Bryan Beel


Portland, Oregon 97209, United States

In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.

In re ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.

Decision: Accordingly, taking into consideration the entire record herein, all three alternative refusals to register Applicant’s mark CLOUDTV are affirmed as to all four classes of goods and services. We find that this term is…more
|
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Supreme Court Opinion in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The Supreme Court held that "the 'first sale' doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad." Here, Kirtsaeng bought copies of a book made abroad under license from John Wiley & Sons, imported the books…more
| Intellectual Property
Calhoun v U.S.

Statement of Justice Sotomayor

I write to dispel any doubt whether the Court’s denial of certiorari should be understood to signal our tolerance of a federal prosecutor’s racially charged remark. It should not…more
| Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
WASAVP v State of Washington

Washington Supreme Court upholds constitutionality of I-1183

This court was asked to determine whether Initiative 1183 (I-1183) violates the single-subject and subject-in-title rules found in article II, section 19 of the Washington State Constitution. I-1183 removes the State from the…more
| Constitutional Law
Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. US Dept of Health and Human Services

First Circuit Opinion in Massachusetts v US DHHS

The First Circuit affirmed the following lower court judgment: "The Department of Justice defended DOMA in the district court but, on July 8, 2010, that court found section 3 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection…more
| Civil Rights, Constitutional Law
Kappos v Hyatt

Kappos v Hyatt

There are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a §145 proceeding beyond those already presentin the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If new evidence is…more
| Intellectual Property
Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories

Supreme Court Opinion in Mayo v Prometheus

Because the laws of nature recited by Prometheus’ patent claims—the relationships between concentrations of certain metabolites in the blood and the likelihood that a thiopurine drug dosage will prove ineffective or cause…more
| Intellectual Property
Benedict v Super Bakery

Federal Circuit Decision Affirming Trademark Cancellation

Federal Circuit affirmed cancellation of the plaintiff's trademark registration as a sanction for repeated failure to provide requested discovery and comply with TTAB procedures. "Default judgment may be warranted in cases of…more
| Intellectual Property
FLFMC v Wham-O

Fed Circuit dismisses FLFMC's appeal of false marking standing issue

The Federal Circuit's Order dismissing FLFMC's appeal of the lower court's dismissal of FLFMC's false marking case against Wham-O. The lower court based its decision on FLFMC's alleged lack of standing, which was recently…more
| Intellectual Property
Mondis Technology Ltd. v. Chimei Innolux Corp.

Mondis v Chimei Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court is Mondis Technology, Ltd.?s (“Mondis”) motion for supplemental damages for 2011 sales and for an ongoing royalty rate. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Court GRANTS-in-part and DENIES-in-part Mondis's motion. The Court awards…more
| Civil Remedies, Intellectual Property
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec

Federal Circuit's Classen Ruling on Section 101 Patent Eligibility

The Federal Circuit reconsidered its decision in Classen Immunotherapies v. Biogen Idec after its first decision was vacated by the Supreme Court in view of Bilski. On remand, the Federal Circuit (Rader + Newman) found 2 of 3…more
| Intellectual Property
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership: Supreme Court Decision

In asserting patent invalidity as a defense to an infringement action, an alleged infringer must contend with §282 of the Patent Act of 1952 (Act), under which “[a] patent shall be presumed valid” and “[t]he burden of…more
| Intellectual Property

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.- Inducing Infringement: Supreme Court Clarifies Knowledge Standard

On May 31, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the level of knowledge required to establish inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), which provides that “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall…more
| Intellectual Property
GLOBAL-TECH APPLIANCES, INC., ET AL. v. SEB S. A.

Global-Tech v. SEB: Supreme Court on induced patent infringement

The Supreme Court decided Global-Tech v. SEB to review the law of induced patent infringement. The Court's holdings: 1) Induced infringement under §271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent…more
| Intellectual Property
Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.

Federal Circuit Decision in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson and Co.

The Federal Circuit took Therasense en banc to clarify the state of the law on inequitable conduct in patent procurement. The Federal Circuit's decision makes it much harder to prevail on an inequitable conduct defense. Some…more
| Intellectual Property
Showing 1-15 of 27 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2
Areas of Practice
  • Intellectual Property
This profile may constitute attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Any correspondence with this profile holder does not constitute a client/attorney relationship. Neither the content on this profile nor transmissions between you and the profile holder through this profile are intended to provide legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client relationship.