DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY
|
|
- Letitia Rice
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Protecting Your Trademarks In a Global Economy October, 2008 DOMESTIC OPTIONS FOR PROTECTING YOUR TRADEMARKS IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY TRADEMARK LITIGATION VERSES CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE ITC by J. Daniel Harkins Cox Smith Matthews Incorporated Trademark Litigation verses Claims Under Section 337 of the ITC In todayʼs global economy, protecting intellectual property rights, including trademarks, has become increasingly more important. As a consequence, corporate counsel and intellectual property attorneys are now, more than ever, faced with the task of developing a comprehensive legal strategy to protect their corporationʼs domestic and international intellectual property interest against foreign infringers. When confronted with infringement of a corporationʼs trademark by foreign competitors, there are several options that a domestic corporation has. First and foremost among these is the right to sue for trademark infringement in federal district court. However, there are limitations to such actions including, but not limited to, the ability to obtain jurisdiction over the foreign competitor. As an alternative to trademark litigation, trademark owners should consider their rights under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of Under Section 337, the International Trade Commission (the ITC ) is authorized to block imports when importation is found to involve unfair competition such as the infringement of patents, trademarks or copyrights. The purpose of this paper is to briefly compare the advantages and disadvantages of federal trademark infringement litigation to those associated with the filing of an ITC Section 337 complaint. A. General Overview of Section 337 Section 337 was designed to prevent unfair competition originating abroad from injuring the U.S. economy. The statute declares unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles into the United States, sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation as being unlawful. 1 In practice, Section 337 has been used primarily to remedy imports that infringe U.S. patents and federally registered trademarks. 2 Nevertheless, Section 337 can also provide relief from imported articles that infringe U.S. copyrights as well as other unfair methods of competition and unfair acts, such as common law trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and trade dress. 3 Thus, much like the Lanham Act, Section 337 may be very powerful tool for a corporation to use in order to prevent unfair competition and importation of goods which infringe registered or unregistered trademarks. B. Complaint in Federal Court vs. ITC Section 337 Complaint As with a typical lawsuit, a Section 337 Investigation is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the ITC. However, the typical section 337 complaint is much more detailed. In typical trademark infringement litigation filed in Federal Court, the complaint has general allegations of infringement, ownership of rights in a registered or unregistered trademark and a general description of alleged unlawful conduct, generally complaining that the defendantʼs goods infringe the registered or unregistered trademark or trade dress. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, simple notice pleadings are sufficient to establish a complaint for trademark infringement.
2 Protecting Your Trademarks In a Global Economy Page 2 Under Section 337, in order for the ITC to institute a Section 337 investigation, a complainant must establish, through the filing of a complaint, the following: (1) an unfair method of competition or unfair act (i.e. the infringement of a valid and enforceable registered trademark); (2) involving the importation of articles into the United States, sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation; and (3) that an industry in the United States relating to the patent, copyright or trademark at issue exists or is in the process of being established. 4 In cases involving the infringement of registered intellectual property rights under section 337(a)(1), there is no injury requirement. The complainant must file a fact based and detailed complaint, including claims and details about the domestic industry and the opponentʼs infringing sales. If the complaint complies with the ITCʼs procedurals rules, the ITC must institute an investigation. The ITC then provides official notice of the investigation by publication in the Federal Register. The case is then assigned by the ITC to an administrative law judge. Although the proof required in order to establish a cause of action in an ITC proceeding is identical to that which is required in the federal district court, inasmuch as the claim is based on the same violation of the Lanham Act, the administrative law judge in the ITC proceeding often has a substantial expertise in the particular area of intellectual property. Whereas federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear a wide variety of cases, ranging from criminal law to various types of complaints involving various federal statutes, the ITCʼs jurisdiction under Section 337 is significantly limited to hearing complaints alleging unfair acts and unfair methods of competition pertaining to the importation of goods into the United States. As a result, the administrative law judges who preside over Section 337 investigations have developed substantial expertise in the particular area of intellectual property law. When an investigation is instituted, the ITC assigns an Administrative Law Judge to preside over the proceedings and to render an initial decision (referred to as an Initial Determination ) as to whether Section 337 has been violated. The ITC also assigns an investigative attorney from the ITCʼs Office of Unfair Import Investigations, who functions as an independent litigant representing the public interest in the investigation. The staff investigative attorney is a full party to the investigation. C. Jurisdiction and Venue In trademark infringement litigation, the infringement proceeding is often filed in the jurisdiction and venue where the defendant resides or where the trademark infringement occurred. With respect to a foreign defendant, it is oftentimes difficult to obtain jurisdiction or venue over the foreign entity. Thus, one is left to attempt to find jurisdiction over an affiliate company or the entity importing the alleged infringing goods. As a result of the difficulty of determining jurisdiction and venue, there are often numerous disputes over whether the federal district court has personal jurisdiction over one or more of the parties to the suit. Unlike federal district courts, jurisdiction of the ITC is nationwide and is in rem. The second element required for filing a complaint is that the unfair act or method of competition involves imports in the United States, sale or importation, or the sale within the United States after importation. This invokes the in rem jurisdiction of the ITC. Accordingly, when a piece of property is within the United States borders, the ITC has power to grant relief against the property, not the party. As a result, Section 337 investigations are often brought against persons or entities that do not reside within the borders of the United States. This in rem jurisdiction offers significant benefits when pursuing a foreign entity. The in personam jurisdiction issues of federal district courts are alleviated and the dispute over whether a particular defendant has sufficient contacts with the foreign district in order to satisfy the in persona jurisdiction of the court is virtually eliminated. The sole issue is whether the accused product of the potential respondent has been imported, sold or is otherwise located in the United States. Thus, the dispute over jurisdiction is much less complicated than the oftentimes highly controverted issue of whether the individual potential defendant can even be located within the United States.
3 Protecting Your Trademarks In a Global Economy Page 3 D. Discovery and Rules of Procedure Complaints for trademark infringement filed in the federal district court are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Likewise, Section 337 investigations are conducted in accordance with procedural rules that are very similar to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The ITC procedural rules (found in 19 C.F.R. Part 210) are typically supplemented by a set of Ground Rules issued by the presiding Administrative Law Judge. The procedural rules and Administrative Law Judgeʼs Ground Rules provide important details regarding such matters as the taking of discovery and the handling of motions. However, discovery and motions are set on an expedited basis in Section 337 investigations. Whereas a typical trademark infringement action may take several years to get to trial in federal district court, the ITC usually rules within 12 to 18 months after an investigation is instituted. As a result, discovery and proceedings are much more intense and expedited in an ITC proceeding. Typically, discovery and motion responses are due in 10 days and there are no limits on depositions and the number of interrogatories. Moreover, in an average Section 337 case, discovery is completed within approximately five months of the filing of the complaint. The expedited and relatively predictable schedule for Section 337 proceedings provides complainants with various benefits over traditional Federal Court proceedings which typically take several years. The average time to trial in the ITC in 2007 was nine months from initiation of the investigation, with the administrative law judgeʼs Initial Determination being issued within 12 months. Obviously, one of the advantages of a Section 337 investigation is a quick resolution of the dispute. However, this requires the complainant to be fully prepared before filing and offers very little opportunity to refine theories or change strategy. Also, if the complainant is not fully prepared before filing the complaint, the respondent can almost immediately propound discovery against the complainant and burden the complainant with significant discovery. Thus, it is critical that the 337 complainant be fully prepared before it files its complaint. E. Remedies In a typical trademark infringement action filed in Federal Court, the trademark owner seeks injunctive and monetary relief against the infringer. Under the Lanham Act, upon prevailing under a claim of trademark infringement, the trademark owner is entitled to recovery monetary damages, including loss profits and the profits of the infringer, as well as attorneyʼs fees and costs, and in appropriate circumstances, an injunction preventing the infringer from selling the infringing goods. Under Section 337, the prevailing party is only entitled to injunctive relief. Damages are not recoverable at the ITC. Upon a finding of infringement, the ITC can issue a limited or general exclusion order. A limited exclusion order directs the United States Customs to preclude entry into the United States any infringing products made or being imported by the respondent named in the investigation. The limited exclusion order applies only to the infringing goods associated with the respondent. A general exclusion order however excludes from the United States not only products associated with a particular respondent, but all products that infringe the trademark, regardless of whether the entity making, importing, selling or using it has been named as a respondent in the notice of investigation. Because the general exclusion order affects all products, including owners who were not before the ITC, a general exclusion order is difficult to obtain. 5 In general, a limited exclusion order is more commonly granted. Nevertheless, a limited exclusion order prevents the infringing products of the respondent from being imported into the United States. Additionally, the ITC has the right to issue a cease and desist order to prevent the sale of product that has been imported into the United States. To issue such relief, the ITC requires a complainant to show that there exist within the United States commercially significant inventories of the infringing articles. This remedy is designed to prohibit sale of infringing goods by U.S. subsidiaries that were previously imported into the United States. As stated before, the ITC does not have the power to grant monetary damages or attorneyʼs fees and costs. While this is a limitation of ITC proceedings, it is often the case that it is difficult, if not impossible, to locate sufficient assets which a federal district court can attach to satisfy a judgment. In such instances, what is most important is to prevent the importation and sale of the infringing goods.
4 Protecting Your Trademarks In a Global Economy Page 4 F. Counterclaims Finally, with respect to Federal Court trademark infringement litigation, it is often the case that the defendant will file counterclaims against the plaintiff alleging other causes of action against the plaintiff, including claims of anti-trust violations and unfair competition. In an ITC proceeding no counterclaims are permitted. Thus, preparation before commencement of the investigation gets a tremendous advantage to the complainant in the fast-moving ITC proceeding. In such proceeding, the focus is generally on the respondentʼs conduct and infringing goods. The respondent is often caught unaware of the complaint and is in a significant disadvantage in responding to the complaint. G. Role of ITC Staff One unusual aspect of an ITC proceeding is that the ITC staff takes an active role in the proceeding. As stated above, the ITC staff attorney is a party to the proceeding, and participates in the proceeding, including the taking of discovery and presenting evidence at the hearing. The ITCʼs staff attorney serves the role of protecting the public interest. The ITC staff attorney is a neutral party with no stake in the ultimate outcome of the proceeding. However, when the staff attorney makes known his or her position on the issues, it is typically granted a great deal of weight by the administrative law judge. H. Jury Trial Although most trademark infringement actions in Federal Court are tried to a jury, such is not the case in a Section 337 hearing. Instead, a Section 337 case is tried to the administrative law judge who proceeds in a manner similar to a civil trial before a Federal District Judge. However, as noted earlier, inasmuch as the administrative law judge handles only these types of cases, he is often well versed in the law. Following a hearing and post hearing briefs, the administrative law judge is required to issue an Initial Determination on whether a violation exists no later than three months before the target date and a recommended determination concerning remedy and bonding within 14 days after the Initial Determination. 6 I. Default Judgments Under Section 337, defaulting respondents are put as a significant disadvantage. The statute creates a presumption that the facts alleged in the complaint are true and requires the ITC, upon request, to issue a limited exclusion order or cease and desist order against the respondent who fails to appear and answer in the complaint. The ITC may issue a general exclusion order if no one contests the alleged violation and their violation is established by substantial evidence. 7 This could substantially effect the importation of infringing goods. J. Conclusion Given the broad injunctive relief that the International Trade Commission has been vested with by Section 337, proceeding under this section can be a significant and potent tool for trademark owners seeking to enjoin the importation of infringing goods. The fast-track nature of the proceeding also provides litigants a significant advantage, provided that the litigant is well prepared prior to the filing of the proceeding. Although an ITC proceeding does not provide a litigant with an opportunity to recover monetary damages, it does provide a significant tool to enjoin the importation of the infringing goods.
5 Protecting Your Trademarks In a Global Economy Page 5 1 See 19 U.S.C. 1337(a). For additional information on Section 337 Investigations, see U.S. International Trade Commission Publication No 3708, Section 337 Investigations, Answers to Frequently Asked Questions 2 Section 337 specifically declares the infringement of the following statutory rights to be unlawful import practices: a U.S. patent or a U.S. copyright registered under Title 17, a registered trademark, a mask work registered under chapter 9 of Title 17, or a boat hull design protected under chapter 13 of Title 17. See 19 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(B)-(E). 3 See Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-522, USITSC Pub. No. 3971(Commʼn Op.) (2007)(granting general exclusion order prohibiting the entry of certain ink markers and packaging thereof that bear Sanfordʼs federally registered SHARPIE trademarks and protected trade dress rights). 4 See 19 U.S.C See Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-522, USITSC Pub. No. 3971(Commʼn Op.) (2007)(complainant seeking a general exclusion order must show both (1) a widespread pattern of unauthorized use of its patented invention and (2) certain business conditions from which one might reasonably infer that foreign manufacturers other than the respondents to the investigation may attempt to enter the U.S. market with infringing articles) C.F.R (a)(1). 7 See Certain Ink Markers and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-522, USITSC Pub. No. 3971(Commʼn Op.) (2007)(ITC empowered to issues general exclusion order in trademark and trade dress action when no person appears to contest an investigation concerning violation of this section, if certain conditions are met). This article is for informational purposes only and is not intended as basis for decisions in specific situations. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Copyright 2008 USLAW NETWORK, Inc. All rights reserved.
IP Enforcement: Domestic and Foreign Litigants in the ITC and U.S. District Courts
1 PATENT LITIGATION IN CHINA [Vol. 10 IP Enforcement: Domestic and Foreign Litigants in the ITC and U.S. District Courts Matthew N. Bathon 1 I. Introduction 1 II. Differences between the ITC and District
More information2010 PATENTLY O PATENT LAW JOURNAL
2010 PATENTLY O PATENT LAW JOURNAL The International Trade Commission s Section 337 Authority 1 By Peter S. Menell 2 Without much fanfare, the U.S. International Trade Commission has emerged as one of
More informationUsing the ITC as a Trademark Enforcement Tool
April 12, 2016 Webinar Using the ITC as a Trademark Enforcement Tool Sheryl Koval Garko Principal, Boston Monty Fusco Of Counsel, Washington, DC Overview CLE Contact: MCLETeam@fr.com Materials available
More informationTHE ITC S GROWING ROLE IN PATENT ADJUDICATION. The View from the Bar
THE ITC S GROWING ROLE IN PATENT ADJUDICATION The View from the Bar Section 337 Has Become A More Important Patent Enforcement Tool Section 337 investigations Continue To Grow In Number And Complexity
More informationThe Five (or More) Forums for Your Trademark Dispute, and How to Choose the Right One (Hint: Don t Choose the ITC)
The Five (or More) Forums for Your Trademark Dispute, and How to Choose the Right One (Hint: Don t Choose the ITC) Travis R. Wimberly Senior Associate June 27, 2018 AustinIPLA Overview of Options Federal
More informationKIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Sponsored by Statistical data supplied by KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP United States Intellectual property litigation and the ITC This article first appeared in IP Value 2004, Building and enforcing intellectual
More informationLife in the Fast Lane: Intellectual Property Litigation at the ITC. July 11, 2017
Life in the Fast Lane: Intellectual Property Litigation at the ITC July 11, 2017 Panel Daniel L. Girdwood Director & Senior Counsel for Samsung Electronics America Inc., Washington, DC Former ITC staff
More informationITC Remedial Orders in the. Real World. more effective way to enforce those rights than by turning to the United States International
By John C. Evans, Ph.D., and Ric Macchiaroli ITC Remedial Orders in the Real World In 2007 alone, the total value of goods imported into the United States was nearly $2 trillion. Where imported goods infringe
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION WHEEL PROS, LLC, v. Plaintiff, WHEELS OUTLET, INC., ABDUL NAIM, AND DOES 1-25, Defendants. Case No. Electronically
More informationWIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM FOR HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES
ORIGINAL: English DATE: July 2002 E MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE (SIPO) WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION JAPAN PATENT OFFICE WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM
More informationIntellectual Property Enforcement Ali S. Razai. OCPA Annual Educational Conference September 15, 2018
Intellectual Property Enforcement Ali S. Razai OCPA Annual Educational Conference September 15, 2018 Benefits Of Litigation Preliminary Relief Damages Disgorgement of infringer s profits Lost profits Convoyed
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 1 COMPLAINT
Case :-cv-00-r-as Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: 0 KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP Noah R. Balch (SBN noah.balch@kattenlaw.com Joanna M. Hall (SBN 0 joanna.hall@kattenlaw.com 0 Century Park East, Suite
More informationCase 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Civil Action No.
Case 1:17-cv-04559 Document 1 Filed 06/16/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COTR INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. MAKEUP ERASER GROUP, LLC (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
More informationChapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights
Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Abstract Not only is it important for startups to obtain intellectual property rights, but they must also actively monitor for infringement
More informationRemedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General
VI. Remedies: Injunction and Damages 1. General If infringement is found and validity of the patent is not denied by the court, then the patentee is entitled to the remedies of both injunction and damages
More informationUnited States. Edwards Wildman. Author Daniel Fiorello
United States Author Daniel Fiorello Legal framework The United States offers protection for designs in a formal application procedure resulting in a design patent. Design patents protect the non-functional
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN cchan@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan
More informationPlaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).
0 0 Robert J. Lauson (,) bob@lauson.com Edwin P. Tarver, (0,) edwin@lauson.com LAUSON & TARVER LLP 0 Apollo St., Suite. 0 El Segundo, CA 0 Tel. (0) -0 Fax (0) -0 Attorneys for Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC
More informationThe 100-Day Program at the ITC
The 100-Day Program at the ITC TECHNOLOGY August 9, 2016 Tuhin Ganguly gangulyt@pepperlaw.com David J. Shaw shawd@pepperlaw.com IN LIGHT OF AUDIO PROCESSING HARDWARE, IT IS NOW CLEAR THAT, WITH RESPECT
More informationCase 1:14-cv JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1
Case 1:14-cv-00026-JMS-MJD Document 1 Filed 01/09/14 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION CONTOUR HARDENING, INC. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION : : : : : : : : : :
Brent T. Winder (USB #8765) Brent A. Orozco (USB #9572) JONES WALDO HOLBROOK & McDONOUGH PC Attorneys for Maggie Sottero Designs, LLC 170 South Main Street, Suite 1500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone
More informationCase 2:17-cv EJF Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
Case 2:17-cv-01100-EJF Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION Trent Baker Baker & Associates PLLC 358 S 700 E B154 Salt Lake City,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Gregory J. Kuykendall, Esquire greg.kuykendall@azbar.org SBN: 012508 PCC: 32388 145 South Sixth Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701-2007 (520) 792-8033 Ronald D. Coleman, Esq. coleman@bragarwexler.com BRAGAR,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-odw-man Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Brent H. Blakely (SBN bblakely@blakelylawgroup.com Cindy Chan (SBN cchan@blakelylawgroup.com BLAKELY LAW GROUP Parkview Avenue, Suite 0 Manhattan
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-02212 Document #: 1 Filed: 02/12/16 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION SIOUX STEEL COMPANY A South Dakota Corporation
More informationApril 30, Dear Acting Under Secretary Rea:
The Honorable Teresa S. Rea Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Mail Stop OPEA P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA
More informationCase 2:13-cv RJS Document 2 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:13-cv-00166-RJS Document 2 Filed 03/06/13 Page 1 of 16 TERRENCE J. EDWARDS (Utah State Bar No. 9166 TECHLAW VENTURES, PLLC 3290 West Mayflower Way Lehi, Utah 84043 Telephone: (801 805-3684 Facsimile:
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA GAINESVILLE DIVISION KING S HAWAIIAN BAKERY SOUTHEAST, INC., a Georgia corporation; KING S HAWAIIAN HOLDING COMPANY, INC., a California corporation;
More informationAN INTRODUCTION TO REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
AN INTRODUCTION TO REMEDIES AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS AT THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Authors: Robert J. Walters, Partner, Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan LLP. Yefat
More informationCase 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 04/06/15 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:1
Case :-cv-00 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 Mark D. Kremer (SB# 00) m.kremer@conklelaw.com Zachary Page (SB# ) z.page@conklelaw.com CONKLE, KREMER & ENGEL Professional Law Corporation 0 Wilshire
More informationWORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING
43 rd World Intellectual Property Congress Seoul, Korea WORKSHOP 1: IP INFRINGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL FORUM SHOPPING October 21, 2012 John Kim* Admitted to practice in Maryland, the District of Columbia,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION Chris West and Automodeals, LLC, Plaintiffs, 5:16-cv-1205 v. Bret Lee Gardner, AutomoDeals Inc., Arturo Art Gomez Tagle, and
More informationPatent Litigation under Section 337
PRIMARY CONTACT Philip J. Graves Partner, Snell & Wilmer Los Angeles, California 213.929.2542 pgraves@swlaw.com Patent Litigation under Section 337 May 2014 DENVER LAS VEGAS LOS ANGELES LOS CABOS ORANGE
More informationLAWSON & PERSSON, P.C.
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SERVICES Attorney Michael J. Persson (Mike) is a Registered Patent Attorney and practices primarily in the field of intellectual property law and litigation. The following materials
More informationCase 1:16-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND PARTIES
Case 1:16-cv-11565-GAO Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS THE LIFE IS GOOD COMPANY, ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) C.A. No. ) OOSHIRTS INC., ) Defendant
More informationCase 2:12-cv JCM-VCF Document 1 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 10
Case :-cv-0-jcm-vcf Document Filed // Page of R. Scott Weide, Esq. Nevada Bar No. sweide@weidemiller.com Ryan Gile, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 0 rgile@weidemiller.com Kendelee L. Works, Esq. Nevada Bar No. kworks@weidemiller.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-381 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-381 EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. IBRAHEEM HUSSEIN, d/b/a "MALLOME",
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PETER SAVENOK, PAUL SAVENOK AND ) SERGEY SAVENOK, ) ) COMPLAINT FOR PLAINTIFFS, ) PATENT INFRINGMENT ) VS. ) CIVIL
More informationCase 1:17-cv JCH-JHR Document 17 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:17-cv-00062-JCH-JHR Document 17 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 9 LODESTAR ANSTALT, a Liechtenstein Corporation IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Plaintiff, vs. Cause No.
More informationThe ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman Litigation
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The ITC's Potential Role In Hatch-Waxman
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CASE NO:
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: JOHN M. BEGAKIS (Bar No. ) john@altviewlawgroup.com JASON W. BROOKS (Bar No. ) Jason@altviewlawgroup.com ALTVIEW LAW GROUP, LLP 00 Wilshire Boulevard,
More informationCase 2:12-cv TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16
Case 2:12-cv-01124-TC Document 2 Filed 12/10/12 Page 1 of 16 Joseph Pia, joe.pia@padrm.com (9945) Tyson B. Snow tsnow@padrm.com (10747) Fili Sagapulete fili@padrm.com (13348) PIA ANDERSON DORIUS REYNARD
More informationCase 1:15-cv EJF Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:15-cv-00128-EJF Document 2 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 12 Karl R. Cannon (USB No. 6508 CLAYTON, HOWARTH & CANNON, P.C. 6985 Union Park Center, Suite 200 Cottonwood Heights, Utah 84047 Telephone: (801
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
John D. Kinton (CA Bar No. 0) jkinton@jonesday.com JONES DAY El Camino Real, Suite 0 San Diego, CA 0 Phone: () - Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff HOIST FITNESS SYSTEMS, INC. HOIST FITNESS SYSTEMS, INC.,
More informationCase 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6
Case 9:16-cv-80588-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6 SHIPPING and TRANSIT, LLC, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA vs. Plaintiff, STATE
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division
Document Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division In re: QIMONDA AG, Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding. Case No. 09-14766-RGM (Chapter 15) MEMORANDUM
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION MINKA LIGHTING, INC., V. PLAINTIFF, WIND RIVER CEILING FANS LLC, SUMMER WIND INTERNATIONAL LLC, AND MONTE HALL, DEFENDANTS.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SUNTECH POWER HOLDINGS CO., LTD., a corporation of the Cayman Islands; WUXI SUNTECH POWER CO., LTD., a corporation of the People s Republic
More informationNewly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense
September 16, 2011 Practice Groups: IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Intellectual Property Litigation Newly Signed U.S. Patent Law Will Overhaul Patent Procurement, Enforcement and Defense On September
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK GLO SCIENCE, INC. ) a Delaware Corporation ) 10 W 37 th Street, Suite 1001 ) New York, NY 10018 ) ) Civil Action No. Plaintiff,
More informationSTATE PROCEEDINGS ACT
STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT Act 5 of 1953 15 October 1954 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1A. Short title 1B. Interpretation PRELIMINARY PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW 1. Liability of State in contract 2. Liability of State
More informationCase: 1:18-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/18 Page 1 of 43 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case: 1:18-cv-04711 Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/18 Page 1 of 43 PageID #:1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-1352 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NOKIA INC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION, ET AL., Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION CASE NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION R.D. JONES, STOP EXPERTS, INC., and RRFB GLOBAL, INC., Plaintiffs, CASE NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC, Defendant.
More informationCase 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/18/17 Page 1 of 8
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed // Page of Henry G. Wykowski (State Bar No. 0) Andrew F. Scher (State Bar No. 0) HENRY G. WYKOWSKI & ASSOCIATES Montgomery Street, Suite San Francisco, CA 0 Telephone: () - Facsimile:
More informationCHAPTER 1. DISCLOSING EXPERT WITNESSES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES: AN OVERVIEW
Table of Contents CHAPTER 1. DISCLOSING EXPERT WITNESSES UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES: AN OVERVIEW 1:1 Practice tip Checklist of issues to consider when disclosing experts under Rule 26(a) 1:2 Overview 1:3
More informationSealing the Border: Procedures and Practices of a Section 337 Proceeding in the U.S. International Trade Commission
: Procedures and Practices of a Section 337 Proceeding in the U.S. International Trade Commission July 19, 2016 Mike Newman, Member Jim Wodarski, Member Overview Background on the International Trade Commission
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No.: 3:17-CV-398.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION Civil Action No.: 3:17-CV-398 BOJANGLES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, v. Plaintiff, HARDEES RESTAURANTS, LLC and
More informationThe American Court System BASIC JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS. Jurisdiction
The American Court System BASIC JUDICIAL REQUIREMENTS Before a lawsuit can be brought before a court, certain requirements must first be met. These include: Jurisdicti on Venue Standing to Sue Jurisdiction
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-165 ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-165 EAGLES NEST OUTFITTERS, INC., Plaintiff DYLAN HEWLETT, D/B/A BEAR BUTT, Defendant.
More informationCase: 1:16-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
Case: 1:16-cv-02916 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/07/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1 BODUM USA, INC., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION Plaintiffs, v. No.
More informationContributing firm. Author Henning Hartwig
Germany Contributing firm Author Henning Hartwig Legal framework Design law in Germany consists of the Designs Act, harmonised to a substantial degree with the EU Designs Directive (98/71/EC) and the EU
More informationCase 2:11-cv CW Document 2 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 9
Case 2:11-cv-00241-CW Document 2 Filed 03/11/11 Page 1 of 9 Alan L. Edwards (6086) Scott C. Hilton (12554) KUNZLER NEEDHAM MASSEY & THORPE 8 East Broadway, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone:
More informationITC s Amended Section 337 Rules Streamline Investigations
Portfolio Media. Inc. 111 West 19 th Street, 5th Floor New York, NY 10011 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com ITC s Amended Section 337 Rules Streamline
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236 COMPLAINT
Case 1:17-cv-06236 Document 1 Filed 08/17/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE GREEN PET SHOP ENTERPRISES, LLC, Plaintiff Case No.: 1:17-cv-6236
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/24/ :27 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/24/2015 EXHIBIT C
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/24/2015 06:27 PM INDEX NO. 650458/2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 57 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/24/2015 EXHIBIT C Case 1:14-cv-09012-DLC Document 2 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 14 Case 1:14-cv-09012-DLC
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1
Case 1:18-cv-01866 Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X AURORA LED TECHNOLOGY,
More informationCase 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COMPLAINT and Jury Demand
Case 1:15-cv-10597 Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS DUNE JEWELRY, INC. Plaintiff, v. REBECCA JAMES, LLC, Defendant. Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-10597
More informationJohn Fargo, Director Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division Department of Justice.
DOJ Role in Affirmative Suits John Fargo, Director Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division Department of Justice May 6, 2009 john.fargo@usdoj.gov DOJ Role in Affirmative Suits Tech transfer involves
More informationDesigns. Germany Henning Hartwig BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbb. A Global Guide
Designs 2015 Henning Hartwig A Global Guide ... IP only. BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. Selected teams of legally and technically qualified professionals
More informationCase3:12-cv VC Document21 Filed06/09/14 Page1 of 12
Case:-cv-0-VC Document Filed0/0/ Page of QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP David Eiseman (Bar No. ) davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com Carl G. Anderson (Bar No. ) carlanderson@quinnemanuel.com 0 California
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v.
CASE 0:11-cv-01043-PJS -LIB Document 1 Filed 04/22/11 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 3M COMPANY, Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ELLISON SYSTEMS, INC., dba
More informationCHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections.
CHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Interpretation. PART I INTERPRETATION. PART II SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 2. Right to sue the Government. 3. Liability of the Government
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-00807-EAS-TPK Document 1 Filed 09/15/09 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. and : ABERCROMBIE & FITCH TRADING CO.,
More informationOverview of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930: A Primer for Practice before the International Trade Commission, 25 J. Marshall L. Rev.
The John Marshall Law Review Volume 25 Issue 3 Article 1 Spring 1992 Overview of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930: A Primer for Practice before the International Trade Commission, 25 J. Marshall L.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION GREENOLOGY PRODUCTS, INC., a ) North Carolina corporation ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 16-CV-800
More informationValhalla Adventure Game License Agreement. Last Updated: September 12, 2014
Valhalla Adventure Game License Agreement Last Updated: September 12, 2014 Game System License Agreement This Game System License Agreement (the License ) is offered at the Licensor s sole discretion by
More informationTHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No: 5:11-cv ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No: 5:11-cv-00296 VEOLIA WATER SOLUTIONS & TECHNOLOGIES SUPPORT, v. Plaintiff, SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,
More informationCase 5:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 16
Case :-cv-0 Document Filed 0// Page of ANNE M. ROGASKI (CA Bar No. ) HIPLegal LLP 0 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 0 Cupertino, CA 0 annie@hiplegal.com Phone: 0-- Fax: 0-- Attorneys for Plaintiff Huddleston
More information3 James A. McDaniel (Bar No ) 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case :-cv-00-raj Document Filed 0// Page of David B. Draper (Bar No. 00) Email: ddraper@terralaw.com Mark W. Good (Bar No. ) Email: mgood@terralaw.com James A. McDaniel (Bar No. 000) jmcdaniel@terralaw.com
More informationMastering Civil Procedure Checklist
Mastering Civil Procedure Checklist For cases originally filed in federal court, is there an anchor claim, over which the court has personal jurisdiction, venue, and subject matter jurisdiction? If not,
More informationCase 2:11-cv CEH-DNF Document 1 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 55 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION
Case 2:11-cv-00392-CEH-DNF Document 1 Filed 07/12/11 Page 1 of 55 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION PHELAN HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a PINCHER=S CRAB SHACK,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action Number 13-cv-1404 MYELOTEC, INC. a Georgia Corporation, Plaintiff v BIOVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC a Colorado Corporation, Defendant
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION. Case No.: Judge:
Barnard N. Madsen (4626) Matthew R. Howell (6571) FILLMORE SPENCER LLC 3301 N. University Avenue Provo, Utah 84604 Telephone: 801/426-8200 Facsimile: 801/426-8208 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION ORION ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC. v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 16-cv-1250 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENERGY BANK, INC.,
More informationChanging Landscape, US and Abroad 2017 In House Counsel Conference
TRADE SECRETS Changing Landscape, US and Abroad 2017 In House Counsel Conference Presenters: Jenny Papatolis Johnson Endo Pharmaceuticals Tracy Zurzolo Quinn Reed Smith LLP Matthew P. Frederick Reed Smith
More informationLEGAL INFORMATION NEWSLETTER. No. 5 September, 2011
LEGAL INFORMATION NEWSLETTER No. 5 September, 2011 We are pleased to provide you with the new issue of our legal information newsletter. Topical legal questions are discussed and those related to issues
More informationCase 3:15-cv AA Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 17
Case 3:15-cv-00058-AA Document 1 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 17 THOMAS J. ROMANO, OSB No. 053661 E-mail: tromano@khpatent.com SHAWN J. KOLITCH, OSB No. 063980 E-mail: shawn@khpatent.com KIMBERLY N. FISHER,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLORADO MEDNOW CLINICS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SPECTRUM HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendants. Case No.: COMPLAINT Plaintiff Mednow Clinics, LLC ( Mednow or Plaintiff, through
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Case 1:99-mc-09999 Document 186 Filed 04/29/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 17113 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE AUGME TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, Civil Action No. v. PANDORA MEDIA,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE. Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PATENT CASE SCHEDULE Event Service of Complaint Scheduled Time Total Time After Complaint Answer or Other Response to Complaint 5 weeks Initial
More informationIP system and latest developments in China. Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. June, 2015
IP system and latest developments in China Beijing Sanyou Intellectual Property Agency Ltd. June, 205 Main Content. Brief introduction of China's legal IP framework 2. Patent System in China: bifurcated
More informationUSDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv document 1 filed 04/09/18 page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
USDC IN/ND case 1:18-cv-00086 document 1 filed 04/09/18 page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION ASW, LLC, ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) CASE NO. 1:18-cv-86 )
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, RESTITUTION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Case :-cv-000-e Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 GLUCK LAW FIRM P.C. Jeffrey S. Gluck (SBN 0) N. Kings Road # Los Angeles, California 00 Telephone: 0.. ERIKSON LAW GROUP David Alden Erikson (SBN
More informationCase 2:18-cv JAD-CWH Document 1 Filed 12/21/18 Page 1 of 17
Case :-cv-00-jad-cwh Document Filed // Page of 0 0 MICHAEL D. ROUNDS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. MATTHEW D. FRANCIS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. PETER H. AJEMIAN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. SAMANTHA J. REVIGLIO, ESQ. Nevada
More informationCOMPLAINT. Plaintiff, The Green Pet Shop Enterprises, LLC ( Green Pet Shop or. Plaintiff ), by and through its attorneys, THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C.
Case 1:18-cv-04526 Document 1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 Attorneys for Plaintiff: THE RANDO LAW FIRM P.C. 6800 Jericho Turnpike Suite 120W Syosset, NY 11791 (516) 799-9800 CARLSON, GASKEY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY ELLE FASHIONS, INC., d/b/a MERIDIAN ELECTRIC, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 4:15 CV 855 RWS JASCO PRODUCTS CO., LLC, Defendant.
More informationCase 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:18-cv-00772 Document 1 Filed 01/29/18 Page 1 of 14 James D. Weinberger (jweinberger@fzlz.com) Jessica Vosgerchian (jvosgerchian@fzlz.com) FROSS ZELNICK LEHRMAN & ZISSU, P.C. 4 Times Square, 17 th
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CEDAR RAPIDS DIVISION WEEMS INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a LEGACY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Case No. 1:16-cv-109LRR v. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:17-cv-01530-CCC Document 1 Filed 08/25/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENTSPLY SIRONA INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. ) NET32, INC., ) JURY DEMANDED
More information