In an appeal from an order of the district court granting defendant's motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's complaint for direct and secondary copyright infringement against a public website offering streaming music videos, judgment is: 1) affirmed where defendant is entitled to Section 512(c) safe harbor protection of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and where the district court correctly concluded that Rule 68 attorney’s fees were inappropriate; but 2) remanded for the court to consider in the first instance whether defendant is entitled to Rule 68 costs, excluding attorney’s fees.
In an appeal from a judgment of the district court denying plaintiff's petition for injunctive relief in a dispute over rights to a trademark for psychic and astrological services, judgment is affirmed where the court's finding that plaintiff assigned defendant the rights to the trademark in perpetuity and that he breached the assignment was not an abuse of discretion.
By Richard Waters
SpaceX is in a race for its life with the Chinese. The US venture says it has $3bn in orders under its belt, making it one of the early leaders in the commercial space industry. But founder Elon Musk is under no illusions about the existential risk to his business: the Chinese path to success in the commercial space industry, he says, runs over his company’s dead body.
What should a company, or an entire industry, that finds itself in Chinese cross-hairs do? One response at SpaceX, Mr Musk says, has been to avoid seeking patent protection for the company’s most important technology.
This may sound counter-intuitive. Isn’t this just the moment when tech companies should be laying legal claim to their secret sauce? Not at all. To file for patents, says Mr Musk, would be to hand his Chinese rivals “a recipe book”.
The most important stuff stays under lock and key. SpaceX only applies for patents on “things you could observe anyway”, Mr Musk says. It is a paranoia that is evident throughout Silicon Valley.
In an appeal from an adverse reexamination proceedings in which the USPTO rejected appellant's claims concerning a patent directed to a vehicle for screening rocks and plant matter, judgment is affirmed where the USPTO correctly determined that claims were obvious.
By Harry R. Weber
Associated Press / December 9, 2011
ATLANTA—The Coca-Cola Co. has made its secret formula the centerpiece of a new exhibit at its corporate museum, ditching the confines of the bank vault where the list of ingredients had been stored since 1925.
The world's largest beverage maker said Thursday a new vault containing the formula will be on display for visitors to its World of Coca-Cola museum in downtown Atlanta. However, the formula itself, which dates back to 1886, will remain hidden from view.
In an challenge to an order of the district court denying petitioner's motion to transfer venue, order is vacated where, on balalnce of the interests, the denial was an abuse of discretion.
In an appeal from entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants in a patent infringement dispute, judgment is affirmed because the district court correctly concluded that subject drug formulation satisfied the requirements for prior invention under 35 U.S.C. section 102(g)(2).