Source: https://www.iniplaw.org/category/new-decisions/
Timestamp: 2019-06-26 20:04:29
Document Index: 705421580

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1125', '§ 365', '§ 365', '§ 1821', '§ 505', '§ 102', '§ 102']

New Decisions Category Archives — Indiana Intellectual Property Law News Published by Patent and Trademark Litigation Attorney — Copyright Infringement Lawyer — Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Articles Posted in New Decisions
Opinion: Seventh Circuit Issues Opinion Regarding Bodum USA, Inc.’s Trade Dress Case Against A Top New Casting Inc.
Bodum USA, Inc. (“Bodum”) originally filed this case against A Top New Casting Inc. (“A Top”) in the Northern District of Illinois on claims of trade dress infringement. After a jury verdict found for Bodum and awarded $2 million in damages, A Top brought this appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings and damages awarded.
Bodum began selling French press coffeemakers in the 1970s and began distributing the Chambord French press at issue in this case in 1983. Bodum claimed it acquired exclusive distribution rights to the Chambord French press in 1991 and has since spent millions of dollars in marketing and advertising the product. A Top began selling their French press, the SterlingPro, through Amazon in 2014.
In March 2016, Bodum filed a complaint for “trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); common law unfair competition; and violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act”. While A Top moved for summary judgment twice, these motions were denied, and a jury trial took place in March 2018. The jury found that A Top willfully infringed the Chambord trade dress and awarded Bodum $2 million in damages. The district court denied A Top’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted Bodum’s motion for enhanced damages to $4 million dollars and a permanent injunction against A Top selling the SterlingPro products.
Posted in: New Decisions, Seventh Circuit News and Trade Dress
Updated: June 25, 2019 8:22 am
The United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Mission Product Holdings, Inc. (“Mission”) versus Tempnology, LLC. The original case involved a trademark licensing agreement and whether the Tempnology’s rejection of the agreement during its bankruptcy deprived Mission’s right to use the trademark under the agreement. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion.
Tempnology utilized the brand name “Coolcore” for its manufactured clothing designed to stay cool during exercise. Mission and Tempnology entered into a non-exclusive licensing agreement for Mission to use the Coolcore trademarks anywhere in the world in 2012. While the agreement would have expired in July 2016, Tempnology filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2015. Soon after, Tempnology asked for permission to “reject” the licensing agreement it had with Mission under Section 365(a). 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). Pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor may reject any contract that neither party has finished performing. That rejection under Section 365 “constitutes a breach of such contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 365(a).
Both parties agreed that Mission has a claim for damages against Tempnology, however, under 365(g), Mission would be in the same boat as an unsecured creditor and would likely not receive its total damages. Tempnology also believed by rejecting the licensing agreement, Mission would no longer be able to utilize the Coolcore trademarks.
Posted in: License, New Decisions and U.S. Supreme Court
Updated: June 11, 2019 11:01 am
This case, originally filed by Barrington Music Products, Inc. in the Northern District of Indiana, was brought on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. After the Northern District awarded Barrington a mere $3,228.00 in damages, Barrington filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion asking the court to amend the damages awarded to $4,947,200.00. The Northern District denied the 59(e) motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Barrington’s attorney, Sean Quinn, frequently appears before the Northern District of Indiana for intellectual property infringement litigation cases such as this one. In this case, Guitar Center, Music & Arts, and Woodwind were each named as separate defendants. The jury found the sales by Guitar Center were the only infringing sales and awarded the $3,228.00 accordingly.
After the case concluded, Barrington claims it discovered Music & Arts and Woodwind were divisions of Guitar Center and not distinct and separate entities. The Court of Appeals found that the judgment was rationally supported by the evidence and that there is no reason to conclude that the damages awarded would have been different had Guitar Center been the sole defendant. In support of this finding, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the original damages were awarded because the jury did not find that Music & Arts and Woodwind infringed on the “Ventus” mark.
Posted in: New Decisions and Trademark Infringement
Updated: June 7, 2019 12:21 pm
Washington D.C.- Attorneys for Oracle USA, Inc. and Oracle International Corporation (collectively “Oracle”) of Colorado and California, respectively, filed suit in the District Court of Nevada alleging that Rimini Street, Inc. and Seth Ravin, both of Nevada, infringed the copyrights for Oracle Software and Technology, which have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office. A jury awarded damages to Oracle upon finding that Rimini had indeed infringed Oracle’s copyrights. The District Court awarded Oracle additional fees and costs, which included $12.8 million dollars for litigation expenses including costs for expert witnesses, e-discovery, and jury consulting. After the award of additional fees and costs was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court held the additional costs were not appropriate under the Copyright Act.
The Ninth Circuit recognized that in granting the additional damages, they were covering expenses not included in the six categories of costs that the federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920 authorize. However, they affirmed the District Court’s award based on the Copyright Act giving district courts discretion to award “full costs” under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Supreme Court held that while the “term ‘full’ is a term of quantity or amount; it does not expand the categories or kinds of expenses that may be awarded as ‘costs’ under the general costs statute.” Therefore, Oracle was not entitled to the additional $12.8 million dollar award for litigation expenses outside of the six statutory categories.
Updated: March 27, 2019 9:39 am
The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Federal Circuits’ Decision for the Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA case regarding “secret sales” as prior art under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). In their Opinion, the Court held that given the pre-AIA precedent that even “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, the same “on sale” language in the AIA provisions should be given the same presumption. Further, the addition of the phrase “or otherwise available to the public” does not allow the Court to conclude that Congress intended to alter the meaning of “on sale,” but instead, means that 35 U.S.C. § 102 could be applied to other non-delineated situations.
Helsinn Healthcare (“Helsinn”) produces a treatment utilizing the chemical palonestron to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. During the development of this product, Helsinn entered into two separate and confidential agreements with MGI Pharma, Inc. (“MGI”) giving MGI the right to distribute, promote, sell, and market a 0.25 g dose of palonosetron in the United States. While the dosage was kept confidential, the agreements were reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. About two years later, in January 2003, Helsinn filed their provisional patent application covering a 0.25 mg dose of palonestron. Helsinn went on to file four patent applications claiming priority to the January 2003 provisional application, with its fourth patent application being filed in 2013 and being subject to the AIA. This fourth patent application led to the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 (the “‘219 patent”).
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively “Teva”) sought approval to market a generic 0.25 mg palonosetron product. Helsinn, in turn, filed suit against Teva for infringement of the ‘219 patent. Teva claimed that the ‘219 patent was invalid under the AIA because the invention was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
Posted in: Intellectual Property Law, New Decisions, Patent Infringement, U.S. Supreme Court and Uncategorized
Updated: February 11, 2019 2:15 pm