Attorney’s Fees – SoCal IP Law Institute

SoCal IP Law Institute MCLE meeting of June 13, 2022 – CAFC re: Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and CAFC re: Damages Calculation

Please join us on Monday, June 13, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss recent Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit action regarding Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions; and regarding Damages Calculation For Intrinsic Evidence on Indefiniteness and Sanctions please see: ClearOne v Shure. For Damages Calculation please see: Pavo v. Kingston. [...]

By Angelo Gaz|2022-06-09T19:23:49-07:00March 17th, 2022|Invalidity, Sanctions, Written Description, Attorney's Fees, Damages, Enablement, indefiniteness|0 Comments

An IPR Appellate Plaintiff Must have Standing to Appeal and What Makes for an Adequate Pre-Suit Infringement Investigation

Standing to appeal an IPR is deprived by an agreement of non-infringement Who is entitled to appeal an IPR decision? That is a recurring question in IPR jurisprudence. This still relatively-new process created by the American Invents Act has been found by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to allow "[a] person who is not [...]

By Jonathan Pearce|2021-01-07T12:40:25-08:00January 7th, 2021|Inter Partes Review, Patent, Standing, Attorney's Fees|0 Comments

January 15, 2018 What does it take to find a patent case exceptional ; copyright standards for error

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, January 15, 2018, we will discuss the following cases: Capital Security Systems, Inc. v. NCR Corp , (N.D. Ga. January 5, 2018) (available here). Capital Security sued NCR for patent infringement on four different patents. NCR successfully defended itself against all four asserting theories of invalidity [...]

By SoCal IP|2018-01-11T10:40:36-08:00January 11th, 2018|Detection/Prevention of Substance Abuse, Copyright Ownership, Patent, Attorney's Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: May 16, 2016 :: News Ethics Decision Regarding Conflict Waivers & Microsoft Patents are Found not Abstract under Alice

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 16, 2016, we will discuss the following cases: Sheppard Mullin v. J-M Mfg Co. (Cal. App. Feb. 26, 2016) (available here). In this unanimous published decision, the Court of Appeal reversed a $1.7 million dollar judgment holding that broad, non specific conflict waivers are invalid. In Enfish LLC v. [...]

By SoCal IP|2016-05-13T13:53:59-07:00May 13th, 2016|Litigation, Trademark, Attorney's Fees, conflict waiver, Ethics|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: May 9, 2016 :: Attorney fees in a trademark infringement case and design patent infringement

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 9, 2016, we will discuss the following cases: Baker v. Deshong (5th Cir. May 3, 2016) (available here). Baker sued Deshong in the Northern District of Texas for trademark infringement for Deshong's use of the phrase, "HIV Innocence Group Truth," and "HIV Innocence Project Truth." The [...]

By SoCal IP|2016-05-04T15:20:23-07:00May 4th, 2016|Litigation, Trademark, Attorney's Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: May 2, 2016 :: Trademarks in Printed Works and Rule 68 Interaction with Attorneys’ Fees

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 2, 2016, we will discuss the following cases: In re Jonathan Roche Fitness Ventures LLC, (TTAB April 15, 2016) (available here). This is an appeal from the examining attorney's refusal to register the mark NO EXCUSES DIET for a single book. In response to the [...]

By SoCal IP|2016-04-28T12:16:27-07:00April 28th, 2016|Litigation, Trademark, Attorney's Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 13, 2015 :: Standard for exceptional case and ownership of a registered trademark as between a foreign manufacturer and a U.S. seller

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 13, 2015 will be a discussion of the following cases: UVeritech, Inc. v. Amax Lighting, Inc., TTAB Cancellation No. 92057088, June 29, 2015 (available here). In this TTAB cancellation proceeding, the U.S. seller petitioned to cancel the foreign manufacturer's trademark. The TTAB ruled in favor of the U.S. seller and [...]

By SoCal IP|2015-07-12T13:26:14-07:00July 12th, 2015|Exceptional Case, Likelihood of Confusion, Patent, Trademark, TTAB, Attorney's Fees|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 20, 2015 :: District Courts Must Articulate Basis for not Awarding Attorneys’ Fees in an Exceptional Case & The Scope of Res Judicata

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 20, 2015 will be a discussion of the following cases: Oplus Tech, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. April 10, 2015) (available here, district court opinion available here). This is an appeal to the Federal Circuit from the Central District of California in which the [...]

By SoCal IP|2015-04-17T16:16:43-07:00April 17th, 2015|Litigation, Patent, Trademark, Attorney's Fees, Exceptional Case|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 13, 2015 :: A Citeable TTAB Decision (ProMark v. GFA) and Timely Atty Fees Motion in Slep-Tone

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 13, 2015 will be a discussion of the following cases: ProMark Brands Inc. v. GFA Brands Inc. (TTAB March 27, 2015) (available here). Here, ProMark (later assigned to H.J. Heinz Company) opposed GFA's trademark application for the plain word mark SMART BALANCE for: frozen appetizers containing poultry, meat, seafood or [...]

By SoCal IP|2015-04-10T15:26:53-07:00April 10th, 2015|Opposition, Litigation, Patent, Trademark, TTAB, Use in Commerce, Attorney's Fees, Attorneys' Fees, Descriptiveness, Exceptional Case, Likelihood of Confusion|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 6, 2015 :: Attorney Fees and Motions to Stay based on CBM Petitions

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 6, 2015 will be a discussion of two patent cases. Intellectual Ventures II v. JP Morgan, et. al., No. 2014-1724 (Fed. Cir. April 1, 2015) (available here). Intellectual Ventures sued JP Morgan on five patents alleging patent infringement. JP Morgan moved to stay the lawsuit on the grounds [...]

By SoCal IP|2015-04-02T12:05:55-07:00April 2nd, 2015|Patent, Attorney's Fees, Exceptional Case|0 Comments