Mealey's Intellectual Property

  • February 21, 2020

    Panel:  Patent Board Erroneously Rejected Supplemental Briefing

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 21 found that although the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly determined a challenger failed to demonstrate a prior art reference anticipated two claims of a data security and storage patent, the board abused its discretion when it rejected arguments of invalidity made with regard to a third claim, in a supplemental brief (Kingston Technology Company Inc. v. Spex Technologies Inc., No. 19-1256, Fed. Cir.).

  • February 21, 2020

    Musician’s Copyright Action Against Sony Dismissed In New York

    NEW YORK — A request by a musician and songwriter for a declaratory judgment that Sony Music Entertainment’s rights to the 1983 album “Juicy Fruit” are terminable under Section 203 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 203, was dismissed Feb. 20, when a New York federal judge found that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute (James Mtume v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 18-117447, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29133).

  • February 21, 2020

    No Triable Issues Exist On Washington Consumer Protection Act Claim, Judge Says

    SEATTLE — No triable issues remain as to a restaurant operation business’s Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim over use of a “Bok Bok” mark, a Washington federal judge held Feb. 14, citing an order granting summary judgment to the business on its Lanham Act claims and granting in part its request for a permanent injunction (BBC Group NV LLC v. Island Life Restaurant Group LLC, et al., No. 18-1011, W.D. Wash., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26317).

  • February 20, 2020

    Panel: Failure To Mark Sinks Pre-Complaint Patent Damages Request

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 19 agreed with a Florida federal judge that the false marking provision of Section 287(a) of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), “continues to limit damages after a patentee or licensee ceases sales of unmarked products” (Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., et al., No. 19-1080, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 5023).

  • February 20, 2020

    In Longstanding Copyright Case, Defendant Wins Attorney Fees Award

    HOUSTON — Following a recent affirmance by the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a federal judge in Texas on Feb. 19 awarded a prevailing copyright infringement defendant $878,314 in attorney fees (Geophysical Services Inc. v. TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company, No. 14-1368, S.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27865).

  • February 20, 2020

    Dismissal Denied In Texas Trademark Dispute Over Trading Cards

    DALLAS — Counterclaims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting levied in a dispute over hockey trading cards will proceed, a federal judge in Texas ruled Feb. 19 (Leaf Trading Cards LLC v. The Upper Deck Company, No. 17-3200, N.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27780).

  • February 20, 2020

    Company Seeks Damages For Infringement Of Patented Fracking Fluid Technology

    WACO, Texas — A technology company involved in the hydraulic fracturing industry on Feb. 17 sued a fracking services company in Texas federal court contending that it is liable for patent infringement (Cameron International Corporation v. Nitro Fluids LLC, No. 20-125, W.D. Texas).

  • February 19, 2020

    Panel Says Settlement Must Be Enforced In Mattress Patent Row

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 13 found that a New York federal judge erred in granting Casper Sleep Inc. a summary judgment that it did not infringe a competitor’s mattress patent, after the parties had already executed a settlement agreement in the case (Serta Simmons Bedding LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., Nos. 2019-1098, -1159, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 446).

  • February 19, 2020

    D.C. Federal Judge Won’t Transfer Dispute Over Copyright Royalties

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 14 holding, a federal judge in the District of Columbia rejected efforts by a digital music provider to transfer to New York allegations that it failed to make timely payments to the royalty collector for the Copyright Royalty Board (SoundExchange Inc. v. Music Choice, No. 19-999, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25922).

  • February 18, 2020

    Illinois Jury Sides With Motorola In Trade Secret, Copyright Row

    CHICAGO — In a verdict rendered Feb. 14 in Illinois federal court, Motorola Solutions Inc. was awarded $764.6 million in an intellectual property dispute with a Chinese firm accused of trade secret theft and copyright infringement; a docket entry in the case indicates that the jury found in favor of Motorola in full (Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01973, N.D. Ill.).

  • February 18, 2020

    High Court Vacates Stay 4 Days After Issuance In Insulin Patent Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A petition to stay a mandate by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a dispute over the patentability of genetically modified insulin was granted Feb. 10 by the U.S. Supreme Court, but just four days later, on Feb. 14, the order was vacated and the stay denied “in all respects,” according to the court docket (Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 19A886, U.S. Sup.).

  • February 18, 2020

    Oracle:  Attorney-Client Privilege Wrongly Applied To Rimini Technical Documents

    LAS VEGAS — More than a year after it was granted an injunction in a long-running software copyright dispute with Rimini Street Inc., Oracle USA Inc. filed an objection to a Nevada federal magistrate judge’s discovery ruling on Feb. 12, asserting that the defendant is using the attorney-client privilege to shield continued infringement (Oracle USA Inc., et al. v. Rimini Street Inc., et al., No. 2:10-cv-00106, D. Nev.).

  • February 18, 2020

    Panel Orders Dismissal Of Texas Patent Action Against Google

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Feb. 13 directed a federal judge in Texas to dismiss allegations that Google LLC’s Pixel smartphones infringe three patents; in the same order, a concurring judge wrote separately to “raise questions about Google’s business model” (In re:  Google LLC, No. 19-126, Fed. Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4588).

  • February 13, 2020

    Clothing Company Asks High Court To Deny Textile Design Copyright Petition

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Feb. 3 opposition brief, a clothing company characterizes a textile firm’s petition for certiorari over a design copyright dispute as not raising issues important enough to merit attention from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly upheld a judgment invalidating the design copyright for containing inaccurate information as to first publication (Gold Value International Textile Inc. v. Sanctuary Clothing LLC, et al., No. 19-708, U.S. Sup.).

  • February 13, 2020

    Petitioner Defends Inter Partes Review Request In Reply To Board

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A medical technology company in a Feb. 11 brief maintains that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board properly instituted inter partes review (IPR) of a patent describing the incorporation of “plasticizers” within a soft tissue graft (RTI Surgical Inc. v. Lifenet Health, No. IPR2019-00573, PTAB).

  • February 13, 2020

    Intel Accused Of Infringing 8 Patents In New Texas Federal Case

    WACO, Texas — ParkerVision Inc. on Feb. 11 raised allegations that Intel Corp. infringed eight patents relating to radio frequency (RF) transceiver chips that provide cellular connectivity to iPhones and other devices (ParkerVision Inc. v. Intel Corporation, No. 20-108, W.D. Texas).

  • February 13, 2020 Tells Supreme Court Lanham Act Allows Generic ‘.Com’ Trademarks

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Citing the Lanham Act’s “primary significance” test, B.V. argues in its Feb. 12 merits respondent brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly found that the adding of the top-level domain (TLD) “.com” to a generic term can create a protectable trademark if the relevant public does not view the mark as generic (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, et al. v. B.V., No. 19-46, U.S. Sup.).

  • February 13, 2020

    Oracle To High Court: Google’s Java Code Copying Was Egregious Plagiarism

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals correctly deemed the copying of thousands of lines of Java code by Google LLC to not have been fair use, Oracle America Inc. argues in its Feb. 12 merits respondent brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, calling Google’s actions “clear-cut copyright infringement” and asking the high court to affirm the judgment in its favor (Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956, U.S. Sup.).

  • February 13, 2020

    9th Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of Copyright Dispute Over Unicorn

    SAN FRANCISCO — A panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Feb. 10 upheld findings by a California federal judge that a claimed unicorn design does not display the level of originality needed to merit copyright protection (Pretty in Plastic Inc. v. Maryellis Bunn, et al., No. 19-55278, 9th Cir., 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 4325).

  • February 12, 2020

    LED Fabrication Patent Singled Out In New Inter Partes Review Petition

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On Feb. 11, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patented method of fabricating a semiconductor flip-chip light emitting diode (LED) would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art (POSA) at the time of patenting (Cree Inc. v. Document Security Systems Inc., No. IPR2020-00557, PTAB).