FindLaw Opinion Summaries - IP

Bilski v. Kappos

Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S.S.C., Commercial Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.

Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co.

Wed, 23 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the '201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury's verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.

Recording Indus. Assn. of Am. v. Library of Cong.

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Administrative Law, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law) In the Recording Industry Association of America's petition for review of the Copyright Royalty Board's decision instituting a 1.5 percent per month late fee for late royalty payments, and implementing a penny-rate royalty structure for cell phone ringtones (under which copyright owners received 24 cents for every ringtone sold using their copyrighted work), the petition is denied where: 1) the Board appropriately took market evidence into account when imposing a late fee; 2) a copyright owner's ability to terminate a section 115 license in no way barred the imposition of a late fee; and 3) even if it were true that divided interests in a copyright made it difficult to make timely payments to each copyright owner, that fact would in no way counsel against the imposition of a late fee.

Golan v. Holder

Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 10th Cir., Constitutional Law, Copyright, Intellectual Property, International Law) In an action challenging the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which granted copyright protection to various foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the U.S., summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the government's interest in securing protections abroad for American copyright holders satisfied this substantial government interest standard; 2) Congress had substantial evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that the ongoing harms to American authors were real and not merely conjectural; and 3) there was substantial evidence from which Congress could conclude that Section 514 would alleviate these harms to American copyright holders.

Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. Alpine Elec. of Am., Inc.

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit by Encyclopedia Britannica against various defendants, involving patents relating to a multimedia database search system for retrieving textual and graphical information, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in declaring the patents invalid as anticipated by foreign patent application is affirmed as section 120 requires each application in the chain of priority to refer to the prior applications, and here, the patents in suit cannot claim priority as the '955 application failed to specifically reference the earlier filed '917 application and did not claim priority to the '917 application.

Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Solutions, Inc.

Wed, 16 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Corporation & Enterprise Law, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit against defendant and its two employees, related to patents involving technology for automated duplication of compact discs, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's denial of defendants' Rule 59(a) motion is reversed and remanded as the jury's verdict of the two employees' individual liability of direct infringement, despite the lack of instructions on defendant's existence or piercing its corporate veil, was plain error that requires a new trial; 2)jury verdict of individual liability for inducement is reversed as it involved a mistake of law; 3) district court's legal error in presenting the contributory infringement issue with respect to individual liability of the two employees to the jury requires a new trial; 4) because the verdict was clearly not supported by the evidence and was based on only speculation or guesswork, district court's denial of defendants' Rule 59(a) motion is reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages; and 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants' motion for leave to amend.

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. Am. Buddha

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Copyright, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action in which the district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Second Circuit certifies the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: In copyright infringement cases, is the situs of injury for purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction under N.Y. C.P.L.R. section 302(a)(3)(ii) the location of the infringing action or the residence or location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder?

Mee Indus. v. Dow Chem. Co.

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 20:00:01 PDT

(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent, Remedies) In a malicious prosecution suit based on an underlying, allegedly meritless patent infringement action, partial judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions that Dow filed the patent infringement suit without the requisite probable cause and did not rely in good faith on the advice of counsel; 2) the evidence was not sufficient to meet the clear and convincing standard required for an award of punitive damages; and 3) the district court did not err in excluding plaintiff's loss of goodwill theory of damages.

Advanced Magnetic Closures, Inc. v. Rome Fastener Corp.

Fri, 11 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney's Fees, Civil Procedure, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Patent, Sanctions) In a patent infringement suit, related to patents for disclosing a magnetic snap fastener commonly used in women's handbags, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court was correct in holding the '773 patent unenforceable as the plaintiff and its president attempted to defraud the PTO; 2) district court did not err in finding that this case was an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. section 285 justifying an award of attorney's fees; and 3) the district court abused its discretion by sanctioning plaintiff's attorney under 28 U.S.C. section 1927 as the court failed to find that the attorney acted in bad faith.

Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co.

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., False Advertising, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Patent) In a licensed patent attorney's qui tam action under 35 U.S.C. section 292 alleging that defendant had falsely marked its products with expired patent numbers for the purpose of deceiving the public, district court's judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) summary judgment of no liability in favor of defendant was proper as false marking, combined with knowledge of the falsity, merely creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to deceive the public, and here, defendant provided credible evidence that its purpose was not to deceive the public with either the expired patent markings or the "may be covered" language, and plaintiff raised no genuine issue of material fact showing otherwise; and 2) district court's determination on the meaning of the word "offense," in holding that defendant could have committed at most three offenses is vacated as Forest Group, 590 F.3d 1295 holds that every false marked product constitutes an "offense" under section 292.

TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp.

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement suit, summary judgment for defendant of invalidity of the asserted claims of a patent relating to an implantable device used to set bone fractures is reversed where: 1) the district court improperly resolved genuine issues of material fact in favor of defendant; and 2) reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice as the district court has now been reversed twice after entering summary judgment against plaintiff, in both instances simply signing defendant's proposed statement of law and facts relevant to the decided issues, a disfavored practice in the Ninth Circuit.

Benay v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Contracts, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law) In an action alleging copyright infringement under federal law and breach of contract under California law based on defendants' alleged misappropriation of plaintiffs' screenplay, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part where, even if defendants had access to the screenplay, plaintiffs did not show sufficient similarity between the screenplay and the film (The Last Samurai) to maintain an infringement claim under federal copyright law. However, the judgment is reversed in part where novelty was not required for an implied-in-fact contract claim arising out of unauthorized use.

Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Dist. Corp.

Mon, 7 Jun 2010 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Intellectual Property, International Law, Sanctions) In plaintiff's counsel's appeal from an order by the district court sanctioning him for his five-year bad faith pursuit of a frivolous copyright infringement claim, the order is affirmed where: 1) had counsel, a self-described experienced copyright lawyer, made even a cursory investigation into the circumstances of plaintiff's 21-year old composition, he would have known plaintiff had no copyright interest in music he composed for hire; 2) counsel's repeated misrepresentations of Indian copyright law clearly evidenced his recklessness and bad faith; and 3) the district court carefully excluded inadequately documented costs, as well as taxable costs not included in defendants' bill of costs.

Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.

Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Contracts, Intellectual Property, Patent) In an infringement action concerning a patent related to a graphics system and process that mainly operates on a floating point format, judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) because the district court erroneously construed two of the three contested limitations, summary judgment on claims with those terms is vacated; 2) district court erred with respect to the effect of the Microsoft license on direct infringement; and 3) district court's judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

Thomsen v. Famous Dave's of Am., Inc.

Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:05 PDT

(U.S. 8th Cir., Contracts, Copyright, Food & Beverages, Intellectual Property) In an action alleging copyright infringement and breach of contract arising out of defendants' alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's restaurant designs, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiff unambiguously conveyed all contested copyrights to defendants by written contract.