Previous month:
June 2014
Next month:
August 2014

Gassis v. Corkery

This is the latest installment of unfortunate litigation over control of a charitable corporation created to help the suffering people of Sudan. The Plaintiff is the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, and was removed as a director and member of the corporation effective September 21, 2013. The principal remaining issues involve allegations that the corporation used the Plaintiff’s trademarked property—his name and likeness—to raise funds for its charitable purposes, after the Plaintiff was removed as Chairman and member of the corporation. According to the Plaintiff, that removal terminated the corporation’s license to use his name and likeness. The Plaintiff, however, has not sued the corporation, but only certain board members as individuals. There are no allegations in the Amended Complaint which, if true, could sustain a claim that these individuals expropriated property of the Plaintiff for their own purposes, or that they took actions to cause the corporation to improperly exploit the Plaintiff’s name and likeness. For that reason, the Plaintiff’s various claims based on use of his trademarks must be dismissed.

Download Gassis v. Corkery

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.

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

The International Trade Commission’s regulations authorize the Commission to review a decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) when that decision is designated as an “initial determination.” Other ALJ decisions, such as an “order,” are not reviewable. Here, the ALJ denied a motion via an order. This case requires us to consider whether the Commission’s review of that order was procedurally sound. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that it was not.

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

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.

StonCor Grp, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, Inc.

This is a trademark case. The appellant, StonCor Group, Inc., owns the registered trademark “STONSHIELD.” When a different company, Specialty Coatings, Inc., sought registration of a competing mark, “ARMORSTONE,” StonCor opposed the registration, asserting a likelihood of confusion between ARMORSTONE and STONSHIELD and that ARMORSTONE is merely descriptive of Specialty Coatings’ products. The Board dismissed StonCor’s opposition, finding no likelihood of confusion and that ARMORSTONE was not merely descriptive. StonCor appeals. Although the Board erred in part of its analysis, namely its conclusion that STONSHIELD would not be pronounced as “STONE SHIELD,” the error is harmless because the Board’s dismissal is supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with the law. Thus, we affirm.

Download StonCor Grp, Inc. v. Specialty Coatings, 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.

Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, Inc.

Arlington Industries, Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 6,335,488, which claims a method for connecting electrical cables to a junction box using electrical fittings. Both Arlington and Bridgeport Fittings, Inc. manufacture and sell electrical connectors. After Arlington sued Bridgeport in 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Bridgeport agreed to be enjoined from making and selling certain products and their “colorable imitations.” Bridgeport then redesigned its electrical connectors, and Arlington sought a contempt order holding that these redesigned connectors violated the original agreement. The district court entered an order finding Bridgeport in contempt of the original injunction, but at the time of appeal, had not yet determined any sanctions for Bridgeport’s contempt. Bridgeport appeals the contempt order. Because the contempt order is not a final judgment or otherwise appealable, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Download Arlington Indus., Inc. v. Bridgeport Fittings, 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.

Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple Inc.

Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. (GBT) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Apple Inc. (Apple) does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,574,267 (the ’267 patent) and 7,359,427 (the ’427 patent). We affirm.

Download Golden Bridge Tech., Inc. v. Apple 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.

Medisim Ltd. v. Bestmed, LLC

Plaintiff-Appellant Medisim Ltd. (“Medisim”) appeals the grant of judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) by the United States District Court for the District of New York that U.S. Patent No. 7,597,668 (“’668 patent”) is anticipated by Medisim’s own prior art FHT-1 thermometer. See Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, 959 F. Supp. 2d 396, 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). It also appeals the district court’s grant of JMOL in BestMed, LLC’s (“BestMed”) favor on Medisim’s unjust enrichment claim. Id. at 426. Because BestMed failed to preserve its right to JMOL on anticipation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50, we vacate the district court’s grant of JMOL on that claim. However, we affirm the district court’s grant of JMOL on Medisim’s unjust enrichment claim and its conditional grant of a new trial on anticipation. We remand this case for further proceedings.

 

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.

Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc.

In this appeal, we address the subject matter eligibility of claims in U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415 (“the ’415 patent”) directed to a device profile and a method for creating a device profile within a digital image processing system. The district court concluded that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. For the rea-sons set forth below, we affirm.

Download Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, 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.

Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.

Stephen P. Troy, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 146 and challenges the court’s conclusion that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) properly cancelled the claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,216,451 (’451 patent) in an interference proceeding with Samson Manufacturing Corp. (Samson). Because the district court erred in refusing to consider evidence pertinent to the determination of priority, we vacate and remand.

Download Troy v. Samson Mfg. 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.

H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, Inc.

H-W Technology, L.C., (“H-W”) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granting summary judgment in favor of defendant Overstock.com, Inc., (“Overstock”). Specifically, H-W challenges the district court’s holding that claims 9 and 17 of H-W’s U.S. Patent No. 7,525,955 (“’955 patent”) are invalid. We conclude that the district court correctly held claim 17 invalid but erred to the extent it held corrected claim 9 invalid. Because this lawsuit involves only uncorrected claim 9, however, the judgment in favor of Overstock is affirmed as modified.

Download H-W Tech., L.C. v. Overstock.com, 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.

Paycom Payroll, et al v. Richison, et al

This is a copyright infringement action involving computer software code. Pursuant to a consent decree, the district court appointed a special master to review the software and to opine on the issue of infringement. The special master found copyright infringement and submitted a report containing his analysis. The district court agreed with the special master that copyright infringement had occurred, adopted the special master’s report, and ordered all copies of the infringing software destroyed. Defendants appeal from the district court’s order. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we vacate the district court’s order and remand.

Download Paycom Payroll, et al v. Richison, et al

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.