Source: https://bw-iplaw.com/articles_news_research?page=7
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:51:35+00:00

Document:
Judge George Hazel denied cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to trademark infringement. Althought the Court indicated it was unaware of any case in which likelihood of confusion had been found based on similarities with respect to a disclaimed word of a registered mark, summary judgment was denied because genuine issues of material fact existed as to the strength of plaintiff’s registered mark, the similarities in the mark colors (claimed in the registration), goods, facilities, advertisements, and the defendants’ intent. Cava Grp., Inc. v.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135, S.Ct. 1293, 1299 (2015) decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing a trademark infringement complaint as barred by collateral estoppel on the ground that the defendant had previously prevailed on the issue of priority before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, and thus the plaintiff could not proceed with its complaint. Ashe v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 15-2566, 652 Fed.Appx. 155 (4th Cir.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1755-56 (2014), Judge Titus awarded attorneys’ fees because the case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on plaintiff’s “continued pursuit of baseless claims that had no chance of success.” The plaintiff pressed its patent infringement claim against defendant despite actual knowledge that its exclusive remedy for patent infringement was a suit against the United States in the Court of Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498. Astornet Techs, Inc. v.
After holding a Markman claim construction hearing, Judge Marvin Garbis construed the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,887,910 directed to a “protective cover for an electronic device” to give disputed claim terms their “plain and ordinary meaning.” Focusing on the explicit language of the claims, the Court declined the defendant’s requests to read several extraneous limitations into the claims. As claim construction tools, the Court relied on embodiments disclosed in the patent’s specification and the doctrine of claim differentiation. M-Edge Int’l Corp. v. Lifeworks Tech.
A recent decision by Judge Catherine Blake serves as a reminder of the importance of documenting fees and costs for later recovery under 35 U.S.C.
Applying the Supreme Court’s relatively recent decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted summary judgment of invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 101 against two patents because the patent claims explained what the invention does without explaining how it does so. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 127 F. Supp. 3d 506 (D. Md Sept. 2, 2015).
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the Maryland District Court’s dismissal of a breach of contract claim relating to the defendant filing trademark applications in several foreign countries, allegedly in violation of a Worldwide Coexistence Agreement relating to the parties’ respective PERDUE and PERDIX marks: “ongoing duties not to do business in Maryland do not demonstrate that [the defendant] purposefully availed itself of the privilege of doing business in Maryland.” Perdue Foods LLC v. BRF S.A., 814 F.3d 185, 191 (4th Cir. Feb. 19, 2016).
A motion for over $2 million in attorneys’ fees for plaintiff was denied by U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis because (1) the attorneys for the plaintiff/prevailing party “unnecessarily proceeded beyond the pleading stage” with respect to a defective counterclaim, thus suggesting that plaintiff’s attorneys should have mitigated attorneys’ fees by filing a motion under Rule 12 of the Fed. R. Civ. P., and (2) attorneys’ fees related to state law counterclaims were not sufficiently intertwined with patent issues so as to make them recoverable under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Genspera, Inc. v.

References: v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 285
 § 1498
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 § 285