SoCal IP Institute :: July 17, 2017 :: Adequate Written Description; Trademark Law Still Does Not Cover Copyright Claims

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 17, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University v. The Chinese University of Hong Kong. (Fed. Cir.  June 27, 2017) (available here). The PTAB found Stanford’s claims regarding testing methods for fetal aneuploidies (chromosomal disease) unpatentable for lack of […]

By |July 13th, 2017|Copyright, Patent, Trademark|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 10, 2017 :: Attorneys’ Fees for Exceptional Cases; Paying the PTO’s Expenses Includes Their Attorney’s Fees

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 10, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Adjustacam LLC v. Sakar International Inc. (Fed. Cir.  July 5, 2017) (available here). AdjustaCam is the exclusive licensee to a patent claiming a camera “rotatably attached . . . about a first axis of rotation.” Newegg produced […]

By |July 7th, 2017|Attorney's Fees, Infringement, Patent|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: June 26, 2017 ::Disparagement Clause of Lanham Act Facially Unconstitutional; What Does “Substantial Portion” of Components to a Patented Invention Mean?

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 26, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Matal v. Tam (Supreme Court, June 19, 2017) (available here). A rock group known as “The Slants” chose their band name in order to reclaim the term from its racist origins. The Trademark Office denied the band’s registration of […]

By |June 24th, 2017|Agreement Interpretation, Noninfringement, Patent, Trademark, TTAB|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: June 19, 2017 ::The Supreme Court on Patent Exhaustion; Housing Design Copyright Trolls

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 19, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (Supreme Court, May 30, 2017) (available here). Lexmark makes and sells certain printer toner cartridges. To prevent third parties from reselling used toner cartridges, Lexmark instituted a “buyback” program. Customers received […]

SoCal IP Institute :: June 12, 2017 :: Changes to Patent Venue and Google Is Still Not a Generic Term

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 12, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC  (Supreme Court, March 27, 2017) (available here).  Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland for patent infringement in Delaware. The district court denied TC’s motion to dismiss or transfer venue. TC petitioned […]

SoCal IP Institute :: May 8, 2017 :: Means-Plus-Function Standard and No Summary Judgment for Trade Dress Infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 8, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (Fed. Cir., June 16, 2015) (available here).  In the original panel opinion for this case, the majority held that use of the word “module” does not invoke means-plus-function language in patent claims, such that the relevant […]

SoCal IP Institute :: May 1, 2017 :: Marking Requirements and Counterclaim Pleading Standards Post-Twombly

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 1, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Rembrant Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Electonics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No 2016-1729 (Fed. Cir. April 17, 2017) (available here). A jury found that Samsung infringed Rembrandt’s asserted patents, which the jury also found not invalid over prior art cited […]

By |April 27th, 2017|Patent|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 24, 2017 :: WIPO Review: Voltas Ltd. v. Purewal; BWP Media v. T & S Software Associates

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 24, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Voltas Ltd v. Purewal, (WIPO 3/20/17) (available here). VL loses domain name dispute over possibility that disputed website had the appearance of an established engineering business.

BWP Media. v. T & S Software, (5th Cir. March 27, 2017)  (available here).  Copyright infringement inferred.  BWP […]

By |April 21st, 2017|Patent, Trade Secret|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 17, 2017 :: Safe harbor provisions in the DMCA and copyright infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 17, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Mavrix Photographs v. LiveJournal, (9th Cir. April 7, 2017) (available here). Plaintiff Mavrix sued LiveJournal, a social media platform, for posting its photographs protected by copyrights. The district court held that the LiveJournal was protected by the safe harbor provisions […]

By |April 13th, 2017|Patent, Trade Secret|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 3, 2017 :: Motion Tracking System Used in Fighter Jets Patent Eligible Under Section 101 and Employer Review Website Need Not Disclose User ID

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 3, 2017, we will discuss the following cases:
Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, (Fed. Cir. March 8, 2017) (available here).  Plaintiff asserted infringement of a patent that discloses an inertial tracking system for tracking the motion of an object relative to a moving reference frame against the government. […]

By |March 28th, 2017|Patent, Trade Secret|0 Comments