Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

(Tampa divorce lawyer) Nartron Corp. v. Schukra U.S.A., Inc.

More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a vehicle seat control system that provides massage capability, District Court’s of grant summary judgment of dismissal of the complaint because of Plaintiff’s failure to join an alleged co-inventor is reversed, where any contribution co-Defendant made to the invention was insignificant and therefore prevents it from attaining the status of a co-inventor.

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.

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.

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.

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.

aviation lawyer

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.