Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Erik Brunetti applied to register the word “FUCK” as a trademark for various goods and services, including sunglasses, jewelry, bags, and retail store services. After initial refusals based on the mark being “immoral or scandalous”—a ground later found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Iancu v. Brunetti—the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reexamined the applications. The PTO’s examining attorney refused registration, finding that the term was a widely used, commonplace word that failed to function as a trademark because consumers would not perceive it as identifying the source of the goods or services.The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed the refusals, concluding that the mark did not serve as a source indicator. The Board reasoned that “FUCK” is an “all-purpose word” with many recognized meanings and is commonly used on similar goods by various sources, so it would not be seen by consumers as distinguishing Brunetti’s products from others. The Board also rejected Brunetti’s constitutional arguments and his reliance on other registered marks, stating that each application must be considered on its own merits.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s decision under the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected most of Brunetti’s arguments but found that the Board failed to articulate a clear and rational standard for when an “all-purpose word” like “FUCK” can or cannot function as a trademark, especially given the existence of similar registered marks. The Federal Circuit vacated the Board’s decision and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Board must provide a satisfactory explanation and coherent guidance for its actions. View "In Re BRUNETTI " on Justia Law

A graphic designer was commissioned in 2016 to create a room-sized artwork for a brewery’s exhibition at an annual fair produced by the defendant. The agreement specified that the designer would retain copyright ownership and that the installation could only be shown in person to paying patrons at the 2016 event. During the fair, the defendant created and widely disseminated marketing videos online featuring the designer’s work without attribution, despite the designer’s requests for credit. The designer applied for copyright registration in April 2017, and the work was eventually registered, though the exact date of registration is not in the record.The designer first filed a pro se copyright infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in early 2018, but the court dismissed it without prejudice for failure to allege copyright registration. Instead of amending, the designer filed a second action in state court, which was removed to federal court. After amending her complaint, the district court again dismissed the copyright claims, this time with prejudice, for failure to state a plausible claim and failure to allege registration. The designer did not respond to the motion to dismiss. In December 2020, now represented by counsel, she filed the present suit in federal court, which was dismissed with prejudice on claim preclusion grounds. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed and remanded for further consideration.On remand, the district court again dismissed the case, this time on both claim preclusion and statute of limitations grounds. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the copyright infringement claims were untimely under the three-year statute of limitations, as the plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged infringement by early 2017. The court also found no basis for equitable tolling. View "Foss v. Eastern States Exposition" on Justia Law

Several former members of the rock band Supertramp entered into a 1977 publishing agreement with their bandmates and manager, allocating specific percentages of songwriting royalties among themselves. These royalties were distributed according to the agreement for decades. In 2018, two of the principal songwriters and their publishing company stopped paying royalties to the plaintiffs, prompting the plaintiffs to file a breach of contract action. The dispute centered on whether the agreement could be unilaterally terminated or whether the obligation to pay royalties continued as long as the songs generated income.After the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the court ruled as a matter of law that the defendants could terminate the agreement after a “reasonable time,” finding no express or implied duration in the contract. The case proceeded to a jury trial, which found in favor of the defendants, concluding that the contract had been terminated after a reasonable time. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and applied California contract law, which requires courts to first look for an express duration in the contract, then to determine if a duration can be implied from the contract’s nature and circumstances, and only if neither is found, to construe the duration as a reasonable time. The Ninth Circuit agreed there was no express duration but held that the contract’s nature implied a duration: the obligation to pay royalties continues as long as the songs generate publishing income, ending only when the copyrights expire and the works enter the public domain. The court reversed the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiffs on liability. View "Thompson v. Hodgson" on Justia Law

Capstone Studios Corp., a copyright holder, sought to identify 29 subscribers of CoxCom LLC, an Internet service provider, whose IP addresses were allegedly used to share pirated copies of Capstone’s movie via the BitTorrent peer-to-peer protocol. Capstone petitioned the clerk of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii to issue a subpoena under § 512(h) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to compel Cox to disclose the subscribers’ identities. Cox notified its subscribers, and one, identified as “John Doe,” objected, claiming he had not downloaded the movie and that his Wi-Fi had been unsecured.A magistrate judge treated John Doe’s letter as a motion to quash the subpoena. The magistrate judge found that Cox’s involvement was limited to providing Internet access, qualifying it for the safe harbor under 17 U.S.C. § 512(a), which covers service providers acting solely as conduits for data transmission. The magistrate judge concluded that, as a matter of law, a § 512(h) subpoena cannot issue to a § 512(a) service provider. The district court adopted these findings and quashed the subpoena. Capstone’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and Capstone appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the DMCA does not permit a § 512(h) subpoena to issue to a service provider whose role is limited to that described in § 512(a), because such providers cannot remove or disable access to infringing content and thus cannot receive a valid notification under § 512(c)(3)(A), which is a prerequisite for a § 512(h) subpoena. The court also found no clear error in the district court’s factual finding that Cox acted only as a § 512(a) service provider. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order quashing the subpoena. View "In re Subpoena Internet Subscribers of Cox Communications, LLC" on Justia Law

A state port authority and a group of related companies entered into a series of letters of intent (LOIs) regarding the possible expansion and operation of a port facility. The final LOI, signed in December 2019, included provisions for confidentiality, exclusivity, and certain legally binding terms, but also stated that it was not a binding agreement to consummate the potential transaction. The port authority’s board approved the LOI and several subsequent extensions, but the board minutes did not include the terms or conditions of the LOI. After negotiations failed, the port authority terminated the LOI. The companies claimed significant losses and alleged the port authority had breached the LOI and misused confidential information.The Harrison County Circuit Court found that the LOI was unenforceable under Mississippi’s “minutes rule,” which requires that public board contracts be sufficiently detailed in the board’s official minutes. The court dismissed all claims based on the LOI, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, but allowed claims for unjust enrichment and misappropriation of trade secrets to proceed. Both parties sought interlocutory appeal, and the appeals were consolidated.The Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the LOI was unenforceable because the board minutes did not contain enough terms to determine the parties’ obligations, and held that the minutes rule was not superseded by the Open Meetings Act. The court also held that unjust enrichment, as an implied contract claim, was barred by the minutes rule and reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on that claim. However, the court affirmed that the companies’ notice of claim regarding misappropriation of trade secrets was sufficient under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the remaining claim. View "The Mississippi State Port Authority at Gulfport v. Yilport Holding A.S." on Justia Law

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship.The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

A behavioral healthcare practice employed four therapists who, while still working there, explored job opportunities with another provider. During this process, the prospective employer requested and received information from the therapists, including details about their employment agreements, client lists, and insurance credentialing. The therapists had previously signed confidentiality agreements with their original employer, which defined client information as confidential. After the therapists joined the new provider, a significant number of clients followed them, and the original practice eventually closed.The original employer first sued the therapists for breaching their agreements and settled that case. It then brought a separate lawsuit against the new provider, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under Utah’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The claim centered on the new provider’s alleged use of confidential client information to facilitate onboarding clients, set therapist compensation, and prepare for insurance billing. Both parties moved for summary judgment in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County. The district court granted partial summary judgment to the original employer on liability, finding that trade secrets existed and had been misappropriated, but left damages and exemplary damages for trial. The court denied the new provider’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the original employer had met its burden of production.The Supreme Court of the State of Utah reviewed the interlocutory order. It held that the original employer failed to present a legally sufficient evidentiary basis for its damages theory, a necessary element of a trade secrets claim. The court found no evidence that the new provider’s receipt of client information caused the original employer’s losses, as clients left primarily to follow their therapists. The court reversed the district court’s denial of summary judgment for the new provider and set aside the partial summary judgment for the original employer. View "Military and Veteran Counseling Center, LLC v. Feller Behavioral Health PLLC" on Justia Law

The case concerns two patents related to methods for preparing DNA samples for sequencing, owned by Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Labcorp Genetics, Inc., and The General Hospital Corporation. The patents describe techniques for enriching specific regions of DNA to make sequencing more efficient, using various types of primers and adaptors. The dispute centers on whether certain DNA preparation kits sold by Qiagen and its affiliates infringe these patents, specifically regarding the design and function of the primers used in Qiagen’s kits.After the plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of both patents, the case proceeded to a jury trial. The jury found that Qiagen willfully infringed the asserted claims of both patents—under the doctrine of equivalents for one patent and literally for the other—and awarded the plaintiffs approximately $4.7 million in damages. The district court denied Qiagen’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on non-infringement, invalidity, and damages, and also denied Qiagen’s alternative request for a new trial.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of JMOL de novo. The Federal Circuit held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings of infringement for either patent. The court determined that the district court erred in allowing the jury to interpret the claim term “identical” as “identical to a portion,” and found that the evidence did not support infringement under the doctrine of equivalents or literal infringement as required by the patent claims and their constructions. As a result, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of JMOL of non-infringement for both patents, and remanded with instructions to grant JMOL of non-infringement. View "LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS v. QIAGEN SCIENCES, LLC " on Justia Law

A group of employees at a wealth management firm in Richmond, Virginia, decided to leave their employer and establish a competing business. These employees, who had access to proprietary client information, had signed employment agreements with their former employer that included non-solicitation and confidentiality clauses. The agreements also addressed the industry-wide Protocol for Broker Recruiting, which generally allows departing financial advisors to take certain client information and solicit former clients if specific procedures are followed. However, the agreements stated that their terms would control over the Protocol in the event of any conflict. After resigning, the employees formed a new firm and began contacting their former clients, resulting in the loss of hundreds of accounts and significant assets for their previous employer.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the former employer, barring the former employees and their new firm from contacting former clients or using confidential information. The district court found a strong likelihood of success on the merits of the trade secrets claims against all defendants, reasoning that even under the Protocol, the defendants’ conduct constituted impermissible “raiding.” The court also found that the employer would likely suffer irreparable harm and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s interpretation of the Protocol and the employment agreements. The Fourth Circuit held that the Protocol’s “raiding” exception applies only to actions by outside firms targeting another firm’s employees, not to employees leaving to form their own business. The court concluded that the employment agreements, not the Protocol, governed the former employees’ conduct and supported the injunction against them. However, because the new firm was not a party to those agreements, the injunction as to the new firm was vacated. Thus, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the injunction against the former employees but vacated it as to the new firm. View "Salomon & Ludwin, LLC v. Winters" on Justia Law

Quintara Biosciences, Inc. and Ruifeng Biztech, Inc. are both DNA-sequencing-analysis companies that had a business relationship from 2013 to 2019. In 2019, the relationship deteriorated, with Quintara alleging that Ruifeng locked it out of its office, took its equipment, and hired away its employees. Quintara then filed suit, asserting a claim under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), alleging misappropriation of nine specific trade secrets, including customer and vendor databases, marketing plans, and proprietary technology.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, referencing a California state law rule, ordered Quintara to disclose its alleged trade secrets with “reasonable particularity” at the outset of discovery. Dissatisfied with the specificity of Quintara’s disclosures, Ruifeng moved to strike most of the trade secrets under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f). The district court granted the motion, striking all but two of the trade secrets and effectively dismissing Quintara’s claims as to the others. The case proceeded to trial on the remaining trade secrets, and a jury found in favor of Ruifeng.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the district court’s actions. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by striking Quintara’s trade secrets at the discovery stage. The Ninth Circuit clarified that, under the DTSA, whether a trade secret is identified with sufficient particularity is a question of fact to be resolved at summary judgment or trial, not at the outset of discovery. The court reversed the district court’s order striking the trade secrets, affirmed the denial of a mistrial, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The main holding is that DTSA claims should not be dismissed at the discovery stage for lack of particularity except in extreme circumstances, and Rule 12(f) does not authorize striking trade secrets in this context. View "QUINTARA BIOSCIENCES, INC. V. RUIFENG BIZTECH, INC." on Justia Law