FindLaw Opinion Summaries - IP

Iovate Health Sci., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc.

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Commercial Law, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving nutritional supplements containing a ketoacid and an amino acid to enhance muscle performance or recovery from fatigue, summary judgment holding certain of plaintiff's patent claims invalid as anticipated is affirmed as the Professional Protein advertisement constitutes an anticipatory printed publication under section 102(b) that invalidates the asserted claims of the patent as: 1) the ad discloses each and every claim limitation as a matter of law; and 2) a person of skill in the art, combining his or her knowledge of the art with the advertisement's suggestions, would have considered the advertisements to be enabled.

Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc.

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Intellectual Property, International Law, International Trade, Manufacturing) In an action by a Taiwanese corporation and its California subsidiary seeking damages for misappropriation of intellectual property involving a Design Services Agreement of a silicon-germanium power amplifier for use in wireless networking devices, trial court's order quashing service of summons is reversed where: 1) a refusal by California courts to exercise jurisdiction cannot be justified by the mere fact that a claim arising from California contacts is prosecuted by a nonresident; and 2) subjecting the defendant to local jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice as, here the two Taiwanese defendants engaged in conduct in California, and caused effects in California, that made it readily foreseeable that they would be haled into court here in the event of a dispute of the present type.

Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc.

Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In an action seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff's acquisition of the vericheck.com domain name did not constitute trademark infringement or cybersquatting, judgment against plaintiff is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual decision that the "VeriCheck" mark was a distinctive, legally protectable mark under the ACPA and federal trademark law was based in part on reasoning contrary to federal trademark law and based in part on reasoning that could support the district court's conclusion.

Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Commercial Law, Contracts, Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case.

In re 1800Mattress.com IP., LLC

Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Consumer Products, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) Final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) refusing registration of the mark "Mattress.com" is affirmed as the Board's decision finding the mark generic in relation to the recited services was supported by substantial evidence.

Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc.

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In trademark cancellation proceedings, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) decision canceling registration of appellant-Cold War Museum's service mark THE COLD WAR MUSEUM, finding that it had not proven acquired distinctiveness of the mark, is reversed where: 1) the Board erred in deciding that it could not consider evidence of acquired distinctiveness because appellant did not resubmit the evidence in the cancellation, as the unambiguous language of 37 C.F.R. section 2.122(b) provides that the entire file of the registration at issue is automatically part of the record, without any action necessary by the parties; and 2) the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that appellee had established a prima facie case that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness as appellee failed to present any evidence whatsoever relating to the distinctiveness of the mark and failed even to argue that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness in its petition for cancellation.

Schrock v. Learning Curve Int'l, Inc.

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Copyright, Intellectual Property) In plaintiff's copyright infringement action against defendant who had hired him to take photos of the "Thomas & Friends" toy train characters for use in promotions, district court's dismissal of his complaint is reversed where: 1) the photos qualify for the limited derivative-work copyright provided by section 103(b) as plaintiff's artistic and technical choices combine to create a two-dimensional image that is subtly but nonetheless sufficiently his own; and 2) district court erred in concluding that plaintiff needed defendant's permission to copyright the photos, as there is nothing in the Copyright Act requiring the author of a derivative work to obtain permission to copyright his work from the owner of the copyright in the underlying work.

Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In plaintiff's case against the defendant for misappropriation of its trade secrets of an anti-viral protein based therapeutic used as a daily nasal spray for the prevention and treatment of the common cold, plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to accept plaintiff's trade secret identification statement as sufficient and to allow it to commence discovery is denied where: 1) the trial court applied the correct legal standard to plaintiff's trade secret identification statement; and 2) there was a basis in the record to support the court's conclusion that the statement was not reasonably particular under the circumstances presented.

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Wed, 4 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law) In plaintiff's copyright-infringement case against defendant for infringement of its copyright on George Clinton's song, based on the use of the phrase "Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea", district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's rights in the song and an award of statutory damages of $88,980 are affirmed where: 1) the jury instructions were not erroneous as a matter of law; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the instructions requested by the defendant.

Imation Corp. v. Koninklijke Philips Elec. N.V.

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Commercial Law, Contracts, Intellectual Property, Patent) In plaintiff's case against defendants arising from a patent license agreement dispute, judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in finding that plaintiff's subsidiaries are not licensed under the parties' patent licensing Agreement; and 2) the unambiguous Agreement makes clear that the license grant includes subsidiaries of plaintiff and defendant that meet the Agreement's Subsidiary definition.

Schering-Plough Healthcare Prod., Inc.

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Administrative Law, Commercial Law, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, False Advertising, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing) In plaintiff's Lanham Act suit against defendants involving an oral laxative and over-the-counter versions of the drug manufactured by defendants, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint without prejudice is affirmed as the FDA is conducting a proceeding to determine whether defendants' drugs are misbranded now that there is an over-the-counter version of the drug.

Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Commercial Law, Consumer Products, Contracts, Intellectual Property, International Law, Trademark) In a trademark infringement case involving interpretation of a trademark licensing agreement of defendant's "VO5" trademark and Japanese trademark law, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant, and orders enjoining plaintiff from using the variant mark and terminating the licensing agreement to return all the licensed trademarks to the defendant is vacated and remanded as under Japanese trademark law, the term senyoshiyoken, which the district judge refused to give the meaning of to the jury, means exclusive-use right where the license holder not only has an exclusive right to use the licensed trademarks within the geographical scope of the licensed trademarks but can sue infringers of the trademarks in its own name.

Awuah v. Coverall N. Am, Inc.

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Civil Procedure, Class Actions, Evidence, Labor & Employment Law, Trade Secrets) In a class action lawsuit against defendants brought by their franchisees, defendants' interlocutory appeal seeking review of a discovery-related order by the district court is dismissed for want of a final judgment.

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ'g., Inc.

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law) In plaintiffs' lawsuit against defendants, alleging copyright infringement and various state law claims relating to the use of samples in rap recordings, district court's denial of defendants' motion requesting that attorney's fees be imposed as a condition of granting plaintiffs' motions to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the twenty cases at issue is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion either by failing to provide specific reasons for its decision, or by deciding not to impose attorney's fees as a condition of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).

In re: DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig.

Fri, 16 Oct 2009 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent) In an action alleging that defendant drug manufacturers conspired to maintain a monopoly in the market for desmopressin acetate tablets, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs' antitrust claim could stand on the citizen petition theory without raising questions of patent law; 2) plaintiffs had standing to raise Walker Process claims for patents that were already unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; and 3) plaintiffs sufficiently pled scienter on the part of defendants.