Archive for August, 2009
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Orth-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries, Ltd.
2008-1549, -1550
USDC New Jersey
Did the district court err by granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity on grounds of anticipation and obviousness where the subject reissue patent is directed to a combination tramadol and acetaminophen composition for use in prescription pain relief and a patent reference prior to the critical date had disclosed that tramadol may be combined with other analgesics to yield synergistic effects? (J. Mayer dissent)
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 102, 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), Anticipation, Infringement, Obviousness, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Monday, August 24th, 2009
Asset Purchase Agreements
Copyright
Intellectual Property Licenses
Tenth Circuit
The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
2008-4217
USDC Utah
What are the proper scopes of various intellectual property rights to UNIX and UNIXWare assets, including copyrights and licenses, purportedly transferred appurtenant to the sale of a rightsholder subject to a certain asset purchase agreement?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
Tags: Asset Purchase Agreements, Copyright, Licensing, UNIX
Posted in Asset Purchase Agreements, Copyright, Intellectual Property Licensing | Comments Off
Monday, August 24th, 2009
Trade Identity
Ninth Circuit
One Industries, LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distributing, Inc.
2008-55316
USDC SD California
Was an accuser of trademark infringement entitled to tack onto an earlier version of its mark in order to defeat its opponent’s priority claim, and did the accuser meet its burden of showing likelihood of confusion between the parties’ respective marks when promoted to the motorcross racing industry given the factors set forth in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979)?
Evolution of Accuser’s Mark
Attempted Tacking
Opponent’s Mark
Products Bearing Marks At Issue
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Infringement, Tacking, trademark
Posted in Trade Identity | Comments Off
Friday, August 21st, 2009
Copyright
Second Circuit
Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc.
2007-2576
USDC SD New York
As a matter of law, are internet radio webcasts “interactive service” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 114(j)(7) insofar as these provide copyrighted sound recordings on request and programming specially created for users and thus webcasters are required to pay a licensing fee for each individual song instead of only a statutory licensing fee established by the Copyright Royalty Board?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Copyright, Internet Radio, Licensing Fee, Webcast
Posted in Copyright | Comments Off
Thursday, August 20th, 2009
Patent Ownership
Federal Circuit
Sky Technologies, LLC v. SAP America, Inc.
2008-1606
USDC ED Texas
On interlocutory appeal, had the district court erred with its holding that patent ownership was properly transferred by operation of Massachusetts foreclosure law thus giving plaintiff clear title to the patents-in-suit as well as standing to maintain a patent infringement action in view of Akazawa v. Link New Technology International, Inc., 520 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2008)?
Download Stored Opinion
_____________________________________________________
Tags: Infringement, Ownership, Standing, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Thursday, August 20th, 2009
Patent Infringement
Unfair Trade Practices
Federal Circuit
Marcinkowska v. IMG Worldwide, Inc.
2009-1213
USDC South Carolina
Was the district court correct to dismiss one defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction and a second defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state an actionable claim where plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that her patent encompassing tennis courts with different surfaces on either side of the net and her trade identity rights had been infringed by a famous tennis match between noteworthy tennis players who had competed on a bifurcated tennis court with clay and grass surfaces on the respective sides?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Infringement, Jurisdiction, U.S. Patent, Unfair Trade Practices
Posted in Trade Identity, U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC
2007-1296, -1347
USDC SD Indiana
Following a series of appeals and the claim construction process, was patent anticipation a “directly related new issue” pursuant to Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude, 381 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) or had it been precluded by an appellate reinstatement of a jury validity verdict, and does 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) apply to method claims and thus permit damages in a case where devices were exported and the subject method is carried out in countries other than the United States given Deepsouth Packing Co., Inc. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972) and its progeny? (J. Newman dissent)
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: 35 U.S.C. § 271, Infringement, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Tuesday, August 18th, 2009
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
RFID Tracker, Ltd. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
2008-1412
USDC ED Texas
Did the district court abuse its discretion in construing as a matter of law and on final determination the patent claim term “interrogator/reader” to encompass a field generator and receiver but not a transmitter as concerns U.S. Patent No. 6,967,563 for an inventory control system that includes radio frequency identification tags attached to inventory items, an interrogator/reader and a computer?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Claims Construction, RFID, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Friday, August 14th, 2009
Patent Infringement
Federal Circuit
Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.
2009-1076
USDC Delaware
Were jury conclusions as to the obviousness of certain patent claims for golf ball technologies irreconcilably inconsistent and thus merit a new trial, and did genuine issues of material fact arise that negate the district court’s grant of motion for summary judgment there had been no anticipation of claims?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Anticipation, Infringement, Obviousness, U.S. Patent
Posted in U.S. Patent | Comments Off
Thursday, August 13th, 2009
Inequitable Conduct
Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower
Ninth Circuit
Van Asdale v. International Game Technology
2007-16597
USDC Nevada
Could Illinois-licensed intellectual property attorneys working in-house for a company based in Nevada establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under the whistleblower provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1514A after the attorneys had brought a patent invalidating reference to the employer’s attention during the company’s prospective sale to another company and the issued patent was alleged to contribute substantial value to the transaction and possibly was procured through inequitable conduct before the United States Patent Office?
Download Stored Opinion
Tags: Inequitable Conduct, Sarbanes-Oxley, U.S. Patent, Whistleblower
Posted in Inequitable Conduct, Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower, U.S. Patent | Comments Off