Latest Publications

Share:

What’s the Flap Over the Unicorn Frappe?

On May 3, 2017, Montauk Juice Factory Inc. sued Starbucks Corporation in the Eastern District of New York, [1:17-cv-02678] alleging that Starbuck’s “UNICORN FRAPPUCCINO” infringed its “distinctive and famous” UNICORN LATTE. ...more

Semicolons Strongly Indicate Each Step is Separate and Distinct; Confuse Most Non-Patent Lawyers

In In re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1173] (May 5, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decision that §317(b) did not bar the reexamination and that the reexamined claims were invalid....more

Estoppel Under 317(b) Always Applies on a Claim by Claim Basis, Just Like the Statute Says

In In Re Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, [2016-1092, 2016-1172] (May 5, 2017) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s affirmance of a reexamination determination that all of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,324,833 was invalid....more

Studios Fire Back: Fictional Publication Depicted in a Movie is Privileged Expressive Use

Following up a previous post about the February 2017 lawsuit filed by the Sporting Times against Orion Pictures for depicting a fictional magazine of the same title in a movie about the life of Bill “Spaceman” Lee, MGM has...more

Fair Use is Not Always Fair

Photographer TC Reiner sued Watkins Institute and its student Ryon Nishimori for copyright infringement when Nishimori incorporated one of Reiner’s copyrighted photographs into a mock advertisement for a classroom assignment...more

A Claim to an Abstract Idea does not Automatically Become Eligible Merely by Adding a Mathematical Formula

In Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., [2016-1499](April 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of judgment on the pleadings that U.S. Patent No. 8,005,303 on a method and apparatus for...more

Lack of Proof That Infringement was “But For” Cause of Lost Sales or Price Erosion Defeats Permanent Injunction

In Nichia Corp. v. Everlight Americas, Inc., [2016-1585, 2016-1618] (April 28, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,530,250, 7,432,589, and 7,462,870, directed to LED...more

Visual Artists Rights Act Review

In 1990 Congress added the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) to the Copyright Law as new Section 106A. Section 106A provides: 106A Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity - (a) Rights of Attribution...more

Just Because You Own a Copy Doesn’t Mean You Own the Copyright

The Estate of Vivian Maier has sued Jeffrey Goldstein and his company Vivian Maier Prints, Inc. for copyright infringement. Vivian Maier was an American street photographer who worked for about forty years as a nanny in...more

Two Heads May Be Better Than One, But Six Heads Won’t Help You Market Your Bar

Monte Thrasher brought a VARA complaint against Marci Siegel and Co-Op 28 for painting over his “Six Heads” mural in the Los Feliz neighborhood of Los Angeles...more

Transformative Use or Infringement

In Cariou v. Prince, 714 F3d 694 [106 USPQ2d 1497] (2d Cir. 2013), the Second Circuit said that a use of a copyrighted work need not comment on the original artist or work, or on popular culture, in order to constitute...more

Issue Preclusion: Patent Owner Does Not Get a Do Over to Assert the Claims Against Similar Products

In Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co., [2016-1982] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,428,933. In prior litigation in which Phil-Insul asserted the...more

IPR Estoppel: Ripe for Gamesmanship?

In Douglas Dynamics LLC, v. Meyer Products LLC, [14-cv-886-jdp] (D. Wisc. Document # 68 April 18. 2017), the district court considered the scope of estoppel after an Inter Partes Review (IPR). The Court identified three...more

Little Words That Can Make a Big Difference: i.e. Versus e.g.

The difference between “i.e.” (id est, “that is”) and “e.g.” (exempli gratia, “for example”) comes up in patent cases from time to time. While the difference is not always clear to some practitioners, it is clear to the...more

Failure of Licensee to Mark May Upend $15.7 Million Damage Award

In Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics CO., LTD., [2016-1729] (April 17, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s claim construction and denial of Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL),...more

“Begun, the Clone War Has”

Hot on the “heels” of the Supreme Court’s decision in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., (2:17-cv-02523) PUMA SE has sued Forever 21 in the Central District of California for, among other things, copyright...more

An Omitted Inventor Can’t Correct Inventorship of a Patent Owned by a Government Agency

In a non-precedential opinion in Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washington, [2016-2320] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal, on grounds of sovereign immunity, of Ali’s lawsuit to be added as a...more

Just Because the Board Didn’t Say It, Doesn’t Mean that the Board Didn’t Think It

In Novartis AG v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited, [2016-1352] (April 12, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s determination that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,324,283, and Novartis’ proposed substitute...more

Don’t Exalt Slogans over Real Meaning; Find the Claim Construction that Naturally Aligns with the Specification and Prosecution...

In The Medicines Company v. Mylan, Inc., [2015-1113, 2015-1151, 2015-1181] (April 6, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,598,343, and reversed a bench trial...more

Dependent Claims Were Anticipated While Independent Claims Were Not

In Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc. v IPS Group, Inc., [IPR2016-00067] (March 27, 2017) the PTAB found that claims 8 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,854,310 were anticipated under 102(e), while claims 1–5, 7, and 9 — including...more

Soft Kitty, Warm Kitty, Little Furry Plaintiff …

In Chase v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 1:15-cv-10063-NRB (March 27, 2017), Judge Buchwald of the Southern District of New York, granted Warner Bros. motion to dismiss a copyright infringement suit brought by the...more

Prior Art that Must be Distorted from its Obvious Design Does Not Anticipate

In In re Chudik, [2016-1817] (March 27, 2017), the Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s determination that claims 1, 15, 18, and 33–40 of U.S. Patent Application 11/525,631 on an implant for shoulder replacement surgery were...more

Variations on a Theme

A few attempts have been made to protect a “theme” rather than a specific mark. U.S. Reg. No. 4834592 protects “a three dimensional trade dress depicting the appearance and design of the interior of a restaurant evoking a...more

Inventorship Claims That Took $8 Million to Defeat Were Not “Exceptional”

In University of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften E.V., [2016-1336] (March 23, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the case was not exceptional within the...more

Patent Owner Cannot Create New Claim Construction Issues After the Jury Verdict

In TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., [2016-1562] (March 21, 2017), the Federal Circuit affirmed jury verdicts that U.S. Patent No. 6,889,168 was invalid and not infringed because substantial evidence supported the jury’s findings,...more

563 Results
/
View per page
Page: of 23

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!