Case Summaries
Patent
[07/16] Serdarevic v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc.
In a suit seeking correction of inventorship and raising state law claims for unjust enrichment and fraud, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the presumption of laches applied since plaintiff delayed more than six years after she knew of the issuance of the patents; 2) plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of laches; 3) plaintiff failed to identify conduct that gave rise to an unclean hands defense; 4) unjust enrichment claims failed as defendants had assigned the patents more than six years before plaintiff's complaint; 5) claims for fraud were time barred; and 6) there was no abuse of discretion in denying plaintiff's Rule 56(f) motion.
[07/15] Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp.
In a suit for breach of contract arising from defendants' failure to make payments for the sale of certain devices allegedly covered by patents, a consent judgment based on the district court's claim construction order is vacated and remanded where: 1) it was impossible to discern from the stipulated judgment which of the district court's claim construction rulings would actually affect the issue of infringement; and 2) the stipulated judgment did not provide any context with respect to how the disputed claim construction rulings related to the accused products.
[07/14] Plumley v. Mockett
In a suit for malicious prosecution arising from an underlying patent case, an order denying defendants' motion to strike the complaint under Civil Procedure section 425.16 is reversed where plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing that defendants lacked probable cause to bring the patent action.
[07/14] Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp.
In a patent infringement suit involving electronic methods for conducting "original issuer auctions of financial instruments," a jury verdict for plaintiff is reversed as to a claim of nonobviousness and infringement, and the remainder of the judgment is vacated where: 1) defendant clearly and convincingly established a prima facie case that some of the patent claims were obvious as a matter of law; and 2) defendant did not infringe some of the claims as a matter of law since it neither performed every step of the claimed methods, nor had any party done so on its behalf.
[05/28] Cat Tech LLC v. Tubemaster, Inc.
In a patent dispute, judgment finding that none of four configurations of loading devices manufactured by defendant infringes plaintiff's patent is affirmed where the district court correctly construed the "spacing" element of certain patent claims, and the dispute was sufficiently real and immediate to warrant a declaratory judgment of non-infringement.
More...
Trademark
[07/17] Guaranty Bank v. Chubb Corp.
In a suit involving an insurer's obligation to defend its insured under an "advertising injury" policy when the insured was sued over the similarity of its name to a competitor's, summary judgment to the defendant-insurer is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff-insured had failed to give defendant timely notice of the suit and 2) plaintiff had been sued for common-law trademark infringement and unfair competition, but plaintiff's policy covered only suits involving registered trademarks.
[05/29] UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.
[05/29] Stoller v. Pure Fishing, Inc.
In a trademark dispute, default judgment against plaintiff on a counterclaim and dismissal of his appeal for failure to prosecute is affirmed where: 1) the arguments made in plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion could have been addressed by the court of appeals in the underlying appeal that was dismissed for failure to prosecute; 2) the district court's one line order denying his motion did not violate Circuit Rule 50 since the court's reasoning was clear from the record and a brief statement; and 3) plaintiff's appeal of a determination that he was a vexatious litigant was not a proper issue in the present appeal as the court's decision on the underlying merits was not before the appeals court.
[05/23] Paulsson Geophysical Servs. Inc. v. Sigmar
Grant of a preliminary injunction in order to prevent defendant from using plaintiff's trademarks and other proprietary information is affirmed where: 1) the court had proper subject matter jurisdiction since defendant's activities had a substantial effect on U.S. commerce under the Lanham Act; 2) defendant used plaintiff's exact marks, supporting the court's finding of a likelihood of confusion; 3) plaintiff would have been irreparably harmed if defendant would have been allowed to work using plaintiff's mark.
[05/06] Estate of Coll-Monge v. Inner Peace Movement
In an action for trademark infringement and related claims, summary judgment for defendants-non-profits is reversed in part and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in holding that a non-profit corporation cannot be a related company whose use of the trademark is controlled by the mark's registrant; and 2) there remain disputed issues of fact regarding both the doctrine's applicability in this case, and the capacity in which testator registered the marks with the USPTO.
More...
|
