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 Northern District of California. F5 Networks counterclaimed asserting patent infringement of four of its patents. Radware then brought a motion to compel arbitration based on a licensing agreement entered into the parties previously with respect to the patents being asserted by F5. The court denied Radware’s motion to compel arbitration on the basis that the type of infringement was not covered under the arbitration clause and therefore the parties did not agree to arbitrate this issue.
MRC Innovations, Inc. v. Hunter Mfg., LLP and CDI International, Inc., Case No. 2013-1433 (Fed. Cir. 4/2/2013) (available here). MRC is the owner of two design patents for jerseys for dogs. For design patents, the test under 103 is whether the “claimed design would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill who designs articles of the type involved.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling finding both patents invalid as obvious.
All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 7, 2014 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 Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.