In a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a district court order granting Nintendo Co.'s motion to disqualify petitioner's counsel on the ground of imputed conflict-of-interest, petition is granted where Nintendo waived the conflict in a Joint Defense Agreement connected to the previous litigation purportedly giving rise to the conflict-of-interest.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment of infringement in favor of plaintiff, judgment is affirmed where patent exhaustion does not apply to subject, accused second-crop plantings.
In an appeal from a judgment of the Board of Patent Appeals affirming the examiner's rejection of a pending claim concerning an improved diaper, judgment is reversed where the Board relied on a new ground of rejection while failing to allow appellants a full opportunity to respond to the new basis for rejection.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to plaintiff on its Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and Lanham Act claims, judgment is: 1) affirmed where the court correctly determined that defendants acted in bad faith in violation of the ACPA and that defendant's use of the domain name gopets.com violated the Lanham Act; but 2) reversed where the court incorrectly held that defendants' re-registration of domain name violated the ACPA, as the re-registration of a currently registered domain name is not a "registration" within the meaning of the ACPA.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' infringement claims, related to a patent for a method for distributing copyrighted products (e.g., songs, movies, books) over the Internet where the consumer receives a copyrighted product for free in exchange for viewing an advertisement, and the advertiser pays for the copyrighted content, on the grounds that subject patent does not claim a patent-eligible subject matter, judgment is reversed where the patent claims a "process" within the language and meaning of 35 U.S.C. section 101.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court awarding plaintiff damages as against one defendant and setting aside the jury's verdict and award as against the other defendant in an action for contributory copyright and trademark infringement, judgment is affirmed on all issues of liability but reversed on the award of statutory damages.
In cross-appeals from a judgment of the district court finding defendant liable but reducing damages on due process grounds in an action for statutory damages and injunctive relief under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 101 et seq., judgment is affirmed on the court's finding of liability and injunctive relief where the Copyright Act is not unconstitutional under Feltner, but reversed with respect to the due process damages ruling where the court erroneously treated the statutory damages as punitive, not compensatory, awards for Seventh Amendment purposes.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment in an action alleging unlawful termination of a municipality contract due to racial animus, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1985, judgment is affirmed where the evidence does not support claim and because plaintiff's charge of improper threats under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12 section 11 is without merit while it failed to properly preserve its claim of inadequate discovery for review.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court in a copyright infringement case, judgment is affirmed where the court correctly granted defendant's motion for summary judgment but denied of its motion for attorney's fees.
By Diana Ransom
Published September 16, 2011 | Entrepreneur.com
No matter who you talk to, most people agree: The nation's age-old patent system needed an overhaul. But now that it's a done deal, new challenges are surfacing that may make it harder for entrepreneurs and small-scale inventors to get patents.
Bringing an end to a long history of bungled reform attempts, President Barack Obama today signed a sweeping reform bill into law that promises to change the system for determining priority for inventions at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Formally known as the America Invents Act, the law also aims to shore up more financing for an agency that's suffered through years-long applications backlogs and out-of-date computer systems.
"I think it's a positive move," says Gary Griswold, the former Chief Patent Intellectual Property Counsel for 3M and spokesman for the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform, a business lobby group based in Washington, D.C. "It provides for higher quality patents and a more rapidly performing Patent Office."
Many other organizations agree that the reforms will help reduce the time it takes to get a patent and tamp down on the number of frivolous patents. But many small-business owners and inventors remain largely unconvinced that the new law will carry any benefits for them.