Case Summaries

Patent

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

[03/01] Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit involving a patent directed to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed certain claims of plaintiff's patent, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, and that certain dependent claims were obvious is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) defendant's contention that a new trial is required because the district court's claim constructions were in error is rejected as the court's claim constructions were correct; but 2) the district court was required to grant a new trial because the jury's verdicts on obviousness were irreconcilably inconsistent.

More...

Trademark

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

[03/03] In re: Whirlpool Corp.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by LG Electronics against Whirlpool, relating to a dryer that uses steam to reduce wrinkles, Whirlpool's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the district court's order to disclose communications between its attorneys and its outside advertising agencies is denied as it failed to show both that the order will be effectively unreviewable if Whirlpool is forced to wait until the end of the case and also that the order is patently erroneous or usurpative in character. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), that rulings that allegedly infringe upon the attorney-client privilege are not appealable as collateral orders, and as such, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[01/05] Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, LLC
In a trademark dispute between companies in the hair care industry involving a settlement agreement entered into nineteen years ago in which their predecessors stipulated to the withdrawal of the parties' respective claims and to not object further to the registration of the others' trademark, district court's grant of plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment is affirmed as, notwithstanding possible arguments on each side about potential confusion between their respective phrases, "Great Cuts" and "Great Clips", no evidence is offered that the parties sought only to allow each to register its mark but to reserve for future litigation the practical consequences of registration.

[12/23] In Re Sones
Decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, denying petitioner's registration application for the mark "One Nation Under God" for charity bracelets, is vacated and remanded as a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use, and the test for an acceptable website-based specimen, just as any other specimen, is simply that it must in some way evince that the mark is "associated" with the goods and services as an indicator of source.

[12/03] Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action by Starbucks Corp. regarding a competitor's use of the name "Charbucks," judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks; 2) the Charbucks line of coffee was marketed as a product of very high quality ? as Starbucks also purported its coffee to be ? which was inconsistent with the concept of tarnishment. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to conduct further proceedings on the issue of whether Starbucks demonstrated a likelihood of dilution by "blurring" under federal trademark law.

More...