Search : Intellectual Property
Number of summaries found: 1911
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Intellectual Property, Professional Malpractice, Trade Secrets |
| Title: | Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Elec. Corp. |
| Date: | 11/24/09 |
| Case Number: | H033266 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's suit against a Taiwanese corporation and an Israeli corporation claiming that they misappropriated the design of a microchip used in manufacturing personal computers, trial court's entry of default judgment against defendants is reversed where: 1) undisputed facts plainly establish defendants' attorney's fault necessary to trigger a right to mandatory relief; 2) plaintiff's argument that relief was barred by Code of Civ. Proc. section 1008, which restricts motions for reconsideration and renewals of previously denied motions, is rejected; and 3) to the extent a literal application of section 1008 might conflict with the provisions of section 473(b), the latter must prevail. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Commercial Law, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent |
| Title: | Iovate Health Sci., Inc. v. Bio-Engineered Supplements & Nutrition, Inc. |
| Date: | 11/19/09 |
| Case Number: | 09-1018 |
| Summary: | In a patent case involving nutritional supplements containing a ketoacid and an amino acid to enhance muscle performance or recovery from fatigue, summary judgment holding certain of plaintiff's patent claims invalid as anticipated is affirmed as the Professional Protein advertisement constitutes an anticipatory printed publication under section 102(b) that invalidates the asserted claims of the patent as: 1) the ad discloses each and every claim limitation as a matter of law; and 2) a person of skill in the art, combining his or her knowledge of the art with the advertisement's suggestions, would have considered the advertisements to be enabled. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Contracts, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Intellectual Property, International Law, International Trade, Manufacturing |
| Title: | Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Tech., Inc. |
| Date: | 11/17/09 |
| Case Number: | H032378 |
| Summary: | In an action by a Taiwanese corporation and its California subsidiary seeking damages for misappropriation of intellectual property involving a Design Services Agreement of a silicon-germanium power amplifier for use in wireless networking devices, trial court's order quashing service of summons is reversed where: 1) a refusal by California courts to exercise jurisdiction cannot be justified by the mere fact that a claim arising from California contacts is prosecuted by a nonresident; and 2) subjecting the defendant to local jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice as, here the two Taiwanese defendants engaged in conduct in California, and caused effects in California, that made it readily foreseeable that they would be haled into court here in the event of a dispute of the present type. |
| Court: | U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark |
| Title: | Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc. |
| Date: | 11/16/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-35001 |
| Summary: | In an action seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff's acquisition of the vericheck.com domain name did not constitute trademark infringement or cybersquatting, judgment against plaintiff is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual decision that the "VeriCheck" mark was a distinctive, legally protectable mark under the ACPA and federal trademark law was based in part on reasoning contrary to federal trademark law and based in part on reasoning that could support the district court's conclusion. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Commercial Law, Contracts, Insurance Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark |
| Title: | Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York |
| Date: | 11/13/09 |
| Case Number: | B208699 |
| Summary: | In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Consumer Products, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark |
| Title: | In re 1800Mattress.com IP., LLC |
| Date: | 11/06/09 |
| Case Number: | 09-1188 |
| Summary: | Final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) refusing registration of the mark "Mattress.com" is affirmed as the Board's decision finding the mark generic in relation to the recited services was supported by substantial evidence. |
| Court: | U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Copyright, Intellectual Property |
| Title: | Schrock v. Learning Curve Int'l, Inc. |
| Date: | 11/05/09 |
| Case Number: | 08-1296 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's copyright infringement action against defendant who had hired him to take photos of the "Thomas & Friends" toy train characters for use in promotions, district court's dismissal of his complaint is reversed where: 1) the photos qualify for the limited derivative-work copyright provided by section 103(b) as plaintiff's artistic and technical choices combine to create a two-dimensional image that is subtly but nonetheless sufficiently his own; and 2) district court erred in concluding that plaintiff needed defendant's permission to copyright the photos, as there is nothing in the Copyright Act requiring the author of a derivative work to obtain permission to copyright his work from the owner of the copyright in the underlying work. |
| Court: | U.S. Fed. Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Administrative Law, Government Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark |
| Title: | Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc. |
| Date: | 11/05/09 |
| Case Number: | 09-1172 |
| Summary: | In trademark cancellation proceedings, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) decision canceling registration of appellant-Cold War Museum's service mark THE COLD WAR MUSEUM, finding that it had not proven acquired distinctiveness of the mark, is reversed where: 1) the Board erred in deciding that it could not consider evidence of acquired distinctiveness because appellant did not resubmit the evidence in the cancellation, as the unambiguous language of 37 C.F.R. section 2.122(b) provides that the entire file of the registration at issue is automatically part of the record, without any action necessary by the parties; and 2) the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that appellee had established a prima facie case that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness as appellee failed to present any evidence whatsoever relating to the distinctiveness of the mark and failed even to argue that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness in its petition for cancellation. |
| Court: | California Appellate Districts |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Consumer Products, Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets |
| Title: | Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. |
| Date: | 11/05/09 |
| Case Number: | G042205 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's case against the defendant for misappropriation of its trade secrets of an anti-viral protein based therapeutic used as a daily nasal spray for the prevention and treatment of the common cold, plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to accept plaintiff's trade secret identification statement as sufficient and to allow it to commence discovery is denied where: 1) the trial court applied the correct legal standard to plaintiff's trade secret identification statement; and 2) there was a basis in the record to support the court's conclusion that the statement was not reasonably particular under the circumstances presented. |
| Court: | U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Copyright, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property, Media Law |
| Title: | Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. |
| Date: | 11/04/09 |
| Case Number: | 07-5596 |
| Summary: | In plaintiff's copyright-infringement case against defendant for infringement of its copyright on George Clinton's song, based on the use of the phrase "Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea", district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's rights in the song and an award of statutory damages of $88,980 are affirmed where: 1) the jury instructions were not erroneous as a matter of law; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the instructions requested by the defendant. |