WASHINGTON, D.C. — A North Carolina federal judge’s decision to dismiss claims of false patent marking and false advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, was affirmed Dec. 10 by a per curiam panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Gordon Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp. et al., No. 18-1937, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34613).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — A patent relating to a biodegradable fiber useful in the delivery of certain drugs would have been anticipated by a person of skill in the art, Ethicon Inc. asserts in a Dec. 7 petition for inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Ethicon Inc. v. Board of Regents, University of Texas System, No. IPR2019-00407, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Allegations that various defaulting respondents imported spine boards, cervical collars, CPR masks, training manikins and product literature that infringed the trade dress of two medical device makers were erroneously rejected by the International Trade Commission (ITC) as inadequately pleaded, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Dec. 7 (Laerdal Medical Corp. et al., v. International Trade Commission, No. 17-2445, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34465).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 7 found no error in a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that upheld an examiner’s rejection of four patent claims (In re: Robert E. Downing, No. 18-1795, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34464).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A continued effort by a patent owner to assert that a prior art reference does not qualify as a printed publication within the meaning of Section 102 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), was rebuffed Dec. 10 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., Nos. 2017-2490, -2494, Fed. Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Two weeks after filing a brief supporting petitioner Rimini Street Inc. in a dispute over the award of nontaxable costs in an underlying software copyright lawsuit, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), on behalf of the United States, asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 6 for leave to participate in upcoming oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Dec. 7 found that a patent owner is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Texas, where several plaintiffs seek a declaration of noninfringement (Jack Henry & Associates Inc., et al. v. Plano Encryption Technologies LLC, No. 16-2700, Fed. Cir.).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. —The operators of several travel websites on Dec. 6 requested institution of inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of an International Business Machines patent directed to a method of providing users with a single-sign-on in a federated computing environment (Expedia Inc., et al. v. International Business Machines Corp., No. IPR2019-00404, PTAB).
ATLANTA — The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 3 disagreed with a Georgia federal judge that allegations that a protein-powder supplement label violates the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), fail (Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. HBS International Corp., No. 17-13884, 11th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 34051).
SAN FRANCISCO — In a Dec. 3 ruling, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals found that the 1976 Copyright Act does not preempt the attorney fees provision of the California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA) (Chuck Close and Laddie John Dill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sotheby’s Inc., et al., Nos. 16-56234, -56235, -56252, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33995).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Patent Trial and Appeal Board on Dec. 4 instituted inter partes review (IPR) of a patent directed to a camera lens assembly (Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics Ltd., No. IPR2018-01140, PTAB).
BOSTON — Citing the existence of genuine disputes of material fact, a Massachusetts federal judge on Dec. 3 denied a request for partial summary judgment on the question of patent inventorship, reserving the issue for a bench trial slated to begin Jan. 2 (Egenera Inc. v. Cisco Systems Inc., No. 16-11613, D. Mass., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204092).
CHICAGO — In a Nov. 30 ruling, the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals wrote that it “cannot say” a Wisconsin federal judge abused her discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs to a plaintiff as a sanction for a defendant’s contempt of a consent judgment that resolved claims of trademark infringement (Seventh Avenue Inc. v. Shaf International Inc., No. 18-1829, 7th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33595).
LOS ANGELES — A nonprofit organization that provides services in the gaming industry sued another gaming entity on Dec. 3 in a California federal court, asserting claims for trademark infringement and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL) in relation to the alleged use of its trademarks (GameChanger Charity v. PlayNext Inc., No. 8:18cv2142, C.D. Calif.).
PORTLAND, Maine — On Dec. 4, hours after docketing a complaint for trademark infringement, a Maine federal judge entered a temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case, enjoining a defendant from using any trademark, logo, design or source designation online that is a copy, reproduction, colorable imitation or simulation of a plaintiff’s trademarks, trade dress and logos (Symetra Life Insurance Co. v. Guy Emerson, No. 18-492, D. Maine, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 205039).
MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Dec. 11 in an insurance dispute where an insurer sought a declaration that it did not owe a duty to defend a medical supply company in an underlying lawsuit for trademark infringement based on an exclusion in the commercial general liability policy at issue (West Bend Mutual Insurance Company v. Ixthus Medical Supply Inc., et al., No. 2017AP909, Wis. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Counsel for the owner of a patented drug for reducing nausea in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy told the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 4 that its private licensing agreement with a distributor did not constitute a sale for purposes of triggering the on-sale bar under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) (Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1229, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Nov. 29 mandamus petition seeking reversal of a decision by U.S. Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas that denied dismissal of a patent case for improper venue was itself denied Nov. 30 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (In re: Bayerische Motoren Werke AG and BMW of North America LLC, No. 19-108, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33970).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Kansas federal judge’s decision to uphold a jury’s $140 million award on behalf of patent owner Sprint Communications Co. L.P. was affirmed Nov. 30 by a panel of the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., No. 17-2247, Fed. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 33594).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A Florida man who appealed the standard for dismissing his copyright infringement suit against Apple Inc. saw his petition for certiorari denied by the U.S. Supreme Court Dec. 3, leaving a judgment against the pro se litigant in tact (Thomas S. Ross v. Apple Inc., No. 18-494, U.S. Sup., 2018 U.S. LEXIS 7142).