More info…
(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.
Synthes v. GMReis
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving a bone plating system, district court’s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed where although the court was correct in ruling that it did not have general jurisdiction over defendant, it erred in its ruling that it lacked specific jurisdiction, as defendant purposefully directed its activities at parties in the U.S., plaintiff’s claim of patent infringement arises out of defendant’s activities in the U.S., and assertion of jurisdiction over defendant is reasonable and fair.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
aviation accident attorney
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving automated toll collection systems, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the sales of the toll collection systems installed by defendant were authorized by an earlier settlement agreement involving the plaintiff such that plaintiff’s patent rights were exhausted as to those systems; 2) the court did not err in excluding parol evidence of the parties’ intent at the time they entered into the settlement agreement as the settlement agreement is unambiguous, final, and exclusive; 3) plaintiff’s rights to the ’946 patent were exhausted by third party Mark IV’s authorized sales under an implied license to practice that patent by virtue of legal estoppel.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
Beltronics USA, Inc. v. Midwest Inv. Dist., LLC
(U.S. 10th Cir., Intellectual Property, Trademark) In a Lanham Act action based on Defendant’s sale of Plaintiff’s products without Plaintiff’s serial number label, a preliminary injunction in favor of Plaintiff is affirmed, where the “first sale” doctrine did not apply because Defendant was doing more than simply stocking, displaying and reselling Plaintiff’s products.
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp.
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving intravascular stents, plaintiff’s appeals are denied where: 1) plaintiff’s stent infringed on defendant’s patent as the court properly constructed the language of the claim and properly concluded that plaintiff’s stent met the “corners” limitation of the patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and 2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that defendant’s patent was not obvious. Defendant’s appeals are denied in all respects save one where: 1) the two monographs prepared by the inventor of plaintiff’s ’762 patent were not prior art printed publications; 2) plaintiff’s ’762 stent patent does not anticipate its ’406 stent patent and is thus valid; 3) different stents created by defendant infringe on both of plaintiff’s stent patents under various limitations of the claims in the patents; and 4) court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s infringement claims against one of defendant’s stents without prejudice instead of with prejudice.
St Petersburg Lawyer
More info…
(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving intravascular stents, plaintiff’s appeals are denied where: 1) plaintiff’s stent infringed on defendant’s patent as the court properly constructed the language of the claim and properly concluded that plaintiff’s stent met the “corners” limitation of the patent under the doctrine of equivalents; and 2) there was substantial evidence to support the conclusion that defendant’s patent was not obvious. Defendant’s appeals are denied in all respects save one where: 1) the two monographs prepared by the inventor of plaintiff’s ’762 patent were not prior art printed publications; 2) plaintiff’s ’762 stent patent does not anticipate its ’406 stent patent and is thus valid; 3) different stents created by defendant infringe on both of plaintiff’s stent patents under various limitations of the claims in the patents; and 4) court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s infringement claims against one of defendant’s stents without prejudice instead of with prejudice.
aviation lawyer
More info…
(U.S. 5th Cir., Civil Procedure, Construction, Injury And Tort Law) In a negligence action regarding flood control construction projects, the dismissal of Defendant’s third-party complaint is affirmed, where Defendant’s claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior state court action.
tampa dui attorney
External articles | SEO-FSER | 
April 17, 2009 11:20 pm | 
Comments (0) 
Subscribe