Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(St petersburg attorney) Wilchombe v. Teevee Toons, Inc.

More info…
(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.

tampa divorce attorney

(Clearwater attorney) United Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Spectrum Worldwide, Inc.

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.

Rein v. US Patent
&
Trademark Office

(U.S. 4th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark) In a civil action alleging defendant-agencies did not conduct an adequate search for documents requested by plaintiff-law firm under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and that defendant-agencies improperly withheld documents as exempt which were discovered during the search, award of summary judgment to defendant-agencies is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding the Vaughn index contained adequate descriptive information to determine whether the challenged documents were properly withheld in whole or in part; 2) the district court did not err in holding the defendant-agencies properly withheld the challenged documents in whole or in part based on the deliberative process privilege; 3) the district court did it err in concluding the challenged redacted documents did not contain segregable material; and 4) the district court did not err in concluding the PTO properly withheld or redacted materials based on the attorney-client privilege, as protected by Exemption 5.

aviation lawyer

(Attorney tampa florida) Rein v. US Patent & Trademark Office

More info…
(U.S. 4th Cir., Administrative Law, Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark) In a civil action alleging defendant-agencies did not conduct an adequate search for documents requested by plaintiff-law firm under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and that defendant-agencies improperly withheld documents as exempt which were discovered during the search, award of summary judgment to defendant-agencies is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding the Vaughn index contained adequate descriptive information to determine whether the challenged documents were properly withheld in whole or in part; 2) the district court did not err in holding the defendant-agencies properly withheld the challenged documents in whole or in part based on the deliberative process privilege; 3) the district court did it err in concluding the challenged redacted documents did not contain segregable material; and 4) the district court did not err in concluding the PTO properly withheld or redacted materials based on the attorney-client privilege, as protected by Exemption 5.

lawyer in tampa

(Tampa lawyer) Coyne’s & Co., Inc. v. Enesco, LLC

More info…
(U.S. 8th Cir., Commercial Law, Contracts, Copyright, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets, Trademark) In a suit related to the early termination of a distributor agreement, denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed where plaintiff could not demonstrate a likelihood of success on its claims since the distributor agreement was no longer in effect, and defendant’s termination of the agreement did not fall under the Minnesota Franchise Act’s termination requirements since plaintiff had never paid defendant a franchise fee.

Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs.

(U.S. 9th Cir., Civil Procedure, Dispute Resolution & Arbitration, Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a declaratory action seeking to protect plaintiff’s interests in a trademark licensing agreement, district court order confirming an arbitration award is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the arbitrator properly arbitrated equitable claims; 2) the arbitrator’s award is not completely irrational; 3) the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by enjoining plaintiff’s non-party affiliates; and 4) the arbitrator’s award violates the California Business and Professions Code. Appeal of the district court order compelling arbitration is untimely and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue.

Taco Bell Corp. v. TBWA Chiat/Day Inc.

(U.S. 9th Cir., Contracts, Entertainment Law, Food & Beverages, Intellectual Property, Media Law, Remedies) In a suit against an advertising agency seeking indemnification for damages entered against plaintiff in a suit based on plaintiff’s breach of an implied contract for using a third party’s Chihuahua character in advertising developed by defendant, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the evidence only showed fault for the previous liability on the part of plaintiff, thus defendant owed no duty to indemnify.

Ball Aerosol
&
Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.

(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.

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.

Florida Lawyer