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 [...]

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 [...]

The Supreme Court’s 2021 Personal Jurisdiction Decision – presented by Marina L. Lang

Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct. 141 S.Ct. 1017 (2021) For our discussion, we will analyze how the Supreme Court expanded personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants. The majority held that a Court’s specific jurisdiction standard includes suits that sufficiently “relate to” a defendant’s forum contacts, even in the absence of a "causal [...]

Real Life Clash of Clans – Huge Verdicts are Alive and Well in the E.D. Tex.

Real-Life Clash of Clans - Huge Verdicts are Alive and Well in the E.D. Tex. In Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy (E.D. Tex. 2019 and 2020), available here, here, here, here (judgment), here, here, here, and here (jury verdict). Gree, Inc. is (was?) a successful Japanese mobile game developer. Their games have been popular in Japan for at least [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: April 7, 2014 :: Arbitration clauses in licensing agreements and Nonobviousness standards in design patents

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 7, 2014 will be a discussion of arbitration clauses in licensing agreements and nonobviousness standards in design patents. Brief synopses appear below. Radware, Ltd. and Radware, Inc. v. F5 Networks, Case No. C-13-02024 (N. Dist. of Cal. 12/23/2013) (available here).  Radware sued F5 for patent infringement in the [...]

By |2014-04-03T23:17:37-07:00April 3rd, 2014|Patent, Venue, Invalidity, Obviousness|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: March 3, 2014 :: Patent Infringement and Venue Cases

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, March 3, 2014 will be a discussion of patent infringement and venue. Brief synopses appear below. Realtime Data v. Morgan Stanley, Case No. 2013-1092 (Fed. Cir. 1/27/2014) (available here). Realtime owns patents relating to compressing data for transmission. The defendants use a standard called FAST which is used [...]

By |2014-03-01T00:30:59-08:00March 1st, 2014|Patent, Venue, Invalidity, Noninfringement|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: October 15, 2012 :: Geographically Misdescriptive Trademarks and International Comity

We will be discussing one Federal Circuit case and one 9th Circuit case during our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 15, 2012. Brief synopses are presented below. In re Miracle Tuesday, LLC., Case No. 2011-1373 (Fed. Cir. October 4, 2012) (attached). Miracle Tuesday filed an intent-to-use trademark application for the word mark [...]

By |2012-10-12T20:23:43-07:00October 12th, 2012|Trademark, TTAB, Venue, Damages, Descriptiveness, injunction, Intent to Use|0 Comments

SoCal IP Institute :: April 4, 2011 :: Prima Facie Rejection of Patent Claims, Internet Keywords and Another Texas Transfer Mandamus

We will be discussing three recent, relevant opinions in our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 4, 2011. The first case is a decision confirming that neither an examiner nor the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is required to perform claim construction in rejecting patent applications in view of prior art. The [...]

SoCal IP Institute :: January 10, 2011

Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, January 10 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to  Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday. We will be discussing the following: Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 10-1035, 1055  (Fed. [...]

By |2011-01-07T02:06:46-08:00January 7th, 2011|Patent, Venue, Damages|0 Comments
Go to Top