Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Tampa florida lawyer) Visible Sys. Corp. v. Unisys Corp.

More info…
(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.

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.

Hyatt v. Director, Patent and Trademark Office

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a consolidated case involving four civil actions brought by plaintiff under 35 U.S.C. section 145 (2000) regarding plaintiff’s twelve patent applications, decision in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly interpreted 37 C.F.R. section 1.192(c)(7); and 2) the district court’s remand order did not require defendant-board to consider arguments waived by plaintiff.

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.

tampa personal injury attorney

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.