More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Consumer Products, Intellectual Property, Patent, Retail) In a patent case brought against defendants including Bath & Body Works involving a candle tin with a removable cover that also acts as a base for the candle holder, summary judgment of validity and infringement, an award of damages, and a denial of a motion for reconsideration is reversed where the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to find two claims of the patent at issue to have been obvious, and in finding infringement of those claims.
Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. King Mountain Tobacco Co., Inc.
(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Cyberspace Law, Indian Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a suit alleging trademark violations against a tribal corporation for cigarette packages, the district court’s grant of a stay while the tribal court determined its jurisdiction is reversed where the tribal court does not have colorable jurisdiction over plaintiff-nonmember’s federal and state claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the reservation.
Wilchombe v. Teevee Toons, Inc.
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement case involving the rap song “The Weedman” which appears on a Lil John album “Kings of Crunk”, dismissal of plaintiff-musician’s claim for breach of fiduciary duty is affirmed where: 1) the amended complaint failed to allege a fiduciary relationship and thus failed to state a claim for relief; and 2) plaintiff could not the grant of summary judgment based on arguments raised for the first time in his motion for reconsideration.
aviation attorney
More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Contracts, Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law, Remedies, Trademark) In a suit by an insurance company for reimbursement of its settlement contribution in a trademark infringement action, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) a “first publication” exclusion found in the excess insurance policy applied to infringement claims; 2) defendant was judicially estopped from claiming that it first published infringing material after it purchased the policy; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding two defendants jointly and severally liable for repayment of plaintiff’s contribution.
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving a drug-eluting expandable stent with a coating that has a non-thrombogenic surface, denial of defendant’s motion for a new trial and judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following a jury verdict of infringement of a patent claim is reversed where the district court erred as a matter of law in failing to hold the patent at issue to have been obvious.
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.
Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Blue Sky Med. Group, Inc.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Evidence, Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent case involving patents for treating difficult-to-heal wounds by applying suction, various trial court rulings are affirmed over claims: 1) by defendants that the trial court erred in denying their motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness, and their alternative motion for a new trial on obviousness; 2) by defendants that the district court erred in its construction of “wound” and its failure to find several claim terms indefinite; and 3) by plaintiff that the court erred in denying its motion for judgment as a matter of law of infringement, or, in the alternative, its request for a new trial on infringement.
tampa florida lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 2d Cir., Civil Procedure, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure) In a suit brought pro se by plaintiff alleging defendant violated his Eighth Amendment rights while incarcerated, grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed. When facing pro se litigants who are repeat filers, absent a strong showing that the pro se litigant has acquired adequate experience more generally, a district court should limit the withdrawal of pro se litigant’s special status to specific contexts in which the litigant’s experiences indicates that he may fairly be deemed knowledgeable and experienced.
County of Santa Clara v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
(Cal. App., Civil Procedure, Government Law) In an action filed by real parties in interest under Code of Civil Procedure section 526a against defendant-cities for declaratory and injunctive relief for illegal policies and practices, petitions for writ of mandate are denied where neither the California Public Records Act (CPRA) nor Filarsky v. Superior Court precluded real parties in interest from proceeding with their action against petitioners.
attorney in tampa florida
More info…
(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.
tampa personal injury attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 19, 2009 11:40 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe