SAN DIEGO — The owner of a sole-proprietorship failed to sufficiently state a claim for relief for copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets or antitrust and unfair trade practices against her former collaborative partner and others, a federal judge in California ruled Feb. 13 in granting a pair of dismissal motions (Sara Elizabeth Siegler v. Sorrento Therapeutics Inc., et al., No. 18-1681, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23779).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A stipulated judgment of noninfringement was vacated Feb. 8 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that the stipulation was based upon an overly limiting claim construction by an Arizona federal judge (Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., et al., No. 18-1076, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3920).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a Feb. 13 opening brief on remand, an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner tells the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a prior art reference the board previously failed to address renders claimed Finjan Inc. antivirus technology obvious (Palo Alto Networks Inc. v. Finjan Inc., No. IPR2016-00151, PTAB).
OKLAHOMA CITY — Allegations that a Virginia author engaged in copyright misuse when submitting takedown notices to online vendors of e-books indicating that a three-part romance series infringes her copyright were dismissed Feb. 13 by an Oklahoma federal judge (Quill Ink Books Ltd. v. Rachelle Soto, et al., No. 19-920, W.D. Okla., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23095).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Various claims of a patented system for integrating “real-time information” into a “virtual thematic environment” should be canceled, a petitioner for inter partes review (IPR) told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Feb. 12 (Niantic Inc. v. Barbaro Technologies LLC, No. IPR2019-00669, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Jan. 30 appellee brief, Sirius XM (SXM) Radio Inc. tells the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that a Delaware federal judge did not err in dismissing patent infringement allegations levied against the subscription radio service (Fraunhofer- Gesellschaft Zur Forderung v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 18-2400, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The owner of a patent relating to a dental implant recently told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals that its allegations of infringement are not objectively baseless in response to a California federal judge’s award of more than $500,000 in attorney fees on behalf of a prevailing defendant (Spitz Technologies Corporation v. Nobel Biocare USA LLC, Nos. 2018-2345, -2346, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A determination by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that a patented controller for gas turbofan engines used in aircraft is obvious should be reversed because the findings are premised on an erroneous construction claim construction, the patent owner maintains in a recent appeal to the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (United Technologies Corporation v. General Electric Company, No. 18-2340, Fed. Cir.).
LOS ANGELES — A candle maker on Feb. 11 sued another candle company in a California federal court, asserting claims for copyright and trademark infringement and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL), alleging that the company made and sold candles using its artwork and federally registered proprietary names (Indio Products, Inc. v. CSP Yemaya International, Inc., et al., No. 2:19cv1018, C.D. Calif.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Asserting seven separate grounds of unpatentability, Lyft Inc. on Feb. 12 petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for inter partes review (IPR) of a patented ride-sharing system (Lyft Inc. v. RideApp Inc., No. IPR2019-00671, PTAB).
CHICAGO — Although rejecting allegations that an architect removed copyright management information (CMI) from copyrighted house plans, an Illinois federal judge on Feb. 11 agreed to allow a plaintiff to move forward with claims of willful infringement (Design Basics LLC, et al. v. WK Olson Architects Inc., et al., No. 17-7432, N.D. Ill., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21873).
PITTSBURGH — A state court declaratory judgment complaint was properly removed to federal court because the filing contains allegations of ownership of various intellectual property that would be preempted by copyright law, a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled Feb. 11 (Four Quarters Interfaith Sanctuary of Earth Religion v. Kate Gille, et al., No. 19-12, W.D. Pa., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21516).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — On Feb. 11, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board announced that it will review a patent that purportedly covers the secure database known as the “Universal Secure Registry” (USR) (Visa Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC, No. IPR2018-01350, PTAB).
HOUSTON — Adopting a magistrate’s recommendation, a Texas federal judge on Feb. 7 denied an online retailer’s motion to dismiss a Lanham Act lawsuit over its alleged sale of counterfeit goods for lack of jurisdiction, finding that good cause exists to conduct limited discovery as to whether Texas jurisdiction is proper (Danny Huynh v. Zurno Inc., No. 4:18-cv-01756, S.D. Texas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20360).
SAN JOSE, Calif. — A California federal judge on Feb. 7 held that an underlying contempt proceeding against an insured fails to assert a claim for covered "damages" under a general liability insurance policy, further finding that the policy’s intellectual property and unfair competition exclusions also bar coverage (Great American E&S Insurance Company v. Theos Medical Systems, Inc., No. 17-05660, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21143).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An internet-based subscription news and research service on Feb. 7 accused Bloomberg L.P. of copyright infringement and misappropriation of proprietary information under the common-law “hot news” doctrine in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (DBW Partners LLC d/b/a The Capitol Forum v. Bloomberg L.P., et al., No. 19-311, D. D.C.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nike Inc. filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 6, opposing a petition that it says “does not remotely warrant certiorari,” arguing that a photographer who alleged copyright infringement of his picture of Michael Jordan has failed to establish that any protectable expression was copied (Jacobus Rentmeester v. Nike Inc., No. 18-728, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A mailing solutions company embroiled in a patent dispute with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) filed a merits reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 8, arguing that the ability of a “person” to initiate covered business method (CBM) review of patents under the Leahy Smith America Invents Act (AIA) does not extend to the federal government (Return Mail Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, et al., No. 17-1594, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A challenge to a patented system of generating and infusing radiopharmaceuticals was successful on Feb. 8, when the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed to institute inter partes review (IPR) (Jubilant DraxImage Inc. v. Bracco Diagnostics Inc., No. IPR2018-01449, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — With scheduled Feb. 20 oral arguments fast approaching in a dispute over whether the U.S. Bankruptcy Code permits a trademark licensor to reject a license upon filing for bankruptcy, a former licensee tells the U.S. Supreme Court in its Feb. 8 reply brief that statutory and congressional context demonstrate that the license remained in effect after the filing (Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology LLC, No. 17-1657, U.S. Sup.).