More info…
(U.S. 6th Cir., Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ song, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where: 1) Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ song; and 2) Defendants wrote their song before the creation of Plaintiffs’ song.
E-Pass Technologies, Inc. v. 3Com Corp.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Attorney’s Fees, Intellectual Property, Patent, Sanctions) In a patent infringement action involving electronic multi-function cards, co-defendant Access Systems Americas, Inc.’s motion for sanctions is granted where plaintiff’s appeal is frivolous, as it fails to present cogent or clear arguments for reversal, and plaintiff has made significant misrepresentations of the record and the law to the court. Sanction of defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees is awarded against plaintiff and its counsel, jointly and severally.
Larson Mfg. Co. of South Dakota, Inc. v. Aluminart Products Ltd.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving storm doors, district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the district court erred in finding that the three undisclosed items of prior art were material, as they were cumulative of prior art already before the Reexamination Panel; and 2) the district court’s correctly determined that the two office actions were non-cumulative and material. The case is remanded for further proceedings to redetermine the issue of intent and whether there was inequitable conduct.
aviation accident lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Per Curiam, Sanctions) The dismissal of Plaintiff’s action as a sanction is affirmed, where Plaintiff sent threatening e-mails to opposing counsel and failed to appear at multiple show cause hearings.
aviation attorney
More info…
(U.S. 11th Cir., Civil Procedure, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets) In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, judgment for Defendants is reversed in part, where Plaintiff adequately alleged that Defendant’s president was acting within the scope of his employment when he stole Plaintiff’s blueprints, but affirmed in part, where another Defendant was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Florida.
Jones v. Blige
(U.S. 6th Cir., Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the alleged misappropriation of Plaintiffs’ song, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed where: 1) Plaintiffs failed to prove that Defendants had access to Plaintiffs’ song; and 2) Defendants wrote their song before the creation of Plaintiffs’ song.
Henkel Corp. v. The Procter
&
Gamble Co.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent interference action involving dishwasher detergent tablets, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences award of priority of invention to defendant is affirmed where substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that defendant demonstrated an actual reduction to practice of the invention before plaintiff.
In re Ferguson
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Administrative Law, Intellectual Property, Patent) The Board of Patent Appeals decision sustaining the rejection of plaintiff’s patent application, directed to a marketing paradigm for bringing products to market, is affirmed where plaintiff’s patent claims do not cover patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. section 101 and are not within the parameters of the statutory requirements.
Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent dispute concerning power inverter circuitry for laptop computers, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in appointing an expert under the Federal Rules as it was confronted by an unusually complex case and starkly conflicting expert testimony; and 2) there was no error in the district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on obviousness as there was substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding.
tampa lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 10th Cir., Civil Procedure) Plaintiff-Inmate’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied, where Plaintiff failed to provide a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, and it was immaterial under the Prison Litigation Reform Act that Plaintiff obtained leave to proceed in forma pauperis in the District Court.
Lopez v. Holder
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Immigration Law) Denial of Petitioners’ petition for review of their removal from the U.S. is vacated, where the magistrate judge who had heard their earlier habeas petition did not have jurisdiction to hear their subsequent petition for review without Petitioners’ consent.
St Petersburg Attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
March 21, 2009 6:50 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe