More info…
(U.S. 9th Cir., Copyright, Gaming Law, Intellectual Property, Travel & Leisure) In a copyright infringement action regarding an electronic bingo game, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the District Court properly identified the unprotected elements of the game in instructing the jury, and 2) Plaintiff’s illegal operation of the game did not preclude the recovery of statutory damages.
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.
tampa attorney
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent, Trade Secrets) In a patent infringement and trade secret action involving water clarification, district court’s judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff’s engaged in sanctionable conduct; 2) court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney’s fees against plaintiffs Clearvalue and Haase, but did abuse its discretion in imposing joint and several liability against plaintiff’s counsel Waggett; 3) the court abused its discretion in striking plaintiff’s pleadings and entering judgment for defendant on plaintiff’s patent infringement and trade secret claims; and 4) the court abused its discretion by using its inherent powers to impose additional sanctions against plaintiff.
Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.
(U.S. 2d Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In an action brought under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution, the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim is reversed and remanded where plaintiff’s allegations that Google’s recommendation and sale of its mark to Google’s advertisers, so as to trigger the appearance of their advertisements and links in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion when a Google user launches a search of plaintiff’s trademark, defendant made a use in commerce of the plaintiff’s trademark, properly alleges a claim under the Lanham Act.
Florida Lawyer
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
April 8, 2009 4:10 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe