Archive for October, 2009

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 29, 2009

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

Trade Identity
Seventh Circuit
Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc.
2009-1438, -1462, -1601
USDC ED Wisconsin

Was the district court judge correct to dismiss without prejudice a Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B) action pending the outcome of a United States Food and Drug Administration decision as to whether generic drug labels and package inserts that display “Rx only” and “a prescription only laxative” for polyethylene glycol 3350, which is not necessarily dispensed prescription-only, had violated the agency’s strictures against mislabeling and thus the Lanham Act as well? (J. Posner)

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: ,
Posted in Trade Identity | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 28, 2009

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Exclusive Trademark License
Japanese Senyoshiyoken
Seventh Circuit
Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.
2007-3288, -3289, 2008-3835, -3836, 2008-3931, 2008-3936
USDC ND Illinois

Did the district court err by refusing to ascribe a definitive meaning for the jury in respect of the Japanese technical legal term “senyoshiyoken,” which connotes a type of exclusive trademark license and its appurtenant rights, where the fully paid up, 99-year, English-language license agreement contained a right of termination in the event the Japanese licensee modified one of the licensed marks and the licensee had, in fact, “modernized” a subject mark? (J. Posner)

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: , ,
Posted in Trade Identity, Trademark License | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 21, 2009

Wednesday, October 21st, 2009

Copyright
Sixth Circuit
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publishing, Inc.
2008-5254, 5255-73
USDC MD Tennessee

On second appeal, had the district court erred by denying the requests of defendant record and music publishing companies that attorney fees be imposed as a condition of granting plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice related copyright infringement cases pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)?

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: ,
Posted in Copyright | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 16, 2009

Friday, October 16th, 2009

Patent
Antitrust
Second Circuit
In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation
2006-5525
USDC SD New York

Was the district court correct to dismiss a class action for lack of standing where plaintiffs alleged inter alia Sherman Act § 2 monopolization, Walker Process fraud in procuring a patent on desmopressin acetate (DDAVP) tablets, improprer listing of the DDAVP patent in the United States Food and Drug Administration’s Orange Book, and sham infringement litigation against generic competitors to compel payment of monopolistic drug prices?

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Antitrust, U.S. Patent | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 15, 2009

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

Technology Exploitation
Intellectual Property Licensing
Malicious Abuse of Process
Tenth Circuit
Nanodetex Corp. v. Defiant Technologies
2008-2123
USDC New Mexico

Under New Mexico state law, had the district court abused its discretion by holding for defendants’ malicious abuse of process counterclaim on summary judgment, and did sufficient evidence exist to support a jury’s award of damages on this claim, where plaintiff, a collaborative spin-off, had carried out its express threat to sue defendants after the latter refused to merge their business and intellectual property rights into plaintiff and the litigants were parties to separate technology licensing and exploitation arrangements with Sandia National Laboratories for different trade channels?

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: , ,
Posted in Intellectual Property Licensing, Malicious Abuse of Process, Technology Exploitation | Comments Off

Tweets – Decisions Released on October 13, 2009

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

Right of Publicity
Eleventh Circuit
Miller v. Anheuser Busch, Inc.
2009-10527
USDC SD Florida

On motion for summary judgment, did the district court properly apply Florida’s single publication rule under Fla. Stat. § 540.08 when it held a pro se litigant’s claim that her likeness had been misappropriated for commercial purposes was time-barred in view of compensated releases she signed to cover past periods of exploitation?

Download Stored Opinion

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Right of Publicity | Comments Off