Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

In this trademark infringement suit under the Lanham Act, furniture manufacturer Omnia admitted that it blatantly copied and began selling the same goods branded with the mark of its (now ex) business partner, retail furniture company Stone Creek. The district court granted judgment for Omnia. The panel reversed and held that Omnia's use of Stone Creek's mark was likely to cause confusion where placing an identical mark on identical goods creates a strong likelihood of confusion, especially when the mark was fanciful. Furthermore, Stone Creek also sells in overlapping market channels and other factors heighten the likelihood that consumers will be confused as to the origin of the furniture. The panel rejected Omnia's invocation of a common-law defense—known as the Tea Rose–Rectanus doctrine—that protects use of a mark in a remote geographic area when the use is in good faith. In this case, Omnia's knowledge of Stone Creek's prior use defeated any claim of good faith. Finally, the panel confirmed that a 1999 amendment to the trademark statutes did not sweep away the panel's precedent requiring that a plaintiff prove willfulness to justify an award of the defendant's profits. The panel remanded this issue for the district court to make such a determination. View "Stone Creek, Inc. v. Omnia Italian Design, Inc." on Justia Law

Genband sells products and services that help telecommunications companies offer voice communications services over Internet Protocol networks (VoIP services) and owns patents related to its offerings. Metaswitch sells telecommunications products and services that compete with Genband’s offerings but was not a major competitor until recent years. After a jury found that Metaswitch infringed various claims of several of Genband’s patents and that those claims had not been proven invalid, Genband sought a permanent injunction. The district court denied the request, concluding that Genband had not established irreparable harm from the infringing activities by alleging that Metaswitch made competing sales. The court indicated that Genband was required to prove that “the patented features drive demand for the product.” The Federal Circuit vacated, reasoning that the district court may have relied on too stringent an interpretation of the requirement, for an injunction, that the allegedly irreparable harm is being caused by the infringement. The court stated that it could not be confident of the answer to the causation question under the standard properly governing the inquiry or whether there is any independent ground for finding no irreparable harm or otherwise denying an injunction. View "Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp." on Justia Law

The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for defendants in this trademark infringement suit regarding defendants' use of Marketquest's "All-in-One" and "The Write Choice" trademarks. The panel held that Marketquest's pleading was adequate to support a cause of action for trademark infringement under a reverse confusion theory of likely confusion; consideration of the intent factor in the likelihood of confusion analysis varies with the type of confusion being considered; the district court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants based upon the fair use defense regarding their use of "All-in-One;" and the district court erred by applying the fair use analysis to defendants' use of "The Write Choice" after determining that Marketquest presented no evidence of likely confusion. View "Marketquest Group, Inc. v. BIC Corp." on Justia Law

IPCom’s 830 patent describes and claims a method and system for handing over a mobile phone call from one base station to another base station. After IPCom sued HTC for infringement, HTC successfully requested that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office conduct inter partes reexamination of claims 1, 5–26, and 28–37. In the first round, the Examiner concluded that the claims were patentable, but the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a new ground of rejection for claims 1 and 5–30. In the second round, IPCom amended claims 1, 5–26, and 28–37, but the Board found that these amended claims were obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of various combinations of prior art. The Federal Circuit concluded, under the circumstances of this case, the Board properly had the authority to consider the patentability of claims 31–37. In its first decision, the Board did not address whether claims 31–37 should be regarded as obvious, but those claims were amended after the first round. The court agreed with IPCom that the Board failed to conduct a proper claim construction of the “arrangement for reactivating the link” claim limitation and vacated the obviousness rejections based on that limitation. View "IPCom GmbH & Co. v. HTC Corp." on Justia Law

AdjustaCam’s patent, which issued in 1999, discloses a camera clip that supports a camera both on a flat surface and when attached to a computer monitor. AdjutaCam’s infringement litigation against Newegg included a Markman order, indicating that AdjustaCam's suit was baseless, and extended expert discovery. Just before summary judgment briefing, AdjustaCam voluntarily dismissed its infringement claims against Newegg with prejudice. Newegg then sought attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. 285. Following a remand in light of intervening Supreme Court precedent clarifying what constitutes an exceptional case, the district court again denied Newegg’s motion for fees. The Federal Circuit reversed. Based on the circumstances presented here, the wholesale reliance on the previous judge’s fact-finding was an abuse of discretion. The record points to this case as standing out from others with respect to the substantive strength of AdjustaCam’s litigating position. Where AdjustaCam may have filed a weak infringement lawsuit, accusing Newegg’s products of infringing the patent, AdjustaCam’s suit became baseless after the district court’s Markman order. View "AdjustaCam, LLC v. Newegg, Inc." on Justia Law

The claims at issue involve testing methods for fetal aneuploidies, conditions in which a fetus either has an abnormally high number of chromosomes (e.g., Down’s syndrome) or an abnormally low number (e.g., Turner’s syndrome). Previously, physicians diagnosed fetal aneuploidies using invasive amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling or less invasive methods, such as ultrasonography and biochemical marker detection that had suboptimal accuracy. In three interference proceedings between Stanford and Chinese University, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found that Stanford’s claims were unpatentable for lack of written description. The Federal Circuit vacated, finding that the Board relied on improper evidence and did not cite other substantial evidence to support its key findings. Whether a patent claim satisfies the written description requirement, 35 U.S.C. 112, depends on whether the description clearly allows persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the inventor invented what is claimed. On remand, the Board should examine whether a person of ordinary skill would have understood that the patent’s specification disclosed random MPS sequencing and would have known, as of the priority date, that the specification’s reference to Illumina products meant random MPS sequencing as recited in the claims, by examining the record evidence as to pre-filing date art-related facts on Illumina products. View "Stanford University v. Chinese University of Hong Kong" on Justia Law

The patent, covering methods of treating hepatitis C by administering compounds having a specific chemical and stereochemical structure, issued on a final application filed on June 27, 2003, by the inventor, Storer. In an interference proceeding, Storer was initially declared the senior party based on the “S1” provisional application's June 28, 2002 filing date. Clark’s Application was filed September 12, 2007, with priority claimed to a provisional application filed on May 30, 2003. Both were filed before the effective date of the America Invents Act, which abolished the first-to-invent interference rule in favor of a first-to-file rule. Clark moved to deny Storer the priority date of the S1 application and to invalidate Storer’s claims, arguing that the S1 application did not enable compounds having the 2´F(down) substituent. Storer argued that these compounds were generically disclosed in the S1 application, and were readily obtained based on the disclosure in the S1 provisional and prior art. The Board awarded priority to Clark. The Federal Circuit affirmed; substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that “a high amount of experimentation is necessary to synthesize” the target compound. The record showed sufficient variability and unpredictability to support a conclusion that Storer’s provisional application did not enable the interference subject matter. View "Storer v. Clark" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against various defendants in the film industry, alleging copyright and state law claims, including breach of implied-in-fact contract and declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleged that defendants used his screenplay idea to create "The Purge" films without providing him compensation or credit as a writer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to strike the state law claims. In this case, plaintiff's implied-in-fact contract claim did not arise from protected free speech activity because the claim was based on defendants' failure to pay for the use of plaintiff's idea, not the creation, production, distribution, or content of the films. The panel also held that defendants' failure to pay was not conduct in furtherance of the right to free speech. View "Jordan-Benel v. Universal City Studios, Inc." on Justia Law

The rock group “The Slants,” chose that name to dilute the term’s denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asians. The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied an application for registration of the name under 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which prohibits the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit in finding the clause unconstitutional. The Court first rejected an argument that the clause applies only to natural or juristic persons. The Court then held that the clause is subject to the Free Speech Clause, which does not regulate government speech. Trademarks are private, not government speech. "If trademarks become government speech when they are registered, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently.” The disparagement clause denies registration to any mark that is offensive to a substantial percentage of the members of any group. That is viewpoint discrimination. The “public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.” The disparagement clause cannot withstand even “relaxed” review. It does not serve a “substantial interest,” nor is it “narrowly drawn.” View "Matal v. Tam" on Justia Law

Outdry’s 171 patent claims methods of waterproofing leather, particularly for the manufacture of shoes, clothes, or leather accessories. The specification discloses prior art methods of waterproofing leather shoes, including sewing a fabric lining and a semipermeable film to the interior surface of the leather or gluing a semi-permeable membrane inside the leather around the membrane’s perimeter, but states those methods allowed a water cushion to form in which water penetrates the leather and becomes trapped between the membrane and interior surface of the leather. The 171 patent sought to overcome this issue by “directly pressing” a semi-permeable membrane onto the leather via a dotted glue pattern. The Patent Board found that the claims would have been obvious over a combination of prior art. The Federal Circuit affirmed, upholding the Board’s construction of “directly pressing” and finding that a prior reference discloses “directly pressing” and “a process for waterproofing leather.” The Board’s fact finding regarding motivation to combine is supported by substantial evidence. View "Outdry Technologies Corp. v. Geox S.P.A." on Justia Law