Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Fuente Marketing Ltd., a family-owned company selling premium hand-rolled cigars, owns two registered standard character trademarks for the letter X in connection with cigars and related products. Vaporous Technologies, LLC, designs and manufactures oral vaporizers and sought to register a mark featuring an abstract stick figure composed of intersecting lines forming a stylized X and a shaded circle above it, for use with various smoking-related goods. Fuente opposed this trademark application, alleging a likelihood of confusion with its own X marks.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), reviewed the opposition. The parties stipulated certain facts, including a description of Vaporous’s mark. The TTAB applied the In re E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. factors, finding that while the goods and trade channels overlapped and thus favored a likelihood of confusion, the dissimilarity of the marks weighed heavily against it. The Board found Fuente’s X marks conceptually strong but commercially weak and determined the relevant DuPont factors were either neutral or favored confusion, except for the critical mark similarity factor. Ultimately, the TTAB concluded that the marks were sufficiently distinct in commercial impression, appearance, and sound to avoid confusion and dismissed Fuente’s opposition.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s decision, holding that the dissimilarity between the marks was sufficient, even in light of other factors, to negate any likelihood of confusion. The court concluded that the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Fuente had not shown any harmful legal error. The decision of the TTAB was therefore affirmed. View "FUENTE MARKETING LTD. v. VAPOROUS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC " on Justia Law

A dispute arose between a South Korean electronics manufacturer and a group of Delaware-based patent holding entities after the manufacturer paid $12.8 million to license certain patents in order to protect itself and its customers from infringement claims. Despite this agreement, the patent holders later sued two of the manufacturer’s major automotive customers in Texas, alleging infringement based on those customers’ use of the manufacturer’s telematics units. The customers settled with the patent holders and then sought indemnification from the manufacturer for their legal expenses and settlement payments, as contemplated by supply agreements between the manufacturer and its customers.The manufacturer initiated a breach of contract action in the Delaware Superior Court, alleging that the patent holders’ Texas lawsuits violated the license agreement, which was intended to provide “patent peace” for both the manufacturer and its customers. The parties disputed whether the telematics units at issue were covered by the license or excluded as “Foundry Products.” The Superior Court ruled on summary judgment that the telematics units were covered and not excluded. The jury found for the manufacturer, awarding over $17 million in damages. The court then capped damages at $12.8 million per the contract but, after trial, further reduced the award to $4.9 million based on a new argument by the patent holders about which entity had received the license fee. The court also denied prejudgment interest and costs.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the findings that the telematics units were covered by the license and that sufficient evidence supported the manufacturer’s damages and indemnification obligations. It reversed the post-trial reduction of damages to $4.9 million, finding that argument was raised too late and prejudiced the manufacturer, reinstating the $12.8 million cap. The court also reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and costs, remanding for their calculation and award. View "LG Electronics Inc. v. Invention Investment Fund I, L.P." on Justia Law

A non-profit organization that develops and sells technical standards for use in industry brought suit against a for-profit company that operates an online library of building codes. The for-profit company published on its website the full text of several copyrighted standards developed by the non-profit, which had been incorporated by reference into the International Building Code. This building code, in turn, was adopted as law by the City of Philadelphia and other jurisdictions. The for-profit company made these incorporated standards freely available, though it also sold premium subscriptions for enhanced features. The non-profit derived significant revenue from licensing and selling its standards, including those incorporated into law, and did not authorize the copying.The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. After limited discovery and a hearing, the District Court denied the non-profit’s motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the for-profit company was likely to succeed on its fair use defense. The District Court found that the company’s publication of the standards for the purpose of public access to the law was transformative, even though the use was commercial in part, and that the standards, as incorporated into law, were primarily factual in nature. The District Court also found that copying the entire standards was reasonable because the law incorporated those standards in full, and that the effect on the market for the standards was at best equivocal.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the preliminary injunction. The Third Circuit held that the for-profit company is likely to succeed on the merits of its fair use defense, as three of the four statutory fair use factors favored fair use and the fourth was equivocal. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "American Society for Testing & Materials v. UPCODES Inc" on Justia Law

A company owned a patent involving technology that allows mobile device applications to be downloaded and installed in the background, without requiring users to visit an application store. Another company, which had previously developed and marketed a product with similar features, initiated a post-grant review proceeding before the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging the validity of the patent's original claims. During the proceeding, the patent owner sought to amend the claims by proposing substitute claims, which included additional limitations. The challenger argued that the substitute claims were also unpatentable.The Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted the patent owner’s revised motion to amend, finding that the challenger had not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the substitute claims were unpatentable or patent ineligible. The Board also determined that the original claims were unpatentable based on a prior decision invalidating claims of a related parent patent. The challenger appealed the Board’s decision regarding the substitute claims to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the challenger had Article III standing to appeal. The court found that the challenger failed to demonstrate an injury in fact because it did not provide evidence showing concrete plans to engage in activities that would potentially infringe the substitute claims, nor did it sufficiently link its previous product features to the limitations in the new claims. As a result, the court held that the challenger lacked standing and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court awarded costs to the patent owner. View "IRONSOURCE LTD. v. DIGITAL TURBINE, INC. " on Justia Law

Fortress Iron, LP developed a pre-assembled vertical cable railing system for outdoor spaces, collaborating with two Chinese companies for its manufacture and quality control. Fortress's owner originated the idea, and an employee prepared initial sketches. Employees of the quality control company, HuaPing Huang and Alfonso Lin, contributed critical refinements to the design. After incorporating these suggestions, Fortress filed for and obtained two patents, listing only its owner and employee as inventors, omitting Lin and Huang. Huang later left his company and could not be located.Fortress sued Digger Specialties, Inc. for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. During litigation, it emerged that Lin and Huang were coinventors. Fortress successfully added Lin to the patents under 35 U.S.C. § 256(a), but was unable to add Huang due to his unavailability. Fortress then moved for partial summary judgment to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), while Digger Specialties moved for summary judgment asserting patent invalidity due to incorrect inventorship. The district court denied Fortress’s motion to correct inventorship, holding that notice and an opportunity for hearing must be given to all parties concerned—including Huang—before correction could be ordered. The court granted summary judgment to Digger Specialties, holding the patents invalid for omission of an inventor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Federal Circuit held that an omitted coinventor is a “party concerned” under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b) and must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before inventorship can be corrected. As Fortress could not satisfy this statutory requirement, correction was unavailable and the patents were invalid. The Federal Circuit thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment of invalidity. View "FORTRESS IRON, LP v. DIGGER SPECIALTIES, INC. " on Justia Law

A company that designs and manufactures interactive technology products entered into reseller agreements with another company, granting the latter exclusive rights to sell its products in certain territories. Several years later, the manufacturer revoked the exclusivity, after which the reseller’s owner and his son developed a competing product. The manufacturer then terminated the reseller relationship. Subsequently, the reseller sued the manufacturer in South Carolina state court for various business torts and contract claims. The parties settled and executed a written agreement that broadly released and dismissed any and all claims and counterclaims that could have been brought in the litigation, including through a specific handwritten provision. Nevertheless, shortly after, the manufacturer initiated a federal lawsuit, alleging intellectual property violations related to the competing product.The state court dismissed the original action with prejudice, including all possible claims and counterclaims. In the federal action, the defendants argued that the settlement agreement and res judicata barred the new claims. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina initially allowed certain claims to proceed, but after further evidence and reconsideration, it granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the claims precluded by the settlement and the state court’s dismissal. A jury was then impaneled for trial on the defendants’ counterclaims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings. The Court of Appeals held that the manufacturer’s claims were barred by res judicata based on the settlement and state court order, as the language of the agreement and the parties’ intent encompassed the intellectual property claims. The appellate court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s evidentiary rulings, its reconsideration of summary judgment, or the conduct of the trial, and affirmed the judgment in full. View "Clear Touch Interactive, Inc. v. The Ockers Company" on Justia Law

A trademark holder brought an action against numerous foreign online vendors, alleging that they infringed her registered mark by selling counterfeit goods through e-commerce platforms such as Walmart.com and eBay.com. The vendors, all based in China, operated online storefronts that were accessible from the United States and offered shipping to U.S. customers, including those in Illinois. The plaintiff attached a “Schedule A” list to her complaint identifying the vendors. The defendants did not initially appear in the case.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered a default judgment against the defendants. The court found personal jurisdiction over them on the basis that they operated online stores targeting U.S. consumers, offered shipping to Illinois, and had allegedly sold infringing products to Illinois residents. The evidence supporting the finding of Illinois sales included website screenshots showing that a product could be ordered and shipped to a Chicago address, but did not show that any actual sales to Illinois occurred. After the default judgment, the defendants appeared and moved to vacate the judgment, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction and improper service. The district court denied the motion, reaffirming its prior findings.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit found that there was no evidence of any actual sales to Illinois residents. The court held that merely operating an online store accessible in Illinois and offering shipping to Illinois, without completed sales in the forum, is insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. The district court’s findings to the contrary were clearly erroneous. The Seventh Circuit vacated the default judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Liu v. Monthly" on Justia Law

Two pharmaceutical companies developing treatments for achondroplasia, a genetic disorder, became involved in litigation after one company (Ascendis) filed a New Drug Application (NDA) for its product. The other company (BioMarin), holding a relevant patent, filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging patent infringement by Ascendis’s product. Shortly afterward, Ascendis filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking a judgment of non-infringement and arguing that its activities were protected under the statutory “safe harbor” for regulatory approval.More than thirty days after filing its district court complaint, Ascendis moved for an expedited hearing. BioMarin responded by seeking to dismiss or stay the district court action pending the ITC’s investigation. Ascendis voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice and promptly refiled a nearly identical complaint, this time moving for a mandatory stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(2), which requires a district court to stay its proceedings if requested within thirty days of the action’s filing or of being named as a respondent in the ITC. BioMarin opposed, contending Ascendis’s request was untimely, and sought a discretionary stay instead.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted BioMarin’s motion for a discretionary stay and denied Ascendis’s motion for a mandatory stay as moot. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that § 1659(a)(2) does not permit a litigant to restart the thirty-day period for a mandatory stay by voluntarily dismissing and refiling a substantially identical action. The court reasoned that the statutory deadline applies to the original action and that allowing refiling would circumvent the statute’s purpose. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. View "ASCENDIS PHARMA A/S v. BIOMARIN PHARMACEUTICAL INC. " on Justia Law

Several major music copyright owners, including a leading entertainment company, sought to hold an Internet service provider responsible for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers. The service provider, which serves millions of customers, was notified by a monitoring company of over 160,000 instances where its subscribers’ IP addresses were linked to alleged copyright violations such as illegal music file sharing. Although the provider had policies prohibiting infringement and took steps such as issuing warnings and suspending service, the copyright holders argued these measures were inadequate and brought suit seeking to impose liability on the provider for continuing to serve known infringers.The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. There, the jury found in favor of the copyright owners on both contributory and vicarious liability, and determined the provider’s infringement was willful, awarding $1 billion in statutory damages. After the District Court denied the provider’s post-trial motion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the finding of contributory liability, reasoning that supplying a service with knowledge it would be used for infringement was sufficient. The Fourth Circuit, however, reversed as to vicarious liability and remanded for a new determination of damages.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case concerning contributory liability. The Court held that a service provider is contributorily liable for a user’s infringement only if it either induced the infringement or provided a service tailored for infringement. Because the provider neither encouraged infringement nor offered a service primarily designed for infringement—since Internet access has substantial lawful uses—the provider was not contributorily liable. The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s judgment on contributory liability and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment" on Justia Law

Gregory Parzych served as president of ZipBy USA, LLC, a parking technology company, after previously founding and selling a similar company, TCS. While employed by ZipBy, Parzych entered into several agreements restricting conflicts of interest and disclosure of confidential information. In 2020, Parzych learned that TCS might be for sale. He advised ZipBy’s owner against pursuing the acquisition, then secretly attempted to purchase TCS for himself via a shell company, using financial information he had obtained as a ZipBy executive. ZipBy discovered his actions, terminated his employment, and, along with affiliates, sued Parzych for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark infringement, and false designation.After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the jury found for ZipBy on all claims, awarding compensatory and exemplary damages. The district court later granted judgment as a matter of law for Parzych on the trade secret claims, striking the exemplary damages but upholding the other verdicts and damages. The court also entered a permanent injunction barring Parzych from acquiring TCS and awarded ZipBy a portion of its attorneys’ fees. Parzych appealed, contesting evidentiary rulings, denial of a trial continuance, and the fee award, while ZipBy cross-appealed the judgment on the trade secret claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting ZipBy’s expert lost-profits testimony, excluding late-disclosed evidence, or denying a trial continuance due to counsel’s COVID-19 infection. The appellate court agreed with the district court’s judgment as a matter of law against ZipBy’s trade secret claims, finding insufficient evidence that Parzych’s actions constituted trade secret misappropriation. Finally, the fee award was affirmed as a reasonable enforcement of the IP Agreement’s fee-shifting provision. View "ZipBy USA LLC v. Parzych" on Justia Law