Live Webcast – CloudCamp/Chicago Cloud Computing unConference
March 6th, 2010Tweets – Decisions Released on March 5, 2010
March 5th, 2010Trade Identity
Federal Circuit
Campbell v. Bassani Manufacturing
2009-1534
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Was the tribunal correct to grant summary judgment sustaining opposition to the federal registration of X-PIPE for internal combustion engine exhausts on the basis of genericness given available evidence concerning the applicable genus and public perception which had included an affidavit by a competitor of applicant’s and specifically excluded applicant’s own exhibits as inadmissible under Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure § 528.05(e) because an authenticating affidavit or declaration had not accompanied them?
Tweets – Decisions Released on March 4, 2010
March 4th, 2010Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corporation
2009-1374
USDC ED Texas
Did the district court err in imposing sanctions against defendant infringer based upon the court’s finding that defendant had violated the court’s permanent injunction order by continuing to infringe a combination hardware and software patent for digital video recorders despite the defendant’s acknowledged “herculean” software redesign efforts, in view of the two-part contempt of injunction inquiry for patent infringement cases set forth at KSM Fastening Sys., Inc. v. H.A. Jones Co., 776 F.2d 1522 (Fed. Cir. 1985)? (J. Rader dissent)
Tweets – Decisions Released on March 3, 2010
March 3rd, 2010Trade Identity
Federal Circuit
Benedict v. Super Bakery, Inc.
2010-1085
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Over a period of twenty months, respondent in a cancellation proceeding had lodged two motions for summary judgment just prior to separate deadlines for compliance with discovery requests and he refused to provide any discovery materials; thereafter, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board entered a default judgment against respondent, dismissing the motions for summary judgment as moot, and the question is whether Trademark Rule 2.127(d) and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(d) require the default judgment to be set aside on grounds that the motions stay discovery pending their outcomes?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
March 3rd, 2010
Mandamus
Trade Identity
Seventh Circuit
In re Whirlpool Corporation
2009-3777
USDC ND Illinois
Was defendant in a trademark litigation entitled to mandamus relief from an adverse ruling which rejected defendant’s contentions that it did not have to produce communications between its attorneys and outside advertising agencies because, in the alternative, the agencies constituted de facto employees of the company and thus the attorney-client privilege applied or the communications were sheltered by an obligation of confidentiality given the agencies shared with defendant a common legal interest in fielding lawful advertisements, in view of Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009)?
Tweets – Decisions Released on March 2, 2010
March 2nd, 2010Copyright Infringement
Jurisdiction
United States Supreme Court
Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
2008-103
Second Circuit
USDC SD New York
17 U.S.C. § 411(a) mandates that copyright holders register their works before suing for copyright infringement, but does failure to comply with this registration requirement deprive a district court of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a copyright holder’s infringement claim?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
March 2nd, 2010
Franchise
Petroleum Marketing Practices Act
United States Supreme Court
Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC
2008-240
First Circuit
USDC Massachusetts
Does the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U. S. C. § 2801 et seq., permit a franchisee to recover for constructive early termination where the franchisor’s wrongful conduct did not force the franchisee to abandon its franchise, and can a franchisee who executes and operates pursuant to a franchise renewal agreement sustain a constructive non-renewal claim under the Act?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
March 2nd, 2010
Patent Attorney Malpractice
Federal Circuit
Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
2009-1395
USDC ND Ohio
Did the district court commit reversible error by dismissing as a matter of law plaintiff inventor’s negligent representation claim where defendant patent attorneys had not expressly communicated that an absolute novelty requirement is imposed by certain countries, plaintiff and defendants failed to timely meet PCT submission deadlines per the novelty bar, other “omissions” and negligence were alleged, and plaintiff’s sole evidence regarding the graveman whether plaintiff’s disclosures were in fact patentable inventions consisted of a bare conclusion by an expert witness?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
March 2nd, 2010
Franchise
Sixth Circuit
Ganley v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
2008-4667
USDC ND Ohio
Was the district court correct to grant summary judgment dismissal to defendant franchisor on all counts where plaintiff was ranked the worst-performing franchise operator in Ohio but complained that defendant had violated the Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 4517.01 et seq., as well as Ohio Rev. Code § 4517.56(D) when defendant terminated plaintiff’s franchise and refused to allow plaintiff to transfer its franchise?
Tweets – Decisions Released on March 1, 2010
March 2nd, 2010Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Comaper Corporation v. Antec, Inc.
2009-1248, -1249
USDC ED Pennsylvania
Where a jury found certain independent patent claims not obvious, yet had held other patent claims that depended upon these independent claims obvious, under the circumstances were the jury’s conclusions as to the obviousness of the patent asserted irreconcilably inconsistent and thus the verdict merited a new trial?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________