PASADENA, Calif. — The Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on Aug. 12 between Allstate Insurance Co. and Kia Motors America Inc., with the insurer appealing a trial court’s finding that Kia’s “Drive Wise” trademark for its in-car advance driver assistance system (ADAS) does not infringe Allstate’s similarly named “Drivewise” safety product (Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kia Motors America Inc, et al., No. 18-55164, 9th Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A trademark defendant that prevailed on infringement claims against it asks the U.S. Supreme Court in an Aug. 7 brief to deny the second petition for certiorari by the owner of the disputed “Sealtight” trademark, arguing that there is no split among the circuit courts on the standard for fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which defeated the petitioner’s claims (B&B Hardware Inc. v. Hargis Industries Inc., et al., No. 19-48, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent appellant brief filed with the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, a patent owner reiterates its position that the “Freestyle” beverage dispenser developed by The Coca-Cola Co. infringes and that a Georgia federal judge erred in finding otherwise (Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 19-1825, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — At oral arguments before the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 7, Facebook Inc. argued against findings of patentability by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in four inter partes reviews (IPRs) of patents relating to online communication, including through a “chat room”-like interface (Facebook Inc. v. Windy City Innovations LLC, No. 18-1400, Fed. Cir.).
SAN DIEGO — A federal judge in California on Aug. 8 refused to dismiss a health food company’s trademark infringement complaint against its competitor, finding that the claims for federal trademark infringement, federal unfair competition and false designation of origin, violation of California unfair competition law (UCL) and common-law trademark infringement are plausible (Kip's Nut-Free Kitchen, LLC v. Kips Dehydrated Foods, LLC, et al., No. 19-00290, S.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134654).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An appellant’s effort to “import an extra functional limitation” into the term “reflecting walls” is “too late and too little,” Sony Corp. recently asserted in a brief filed in the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Collabo Innovations Inc. v. Sony Corporation, No. 19-1152, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Federal Circuit U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel on Aug. 14 ruled that a federal district court did not err in dismissing a plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation and unjust enrichment claims as time-barred pursuant to Ohio’s uniform trade secret law because the plaintiff failed to bring the claim within the necessary statute of limitations period (Josef Maatuk v. Emerson Electric Inc., et al., No. 19-1615, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24142).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A petition for inter partes review filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Aug. 13 asserts that a patented solar-assisted refrigeration system would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art at the time of patenting (SunTrac Solar Manufacturing LLC v. DZSolar Ltd., No. IPR2019-01492, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — One week after a videographer filed his opening merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting his position that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA) abrogates states’ sovereign immunity in the area of copyright law, 12 amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of the petitioner on Aug. 13 by such parties as the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) (Frederick L. Allen, et al. v. Roy A. Cooper III, et al., No. 18-877, U.S. Sup.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A recently issued patent covering a method of displaying battle scenes in a computer game recites ineligible subject matter, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled Aug. 14 in adjudicating a petition for post-grant review (PGR) (Supercell Oy v. Gree Inc., No. PGR2018-00029, PTAB).
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A federal judge in California on Aug. 13 denied Monster Energy Co.’s motion for summary judgment as to its unfair competition claims for the same reasons it denied summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims in its trademark dispute with a competitor (Monster Energy Company v. Beastup LLC, No. 17-01605, E.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136772).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In an Aug. 9 patent owner response, a pharmaceutical company criticized a recently filed petition for inter partes review (IPR) as “riddled” with hindsight bias in asserting obviousness (Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Almirall LLC, No. IPR2019-00207, PTAB).
DETROIT — Citing a patent owner’s failure to file infringement allegations for as long as five years after learning of a competing heart failure monitoring device, a federal judge in Michigan on Aug. 12 stayed the litigation pending the outcome of a related petition for inter partes review (IPR) filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Integrated Sensing Systems Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., No. 19-10041, E.D. Mich., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135208).
SAN FRANCISCO — In an Aug. 7 order, a California federal judge found that Twitch Interactive Inc. had shown good cause to conduct early discovery to identify anonymous defendants who posted objectionable content on its video-streaming platform by subpoenaing internet service providers (ISPs) and other companies to obtain information to identify the Doe defendants for the purpose of pursuing trademark infringement and other claims against them (Twitch Interactive Inc. v. John and Jane Does 1 through 100, No. 3:19-cv-03418, N.D. Calif., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132842).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 12 ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected a patent owner’s assertion that a stipulated judgment of noninfringement was based upon a Texas federal magistrate judge’s erroneous construction of the term “high quality of service connection” (Iridescent Networks Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., No. 18-1449, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23890).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A South Carolina attorney was temporarily enjoined from using his name online or elsewhere as a trademark related to his legal services on Aug. 9, when a South Carolina federal judge determined that his father, who has the same name and also practices law, was likely to succeed on trademark infringement and cybersquatting claims against his son (George Sink, P.A. Injury Lawyers v. George Sink II Law Firm LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv-01206, D. S.C., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134819).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 12 holding, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals vacated a determination of patent obviousness after finding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board “conflated” corresponding structure in a patent’s specification “with a structural definition” for the term “mechanical control assembly” (MTD Products Inc. v. Andrei Iancu, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 17-2292, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a per curiam order issued Aug. 9, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals directed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to dismiss a petition for covered business method (CBM) review by the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) of a mail processing patent (Return Mail Inc. v. U.S. Postal Service, No. 16-1502, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23755).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Virginia federal judge did not err in denying dismissal on the basis of lacking personal jurisdiction in a dispute over a genotype patent that was later declared ineligible for patenting, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 29 in an unsealed decision released Aug. 9 (Genetic Veterinary Sciences Inc. v. LABOKLIN GmbH & Co. KG, et al., No. 18-2056, Fed. Cir., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23754).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Four petitions for inter partes review (IPR) of two wireless communication patents should not be denied on the basis of untimeliness under the America Invents Act (AIA), the petitioners told the Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Aug. 8, because the patent owner’s “litigation tactics” caused the delay (Kathrein USA Inc. and T-Mobile US Inc. v. Fractus S.A., Nos. IPR2019-00944, IPR2019-00945, IPR2019-00946, IPR2019-00947, PTAB).