More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent, Remedies) District court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining defendant from selling its product after jury found willful infringement of plaintiff’s valid patent. The court correctly applied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief, finding that: 1) plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury; 2) remedies at law were inadequate; 3) balance of hardships warranted issuance of injunctive relief; and 4) the public interest was not harmed by issuance of the permanent injunction, despite defendant’s assertion that its infringing product was safer than plaintiff’s product.
Visible Sys. Corp. v. Unisys Corp.
(U.S. 1st Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a trademark infringement claim for reverse confusion, permanent injunction prohibiting defendant-Unisys from using trademarks or services of plaintiffs and damages award of $250,000 to plaintiff are affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial judge erred in not granting plaintiff a jury trial under both the Lanham Act and the Seventh Amendment on plaintiff’s claim for an accounting of defendant’s profits; 2) the court erred in tailoring the injunction too narrowly and in denying plaintiff attorneys’ fees; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to support both the jury’s finding of infringement and the damages awarded.
Kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Commercial Law, Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a suit against a brand-name and a generic drug manufacturer alleging restraint-of-trade and monopolization of the market for a blood pressure medication, judgment for defendants is affirmed in part over plaintiff’s evidentiary challenges, but reversed in part where plaintiff produced sufficient evidence to go to trial on its claim that defendant had violated the Sherman Act by enforcing a patent obtained through fraud.
In re Comiskey
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a method and system for mandatory arbitration involving legal documents, such as wills or contracts, a decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming an examiner’s rejection of claims 1-59 of applicant’s patent application as obvious in view of the prior art and therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. section 103 is affirmed in part and vacated in part where: 1) applicant’s independent claims 1 and 32 and most of their dependent claims are unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101; and 2) with respect to two other independent claims and various other dependent claims a remand to the PTO was necessary for it to consider the section 101 question in the first instance.
Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.
(U.S. 11th Cir., Construction, Copyright, Intellectual Property, Property Law & Real Estate) In a copyright infringement action alleging that district court erred in its examination of the two-floor plan at issue, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the floor plans at issue were protected by compilation copyrights which were “thin”; and 2) the district court correctly determined that the differences in the protectable expression were so significant that, as a matter of law, no reasonable properly-instructed jury of lay observers could find the works substantially similar.
clearwater attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 10, 2009 11:30 am | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe