Case Summaries
Intellectual Property
[09/08] In re Specht
[09/07] Geoddel v. Sugano
In two related patent interference priority contests, related to human fibroblasts interferon used in combating pathogens and tumors, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' decision that appellee is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of its initial Japanese application in awarding appellee priority as to the counts of both interferences is reversed and remanded as the Board's decision that the Japanese Application constitutes constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter of these interferences is not in accordance with law, for the Japanese Application does not meet the criteria of section 112, first paragraph, as to this subject matter.
[09/07] Green Edge Enter., LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc., LLC
In a suit for infringement of a patent related to a synthetic mulch that is colored with a water based acrylic colorant to imitate natural mulch, district court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court erred by invalidating a patent; 2) the district court erred by dismissing defendant's trademark claims; 3) the district court abused its discretion by precluding all damages evidence for the Lanham Act counterclaims; and 4) the district court's holding with respect to counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the mark is affirmed as there was no case or controversy.
[09/03] Seller Agency Council, Inc. v. Kennedy Ctr. for Real Estate Educ., Inc.
An order denying counter-claimants damages, attorneys' fees, and costs in an action for trademark infringement against plaintiffs is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) the doctrine of unclean hands does not bar the application of the equitable defense of acquiescence in this instance; 2) plaintiff had permission to use the marks at issue before July 12, 2006; and 3) a remand was proper so that the district court may consider the applicability of plaintiffs' defense of acquiescence in a manner consistent with the circuit court's opinion.
[09/03] F.B.T. Prods., LLC v. Aftermath Records
In a dispute concerning the percentage of royalties due to plaintiffs under their contracts with defendant in connection with the recordings of the rapper Eminem, judgment in favor of defendant is reversed and an attorney's fees award in its favor is vacated where: 1) a "Masters Licensed" provision unambiguously applies to permanent downloads and mastertones; and 2) thus, the district court should have granted summary judgment to plaintiffs.
[09/02] Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Inc.
In a suit for common law trade dress of a French-press coffee maker known as the Chambord, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant is affirmed as, Article 4 of the parties' contract is clear and precise as it allows defendant to sell the coffee maker design anywhere except France - provided that it does not use the Chambord or Melior names and does not use plaintiff's supply channels for four years.
[09/02] Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd, P'Ship
In plaintiff's copyright infringement suit against the Baltimore Ravens football organization and National Football League entities for their unauthorized copying of a Ravens team logo, drawn by plaintiff, that was used for three seasons as the team's official symbol, district court's determination that defendants' depictions of the logo in season highlight films and in the Ravens corporate lobby were fair use, in entering judgment against the plaintiff is reversed in part, affirmed in part and remanded where: 1) because defendants cannot establish a fair use defense for the depictions of the logo in the highlight films, where the logo use is nontransformative and commercial, district court's judgment on this matter is reversed; 2) defendants' claim that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against these acts of infringement is precluded is rejected and on remand, district court is directed to consider whether an injunction is appropriate; and 3) district court's finding of fair use as to the depictions of the logo in the Ravens corporate lobby, where team history is portrayed, free of charge, is affirmed.
[09/01] Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit related to a drug for postmenopausal osteoporosis, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) the record amply supports the district court's conclusion that the ordinary artisan would not have considered it obvious to use raloxifene to treat postmenopausal osteoporosis; 2) because the district court's conclusion that the Bone Loss Patents would not have been obvious, its conclusion as to the Low Dose Patent is affirmed as well; 3) district court did not err in concluding that the Bone Loss Patents and the Low Dose Patents were not invalid for lack of enablement; 4) the district court did not clearly err in invalidating the asserted claims of the Particle Size Patents for lack of written description.
[09/01] Funai Elec. Co., Ltd. v. Daewoo Elec. Corp.
In a patent infringement suit pertaining to various electrical and mechanical components of video cassette players and recorders (VCRs), judgment of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment of infringement of three patents and the damages for the infringement are affirmed; and 2) district court's determination of no successor liability in applying the South Korean law is reversed and remanded.
[08/31] Stauffer v. Brooks Bros. Inc.
In plaintiff's qui tam action against Brooks Brothers under 35 U.S.C. section 292, claiming that defendants falsely marked its bow ties, district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claim for lack of standing and denial of government's motion to intervene is reversed where: 1) plaintiff had standing as he has sufficient alleged (i) an injury in fact to the United States that (ii) is caused by Brooks Brothers' alleged conduct, attaching the markings to its bow ties, and (iii) is likely to be redressed, with a statutory fine, by a favorable decision; and 2) the district court made an error of law in denying the government's motion to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2).
[08/30] Princo Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's patent infringement suit related to two types of digital storage devices, recordable discs (CD-Rs) and rewritable compact discs (CD-RWs), claiming that defendant was violating section 337(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing CD-Rs and CD-RWs that infringed its patents, the International Trade Commission's decision that the doctrine of patent misuse does not bar intervenor-U.S. Philips Corporation from enforcing its patent rights against defendant is affirmed as, even if Phillips and Sony engaged in an agreement not to license the patent at issue for non-Orange-Book purposes, that hypothesized agreement had no bearing on the physical or temporal scope of the patents in suit, nor did it have anti-competitive effects in the relevant market. Therefore, the asserted agreement between Phillips and Sony did not constitute misuse and cannot justify rendering all of Phillips' Orange Book patents unenforceable.
[08/30] Ajaxo Inc. v. E*Trade Fin. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against E*Trade Financial Corporation (E*Trade) for misappropriation of trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secret Act, trial court's denial of plaintiff's request for award of reasonable royalties is reversed and remanded where: 1) given the jury's finding that E*Trade did not profit from its misappropriation of trade secrets, unjust enrichment is not "provable" within the meaning of section 3426.3; 2) since E*Trade had consistently and successfully taken the position that plaintiff's actual losses are not provable, E*Trade is estopped from arguing otherwise now; and 3) because neither actual loss nor unjust enrichment is provable, the trial court had discretion pursuant to section 3426.3(b) to order payment of a reasonable royalty.
[08/27] Gen. Protecht Group, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
The International Trade Commission's determination that the importation into the United States of certain ground fault circuit interrupters (GFCI) violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, in issuing limited exclusion orders against the importation of GFCI products from the petitioners and judgment finding that these products infringe the '340 patent is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) GPG's 2003 and 2006 FCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent, because they do not have a "detection circuit" as claimed in the patent; 2) Trimone's 2006 GFCIs and ELE's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '340 patent because the "load terminals" of the patent do not include receptacle outlets; 3) GPG's 2006 GFCIs do not infringe the '398 patent because GPG performs the function of the "latching means" in a substantially different way than the structure disclosed in the patent; and 4) the Commission's determination is affirmed in all other respects.
[08/27] Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n.
In plaintiff's suit against various defendants claiming infringement of its patents related to circuit interrupters for use with household electrical appliances, the International Trade Commission's judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed as, because the accused products at issue here do not meet the "mounting means" limitation as properly construed, and thus do not meet every limitation of the asserted claims, there can be no infringement. Accordingly, Commission's finding of no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 is affirmed.
[08/20] Frye v. YMCA Camp Kitaki
In a copyright infringement action regarding a play written by plaintiff and allegedly copied by defendant, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the district court's finding that the two plays were not substantially similar was not clearly erroneous.
Back to Main
