Claim Construction – SoCal IP Law Institute

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Yoga Icon Lululemon in a Reverse Trademark Confusion Case over their Align Pants

Vancouver-based Lululemon ("Lulu"), founded in 1998, is famously known for their boujee yoga-inspired activewear. Industry competitor Aliign Activation Wear (“Aliign”) filed suit against Lulu in the Central District of California back in mid-2020, primarily alleging that Lulu was infringing its Aliign trademark, which Aliign said it has been using since 2011. You see, Lulu rolled [...]

By SoCal IP|2022-08-23T16:45:36-07:00August 23rd, 2022|Uncategorized, Reissue, Venue, Claim Construction, Noninfringement|0 Comments

SoCalIP Law Institute Weekly Meeting – August 8, 2022 – Inherency of Negative Claim terms and Trade Dress in the 5th Circuit

Please join us on Monday, August 8, 2022 at 12:00 pm, where we will discuss the following: Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (rehearing decision here) - Novartis prevailed in the 5th Circuit on the validity of its claims under the Written Description Requirement based on a negative [...]

By Guy Cumberbatch|2022-08-02T16:49:40-07:00August 2nd, 2022|Trademark, Written Description, Claim Construction, Invalidity, Acquired Distinctiveness, Patent, Standing, Trade Dress|0 Comments

Less Whack in Waco; Echos of 2015

Summer time and the living is easy, so I’m a bit delayed in this week’s post. Apologies. In this week’s post, I highlight shifts in the patent litigation environment in Texas. The Eastern District of Texas, especially Marshall and Tyler, used to be the top venue choice for patent owners who wanted a fast path [...]

By Steven C. Sereboff|2022-07-30T08:01:13-07:00July 30th, 2022|Uncategorized, Reissue, Venue, Claim Construction, Noninfringement|0 Comments

Tattoo Copyright Infringement and Post-Brexit Trademark Considerations

Tattoo Copyright Infringement and Post-Brexit Trademark Considerations For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 7, 2021, Chris Kopitzke will lead a discussion of the legal issues arising from unauthorized copying of a photograph for a tattoo and will highlight selected trademark responsibilities resulting from Brexit. What happens when a celebrity tattoo [...]

By SoCal IP|2021-06-03T14:48:25-07:00June 3rd, 2021|Patent, Claim Construction, Invalidity, Noninfringement, Obviousness, Inter Partes Review, patentability|0 Comments

The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 – SoCal IP Institute meeting May 24, 2021 @ 1:00 pm

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 24, 2021, 1:00 pm PT, Michael Harris will lead a discussion of the Trademark Modernization Act. The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA) (tm modernization act) is now law, but it needs PTO rules before TMA will become effective. The proposed rules are at TMA [...]

By Michael D. Harris|2021-05-20T16:50:14-07:00May 20th, 2021|patentability, Patent, Claim Construction, Invalidity, Noninfringement, Obviousness, Inter Partes Review|0 Comments

Two Recent Federal Circuit Patent Cases – SoCal IP Institute meeting May 17, 2021 @ 1:00 pm

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, May 17, 2021 at 1:00 pm, Mark Goldstein will lead a discussion of two recent Federal Circuit patent cases. Free Stream Media Corp. dba Samba TV v. Alphonso Inc. (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2021, 2019-1506, 2019-213) Samba sued Alphonso in two courts, asserting infringement of its [...]

By Mark A. Goldstein|2021-05-13T12:29:19-07:00May 13th, 2021|Invalidity, Noninfringement, Obviousness, Inter Partes Review, patentability, Patent, Claim Construction|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: August 14, 2017 :: Doctrine of Equivalents ; CAFC Disagrees with the PTAB

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, August 14, 2017, we will discuss the following cases: Enzo Biochem v. Applera, (Federal Circuit 2017) (available here). Enzo and Applera had been involved in litigation over patents for genetic testing and labeling since 2004. In a new round of litigation, plaintiff argued under the doctrine of equivalence, that [...]

By SoCal IP|2017-08-09T10:21:38-07:00August 9th, 2017|Noninfringement, Inter Partes Review, Infringement, Litigation, Patent, Claim Construction, Invalidity|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: July 24, 2017 :: Law Firm Trademarks ; Expert Testimony and Claim Scope

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 24, 2017, we will discuss the following cases: Merchant & Gould P.C. v. MG-IP Law, P.C. (TTAB decision April 19, 2017) (available here). An IP law firm filed for a trademark to the name MG-IP. Another IP law firm, Merchant and Gould, petitioned for cancellation of [...]

By SoCal IP|2017-07-19T13:24:30-07:00July 19th, 2017|Patent, Trademark, TTAB, Claim Construction, Invalidity, Noninfringement|0 Comments

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 [...]

By SoCal IP|2016-12-08T22:43:35-08:00December 8th, 2016|Patent, Unenforceability, Claim Construction|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 18, 2016 :: Mark Fails to Prove Acquired Distinctiveness at TTAB; Google Adwords Don’t Infringe

For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 18, 2016, we will discuss the following cases: Ayoub, Inc. and Ayoub Supply, LLC v. ACS Ayoub Carpet Service (TTAB March 31, 2016) (citable decision) (available here). In an opposition proceeding, applicant could not demonstrate that "Ayoub" had acquired distinctiveness due to lack of substantially exclusive use, [...]

By SoCal IP|2016-04-15T10:53:10-07:00April 15th, 2016|Litigation, Patent, Trademark, Acquired Distinctiveness, TTAB, Acquired Distintiveness, Claim Construction, Declaratory Judgment, Descriptiveness, Inherent Distinctiveness, Noninfringement, Opposition|0 Comments