Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

In the dispute between fashion designer and social media influencer Hayley Paige Gutman and her former employer, JLM Couture, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered the preliminary injunction and contempt order issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lower court had awarded JLM control of two social media accounts previously managed by Gutman and enforced a five-year restrictive covenant that prohibited Gutman from identifying herself as a designer of certain goods. The court also held Gutman in civil contempt for posts on Instagram that it deemed as marketing, violating an earlier version of the preliminary injunction.The Court of Appeals dismissed Gutman's appeal from the contempt order due to lack of appellate jurisdiction. It affirmed the district court's refusal to dissolve the preliminary injunction based on the law of the case. However, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s order that modified its preliminary injunction. The court found fault in the lower court's determination of the ownership of the disputed social media accounts and its failure to evaluate the reasonableness of the five-year noncompete restraint on Gutman. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals. View "JLM Couture, Inc. v. Gutman" on Justia Law

In a dispute between Ultra Bond, Inc., and its owner, Richard Campfield (collectively "Ultra Bond"), and Safelite Group, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively "Safelite"), both parties operate in the vehicle glass repair and replacement industry. Ultra Bond alleges that Safelite violated the Lanham Act by falsely advertising that windshield cracks longer than six inches could not be safely repaired and instead required replacement of the entire windshield. Safelite counterclaims that Ultra Bond stole trade secrets from Safelite in violation of state and federal law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that the district court was incorrect to grant summary judgment to Safelite on Ultra Bond’s Lanham Act claim. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Safelite's allegedly false statements may have caused economic injury to Ultra Bond, and this issue should go to a jury.The court also affirmed the district court's decision that Safelite's claims for conversion, civil conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract were preempted by the Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (OUTSA). However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite’s claim under OUTSA, ruling that Safelite's claim was not time-barred and should be evaluated further in the lower court.Finally, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Ultra Bond on Safelite's unfair competition claim, finding that Safelite hadn't provided enough evidence to support its claim that Ultra Bond's statements were false or that they had led to a diversion of customers from Safelite to Ultra Bond. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Campfield v. Safelite Group, Inc." on Justia Law

In a trademark dispute between two companies that used the word "Punchbowl" in their marks, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgement in favor of AJ Press, LLC. The court held that AJ Press, LLC's use of the Punchbowl mark was not outside the scope of the Lanham Act under the "Rogers test". The Rogers test, which governs disputes over trademarks that are used in expressive works protected by the First Amendment, does not apply when the accused infringer uses a trademark to designate the source of its own goods. The court found that AJ Press, LLC was using the Punchbowl mark to identify and distinguish its news products. The court reversed the district court's judgement and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the district court to proceed to a likelihood-of-confusion analysis under the Lanham Act. View "Punchbowl, Inc. v. AJ Press, LLC" on Justia Law

In the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Best Carpet Values, Inc. and Thomas D. Rutledge initiated a class action lawsuit against Google, LLC. The plaintiffs argued that Google, through its Search App on Android phones, displayed their websites in a way that occupied valuable space for which Google should have paid. They contended that Google received all the benefits of advertising from the use of that space. The plaintiffs made state-law claims for trespass to chattels, implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment, and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.The court reviewed questions certified by the district court for interlocutory review. In response to the first question, the court ruled that the website copies displayed on a user's screen should not be protected as chattel, concluding that a cognizable property right did not exist in a website copy. As a result, the plaintiffs’ trespass to chattels claim was dismissed.Addressing the third question, the court held that website owners cannot invoke state law to control how their websites are displayed on a user's screen without being preempted by federal copyright law. The court determined that the manner in which the plaintiffs’ websites were displayed fell within the subject matter of federal copyright law. It also found that the rights asserted by the plaintiffs’ implied-in-law contract and unjust enrichment claim were equivalent to the rights provided by federal copyright law. Thus, the plaintiffs’ state-law claim was preempted by federal copyright law.Given these findings, the court did not address the other certified questions. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in denying Google’s motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Best Carpet Values, Inc. v. Google LLC" on Justia Law

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decisions from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in a patent dispute between Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (PacBio) and Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. (PGI). The core dispute revolved around the interpretation of the term "identifying a single biomolecule" in the claims of PGI’s U.S. Patent No. 7,767,441. The Board interpreted the term to mean that the apparatus must be capable of ascertaining the identity of one single, individual biomolecule by examining only that biomolecule. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s interpretation. PacBio challenged the Board’s finding that the Hassibi reference did not disclose “identifying a single biomolecule” under the claim construction, while PGI challenged the Board’s finding that the Choumane reference did disclose “identifying a single biomolecule” under that construction. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s findings for both references and affirmed the decisions. PacBio and PGI bear their own costs. View "PACIFIC BIOSCIENCES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. PERSONAL GENOMICS TAIWAN, INC. " on Justia Law

In this case, Zachary Silbersher, a relator, filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act against Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. and others. Silbersher alleged that Valeant fraudulently obtained patents related to a drug and asserted these patents to stifle competition from generic drugmakers. He also claimed that Valeant defrauded the federal government by charging an artificially inflated price for the drug while falsely certifying that its price was fair and reasonable.The district court dismissed Silbersher’s action under the False Claims Act’s public disclosure bar, ruling that his allegations had already been publicly disclosed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court.The Court of Appeals held that an inter partes patent review proceeding, in which the Patent and Trademark Office invalidated one of Valeant's patents, did not qualify as a public disclosure under the False Claims Act because the government was not a party to that proceeding, and its primary function was not investigative. The Court of Appeals also held that the allegations in Silbersher's qui tam action were not "substantially the same" as the information that had been publicly disclosed. None of the qualifying public disclosures made a direct claim that Valeant committed fraud, nor did they disclose a combination of facts sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of fraud. Therefore, the public disclosure bar did not apply. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "SILBERSHER V. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS INT'L" on Justia Law

This case revolves around an interlocutory appeal from a consolidated case between Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., Abbott Diabetes Care Sales Corp. (collectively, “Abbott”), and DexCom, Inc. at the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. DexCom had sued Abbott for infringing its patents, leading Abbott to petition for inter partes review of the asserted patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. DexCom sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Abbott from proceeding with the inter partes review proceedings based on a forum selection clause in a settlement and license agreement between the parties. DexCom appealed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. The court found that the forum selection clause in the settlement and license agreement did not preclude the filing of inter partes review petitions after the Covenant Period because it allowed them during the Covenant Period. Therefore, DexCom could not succeed on its breach-of-contract counterclaim, making it ineligible for a preliminary injunction. View "DEXCOM, INC. v. ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC. " on Justia Law

In the patent infringement case between K-fee System GmbH and Nespresso USA, Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s decision. K-fee owns three patents related to coffee-machine portion capsules that display information to prevent their use in incompatible machines. The company alleged that Nespresso infringed these patents. The district court had interpreted the term "barcode" in K-fee's patents to exclude "bit codes," or codes made up of two binary symbols. Based on this interpretation, the court granted Nespresso’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.On appeal, the Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court’s interpretation of “barcode.” The court found that a "barcode" is defined by its visual appearance as a lineup of bars with varying widths, and that this definition can include bit codes. The court determined that the district court had erred in its claim construction of "barcode," and consequently, in its grant of summary judgment of non-infringement based on that construction. The case was remanded for further proceedings in line with this interpretation. View "K-FEE SYSTEM GMBH v. NESPRESSO USA, INC. " on Justia Law

The case involves ParkerVision, Inc. appealing a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) that invalidated one of its patents, U.S. Patent No. 7,110,444 ('444 patent), owned by ParkerVision, Inc., which relates to wireless local area networks (WLANs) that use frequency translation technology. The Board determined that claim 3 of the patent is unpatentable as obvious in light of prior art. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board's decision. The court found that the Board correctly construed the term “storage element” and did not procedurally err in how it treated certain arguments raised by the parties. The court also found substantial evidence supporting the Board's finding that the patent claim was obvious in light of prior art. The court found no violation of ParkerVision's procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and no abuse of the Board's discretion in excluding parts of ParkerVision’s sur-reply. View "PARKERVISION, INC. v. VIDAL " on Justia Law

In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit considered whether the defendants' Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) infringed two patents owned by the plaintiffs. The patents pertained to the use of the drug vortioxetine in the treatment of patients who had previously taken certain other antidepressant medications and had to cease or reduce use due to sexually related adverse events, and for the treatment of cognitive impairment. The defendants were seeking approval to market vortioxetine for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in adults, a use not covered by the patents. The plaintiffs sought to block the defendants from marketing a generic version of the drug until after the expiration of the patents.The court held that the defendants' ANDA filings did not infringe the plaintiffs' patents. The court found that the defendants' intended use of the drug, for the treatment of MDD in adults, did not infringe the patents which pertained to other specific uses of the drug.Moreover, the court found no induced or contributory infringement. Regarding induced infringement, the court held that the defendants' proposed labels for the drug did not encourage, recommend, or promote an infringing use. Regarding contributory infringement, the court held that the defendants' sale of the drug would have substantial noninfringing uses, thus there would be no contributory infringement.Additionally, the court rejected Lupin's cross-appeal, which challenged the district court's determination that Lupin infringed a patent concerning a process for manufacturing vortioxetine. The court affirmed the district court's construction of the term "reacting" in the patent and its determination of infringement. View "H. LUNDBECK A/S v. LUPIN LTD. " on Justia Law