Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, October 18 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 cases:
Solvay SA v. Honeywell Int’l Inc., 09-1161, (Fed. Cir. October 13, 2010 ) (case attached). In a suit for infringement of a patent, directed to methods for making 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (non-ozone depleting hydrofluorocarbon), district court’s judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded where: 1) district court erred in ruling claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the ‘817 patent invalid as defendant was not a prior inventor for purposes of section 102(g)(2); but 2) the district court did not err in ruling that claims 1, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the ‘817 patent were infringed; and 3) district court did not err in ruling that claims 12-18, 21 and 22 were not infringed.
Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int’l. N.V., 06-3532 (2d Cir. October 8, 2010) (case attached). In an action for trademark infringement by an entity created by the Russian government and purportedly granted rights by the government to manage the trademarks to Stolichnaya Vodka, dismissal of the complaint is reversed where plaintiff was not barred from challenging the validity of the assignment of the trademarks at issue in federal court on the ground that those trademarks were “incontestable” pursuant to 15 U.S.C. section 1065.