FindLaw Opinion Summaries - IP

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.

Premium Mortgage Corp. v. Equifax, Inc.

Mon, 5 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Banking Law, Consumer Protection Law, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Property Law & Real Estate, Trade Secrets) In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets against credit reporting agencies engaged in the practice of permitting lenders competing with plaintiff to purchase pre-screened consumer reports containing "trigger leads" compiled by plaintiff, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act preempted state law claims based on pre-screened reports; and 2) plaintiff failed to identify the legal basis for defendants' alleged duty and obligation to maintain the confidentiality of trigger leads.

Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr., Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys. Inc.

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving claim methods for quantifying HIV in human blood samples, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part where: 1) district court correctly found that Roche's counterclaim for a judgment on its ownership claim was subject to California statutes of limitation; and 2) district court's judgment of invalidity is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss Stanford's action as the district court incorrectly declined to consider Roche's affirmative defense based on ownership and as a matter of law Roche possesses an ownership interest in the patents-in-suit that deprives Stanford of standing.

Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of St. Louis

Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Banking Law, Civil Procedure, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement case involving a method for detecting fraudulent bank checks, district court's dismissal of certain counts of plaintiff's suit is affirmed as the allegedly infringing activity was for the United States and with its authorization and consent and thus could only be pursued in the Court of Federal Claims under 28 U.S.C. section 1498(a).

Janssen Pharm. N.V. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a method for treating Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, district court's conclusion that the claims of the patent at issue were invalid is affirmed as the patent's description of using galantamine to treat the disease does not satisfy the enablement requirement because the patent application did not establish utility.