Previous month:
March 2010
Next month:
May 2010

ClearPlay, Inc. v. Abecassis

Nissim Corp. and Max Abecassis (collectively, “Nissim”) appeal a May 29, 2009, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granting a preliminary injunction to ClearPlay, Inc. At the outset, this case requires us to determine whether we have appellate jurisdiction over the underlying action, which relates to a dispute stemming from the parties’ patent license agreement. We hold that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and therefore transfer the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Download ClearPlay, Inc. v. Abecassis

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Gillig v. Nike, Inc.

John P. Gillig (“Gillig”) and Triple Tee Golf, Inc. (“Triple Tee”) appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed Gillig and Triple Tee’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court found that the plaintiffs’ trade secrets claim was barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata, and that their inventorship claims were barred by res judicata. We affirm the dismissal of the trade secrets claim. We reverse and remand for further proceedings as to the inventorship claims, with one exception.

Download Gillig v. Nike, Inc.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Harari v. Holllmer

This case is an appeal from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI” or “Board”) concerning Patent Interference No. 105,686(JL) between junior party inventors Eliyahou Harari and Sanjay Mehrotra (collectively “Harari”) named on pending U.S. Patent Application No. 09/310,880 (“’880 application”), and senior party inventors Shane C. Hollmer and Lee E. Cleveland (collectively “Hollmer”) named on U.S. Patent No. 5,828,601. The Board dismissed Harari from the interference, finding that Harari’s claims were unpatentable for lack of written description due to an insufficient incorporation by reference statement. Because we disagree with the Board’s legal conclusion as to the sufficiency of the incorporation by reference statement, we reverse the Board’s dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download Harari v. Holllmer

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Verizon Serv. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc.

Verizon Services Corp., Verizon Communications, Inc., MCI Communications, Inc., and Verizon Business Global LLC (collectively “Verizon”) appeal from a final judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia entered after a jury found: (1) claims 5 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 6,282,574 (“the ’574 patent”) and claims 1, 3, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 6,104,711 (“the ’711 patent”) invalid; and (2) claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,430,275 (“the ’275 patent”); claims 1, 19, 27, and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,292,481 (“the ’481 patent”); claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,137,869 (“the ’869 patent”); and claims 12, 13, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 6,636,597 (“the ’597 patent”) not infringed by Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc., Cox Virginia Telecom, Inc., Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC, Coxcom, Inc., and Cox Communications, Inc. (collectively “Cox”). See Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., No. 08-CV-0157 (E.D. Va. Oct. 6, 2008) (judgment); Verizon Servs. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., 08-CV-0157 (E.D. Va. Nov. 7, 2008) (order denying cross-motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial); Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Va., Inc., No. 08-CV-0157 (E.D. Va. Nov. 11, 2008) (agreed order amending and clarifying the judgment). On appeal, both parties challenge the district court’s denial of their respective motions for judgment as a matter of law and motions for new trial. Because the evidence introduced at trial supports the jury’s verdict, and because the district court did not err in instructing the jury on the scope of the claims, we affirm.

Download Verizon Serv. Corp. v. Cox Fibernet Virginia, Inc.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Hornback v. US

Alton B. Hornback appeals an order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Invention Secrecy Act, 35 U.S.C. § 183, does not provide Mr. Hornback with a cause of action for the government’s use of an invention subject to a secrecy order after the issuance of a patent on that invention, this court affirms.

Download Hornback v. US

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered an injunction directing Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk, Inc. (collectively, “Novo”) to request the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to replace Novo’s patent use code U-968 listing for Prandin® in the Orange Book with the former U-546 listing. Because Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. (“Caraco”) does not have a statutory basis to assert a counterclaim requesting such injunctive relief, this court reverses and vacates the injunction.

Download Novo Nordisk v. Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

In re Suitco Surface, Inc.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) rejected certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 4,944,514 (the “’514 patent”), owned by Suitco Surface, Inc., as anticipated during a reexamination proceeding. Because the PTO’s rejection was based on an unreasonable construction, this court vacates and remands.

Download In re Suitco Surface, Inc.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

In re Mighty Leaf Tea

Mighty Leaf Tea appeals the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirming the refusal to register the mark ML, in standard character form, for use with certain personal care and skin care products. In re Mighty Leaf Tea, No. 76678969 (TTAB May 8, 2009). We affirm the Board’s decision.

Download In re Mighty Leaf Tea

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.

Nintendo of America Inc. appeals the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, holding that certain Nintendo video game controllers infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent 6,906,700 (the ’700 patent) owned by Anascape, Ltd., and awarding damages. After trial to a jury the district court denied duly made post-trial motions, enjoined further infringement, and stayed the injunction pending appeal. On Nintendo’s appeal (Microsoft settled in the district court), the judgment is reversed.

Download Anascape, Ltd. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

SiRF Technology, Inc. (“SiRF”), E-TEN Information Systems Co., Ltd. (“E-TEN”), Pharos Science & Applications, Inc. (“Pharos”), MiTAC International Corp. (“MiTAC”), and Mio Technology Limited, USA (“Mio”) (collectively, “appellants”) appeal from a decision of the International Trade Commission (“Commission”). The Commission found that appellants violated section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1337) through the unlawful importation, sale for importation, and sale after importation of certain Global Positioning System (“GPS”) devices and products containing these devices that infringe certain patents owned by Global Locate, Inc. and Broadcom Corp. (“Broadcom”) (collectively, “Global Locate”).1 The Commission issued a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order. In re Certain GPS Devices & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-602 (Int’l Trade Comm’n Jan. 15, 2009) (“Final Determination”). We affirm.

Download SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

Please visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how to enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.