(Attorney in tampa florida) Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Ltd. Brands, Inc.
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.
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.
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.
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
February 18, 2009 12:05 am
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Subscribe