Source: http://www.gehrkelaw.com/2007/11/index.html
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 18:50:52
Document Index: 593709487

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 501', '§ 102', '§ 1291', '§ 285', '§ 285']

November 2007 - Intellectual Property News and Reports
Plaintiff-appellant Bridgeport Music, Inc. (“Bridgeport”) appeals
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of
defendant-appellee Universal-MCA Music Publishing (“Universal”) in this
copyright infringement case alleging that Universal interpolated the
lyrics to the recording Pumpin’ It Up in the recording Change Gone
Come. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Universal.
Posted at 08:13 AM in Copyright | Permalink
| | Apotex Corp. v. Merck & Co., Inc.
Apotex Corp. appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois1 granting summary judgment in favor of Merck & Co. in an action by Apotex to set aside a judgment on charges of fraud, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3). Apotex also asserted state law claims against Merck for common law fraud and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and sought to compel discovery pursuant to the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Posted at 08:33 AM in Patent Case Law -- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | Permalink
| | Z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.
Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) appeals from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 06-cv-142 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006). The district court denied Microsoft’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) following a jury trial in which the jury found that Microsoft had infringed z4 Technologies, Inc.’s (“z4’s”) U.S. Patents No. 6,044,471 (“the ’471 patent”) and No. 6,785,825 (“the ’825 patent”) and had failed to prove these patents invalid. z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 06-cv-142 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006) (“JMOL Opinion”). Because substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict, and because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Microsoft’s motion for a new trial, we affirm.
Posted at 08:31 AM in Patent Case Law -- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | Permalink
| | Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC
Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A., a French corporation located in Paris,
that manufactures luxury luggage, handbags, and accessories, commenced
this action against Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, a Nevada corporation that
manufactures and sells pet products nationally, alleging trademark
infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), trademark dilution under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(c), copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 501, and
related statutory and common law violations. Haute Diggity Dog
manufactures, among other things, plush toys on which dogs can chew,
which, it claims, parody famous trademarks on luxury products,
including those of Louis Vuitton Malletier. The particular Haute
Diggity Dog chew toys in question here are small imitations of handbags
that are labeled "Chewy Vuiton" and that mimic Louis Vuitton
Malletier’s LOUIS VUITTON handbags.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court concluded
that Haute Diggity Dog’s "Chewy Vuiton" dog toys were successful
parodies of Louis Vuitton Malletier’s trademarks, designs, and
products, and on that basis, entered judgment in favor of Haute Diggity
Dog on all of Louis Vuitton Malletier’s claims.
On appeal, we agree with the district court that Haute Diggity Dog’s
products are not likely to cause confusion with those of Louis Vuitton
Malletier and that Louis Vuitton Malletier’s copyright was not
infringed. On the trademark dilution claim, however, we reject the
district court’s reasoning but reach the same conclusion through a
different analysis. Accordingly, we affirm.
For more copyright and trademark coverage.
Posted at 08:28 AM in Copyright, Trademark Case Law | Permalink
| | Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. US Filter Corp.
United States Filter Corp. (“US Filter”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, following a bench trial, that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent 6,620,319 (“the ’319 patent”) are not invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Zenon Environmental, Inc. (“Zenon”) cross-appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment that the accused products do not infringe the ’319 patent. Because we conclude that the district court erred in determining that the ’319 patent was entitled to the priority date of an earlier filed patent, and thus clearly erred in concluding that the ’319 patent was not anticipated by that patent, we reverse the court’s judgment of no invalidity and hold that patent to be invalid. In light of that conclusion, we need not reach Zenon’s cross-appeal seeking reversal of the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.
Posted at 07:41 AM in Patent Case Law -- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit | Permalink
| | Perfumebay.com Inc. v. eBay Inc.
In this trademark infringement case, we must decide whether various
forms of the mark “Perfumebay” infringe upon the trademark “eBay.”
Appellant Perfumebay.com, Inc. (Perfumebay) appeals from the district
court’s decision that Perfumebay infringed eBay’s trademark. Perfumebay
challenges the district court’s finding that the conjoined terms
“perfumebay” and “PerfumeBay” created a likelihood of consumer
confusion under the Lanham Act with respect to the mark “eBay.”
Perfumebay contends that the district court erred in finding initial
interest confusion; in granting injunctive relief despite eBay’s
unclean hands; and in fashioning the permanent injunction to prohibit
Perfumebay’s use of the names “perfumebay” and “perfume-bay.”
Perfumebay also contests the district court’s denial of attorneys’
fees. eBay cross-appeals the district court’s denial of its
breachof-contract claim based on the settlement negotiations of the
parties. eBay also contends that the district court erred in rejecting
its claim for likelihood of dilution, and for not permanently enjoining
Perfumebay from using non-conjoined versions of its names that include
a space between “Perfume” and “Bay,” such as “Perfume Bay.” We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm in part and
Posted at 07:39 AM in Trademark Case Law | Permalink
| | US Philips Corp. v. Iwasaki Elec. Co. Ltd.
U.S. Philips Corporation appeals from a final judgment entered pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) in favor of Iwasaki Electric Company Ltd. by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Specifically, U.S. Philips challenges the district court’s decision to limit U.S. Philips’s right of recovery to acts of infringement after the complaint was filed, based on a failure of notice; its claim construction ruling relating to U.S. Patent No. 5,109,181 (“the ’181 patent”); and its decision to grant partial summary judgment of noninfringement as to those accused products not subject to the temporal limitation of liability. Because Iwasaki was properly on notice of potential infringement before the filing of the complaint, we reverse the district court’s determination that notice was inadequate until the instant suit was filed and the concomitant limitation of liability. We affirm the district court’s claim construction, and with it the entry of partial summary judgment of no literal infringement. Finally, because the district court erred in concluding that the doctrine of equivalents is foreclosed as to the disputed claim limitation, we vacate the partial summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents, and we remand for consideration of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents as well as for consideration of literal infringement from June 7, 2000, the date notice was provided, until the filing of the complaint.
| | Digeo, Inc. v. Audible
Audible, Inc. (“Audible”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to deny Audible’s motion for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 including its request for additional discovery to develop the § 285 claim. We heard oral argument on September 5, 2007. Because we discern no clear error in the district court’s finding that the case is not exceptional and because we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional discovery, we affirm.Download the decision.
| | SmithKline Beecham Corporation, et al. v. Dudas
The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a preliminary injunction yesterday against the USPTO suspending the implementation of the new rules that were to take effect November 1, 2007.
For the reasons stated above, the Court will: (1) grant GSK’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction; (2) deny the PTO’s Motion to Strike Exhibit E of the Memorandum in Support of GSK’s Motion; (3) grant the Motion of Amicus Curiae AIPLA for Leave fo File its Brief in Support of GSK’s Motion; (4) grant HEXAS, The Roskamp Institute, and Tikvah’s Joint Motion in Support of Motion for Leave to File Amici Curiae Brief in Support of GSK’s Motion; and (5) grant the Motion of Amicus Curiae Elan Pharmaceutical Corp. for Leave to File its Brief in Support of GSK’s Motion.
Posted at 01:47 PM in Patent Case Law | Permalink