For our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 25, 2016, we will discuss the following cases:

Rembrandt Vision Technologies, L.P. v. Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., (Fed Cir. April 7, 2016) (available here).  In an infringement action involving a patent related to contact lenses, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement and the district court granted judgment as a matter of law that plaintiff failed to prove that the accused lenses were ‘soft’.  In light of discovery that the defendant’s expert witness had testified falsely, Rembrandt moved for a new trial under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2) and (3), which the district court denied.  The Federal Circuit reversed the denial, holding that the court abused its discretion in denying Rembrandt’s Rule 60(b)(3) motion.

A.B.C. Carpet Co., Inc. v. Keren, Case NO. D2016-0209 (WIPO March 4, 2016) (available here).  Respondent to a UDRP complaint regarding “” argued that he was using the domain name for a bona fide carpet cleaning business, and that he and Complaint ABC, a seller of carpets and other home furnishings, were in separate businesses.   He asserted that he was not misleading consumers by using “ABC” in his business and domain name. The WIPO panel noted that ABC’s “ABC Carpet” mark was not inherently distinctive, and it was not evident that Respondent chose the domain name intending to attract users seeking ABC’s site, so the complaint was denied.

All are invited to join us on Monday, April 25, 2016, at noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Moniquee Brown by 9 am Monday morning.