Subscribe: LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Intellectual Property Pleadings Legal News
http://feeds.feedburner.com/IntellectualPropertyPleadingsLegalNews
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade A rated
Language: English
Tags:
argues  court review  court  high court  high  infringement  llc  patent  review  supreme court  supreme  trademark  washington 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Intellectual Property Pleadings Legal News

LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Intellectual Property Pleadings Legal News



Headline Intellectual Property Pleadings Legal News from LexisNexis®



 



Band Member Argues That Disparagement Clause Is Contrary To 1st Amendment
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A member of an Asian-American rock band argues in his Dec. 9 response brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Lanham Act's disparagement clause is contrary to the First Amendment and, alternatively, that the clause does not bar the registration of his trademark and is unconstitutionally vague (Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Simon Shiao Tam, No. 15-1293, U.S. Sup.).



U.S. Supreme Court Asked To Overturn Trademark Ruling In Favor Of Oprah Winfrey
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a trademark infringement suit against Oprah Winfrey, an entrepreneur and her communications company in a Dec. 15 petition ask the U.S. Supreme Court to answer whether an appeals court "erred in dissecting the literal element of a composite mark, the greatest commercial impression, thereby requiring identical use rather than a colorable imitation of that mark for determining trademark infringement, thus circumventing a likelihood of confusion analysis in violation of the Lanham Act and the anti-dissection rule" (Simone Kelly-Brown and Own Your Power Communications Inc. v. Oprah Winfrey, et al., No. 16-803, U.S. Sup.).



Nonprofit Asks High Court To Review Restriction Of 'Common Sense' Presumption
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A nonprofit association for generic drug product manufacturers and distributors argues in a Dec. 9 brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should review whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in light of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (550 U.S. 398, 415 [2007]) in restricting the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's ability to rely on the common sense and common knowledge of skilled artisans to establish the obviousness of patent claims (Google Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC v. Arendi S.A.R.L., et al., No. 16-626, U.S. Sup.).



Tech Company Tells High Court To Review ITunes Patent Challenge Under Cuozzo
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A tech company argues in a Dec. 28 reply brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should decide when a petition fails to give "sufficient notice" and what constitutes the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) acting outside its limits to permit judicial review because there are questions left unanswered by Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC v. Lee (136 S. Ct. 2131 [2016]) (SightSound Technologies LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 16-483, U.S. Sup.).



Johnson & Johnson Unit Says High Court Should Review Expert Misconduct In Patent Dispute
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. (JJVC) argues in a Dec. 27 reply brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in granting Rembrandt Vision Technologies LP a new trial based on an expert's false testimony over alleged infringement of its contact lens patent (Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. v. Rembrandt Vision Technologies LP, No. 16-489, U.S. Sup.).



Patent Owner Says Supreme Court Must Review Institution Of IPR In Patent Suit
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A patent owner argues in a Dec. 21 reply brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should review whether the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) permits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instead of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) director to make inter partes review (IPR) institution decisions (Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. v. Covidien LP and Michelle K. Lee, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-366, U.S. Sup.).



Record Labels Ask High Court To Hear Dispute On DMCA Immunity For Pre-1972 Works
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a Dec. 14 petition for certiorari, a group of record labels ask the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether the safe harbor protections from copyright infringement liability that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides for internet service providers apply to sound recordings from before 1972, which are governed by state law, rather than federal copyright law (Capitol Records LLC, et al. v. Vimeo LLC, et al., No. 16-771, U.S. Sup.).



Accused Downloader Appeals Dismissal Of Claims Against Him Without Prejudice
CINCINNATI - A federal magistrate judge erred in granting voluntary dismissal of an adult movie studio's copyright infringement claims without prejudice, an Ohio man argues in a Dec. 21 brief in the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, contending that the disposition deprived him of the ability to seek a fees award as prevailing party for the studio's baseless lawsuit (Malibu Media LLC v. David Ricupero, No. 16-3628, 6th Cir.).



Health Care Company Opposes High Court Decision On Institution Of IPR In Patent Suit
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A global health care products company and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) director filed opposition briefs on Dec. 7 arguing against the U.S. Supreme Court granting review on whether the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) permits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instead of the PTO director to make inter partes review (IPR) institution decisions (Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc. v. Covidien LP and Michelle K. Lee, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-366, U.S. Sup.).



Engineering Company Asks High Court To Decide Claim Construction Role In Patent Suit
WASHINGTON, D.C. - An engineering company in a Nov. 23 petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court if an appellate court and district court erred in arbitrarily defining a factually disputed technical term of art without performing claim construction to find noninfringement of a patent (David Netzer Consulting Engineer LLC v. Shell Oil Co., et al., No. 16-713, U.S. Sup.).



Mylan Argues For High Court Review On If ANDA Subjects Filers To Personal Jurisdiction
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan) argue in a Dec. 7 reply brief that drug companies failed to show why the U.S. Supreme Court should not answer whether the filing of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) is sufficient to subject Mylan to specific personal jurisdiction in any state where they might market the drug (Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Acorda Therapeutics Inc., et al. & Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB, No. 16-360, U.S. Sup.).



PTO: High Court Should Stay Petition On Institution Of Inter Partes Review
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) argues in a Dec. 7 opposition brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should stay a petition in favor of Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP (No. 16-366, U.S. Sup.) on issues concerning whether the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) permits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instead of the PTO's director to make inter partes review (IPR) institution decisions (LifeScan Scotland Ltd. v. Pharmatech Solutions Inc. and Michelle K. Lee, Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 16-377, U.S. Sup.).



Google: Patent Community Is Waiting On Ruling Over Use Of Prosecution History
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In an infringement lawsuit over patents for computer malware protection software, Google Inc. says in a Nov. 30 reply brief that "the patent community is watching this one" with regard to whether the U.S. Supreme Court will consider how the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should use prosecution history to settle claim construction disputes (Google Inc. v. Alfonso Cioffi and The Estate of Allen Frank Rozman, No. 16-200, U.S. Sup.).



Patent Owner Argues For Supreme Court Review On Grounds Of JMOL Entry
WASHINGTON, D.C. - An owner of patents relating to two-way communications argues in a Dec. 6 reply brief in further support of its petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to answer whether the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals erred in ordering entry of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on a ground not presented in a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b) motion (Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks Inc., No. 16-551, U.S. Sup.).



University Seeks Review On Nominative Fair Use Despite Certification Mark Involvement
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A trademark owner failed to show why the U.S. Supreme Court should not clarify the proper approach to nominative fair use, a university argues in a Dec. 5 reply brief, saying it does not matter that the case involves a certification mark infringement and not a trademark infringement (Security University LLC and Sondra Schneider v. International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium Inc., No. 16-352, U.S. Sup.).



Trademark Organization Supports Supreme Court Review In Trademark Suit
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A not-for-profit global organization supporting trademarks and related intellectual property argues in a Nov. 21 amicus curiae brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider a petition on whether Sections 14(3) and 43(a) of the Lanham Act allow a foreign business that "has neither used nor registered its trademark in the United States to sue the owner of a U.S. trademark for conduct relating to the owner's use of its U.S. mark" (Belmora LLC and Jamie Belcastro v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, et al., No. 16-548, U.S. Sup.).



Inventors Oppose High Court's Review Over Use Of Prosecution History In Patent Claim Dispute
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Inventors accusing Google Inc. of infringing their patents for computer malware protection software argue in a Nov. 14 brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should not decide how the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals should use prosecution history to settle claim construction disputes because Google objects to fact-bound and case-specific conclusions (Google Inc. v. Alfonso Cioffi and The Estate of Allen Frank Rozman, No. 16-200, U.S. Sup.).



AstraZeneca Opposes High Court Answering If ANDA Subjects Filers To Personal Jurisdiction
WASHINGTON, D.C. - AstraZeneca AB argues in a Nov. 21 opposition brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should decline to answer whether the filing of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) is sufficient to subject Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively, Mylan) to specific personal jurisdiction in any state where they might market the drug (Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Acorda Therapeutics Inc., et al. & Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. AstraZeneca AB, No. 16-360, U.S. Sup.).



Medical Device Company Opposes U.S. High Court Review Of Defense Of Laches In SCA
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A medical device company argues in a Nov. 14 opposition brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should not consider the extent to which the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement nor should it stay a patent owner's petition pending resolution of SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC (136 S. Ct. 1824 [2016]) (Endotach LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, No. 16-127, U.S. Sup.).



Apotex Says To High Court: Amgen Gets To Reap Profits From Unfair Statutory Period
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex) argue in a Nov. 21 reply brief to the U.S. Supreme Court that biotechnology companies that lost an underlying patent case unfairly get "to reap another six months of monopoly profits beyond the statutory 12-year period on a product that could help more people while saving the healthcare system billions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures" (Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. v. Amgen Inc. and Amgen Manufacturing Ltd., No. 16-332, U.S. Sup.).



Accused Patent Infringer Seeks High Court Review Of Statute Governing Venue In Patent Suit
WASHINGTON, D.C. - In a patent infringement case filed by Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the accused patent infringer argues in a Nov. 21 reply brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider whether 28 U.S. Code Section 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue and is not to be supplemented by 28 U.S. Code Section 1391(c) (TC Heartland LLC d/b/a Heartland Food Products Group v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, U.S. Sup.).



Trademark Owner Opposes U.S. High Court Review On Nominative Fair Use
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A trademark owner argues in a Nov. 18 opposition brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should not clarify the proper approach to nominative fair use because its lawsuit involves a certification mark infringement and not a trademark infringement (Security University LLC and Sondra Schneider v. International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium Inc., No. 16-352, U.S. Sup.).



Snap Fasteners Trademark Owner Tells High Court To Review Reduced Award
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A trademark owner of magnetic snap fasteners for handbags argues in a Nov. 1 reply brief that the U.S. Supreme Court should consider whether under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of infringer's profits that was reduced to $6.8 million (Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., et al., No. 16-202, U.S. Sup.).



Newspaper Asks High Court To Decide Burden Of Proving Copyright Infringement Claim
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A newspaper organization in a Nov. 7 petition for writ of certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to answer whether a plaintiff or a defendant has the burden of proving or disproving claims of copyright infringement over the distribution of a portrait of the Nation of Islam's leader, Louis Farrakhan (The Final Call Inc. v. Jesus Muhammad Ali, No. 16-647, U.S. Sup.).