Previous month:
January 2014
Next month:
March 2014

Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Zydus Pharm. USA, Inc.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (“appellants” or “Zydus”) appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey finding that appellants had infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 6,328,994 (“’994 patent”) and had failed to establish that it was invalid. For the reasons stated below, we reverse the district court’s finding of infringement, but affirm its ruling on invalidity.

Download Takeda Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Zydus Pharm. USA, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Ring & Pinion Serv. Inc. v. ARB Corp. Ltd

Defendant ARB Corporation Ltd. (ARB) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,591,098 (the ’098 patent) to Ring & Pinion Service, Inc. (R&P). Because the district court erred by improperly applying the doctrine of claim vitiation, we reverse and remand with instructions to enter judgment of infringement for ARB.

Download Ring & Pinion Serv. Inc. v. ARB Corp. Ltd

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo, Inc.

ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC (“Butamax”) owns U.S. Pat. No. 7,851,188 (“’188 patent”) and No. 7,993,889 (“’889 patent”) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) and appeals a final judgment entered against it following the district court’s 1) claim construction and denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment of literal infringement of the asserted claims of the ’188 and ’889 patents by Gevo, Inc. (“Gevo”), 2) grant of Gevo’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents of the asserted claims of the ’188 and ’889 patents, 3) grant of Gevo’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claims 12 and 13 of the ’889 patent for lack of written description, and 4) judgment of invalidity of claims 12 and 13 of the ’889 patent for lack of enablement. Opinion, ButamaxTM Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc., No. 11-54-SLR, 2013 WL 3914467 (D. Del. March 19, 2013) (“Opinion”). Because the district court erred in its claim construction, this court vacates the district court’s denial of Butamax’s motion for summary judgment of infringement and its grant of Gevo’s motion of noninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the district court failed to recognize the existence of genuine issues of material fact on Gevo’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity as to claims 12 and 13 of the ’889 patent, this court reverses the district court’s grant of that motion. Finally, this court reverses the grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement because that judgment appears to have been a scrivener’s error.

Download Butamax(TM) Advanced Biofuels v. Gevo, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) reversed the examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3 and 6–13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,554,446 (’446 patent). Tempo Lighting, Inc. (Tempo) appeals that decision. Because the Board’s decision lacks the support of substantial evidence in the record and because the Board erred in concluding that Tempo waived certain arguments, this court vacates the decision in-part and remands.

Download Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.

Plaintiff Solvay S.A. (“Solvay”) appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in favor of defendant Honeywell International (“Honeywell”). The district court held that asserted claim 1 of Solvay’s U.S. Patent No. 6,730,817 (“the ’817 patent”) was invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2) (2006). This was so because engineers working at the Russian Scientific Center for Applied Chemistry (“RSCAC”) first conceived the invention, which was reduced to practice in this country by Honeywell personnel pursuant to the RSCAC’s instructions, and did not abandon, suppress, or conceal it.

Download Solvay, S.A. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp.

EnOcean GmbH (“EnOcean”) appeals from an order of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”), finding all of EnOcean’s claims involved in Patent Interference No. 105,755 with Face International Corporation (“Face”) unpatentable over a combination of prior art that includes PCT Application No. PCT/GB01/00901 to Burrow (“Burrow reference”). See J.A. 50. Because the Board erred in treating certain EnOcean claims as means-plus-function claims and in finding that certain EnOcean claim limitations lack support in its priority German and PCT applications, we vacate-in-part the Board’s order with respect to EnOcean’s claims and motions, and we remand for further proceedings.

Download EnOcean GmbH v. Face Int'l Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Experience Hendrix v. HendrixLicensing.com

The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s decision in trademark litigation concerning a dispute over the commercial use of a deceased celebrity’s image, likeness, and name.

Experience Hendrix, LLC, which owns trademarks that it uses to sell and license products related to deceased rock legend Jimi Hendrix, alleged that defendants were licensing merchandise that infringed Experience Hendrix’s trademarks. The panel reversed the district court’s determination that Washington’s Personality Rights Act is unconstitutional, and remanded defendant’s declaratory judgment claims pertaining to the Act with instructions to enter summary judgment on those claims in favor of Experience Hendrix.

The panel affirmed the district court’s decision granting Experience Hendrix partial summary judgment on its claim that defendant’s use of “Hendrix” in its domain names infringed Experience Hendrix’s mark “Hendrix.” The panel vacated the permanent injunction and remanded so that the district court could revise language in the injunction to clarify what conduct is and is not enjoined. The panel reversed in its entirety the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b)(3) decision to strike most of the jury’s award of damages under both the federal Lanham Act and Washington’s Consumer Protection Act. The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting a new trial on damages under both of these statutes and remanded for a new trial on such damages. The panel vacated the district court’s award of attorney’s fees under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and remanded the fee request for further proceedings. Judge Rawlinson concurred in part, and dissented in part.

Judge Rawlinson concurred in much of the majority’s opinion, but dissented from the majority’s holding that a new trial is warranted on the issue of damages. Judge Rawlinson would remand for reinstatement of the damages awarded by the jury, and for an award of attorney’s fees to Experience Hendrix as the prevailing party.

Download Experience Hendrix

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Brownstein v. Lindsay

This case concerns Appellant Peter Brownstein’s claim under the Copyright Act seeking a declaratory judgment of joint authorship of an ethnic identification system that he created with Appellee Tina Lindsay, the Lindsay Cultural Identification Determinate (“LCID”). Lindsay purports to have conveyed the copyrights to the LCID to Appellee Ethnic Technologies (“E-Tech”). The contested work is a computer program that implements rules for identifying the ethnicity of proper names for the purposes of direct marketing. In addition to a declaration of his joint authorship, Brownstein sought an accounting of the profits from the ethnic identification system. In response, Appellees counterclaimed to cancel the copyright registrations that Brownstein had received for the system’s computer code, which was his contribution to the work.

After the District Court denied summary judgment, the case went to trial. At the end of Brownstein’s case, the District Court granted Appellees judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(a) on Brownstein’s joint authorship claim. Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). The District Court found that Brownstein’s claim was time-barred and that he could not succeed on the merits of his claim based on the evidence adduced at trial. The District Court severed Appellees’ counterclaim and later issued an opinion granting summary judgment to Appellees on their counterclaim.

This appeal presents two issues of first impression for our Circuit. The first is when a joint authorship claim under the Copyright Act arises and accrues and the second is whether courts have the authority to cancel copyright registrations. For the following reasons, we hold that an authorship claim arises and accrues when a plaintiff’s authorship has been “expressly repudiated”. We also hold that courts have no authority to cancel copyright registrations. We will reverse both the District Court’s grant of judgment as a matter of law to Appellees and its grant of summary judgment to Appellees on their counterclaim. Also, we will remand the case for a new trial.

Download Brownstein v. Lindsay

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Swatch Group v. Bloomberg

Appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), granting summary judgment to the defendant as to the plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement on the ground that the defendant had engaged in fair use. The plaintiff claims that the defendant, a financial news and data reporting service, infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in a sound recording of a foreign public company’s earnings call with invited investment analysts by obtaining a copy of the recording without authorization and making it available to the defendant’s paying subscribers. We hold, upon consideration of the relevant factors, see 17 U.S.C. § 107, that the defendant’s use qualifies as fair use. We further grant the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant’s cross-appeal because the defendant lacks appellate standing and we lack appellate jurisdiction.

For the reasons stated below, the defendant’s cross-appeal is DISMISSED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Download Swatch Group v. Bloomberg

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.