
TYLER, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on Aug. 30 denied in full several motions for post-trial relief by patent infringement defendant Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., on the heels of a 2018 jury trial in which Samsung was ordered to pay a patent owner $5.9 million in damages (Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., No. 18-388, E.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148186).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York did not err in rejecting allegations by a professional photographer that Scholastic Inc. exceeded the terms of its license with a stock photography agency when using his works in its textbooks, nor in denying the photographer leave to amend on grounds of futility, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded Aug. 28 (Michael Yamashita, et al. v. Scholastic Inc., No. 17‐1957, 2nd Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25958).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In two Aug. 30 decisions, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that appeals of a judgment of patent ineligibility in a case against Apple Inc. and, in a companion case against HTC America Inc., a dismissal on the merits also due to patent ineligibility, must be remanded for a determination of whether the plaintiffs lack standing (Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. Apple Inc., No. 18-2094, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26367; Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. HTC America Inc., No. 18-2185, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26365).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Contending that a split exists among the circuit courts of appeal as to what constitutes fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), a trademark holder that lost a long-running infringement suit argues to the U.S. Supreme Court in an Aug. 21 reply brief supporting its petition for certiorari that a uniform standard for considering fraud should be adopted that requires more than a finding of mere negligence (B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc., et al., No. 19-48, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 22 appellant brief, the owner of a patented software program directed to property showings defends its invention as innovative and urges the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to reverse and remand dismissal of its lawsuit against an appellee accused of infringement (Consumer 2.0 d/b/a Rently v. Tenant Turner Inc., No. 19-1846, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 29 order, a divided Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that it is barred from reviewing a discretionary denial by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of institution of inter partes review (IPR), one year after the appellate court remanded the dispute to the board over the objections of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) (BioDelivery Sciences International Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics Inc., Nos. 2019-1643, -1644, -1645, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 26281).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a July 22 cross-appellant brief, Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. urges the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to uphold findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that five claims in its medical device patent are nonobvious but says the board nonetheless erred in deeming unpatentable five other claims of the same patent (Cook Group Inc. v. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc., Nos. 19-1413, -1422, Fed. Cir.).
WICHITA, Kan. — In an Aug. 28 memorandum, a Kansas federal judge granted a defendant’s motion to dissolve a temporary restraining order (TRO) entered by a Kansas state court, which barred further use of the “GEO-SEAL” trademark (EPRO Services Inc. v. Regenesis Bioremediation Products, No. 19-1220, D. Kan., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146053).
DENVER — A Utah federal judge’s summary judgment of no likelihood confusion in a dispute over a fleur-de-lis logo used on vape products was reversed and remanded by the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 27 (Affliction Holdings LLC v. Utah Vap or Smoke LLC, No. 18-4146, 10th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25760).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 21 reply brief supporting its petition for certiorari, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) argues to the U.S. Supreme Court that adding a top-level domain (TLD) to an otherwise generic term does not serve to make that trademark nongeneric and registrable (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an indictment unsealed Aug. 26, a California grand jury charged a former Google Inc. engineer with stealing the company’s trade secrets for its self-driving car technology and using those trade secrets to form a competing company that was subsequently purchased by Uber Technologies Inc. (United States v. Anthony Scott Levandowski, No. 19-cr-377, N.D. Calif.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on Aug. 26 held that a commercial general liability insurance policy’s intellectual property (IP) exclusion bars coverage for an underlying copyright infringement lawsuit against an insured, rejecting the insured’s argument that the exclusion’s “advertising exception” applies (Spandex House, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al., No. 18-8367, S.D. N.Y., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144646).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent titled “Systems and Method for Generating and Displaying Indexed Price Modeling Data” will be subject to covered business method (CBM) review, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled Aug. 26 (Price fx AG, et al. v. Vendavo Inc., No. CBM2019-00024, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Filing its opening merits brief in a dispute over whether annotations accompanying published versions of state laws are copyrightable, the state of Georgia on Aug. 23 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that because the annotations are distinct from the laws themselves, and as such lack the force of law, they are not rendered ineligible for copyright protection under the government edicts doctrine (Georgia, et al. v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Aug. 26 filing, Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc. tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that its patent claims directed to “novel and advanced” polymerase chain reaction thermal cycling instruments with integrated optics represent “the first such system in the field” and should not be canceled (Agilent Technologies Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., No. IPR2019-00271, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A final written decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of a media buffering patent would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art was premised on an incorrect claim construction, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 26 (WAG Acquisition LLC v. WebPower Inc., No. 18-1617, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 25499).
CHICAGO — In what it deemed a question of first impression, a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 21 found that a Wisconsin federal judge erred in permitting separate awards of statutory damages for works that yielded two certificates of registration from the U.S. Copyright Office (Amy Lee Sullivan v. Flora Inc., Nos. 17-2241 & 18-2534, 7th Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24928).