Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, December 6 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:
Nightingale Home Healthcare v. Anodyne Therapy, No. 10-2327 (7th Cir. Nov. 23, 2010) (case attached) After an unsuccessful suit for Lanham Act violations, the defendant Anodyne sought an award of attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) because the case was “exceptional” under the statute. The district court granted Anodyne attorneys’ fees. On appeal, the opinion considered the state of the various “exceptional” case standards applied by each of the Circuits. Then, the opinion by Posner set forth an “abuse of process” standard for use in the 7th Circuit. The 7th Circuit then affirmed the District Court’s decision to grant attorneys fees to the prevailing defendant.
Ji v. Bose, No. 09-2341 (1st Cir. Nov. 23, 2010) (case attached) A group of appeals arise after alleged improper use of a model’s image to promote products. Ji raised issues related to damages based upon an alleged error of the district court in refusing to compel discover and improper instructions to the jury on appeal. Bose sought reconsideration of the district court’s refusal to grant attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). The 1st Circuit confirmed that neither the motion to compel nor the jury instructions were in error. Finally, the district court’s decision not to grant Bose attorneys’ fees was affirmed because, while Ji’s Lanham Act claim was defeated in summary judgment, it was not “entirely unfounded.”
Leave A Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.