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 the registration. In granting the petition, the board found the mark likely to cause confusion because petitioner had previously used the mark M&G. Merchant and Gould also offered evidence that they used the mark to decorate their doors.

Nobelbiz, Inc. v. Global Connect, LLC., TNC, Inc. (Fed. Cir. July 19, 2017) (available here). Plaintiff NobelBiz sued defendant Global Connect for infringement of a patent covering caller ID modification for telemarketing. The District Court determined that certain words in the claims could be determined by looking at their plain meaning, but during trial expert witnesses on both sides provided testimony as to what the terms meant. On appeal the Federal Circuit ruled that “allowing the experts to make arguments to the jury about claim scope was erroneous.” Justice Newman wrote a dissenting opinion.