INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION NEWSLETTER

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION NEWSLETTER"

Transcription

1 Colorado Bar Association INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION NEWSLETTER UPCOMING IP SECTION EVENTS August 2010 Perspectives of a Non-Practicing Entity September 16, 2010, 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m. Location: The Denver Chop House, Large Banquet Room Speaker: Jonathan Taub, Vice President of Acacia Technologies Mr. Taub joined Acacia in July 2007 as Vice President. Prior to joining Acacia, he was Director of Strategic Alliances for Microsoft's Mobile and Embedded Devices division and Business Development Manager for Microsoft's Security Business Unit. Prior to joining Microsoft, Mr. Taub was Director of Business Development at Nortel Networks. He joined Nortel following the company's $450 million acquisition of software infrastructure developer Epicon, Inc., where he headed business development. He previously was an intellectual property and corporate law associate with Covington & Burling in Washington, D.C. and an analyst at Santander Investment in Madrid. Mr. Taub holds a B.S. from the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania and a J.D. from Harvard Law School. Cost: $35 for IP Section Members, $45 for the general public, and CU/DU Law students are free. Includes a catered lunch and valet parking. RSVP by calling (303) ext. 727 or by ing lunches@cobar.org before Noon on Tuesday, September 14, Cancellations after Tuesday, September 14, 2010 and no-shows will be billed for the cost of the program. Checks can be sent to the Colorado Bar Association, 1900 Grant St., Suite 900, Denver, CO Also, please call or your RSVP when sending a check. Checks should be made payable to the CBA. If leaving a message, please spell your name, specify that you are attending the Intellectual Property Section July Luncheon, leave your phone number, and specify if you would prefer a vegetarian lunch. Save The Date: False Marking: a Case Law and Legislative Update October 14, 2010, 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m.

2 Location: The Denver Chop House, Large Banquet Room Speaker: Jonathan Spivey, Partner, Foley & Lardner LLP SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT This is the inaugural year for the Colorado IP Inn of Court. American Inns of Courts are designed to improve the skills, professionalism and ethics of the bench and the bar. The Colorado IP Inn of Court intends on embracing those goals while providing the local IP practitioners with an opportunity to socialize with others in their core area of practice. A Colorado IP Inn of Court is a very exciting development for the Colorado IP community and more information will be available shortly. REPORT ON PAST IP SECTION EVENTS Marybeth Peters: Copyrights in the Age of Electronic Content: The Impact of Reed Elsevier and Google Books On July 15, 2010, Marybeth Peters, the United States Register of Copyrights, discussed the changing landscape of copyright law. In an age of e-books and other electronic content, copyrights are more relevant than ever. Ms. Peters discussed these changes, especially as affected by the recent copyright class actions such as Reed Elsevier v. Muchnick and the Google Book litigation. Ms. Peters has also served as acting general counsel of the Copyright Office and as chief of both the Examining and Information and Reference divisions. Peters is a frequent speaker on copyright issues; she is the author of The General Guide to the Copyright Act of She delivered the 2004 Brace Memorial Lecture (at New York University School of Law) and the 1996 Horace S. Manages Lecture at Columbia University School of Law. She serves on the Intellectual Property Advisory Committees of several law schools. Ms. Peters has received numerous awards for her work as Register of Copyrights. A special thanks goes out to the Copyright Society of the USA who co-sponsored this event. The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. is a center of the U.S. copyright community for business people, lawyers in private practice and in-house, law professors and law students who share a common interest in copyright and related intellectual property rights. Its website is found at

3 IP Section Blog The IP Section blog is at You can find news from and links to other Colorado and national IP resources, connect with other IP Section members, provide input to Section Officers, and get up-to-date information about IP Section activities. Be sure to register to get the full benefit of the blog. Taped IP Section Luncheon Meetings CBA/CLE tapes the IP Section Luncheons for later access and CLE credit. The following IP Section meetings are now available online: Global IP Strategy: Using Data to Secure A First Win Emerging Trends and Strategies in Reexamination IP Due Diligence They can be found at: Call for Suggestions or Ideas The IP Section Officers are also soliciting your suggestions and ideas for topics and speakers for our Luncheon programs for Please forward any comments you may have to Michael Dulin at mdulin@hkh-law.com. IP Newsletter Subject to editorial discretion and review, the IP Section newsletter is open to the submission of short articles and columns on IP topics of interest. If you are interested in contributing, please contact Michael Dulin at mdulin@hkh-law.com. IP Section Website Don t forget to check out the Colorado Bar Association website. Please refer to it often for updates on news and events. The Colorado Bar Association has posted member directories for each practice section on-line. See ours at: Our contact at the Colorado Bar is Melissa Nicoletti, the Director of Sections and Committees. She can be reached at (303) , or melissan@cobar.org. Recently Filed U.S.D.C. Colorado Cases

4 CAPTION TYPE CASE NO. JUDGE FILING ATTORNEY(S) Home Design Services, Inc. v. Precision Paving & Construction, Inc., et al. Copyright 10cv1619 Zita L. Weinshienk Anthony M. Lawhon Keith Boughton Hunter Douglas Inc., et al. v. Homesublime, LLC HealthOne of Denver, Inc., et al. v. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated Hunter Douglas Inc., et al. v. Global Custom Commerce, L.P. Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC, et al. v. Frausto, et al. Chevron Intellectual Property, LLC, et al. v. CLM Associates, LLC, et al. Trademark 10cv1632 Marcia S. Krieger Donald A. Degnan Nadya Claire Bosch Trademark 10cv1633 Wiley Y. Daniel Erin McAlpin Eiselein John Allen Francis Thomas P. Johnson Trademark 10cv1634 Christine M. Arguello Donald A. Degnan Nadya Claire Bosch Trademark 10cv1664 Kathleen M. Tafoya Annie Chu Haselfeld Donald A. Degnan Trademark 10cv1666 Richard P. Matsch Annie Chu Haselfeld Donald A. Degnan Go Manage, Inc. v. GKMI, Inc. Trademark 10cv1689 Wiley Y. Daniel Erik G. Fischer William W. Cochran Broadcast Music, Inc., et al. v. IVP, Inc., et al. Professional Bull Riders, Inc. v. Huffman Onset Pipe Products, Inc. v. Fernco, Inc. Reality Technology, Inc. v. Countertrade Products, Inc., et al. Viesti Associates, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company,et al. Focus 12, Inc. v. Kissler & Co., Inc. Copyright 10cv1694 Christine M. Arguello Ian L. Saffer Kevin Michael Bell Copyright 10cv1706 Christine M. Arguello Robert R. Brunelli Patent 10cv1757 Robert E. Blackburn Jon R. Trembath Trademark 10cv1791 Philip A. Brimmer Horace Anthony Lowe Copyright 10cv1802 Philip A. Brimmer Christopher Seidman Craig F. Wallace Maurice J. Harmon Trademark 10cv1815 Robert E. Blackburn William D. Meyer Digestor, LLC v. Powers, et al. Patent 10cv1841 Christine M. Arguello Spiro Bereveskos Spyderco, Inc. v. Cohen, et al. Trademark 10cv1851 Richard P. Matsch Robert R. Brunelli RadioShack Corporation, et al. v. Phone Shack, LLC, et al. Trademark 10cv1882 Marcia S. Krieger Brad W. Breslau

5 CAPTION TYPE CASE NO. JUDGE FILING ATTORNEY(S) AEG Live Rockey Mountains, Trademark 10cv1896 Wiley Y. Daniel Cara R. Burns LLC v. Does Please Michael Dulin at with any interesting Colorado District Court IP decisions or IP news involving Colorado Companies. IP LAW DEVELOPMENTS FROM BNA Patents Common Sense Obviousness Brings Reversal Of Infringement Ruling Against Master Lock Improvement patents on trailer hitch locking mechanisms were obvious as a matter of common sense, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled July 22, overturning a jury and district court judge's finding to the contrary against major lock manufacturer Master Lock Co. (Wyers v. Master Lock Co., Fed. Cir., No , 7/22/10). A concurring opinion stressed that obviousness is a mixed question of fact and law and distinguished the burden on the court in assessing general verdicts on obviousness, as was the case in the lower court, as opposed to special interrogatories that could separate the issues. Jury's General Verdict Finds Improvements Nonobvious Wyers Products Group Inc. owns three patents (6,672,115; 7,165,426; and 7,225,649) issued to inventor Philip W. Wyers and claiming two improvements in the technology related to hitch pin locks that secure trailers to cars and sport utility vehicles. The 115 and 426 patents share the same specification and claim locks with a removable sleeve, allowing adaptability to a number of varied size locking requirements. The 649 patent claims as an improvement an external seal designed to insulate the locking mechanism from contaminants. Wyers and his company sued Master Lock for patent infringement in April A jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado was held in March Senior Judge Lewis T. Babcock granted Wyers's motion for judgment as a matter of law on infringement at the close of evidence and the jury returned a verdict finding that the asserted claims were not obvious. The jury awarded $5.35 million in damages. Babcock granted Wyers's motion for a continuing injunction, assessed an ongoing royalty until the injunction took effect, and added $1.14 million in pre-judgment interest. Babcock further denied Master Lock's motion for judgment as a matter of law and upheld the jury verdict. Master Lock appealed. Lower Court Erred as to Relevant Prior Art Judge Timothy B. Dyk reversed the JMOL denial, concluding that prior art patents and products represented the elements of the asserted claims and that common sense would lead one to combine the elements as to both the sleeve and seal improvements. First, Dyk faulted the lower court for two decisions as to relevant prior art. The lower court had concluded that

6 the jury could implicitly find a 1976 Down patent (3,963,264) directed to a trailer-towing application outside the scope of the relevant art. But, Dyk said, the Down patent is clearly within the same field of endeavor as the sleeve patents. The district court also concluded that the jury could implicitly find that then-existing padlock seals were not relevant to hitch locks, but Dyk noted that the court's jury instruction was directed to the field of locksmithing. As such, padlocks should not be excluded as relevant prior art, he said. Even if they were presumed to be in another field of endeavor, prior art padlocks are clearly reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventor was trying to solve, he added, citing the alternate criterion for relevant prior art, recently confirmed by the Federal Circuit in Comaper Corp. v. Antec Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1351, 93 USPQ2d 1873 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (40 PTD, 3/3/10). The district court thus erred in finding that the Down patent and padlock seals were not relevant prior art, Dyk concluded. Obviousness Judgment on JMOL Appropriate Dyk then reviewed the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence before and after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (83 PTD, 05/1/07). First, he said that the pre-ksr Federal Circuit treated motivation to combine prior art references as a question of fact, and KSR did not change that rule. But, KSR and our later cases establish that the question of motivation to combine may nonetheless be addressed on summary judgment or JMOL in appropriate circumstances, he added, citing four appellate cases, most recently Perfect Web Technologies Inc. v. InfoUSA Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1330, 92 USPQ2d 1849 (Fed. Cir. 2009). He also confirmed that expert testimony concerning motivation to combine may be unnecessary and, even if present, will not necessarily create a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, quoting KSR, he emphasized, Where, as here, the content of the prior art, the scope of the patent claim, and the level of ordinary skill in the art are not in material dispute, and the obviousness of the claim is apparent in light of these factors, summary judgment is appropriate. KSR and our later cases establish that the legal determination of obviousness may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense, in lieu of expert testimony, the court continued. Expert testimony would be sometimes essential, Dyk said in a footnote, only regarding matters beyond the comprehension of laypersons, quoting Centricut LLC v. Esab Group Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, , 73 USPQ2d 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (236 PTD, 12/9/04). Common Sense Is Motivation to Combine In the instant case, as to the sleeve patents, it was simply a matter of common sense to apply the teachings of the Down patent to address the known problem of different aperture sizes in standard hitch receivers, Dyk said. Similarly, as to the 649 patent adding an external sealing mechanism for the barbell-shaped locks claimed, Dyk said, It is a matter of common sense that a flat external seal used in the prior art padlocks could be combined with a barbellshaped hitch pin lock. As to both patent improvements, Wyers argued that Master Lock itself had submitted patent applications on similar technology without referencing either relevant prior art now being used against Wyers. But, the court said, Obviousness protects the public at large, not a particular

7 infringer, and one is not estopped from asserting the invalidity of a patent by the fact that one has previously made an attempt to procure a patent for substantially the same invention. Wyers also argued in both instances that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have had a reasonable expectation of success, but the court rejected those arguments as well. As to the sleeve patents, the court noted that Wyers's argument was directed to a performance issue while the sole benefit of the sleeve described in the patent is its size adaptability. As to the seal patent, Dyk noted that Wyers identified anticipated problems only with one type of seal, while other seals that do not invoke the same problems also existed in the prior art. Thus, it was a matter of common sense to combine the prior art references in each case and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, the court concluded. Secondary Considerations Inadequate The court finally rejected Wyers's arguments based on secondary considerations of the commercial success of Master Lock's alleged infringing products and copying by other competitors after the invention became known. Wyers failed to prove a nexus between the seal patent invention and evidence of commercial success and relied solely on the $20 million in sales of Master Lock's accused product as to the sleeve patents, Dyk noted. As to copying, Wyers introduced no evidence that would meet what the court's case law has recognized as adequate demonstrations internal company documents, direct evidence such as disassembling a patented prototype, photographing its features, and using the photograph as a blueprint to build a replica, or access to the patented product combined with substantial similarity to the patented product Dyk said, citing Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325, 73 USPQ2d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The court concluded that the asserted claims of the three patents would have been obvious as a matter of law and reversed the district court's finding on that point. Judge Alan D. Lourie joined the opinion. Concurrence Clarifies General Verdict Review Standard I write to address concerns raised following the Supreme Court's decision in KSR with respect to general verdicts relating to obviousness, Judge Richard Linn said in a concurring opinion. Though KSR confirmed that the ultimate judgment of obviousness is a legal determination, This acknowledgement did not change longstanding precedent permitting the submission of obviousness questions to a jury for a general verdict, provided the jury has received proper instruction on the law, he said, citing Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722 F.2d 1542, 1547, 220 USPQ 193 (Fed. Cir. 1983). To facilitate review and reveal more clearly the jury's underlying factual findings, this Court has encouraged trial court judges to provide juries with special interrogatories on obviousness, Linn said. But there is no hard and fast rule requiring special interrogatories, he said. In a case where a general verdict is given, the court must presume that the jury resolved the underlying factual disputes in favor of the verdict winner and leave those presumed findings undisturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence, he said, quoting from Jurgens v. McKasy, 927 F.2d 1552, 1557, 18 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

8 In the instant case, though, the majority examined the record and after considering the factual inferences concluded that support was lacking and that the claims at issue would have been obvious as a matter of law, he said. With both the analysis and the conclusion, I fully agree. Mark Lee Hogge of Greenberg Traurig, Washington, D.C., represented Wyers. Aldo Noto of Andrews Kurth, Washington, D.C., represented Master Lock. By Tony Dutra Trademarks Declaratory Judgment Dismissal Denied; MedImmune Test Applies to Trademarks The Supreme Court's ruling in MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc. effectively overruled the First Circuit's reasonable anticipation test for subject matter jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment action, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire ruled July 19 in a trademark dispute involving retailer Nordstrom (Blue Athletic Inc. v. Nordstrom Inc., D. N.H., No. 10-cv-36-SM, 7/19/10). Denying Nordstrom's motion to dismiss, the court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the plaintiff's declaratory judgment claims that its denimrack marks did not infringe the Nordstrom Rack marks. The court also held that it could determine whether the denimrack mark was registrable, reasoning that the Patent and Trademark Office does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the registrability of trademarks. Mark Opposed, Declaratory Judgment Suit Filed Blue Athletic Inc. operates a retail clothing store and an online denim store, both named denimrack. It has operated its website, since Last year, it filed an application with the Patent and Trademark Office for federal trademark registration of the denimrack mark. Department store chain Nordstrom Inc., which also runs an off-price clearance store called Nordstrom Rack, asked Blue Athletic to discontinue its use of denimrack and its website and to withdraw its trademark application for denimrack. Nordstrom asserted that there was a likelihood of confusion between its marks and Blue Athletic's mark. Nordstrom eventually filed a notice of opposition to Blue Athletic's registration with the PTO. Blue Athletic then filed this action for declaratory judgment, asserting that its use of denimrack did not infringe any valid trademark rights Nordstrom may have in the Nordstrom Rack or Rack marks. Further, Blue Athletic asserted that, because denimrack did not infringe Nordstrom's marks, it is entitled to federal trademark registration for its denimrack mark. Nordstrom moved to dismiss Blue Athletic's petition in its entirety. MedImmune Standard Applies to Trademarks Nordstrom argued that because Blue Athletic's anticipation of an infringement action was not reasonable, its claims were not ripe for decision, and the court was, accordingly, without subject matter jurisdiction.

9 The First Circuit in PHC Inc. v. Pioneer Healthcare Inc., 75 F.3d 75, 37 USPQ2d 1652 (1st Cir. 1996), invoked the rule that reasonable anticipation of a claim under the Lanham Act is a settled requirement in a federal declaratory judgment action of this character, Chief Judge Steven J. McAuliffe acknowledged. However, what was a settled requirement at the time PHC was decided has since been set aside, the court said. In MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 81 USPQ2d 1225 (2007) (6 PTD, 01/10/07), the Supreme Court held that a patent licensee was not required to break or terminate a license agreement and thus create the risk of a claim against it before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent was invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. The court also noted that in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 482 F.3d 1330, 82 USPQ 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (64 PTD, 04/4/07), the Federal Circuit recognized that MedImmune overruled the two-part reasonable-apprehension-of-suit test it had previously used to determine whether it had jurisdiction over declaratory judgment actions. In Surefoot LC. v. Sure Foot Corp., 531 F.3d 1236, 87 USPQ2d 1266 (10th Cir. 2008) (134 PTD, 7/14/08), the Tenth Circuit held in a trademark case that MedImmune displaced its previous jurisdictional test, which required a declaratory judgment petitioner to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension that an imminent suit for trademark infringement was forthcoming. McAuliffe said that, based on MedImmune and the case law mentioned above, it seems likely that the First Circuit, if presented with the question, would hold that MedImmune effectively overruled the reasonable anticipation test described in PHC. Nordstrom, however, argued that because MedImmune is a patent case, and patent law presents public policy considerations that do not apply to trademark law, MedImmune should not be applied to trademark cases. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Surefoot court rejected a similar argument. No federal court has declined to apply MedImmune to a trademark case, and no good reason for this court to do so has been presented, the court said. Claims Are Ripe; Court Has Jurisdiction Thus, the court said that, under the MedImmune standard, Blue Athletic's claims were ripe for decision because the controversy between the parties was substantial, the parties plainly had adverse interests, and the controversy was both immediate and real. Nordstrom countered, arguing that the parties in Surefoot shared a longer and richer history of disagreement over trademark issues than the parties in this case. However, the court here said that, although it may be so, the parties' history of disagreement here included Nordstrom's demand letters, which set out a prima facie case of trademark infringement, and a formal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board opposition which is based on a claim that Blue Athletic's mark would infringe on Nordstrom's marks. While there has been less history between the parties in this case the combination of [these factors] is sufficient to meet the MedImmune standard. Finally, the court said that this was not a case like those the court worried about in Surefoot, in which the only indicia of a live infringement controversy was the existence of a single TTAB

10 opposition proceeding or a single cease-and-desist letter. Thus, the court ruled that because Blue Athletic's claims were ripe for review, the court did not lack subject matter jurisdiction over them and it denied Nordstrom's motion to dismiss. Third Request for Relief Not Dismissed Relying on Merrick v. Sharp & Dohme Inc., 185 F.2d 713, 88 USPQ 145 (7th Cir. 1950), Nordstrom also moved to dismiss Blue Athletic's third request for relief a declaration that it is entitled to federal registration for its denimrack mark on the additional ground that exclusive jurisdiction to determine the registrability of the denimrack mark rests with the PTO until that agency renders a decision on Blue Athletic's application. Nordstrom further argued that, because Blue Athletic did not respond to that argument, the court should grant that portion of its motion as unopposed. However, he court said that it was not inclined to find that Blue Athletic waived or forfeited its third request for relief given Blue Athletic's vigorous objection to respondents' first argument, which pertains to all three requests for declaratory relief, and the absence of an express waiver. Turning to the merits, the court said that Nordstrom's reliance on Merrick was misplaced. The court said that the Merrick court did not decide whether the pendency of a trademark application bars a district court from determining the registrability of the mark at issue in the pending application and thus has no bearing on the issues presented in this case. After looking at case law from the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia and the First Circuit, the court ruled that, because the TTAB does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the registrability of Blue Athletic's marks, Nordstrom was not entitled to dismissal of Blue Athletic's third request for declaratory relief. Blue Athletic was represented by Jack P. Crisp Jr. of Wiggin & Nourie, Manchester, N.H. Nordstrom was represented by Nathaniel E. Durrance of the Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, Seattle. By Nathan Pollard Copyrights Mattel's Ownership Rights in Bratz Doll; Copyright, Trademark Overturned on Appeal Barbie may be required to have another day in court in her fight against the Bratz dolls, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit July 22 found multiple errors in the district court's judgments and jury instructions that led to a copyright infringement verdict in favor of and trademark transfer to Barbie-maker Mattel Inc. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 9th Cir., No , 7/22/10). The appellate court vacated a copyright injunction against MGA Entertainment Inc.'s competitive Bratz dolls and a constructive trust transferring the Bratz trademarks to Mattel. Further, because many of the errors appeared in jury instructions, the court said it was likely that the case would have to be retried on remand.

11 America thrives on competition; Barbie, the all-american girl, will too, Chief Judge Alex Kozinski said in concluding an opinion rife with popular culture references. $100 Million Damages and Injunction The Bratz dolls have been the center of a copyright dispute between MGA and Mattel since Mattel sued the Bratz designer and former Mattel employee, Carter Bryant for copyright infringement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion, alleging that Bryant had given to MGA the designs he had made for Mattel that led to the wildly successful Bratz line of dolls, The Girls With a Passion for Fashion! Mattel argued that Bryant conceived of the ideas for the design for Bratz dolls when working at Mattel and thus he had no rights to his designs based on the terms of his employment contract. Judge Stephen G. Larson of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found that Bryant's agreement assigned his ideas preliminary mock-ups to Mattel, and he instructed a jury accordingly. The jury awarded Mattel $100 million in damages from MGA. Larson issued a permanent injunction in December 2008 and further imposed a constructive trust over related Bratz trademarks for transfer to Mattel. The order was originally stayed until February 2008, and then further extended to the end of 2009 to give MGA more time to sell Bratz dolls before they are removed from the market. Meanwhile, MGA appealed, and the Ninth Circuit ordered that the stay remain in effect through the appeal. Ideas May Not Be Covered By Agreement Kozinski first found error in the lower court's pre-trial judgment that Bryant's employment agreement covered ideas, which would include the name Bratz for the dolls generally and the name Jade for one of the first generation of Bratz dolls. The agreement required Bryant to communicate to the Company as promptly and fully as practical all inventions, he noted, but in a subsequent description of inventions in the agreement did not include ideas in the list. Though Mattel argued that the list was merely illustrative and not exclusive, Kozinski said, Ideas are markedly different from most of the listed examples, some of which were concrete designs, processes, computer programs, and formulae while others were less tangible know-how and discoveries. We conclude that the agreement could be interpreted to cover ideas, but the text doesn't compel that reading, the court said. The district court thus erred in holding that the agreement, by its terms, clearly covered ideas. Regardless of whether Bryant's ideas should have been assigned to Mattel, the court held that the constructive trust was too broad. When the value of the property held in trust increases significantly because of a defendant's efforts, a constructive trust that passes on the profit of the defendant's labor to the plaintiff usually goes too far, Kozinski said. And in the instant case, The value added by MGA's hard work and creativity dwarfs the value of the original ideas Bryant brought with him, even recognizing the

12 significance of those ideas. The court thus held that the district court's imposition of the constructive trust was an abuse of discretion and must be vacated. Second Error in Interpretation of Agreement The mock-ups prepared by Bryant while he was still employed by Mattel included original Bratz drawings and a preliminary sculpt a mannequin-like plastic doll body without skin coloring, face paint, hair, or clothing. Those were clearly inventions as defined in the employment agreement, Kozinski said, but there was a question as to whether Bryant created them on his own time. Mattel argued and the lower court instructed the jury that the employment agreement covered inventions even if they were not made during working hours, but again the appellate court said the agreement was ambiguous as to that point. The agreement required assignment of inventions created at any time during [Bryant's] employment by the Company, which is ambiguous intrinsically, the court noted. Further, extrinsic evidence did not resolve the ambiguity as two other Mattel employee's testified to opposing interpretations of the term. The district court thus erred in deciding on summary judgment that the agreement clearly assigned works made outside the scope of Bryant's employment, the court concluded, adding that the error was sufficient to vacate the copyright injunction. Copyright Infringement Analysis Faulty Even assuming the agreement did assign the drawings and sculpt to Mattel, the court found error in the district court's analysis of whether the Bratz dolls infringed Mattel's copyright in those mock-ups. If the copyrights in those works covered only the bratty-doll idea, the court said, MGA was free to look at Bryant's sketches and say, Good idea! We want to create bratty dolls, too.' Applying the Ninth Circuit's two-part extrinsic/intrinsic test, per Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1442, 32 USPQ2d 1086 (9th Cir. 1994), the court faulted the findings as to both the sculpt and the drawings. The extrinsic stage determines the breadth of possible expression of a work's ideas and other unprotectable elements, Kozinski said, granting broad protection to works with a wide range of expression and thin protection when there is only a narrow range of expression. That determination sets the standard for infringement, he added whether an ordinary, reasonable observer would consider the alleged infringing work substantially similar for a copyrighted work enjoying broad protection, or virtually identical when thin protection applies. The lower court first erred in finding that the sculpt enjoyed broad copyright protection, Kozinski said. Setting the task as filtering out unprotectable elements, he said: Producing small plastic dolls that resemble young females is a staple of the fashion doll market. To this basic concept, the Bratz dolls add exaggerated features, such as an oversized head and feet. But many fashion dolls have exaggerated features take the oversized heads of the Blythe dolls and My Scene Barbies as examples. Moreover, women have often been depicted with exaggerated proportions similar to those of the Bratz dolls from Betty Boop to characters in Japanese anime and Steve Madden ads. The

13 concept of depicting a young, fashion-forward female with exaggerated features, including an oversized head and feet, is therefore unoriginal as well as an unprotectable idea. The sculpt thus deserved only thin protection and infringement by the Bratz doll sculpts should have been assessed under the virtually identical standard, the court said. As to the drawings, the appellate court agreed that they did, in fact, deserve broad protection, but then questioned the lower court's application of the substantial similarity standard. The lower court failed to filter out all the unprotectable elements of Bryant's sketches, Kozinski said. The district court found protectable the Particularized, synergistic compilation and expression of the human form and anatomy that expresses a unique style and conveys a distinct look or attitude of the drawings. But, Kozinski said, Mattel can't claim a monopoly over fashion dolls with a bratty look or attitude, or dolls sporting trendy clothing these are all unprotectable ideas. Inasmuch as a finding of substantial similarity between two works can't be based on similarities in unprotectable elements, the lower court's error was significant, he said. He opined that some of the first generation of Bratz dolls might still be found to be substantially similar to the sketches. But we fail to see how the district court could have found the vast majority of Bratz dolls, such as Bratz Funk N' Glow Jade' or Bratz Wild Wild West Fianna,' substantially similar even though their fashions and hair styles are nothing like anything Bryant drew unless it was relying on similarities in ideas. Therefore, the court concluded, even if copyrights in the sculpt and drawings are determined to be assigned to Mattel, the company will have to show on remand and in a new trial that the Bratz sculpts are virtually identical to Bryant's preliminary sculpt or that the dolls are substantially similar to the sketches other than in unprotectable ideas. The court consequently vacated each equitable relief decision The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING No advertisements this month. Subject to editorial review, classified advertisements are printed by the IP Section free of charge and will run for three months, unless we receive a request to drop or continue running the ad. Submit or resubmit your ad by e- mailing the proposed text to Michael Dulin at mdulin@hkh-law.com. IP Section Officer Contact Information Chair: John Posthumus, Esq. Sheridan Ross 1560 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, Colorado

14 Vice-Chair: Nina Y. Wang, Esq. Faegre & Benson, LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, CO Secretary/Treasurer: Michael P. Dulin Hensley Kim & Holzer, LLC 1600 Lincoln Street Suite 3000 Denver, CO All correspondence, phone calls, facsimiles and s concerning this newsletter, as well as advertising submissions should be directed to Michael Dulin at

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Order Form (01/2005) United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois Name of Assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge Blanche M. Manning Sitting Judge if Other than Assigned Judge CASE NUMBER 06

More information

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Cellco Partnership Impact on IPR Practice and District Court Practice Where Do We Go from Here? - An Analysis of Teva s Impact on IPR Practice and How the Federal Circuit Is Attempting to Limit the Impact of Teva By Rebecca Cavin, Suzanne Konrad, and Michael Abernathy, K&L

More information

Sinking Submarines from the Depths of the PTO Sea

Sinking Submarines from the Depths of the PTO Sea Sinking Submarines from the Depths of the PTO Sea by Steven C. Sereboff 1 Eight years ago, an examiner at the Patent and Trademark Office rejected the patent application of Stephen B. Bogese II on very

More information

November Common Sense Approach to Obviousness. g Obvious to Try. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting

November Common Sense Approach to Obviousness. g Obvious to Try. g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Federal Circuit Review Obviousness Volume Three Issue Two November 2010 In This Issue: g Common Sense Approach to Obviousnesss g Obvious to Try g Obviousness-Type Double Patenting = Pharmaceutical Compounds

More information

2 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW

2 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW 2 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 59 Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal Fall, 1993 Recent Development RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN PATENT LAW Andrew J. Dillon a1 Duke W. Yee aa1 Copyright (c) 1993 by the State

More information

The Changing Landscape of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: MedImmune v. Genentech and its Federal Circuit Progeny

The Changing Landscape of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: MedImmune v. Genentech and its Federal Circuit Progeny The Changing Landscape of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: MedImmune v. Genentech and its Federal Circuit Progeny Where are we now? Jan. 9, 2007 Supreme Court decides MedImmune v. Genentech March 26,

More information

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP

AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP AIA Post-Grant Implementation Begins - Is Your Business Strategy Aligned? August 27, 2012 A Web conference hosted by Foley & Lardner LLP Attorney Advertising Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome

More information

Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block?

Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? Business Method Patents on the Chopping Block? ACCA, San Diego Chapter General Counsel Roundtable and All Day MCLE Eric Acker and Greg Reilly Morrison & Foerster LLP San Diego, CA 2007 Morrison & Foerster

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. and PHILIPS LIGHTING NORTH AMERICA CORP., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 14-12298-DJC WANGS ALLIANCE CORP., d/b/a WAC LIGHTING

More information

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees

KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC.: Analysis and Potential Impact for Patentees Keith D. Lindenbaum, J.D. Partner, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies Practice and International Business Industry

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1539 PREDICATE LOGIC, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DISTRIBUTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Christopher S. Marchese, Fish & Richardson

More information

The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation

The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation The Changing Face of U.S. Patent Litigation Presented by the IP Litigation Group of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP October 2007 Background on Simpson Thacher Founded 1884 in New York City Now, over 750

More information

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENTS TRADEMARK GOOGLE INC. V. AMERICAN BLIND & WALLPAPER FACTORY, INC. 2007 WL 1159950 (N.D. Cal. April 17, 2007) BOSTON DUCK TOURS, LP V. SUPER DUCK TOURS, LLC 527 F.Supp.2d 205 (D.

More information

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL

SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL SENATE PASSES PATENT REFORM BILL CLIENT MEMORANDUM On Tuesday, March 8, the United States Senate voted 95-to-5 to adopt legislation aimed at reforming the country s patent laws. The America Invents Act

More information

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.

PATENT REFORM. Did Patent Reform Level the Playing Field for Foreign Entities? 1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 82 PTCJ 789, 10/07/2011. Copyright 2011 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033) http://www.bna.com PATENT REFORM

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-1492 (Re-examination No. 90/005,892) IN RE POD-NERS, L.L.C. Dan Cleveland, Jr. Lathrop & Gage, L.C.,

More information

Trade Secrets. Alternative to Patent Protection. Paul F. Neils Jean C. Edwards. Copyright 2010, Paul F. Neils, Esq. All rights reserved

Trade Secrets. Alternative to Patent Protection. Paul F. Neils Jean C. Edwards. Copyright 2010, Paul F. Neils, Esq. All rights reserved Trade Secrets Alternative to Patent Protection Paul F. Neils Jean C. Edwards Copyright 2010, Paul F. Neils, Esq. All rights reserved 1 What are Trade Secrets? Trade secret law developed from state common

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 10 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court

More information

INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS

INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION MECHANICS AND RESULTS Eugene T. Perez Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Gerald M. Murphy, Jr. Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP Leonard R. Svensson Birch, Stewart, Kolasch

More information

POST-MEDIMMUNE DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION

POST-MEDIMMUNE DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION POST-MEDIMMUNE DEVELOPMENTS REGARDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT JURISDICTION The Federal Circuit's Recent SanDisk and Teva Pharmaceuticals Decisions On March 26 and 30, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal

More information

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB

SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB SPECIAL REPORT May 2018 Spring 2017 SURPREME COURT FINDS USPTO S ADMINISTRATIVE PATENT TRIALS CONSTITUTIONAL AND SETS GROUND RULES FOR THEIR CONDUCT BY THE PTAB On April 24, 2018, the United State Supreme

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM. DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge Case 2:11-cv-01565-DSF -VBK Document 19 Filed 03/03/11 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:690 Case No. CV 11-1565 DSF (VBKx) Date 3/3/11 Title Tacori Enterprises v. Scott Kay, Inc. Present: The Honorable DALE S. FISCHER,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2009-1471 CLEARPLAY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MAX ABECASSIS and NISSIM CORP, Defendants-Appellants. David L. Mortensen, Stoel Rives LLP, of Salt

More information

Infringement Assertions In The New World Order

Infringement Assertions In The New World Order Infringement Assertions In The New World Order IP Law360, October 17, 2007, Guest Column Author(s): Charles R. Macedo, Michael J. Kasdan Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007 The recent Supreme Court and Federal Circuit

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit G. DAVID JANG, M.D., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION AND SCIMED LIFE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendants-Petitioners. 2014-134 On Petition

More information

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No )

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No ) Microsoft Corp. v. i4i L.P. et al. U.S. Supreme Court (No. 10-290) What Will Be the Evidentiary Standard(s) for Proving Patent Invalidity in Future Court Cases? March 2011 COPYRIGHT 2011. DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO

More information

License Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries

License Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries License Agreements and Litigation: Protecting Your Assets and Revenue Streams in the High-Tech and Life Science Industries January 21, 2010 *These materials represent our preliminary analysis based on

More information

Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y Tel: (212)

Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y Tel: (212) Robert D. Katz, Esq. Eaton & Van Winkle LLP 3 Park Avenue 16th Floor New York, N.Y. 10016 rkatz@evw.com Tel: (212) 561-3630 August 6, 2015 1 Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1982) The patent laws

More information

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW OLIVE & OLIVE, P.A. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Since 1957 500 MEMORIAL ST. POST OFFICE BOX 2049 DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27702-2049 (919) 683-5514 GENERAL RULES PERTAINING TO PATENT INFRINGEMENT Patent infringement

More information

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1901 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 109

Case5:11-cv LHK Document1901 Filed08/21/12 Page1 of 109 Case:-cv-0-LHK Document0 Filed0// Page of 0 0 APPLE, INC., a California corporation, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS

More information

Chapter 13 Enforcement and Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Chapter 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 information

In Re Klein F.3D 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

In Re Klein F.3D 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law Volume 22 Issue 1 Fall 2011 Article 8 In Re Klein - 647 F.3D 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Allyson M. Martin Follow this and additional works at: http://via.library.depaul.edu/jatip

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, GSI TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant. Case No. -cv-00-jst ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY Re: ECF

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TMI PRODUCTS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant v. ROSEN ENTERTAINMENT SYSTEMS, L.P., Defendant-Appellee 2014-1553

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CABINET VISION and LARRY CORNWELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, CABNETWARE,

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CABINET VISION and LARRY CORNWELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, CABNETWARE, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 96-1420 CABINET VISION and LARRY CORNWELL, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CABNETWARE, Defendant-Appellee. John Allcock, Gray, Cary, Ware & Freidenrich,

More information

Fish & Richardson Declaratory Judgment Post-Medimmune Presentation

Fish & Richardson Declaratory Judgment Post-Medimmune Presentation Fish & Richardson Declaratory Judgment Post-Medimmune Presentation Where are we now? Jan. 9, 2007 Supreme Court decides MedImmune v. Genentech March 26, 2007 Federal Circuit decides SanDisk v. STMicroelectronics

More information

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly.

T he landscape for patent disputes is changing rapidly. BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal Reproduced with permission from BNA s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 828, 09/14/2012. Copyright 2012 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.

More information

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years +

Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + Do-Overs: Overviewing the Various Mechanisms for Reevaluating an Issued Patent and How They Have Changed Over the Last Five Years + By: Brian M. Buroker, Esq. * and Ozzie A. Farres, Esq. ** Hunton & Williams

More information

When is a ruling truly final?

When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? When is a ruling truly final? Ryan B. McCrum at Jones Day considers the Fresenius v Baxter ruling and its potential impact on patent litigation in the US. In a case that could

More information

When Is An Invention. Nevertheless Nonobvious?

When Is An Invention. Nevertheless Nonobvious? When Is An Invention That Was Obvious To Try Nevertheless Nonobvious? This article was originally published in Volume 23, Number 3 (March 2014) of The Federal Circuit Bar Journal by the Federal Circuit

More information

Life Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune. Roadmap for Presentation

Life Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune. Roadmap for Presentation Life Sciences Industry Perspective on Declaratory Judgment Actions and Licensing Post-MedImmune MedImmune: R. Brian McCaslin, Esq. Christopher Verni, Esq. March 9, 2009 clients but may be representative

More information

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC

TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC TECHNOLOGY & BUSINESS LAW ADVISORS, LLC www.tblawadvisors.com Fall 2011 Business Implications of the 2011 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act On September 16, 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)

More information

The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH

The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH The Halo Effect on Patent Infringement Risk: Should You Revisit Your Corporate Strategy for Mitigating Risk? March 23, 2017 Cleveland, OH Steven M. Auvil, Partner Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP Steve Auvil

More information

Case 1:15-cv ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: : : Plaintiff, : : : : : INTRODUCTION

Case 1:15-cv ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: : : Plaintiff, : : : : : INTRODUCTION Case 115-cv-02799-ILG-SMG Document 204 Filed 12/05/18 Page 1 of 13 PageID # 5503 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------

More information

LAWSON & PERSSON, P.C.

LAWSON & 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 information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-1554 ASYST TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, EMTRAK, INC., JENOPTIK AG, JENOPTIK INFAB, INC., and MEISSNER + WURST GmbH, Defendants-Appellees.

More information

The Supreme Court is Set to Decide the Scope of Business Method Patent Protection

The Supreme Court is Set to Decide the Scope of Business Method Patent Protection Winter 2010 Federal Circuit Confirms Cislo & Thomas Arguments that Egyptian Goddess Applies to Design Patent Validity Adopting the position that Cislo & Thomas argued in briefs before the Federal Circuit,

More information

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 1:15-cv MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE Case 1:15-cv-01059-MAK Document 44 Filed 10/10/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 366 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : No. 15-1059

More information

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by

New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by New Post Grant Proceedings: Basics by Tom Irving Copyright Finnegan 2013 May 14, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational and entertainment purposes

More information

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING 1/17/2014

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING 1/17/2014 P&S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL.6, ISSUE 2 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING 1/17/2014 Proveris Scientific Corporation v. Innovasystems, Inc., No. 2013-1166 (1/13/2014) (precedential) (3-0) Patent

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit SPEEDTRACK, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ENDECA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND WALMART.COM USA, LLC, Defendants-Cross-Appellants.

More information

$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA

$2 to $8 million AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS 7/30/2013 MANAGING RISK UNDER THE AIA AMERICA INVENTS ACT MANAGING IP RISK IN THE NEW ERA OF POST GRANT PROCEEDINGS John B. Scherling Antony M. Novom Sughrue Mion, PLLC July 30, 2013 1 $2 to $8 million 2 1 $1.8 billion $1.5 billion $1.2 billion

More information

John Fargo, Director Intellectual Property Staff, Civil Division Department of Justice.

John 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 information

The Ongoing Dispute Over the REDSKINS Name

The Ongoing Dispute Over the REDSKINS Name The Ongoing Dispute Over the REDSKINS Name Roberta L. Horton and Michael E. Kientzle July 2015 A federal district court ruling issued Wednesday, July 8, ordered cancellation of the REDSKINS federal trademark

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CANCER RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY LIMITED AND SCHERING CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BARR LABORATORIES, INC. AND BARR PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit BASELOAD ENERGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BRYAN W. ROBERTS, Defendant-Appellee. 2010-1053 Appeal from the United States District Court for the

More information

WIPO ASIAN REGIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON THE IMPORTANCE OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM FOR HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES

WIPO 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 information

No LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., In The Supreme Court of the United States

No LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-786 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- LIMELIGHT NETWORKS, INC., Petitioner, v. AKAMAI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., --------------------------

More information

The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:

The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness. The Groups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws: Question Q217 National Group: United States Title: The patentability criteria for inventive step I nonobviousness Contributors: Marc V. Richards Chair Alan Kasper Drew Meunier Joshua Goldberg Dan Altman

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Case: 16-1562 Document: 42-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/21/2017 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit TVIIM, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MCAFEE, INC., Defendant-Appellee 2016-1562 Appeal from the

More information

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect June 15, 2016 Litigation Webinar Series Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect Adam J. Kessel Principal, Boston Lawrence K. Kolodney Principal, Boston Jolynn M. Lussier

More information

Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes

Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Drafting Trademark Settlement Agreements to Resolve IP Disputes Negotiating Exhaustion of Infringing Materials, Restrictions on Future Trademark

More information

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015

FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 P+S FEDERAL CIRCUIT SUMMARIES VOL. 7, ISSUE 24 FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECISIONS FOR WEEK ENDING June 19, 2015 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, (June 16, 2015) (en banc) (precedential) (11-1) Patent No. 6,155,840

More information

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect

Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect June 15, 2016 Litigation Webinar Series Patent Litigation for the Non-Specialist: How it Works and What to Expect Adam J. Kessel Principal, Boston Lawrence K. Kolodney Principal, Boston Jolynn M. Lussier

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case: 16-2641 Document: 45-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/13/2017 (1 of 11) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ACCOMPANIED BY OPINION OPINION FILED AND JUDGMENT ENTERED:

More information

By Charles F. Schill, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Jamie B. Beaber, Steptoe & Johnson LLP

By Charles F. Schill, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Jamie B. Beaber, Steptoe & Johnson LLP ENSURIING SUCCESSFUL CLAIIM CONSTRUCTIION AND SUMMARY DETERMIINATIION: HOW TO OBTAIIN THE RESULTS YOU WANT By Charles F. Schill, Steptoe & Johnson LLP Jamie B. Beaber, Steptoe & Johnson LLP - 1 - ENSSURIING

More information

THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB

THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB THIS OPINION IS A PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: June 30, 2010 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Anosh Toufigh v. Persona Parfum, Inc. Cancellation No. 92048305

More information

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion?

KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion? Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 6 Issue 2 Spring Article 4 Spring 2008 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.: Patentability Clarity or Confusion? Recommended Citation,

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MARK R. HOOP and LISA J. HOOP, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit MARK R. HOOP and LISA J. HOOP, Plaintiffs-Appellants, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1288 MARK R. HOOP and LISA J. HOOP, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JEFFREY W. HOOP, STEPHEN E. HOOP, and HOOPSTERS ACCESSORIES, INC., Defendants-Appellees.

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC06-1269 PER CURIAM. IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR SUBCHAPTERS 6-25 AND 6-26. [July 6, 2006] The Florida Bar petitions this Court to consider proposed

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit http://finweb1/library/cafc/.htm Page 1 of 10 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit RICHARD RUIZ and FOUNDATION ANCHORING SYSTEMS, INC., v. A.B. CHANCE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Defendant-Appellant.

More information

White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012

White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012 White Paper Report United States Patent Invalidity Study 2012 1. Introduction The U.S. patent laws are predicated on the constitutional goal to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing

More information

Butler Mailed: November 29, Opposition No Cancellation No

Butler Mailed: November 29, Opposition No Cancellation No THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451 Butler Mailed: November 29, 2005

More information

Paper Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Paper Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Trials@uspto.gov Paper 8 571-272-7822 Entered: June 3, 2016 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioner, v. GLOBAL TEL*LINK

More information

Putting the Law (Back) in Patent Law

Putting the Law (Back) in Patent Law Putting the Law (Back) in Patent Law Some Thoughts on the Supreme Court s MedImmune Decision 21 March 2007 Joe Miller - Lewis & Clark Law School 1 Back in the Patent Game October 2005 Term Heard three

More information

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.)

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Patent and Trademark Office (P.T.O.) IN RE CHAMBERS ET AL. REEXAMINATION PROCEEDINGS Control No. 90/001,773; 90/001,848; 90/001,858; 90/002,091 June 26, 1991 *1 Filed:

More information

Technology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy

Technology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy Technology Contracts and Agreements: A Practice Guide to Effective Negotiation, Drafting and Strategy Keith Witek Director of Strategy & Corp Development AMD Ed Cavazos Principal Fish & Richardson P.C.

More information

IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IDEAS ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW APRIL/MAY 2016 Defendant damaged: A patent infringement case Thanks for the memory Clarifying the patent description requirement Whom are you confusing? Clear labeling

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. DuBois, J. August 16, 2017 M E M O R A N D U M

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. DuBois, J. August 16, 2017 M E M O R A N D U M IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LP, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-859 DuBois,

More information

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, Case No NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 07a0585n.06 Filed: August 14, 2007 Case No. 03-5681 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT RONNIE LEE BOWLING, Petitioner-Appellant, v.

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit IN RE BARNES & NOBLE, INC., Petitioner. Miscellaneous Docket No. 162 On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 7 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 02-1361 DONALD W. NUTTING, an individual doing business as Foothills Distributing Co., v. RAM SOUTHWEST, INC., doing business as Violets,

More information

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary

America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary PRESENTATION TITLE America Invents Act (AIA) The Patent Reform Law of 2011 Initial Summary Christopher M. Durkee James L. Ewing, IV September 22, 2011 1 Major Aspects of Act Adoption of a first-to-file

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cancellation No. 19,683) BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RESEARCH, INC.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Cancellation No. 19,683) BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RESEARCH, INC. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1036 (Cancellation No. 19,683) BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE RESEARCH, INC., Appellant, AUTOMOBILE CLUB DE L'OUEST DE LA FRANCE, v. Appellee. Peter G.

More information

Statutory Invention Registration: Defensive Patentability

Statutory Invention Registration: Defensive Patentability Golden Gate University Law Review Volume 16 Issue 2 Article 1 January 1986 Statutory Invention Registration: Defensive Patentability Wendell Ray Guffey Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev

More information

Trademark Update

Trademark Update Trademark Update - 2015 Orange County Bar Association Intellectual Property Committee May 14, 2015 Presented by: Kevin W. Wimberly, Beusse Wolter Sanks & Maire, P.A. kwimberly@iplawfl.com Outline Gerber

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Case: 14-1294 Document: 205 Page: 1 Filed: 04/18/2016 NO. 2014-1294 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PURDUE PHARMA L.P., THE P.F. LABORATORIES, INC., PURDUE PHARMACEUTICALS

More information

The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases

The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com The Latest On Fee-Shifting In Patent Cases Law360,

More information

Case 1:09-cv REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 06/15/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:09-cv REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 06/15/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:09-cv-00057-REB-CBS Document 35 Filed 06/15/09 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 Civil Action No. 09-cv-00057-REB-CBS SHOP*TV, INC., a Colorado corporation, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

More information

A Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v.

A Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v. Order Code RL34156 A Nonrepudiating Patent Licensee s Right To Seek Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity or Noninfringement of the Licensed Patent: MedImmune v. Genentech August 30, 2007 Brian T. Yeh Legislative

More information

Barbara J. Grahn Partner

Barbara J. Grahn Partner Barbara J. Grahn Partner Minneapolis, MN Tel: 612.607.7325 Fax: 612.607.7100 bgrahn@foxrothschild.com Barb assists companies in securing and enforcing their trademark rights both in the United States and

More information

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice

USPTO Post Grant Trial Practice Bill Meunier, Member Michael Newman, Member Peter Cuomo, Of Counsel July 18, 2016 Basics: Nomenclature "IPRs" = Inter partes review proceedings "PGRs" = Post-grant review proceedings "CBMs" = Post-grant

More information

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Page 1 of 6 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 00-1578 FINA TECHNOLOGY, INC. and FINA OIL AND CHEMICAL COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, JOHN A. EWEN, Defendant-Appellant, ABBAS RAZAVI,

More information

Comparing And Contrasting Standing In The Bpai And The Ttab 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. David J. Kera 3

Comparing And Contrasting Standing In The Bpai And The Ttab 1. Charles L. Gholz 2. and. David J. Kera 3 Comparing And Contrasting Standing In The Bpai And The Ttab 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and David J. Kera 3 Introduction The members of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (hereinafter referred to

More information

IS THE DEFINITION OF SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN 37 CFR VALID? 1

IS THE DEFINITION OF SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN 37 CFR VALID? 1 IS THE DEFINITION OF SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME IN 37 CFR 42.401 VALID? 1 By Charles L. Gholz 2 and Joshua D. Sarnoff 3 INTRODUCTION Section 135(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public Law

More information

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP

2012 Winston & Strawn LLP 2012 Winston & Strawn LLP How the America Invents Act s Post-Issuance Proceedings Influence Litigation Strategy Brought to you by Winston & Strawn s Intellectual Property practice group 2012 Winston &

More information

PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B. Dockets.Justia.com

PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B. Dockets.Justia.com PA Advisors, LLC v. Google Inc. et al Doc. 479 Att. 2 EXHIBIT B Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PA ADVISORS, L.L.C., Plaintiff, Civil Action

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ARMACELL LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) 1:13cv896 ) AEROFLEX USA, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER BEATY,

More information

PATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No.

PATENT LAW. SAS Institute, Inc. v. Joseph Matal, Interim Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and ComplementSoft, LLC Docket No. PATENT LAW Is the Federal Circuit s Adoption of a Partial-Final-Written-Decision Regime Consistent with the Statutory Text and Intent of the U.S.C. Sections 314 and 318? CASE AT A GLANCE The Court will

More information