SoCal IP Institute :: February 27, 2017 :: Patent infringement under 271(f) and Copyright infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 27, 2017, we will discuss the following:
Life Technologies Corp et. al. v. Promega Corp., No. 14-1538 (S.Ct. February 22, 2017) (available here).  Life Technologies sublicensed Promega’s patent that related to a toolkit for genetic testing. Life Technologies then shipped one of the five components of the […]

By |February 23rd, 2017|Copyright, Infringement, Patent|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: Happy President’s Day!

In honor of President’s Day, we will not have our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting next week. The Institute will resume on Monday, February 27, 2017. Happy President’s Day!

By |February 16th, 2017|Trademark, TTAB|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: February 13, 2017 :: a Few TTAB Decisions

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 13, 2017, we will discuss the following:
In re Big Heart Wine LLC, Serial No. 86376188 (TTAB January 20, 2017) (available here).  Here, the TTAB is considering an appeal of a refusal to register the mark 100 PERCENT WINE for goods including “wine” which was refused […]

By |February 10th, 2017|Trademark, TTAB|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: February 6, 2017 :: CA finds attorney bills can be privileged and a trademark registration for white gunpowder

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, February 6, 2017, we will discuss the following:
Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Cal., December 29, 2016) (available here).  Reversing a lower court opinion, the California Supreme Court found that attorney billing invoices for work in pending and active […]

By |January 31st, 2017|Acquired Distintiveness, Trademark, TTAB|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: January 30, 2017 :: Some of the First Trademark and Copyright Decisions of 2017

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 30, 2017, we will discuss the following:
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Giganews, Inc. (9th Cir. 1/23/17) (available here).  Court dismissed 10’s claim for direct copyright infringement awarding Giganews fees and costs. 9th Circuit affirmed. 10 failed to state a claim where the court found that the […]

By |January 27th, 2017|Trademark|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: January 23, 2017 :: Trademark infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 23, 2017, we will discuss the following:
Viacom International Inc. v. IJR Capital Investments, LLC (S.D.Texas Jan. 11, 2017) (available here). IJR filed a trademark application for THE KRUSTY KRAB for restaurant services. Viacom then sent a cease and desist letter asking IJR to refrain from using the trademark […]

By |January 19th, 2017|Trademark|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: January 16, 2017 :: An Alice About-Face in S.D.N.Y.

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 16, 2017, we will discuss the following:
TNS Media Research, LLC v. TIVO Research and Analytics, Inc., Case No. 11 Civ. 4039 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2016) (available here). But, before you read that decision, read this one. The November 29, 2016 decision is a vacatur of the earlier, February […]

By |January 12th, 2017|Patent, Statutory Subject Matter|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: January 9, 2017 :: Patent Claim Interpretation and Trademark for Service Performed by Software

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 9, 2017, we will discuss the following:
D’Agostino v. Mastercard Int’l Inc., Case Nos. 2016-1592 and 2016-1593 (Fed Cir. December 22, 2016) (available here).  Method claims of Plaintiff’s patents disclose processes for generating limited-use transaction codes to be given to a merchant by a customer for […]

By |January 3rd, 2017|Anticipation, Inter Partes Review, Obviousness, Patent, Trademark|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: December 19, 2016 :: Recent Cases on Direct and Indirect Infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, December 19, 2016, we will discuss the following:
Medgraph, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Case No. 2015-2019 (Fed Cir. December 13, 2016) (available here). Medgraph asserted two patents against Medtronic related to an improved method for diagnosis and treatment of patients that generally relates to symptoms or medical […]

SoCal IP Institute :: Dec. 12, 2016 :: APPLE, INC. v. AMERANTH, INC.,

At our next SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, December 12, 2016, we will discuss the following:
Apple Inc. v. Ameranth. (Fed. Cir. November 29, 2016) (available here). In this appeal, the Court reviewed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions in three Covered Business Method (“CBM”) reviews.  Ameranth argued for a substantial evidence standard of review, […]

By |December 8th, 2016|Claim Construction, Patent, Unenforceability|0 Comments