Previous month:
July 2014
Next month:
September 2014

AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

The Mathilda and Terrance Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust (Kennedy) owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,846,442 (the ’442 patent) and 6,270,766 (the ’766 patent). Both patents are directed towards methods of treating rheumatoid arthritis by co-administering two drugs. AbbVie, Inc. and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (collectively, AbbVie) are licensees of the ’766 patent but not the ’442 patent. In 2011, AbbVie sued Kennedy in the Southern District of New York for a declaratory judgment that the ’442 patent was invalid under the doctrine of obviousness- type double patenting because the ’442 patent was not patentably distinct from the ’766 patent. We agree with AbbVie that the ’442 patent would have been obvious in light of the ’766 patent. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s finding of invalidity.

Download AbbVie Inc. v. Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust

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

Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc.

Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, “Apotex”) appeal the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida finding that: (1) Apotex’s U.S. Patent No. 6,767,556 (“the ’556 patent”) is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct; (2) Apotex is judicially estopped from alleging infringement of the ’556 patent by the accused products; (3) the asserted claims are indefinite; (4) Apotex disclaimed coverage of the accused products from the scope of the ’556 patent’s claims; and (5) Apotex is barred by laches from recovering pre-suit damages. Apotex, Inc. v. UCB, Inc., 970 F. Supp. 2d 1297 (S.D. Fla. 2013). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding inequitable conduct, we affirm the district court’s judgment on that basis.

Download Apotex Inc. v. UCB, Inc.

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

LG Elecs., Inc. v. Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc.

LG Electronics, Inc. (“LG”) and the defendants are parties to an arbitration before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution. After LG filed the arbitration, the parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement, titled “Agreement Governing Confidential Settlement Communications” (the “NDA”). LG alleges in this action that the defendants, whom this decision refers to collectively as “InterDigital,” breached the NDA by submitting certain documents to the arbitrators. As a remedy, LG seeks a permanent injunction compelling InterDigital to withdraw the offending documents and to refrain from further breaches of the NDA. InterDigital has moved to dismiss on the grounds that LG‟s claims are properly before the arbitral tribunal and this court should defer to the tribunal under McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell-Wellman Engineering Co., 263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970). The motion to dismiss is granted.

Download LG Elecs., Inc. v. Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc.

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

M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Assocs., Inc. v. Strabala

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. After leaving Gensler, an ar-­‐‑ chitectural firm with projects throughout the world, where he had been a Design Director, Jay Marshall Strabala opened his own firm, 2Define Architecture. Strabala stated on its web site (http://www.define-­‐‑arch.com/en/featured), on his personal Flickr site, or both, that he had designed five pro-­‐‑ jects for which Gensler is the architect of record: Shanghai Tower, Hess Tower, Three Eldridge Place, the Houston Ballet Center for Dance, and the headquarters of Tesoro Corpo-­‐‑ ration. Gensler contends that Strabala’s statements, a form of “reverse passing off” in the argot of this field, violate §43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). But the district judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that, because Strabala did not say that he built or sold these structures, he could not have violated §43(a). 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21255 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2012). The court then dismissed Gensler’s state-­‐‑law claims, relying on its concession that the outcome of its fed-­‐‑ eral-­‐‑law claim controls the whole suit. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21255 at *8–9.

Download M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. & Assocs., Inc. v. Strabala

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

S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina

The district court entered summary judgment for plaintiffappellee Southern California Darts Association (“SoCal”) and issued a permanent injunction enjoining defendant-appellant Dino M. Zaffina from using certain marks that have been used by SoCal for several decades. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Download S. Cal. Darts Ass'n v. Zaffina

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

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (Syngenta) sued Bunge North America, Inc. (Bunge), alleging Bunge (1) breached an obligation under the United States Warehouse Act (USWA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 241-256; (2) breached a duty to third-party beneficiaries of a licensing agreement between Bunge and the federal government; and (3) engaged in false advertising, in violation of the LanhamAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. The district court dismissed Syngenta’s USWA and third-party beneficiary claims on the pleadings, and granted Bunge summary judgment on the Lanham Act claim. Syngenta appeals. We affirm the dismissal of the USWA and third-party beneficiary claims and remand the Lanham Act claim for further proceedings.

Download Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Bunge North America, Inc.

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

Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.

MANION, Circuit Judge. Fortres Grand Corporationdeve lops and sells a desktop management program called “Clean Slate.” When Warner Bros. Entertainment used the words “the clean slate” to describe a hacking program in the movie, The Dark Knight Rises, Fortres Grand noticed a precipitous drop in sales of its software. Believing Warner Bros.’ use of the words “clean slate” infringed its trademark and caused the decrease in sales, Fortres Grand brought this suit. Fortres Grand alleged that Warner Bros.’ use of the words “clean slate” could cause consumers to be confused about the source of Warner Bros.’ movie (“traditional confusion”) and to be confused about the source of Fortres Grand’s software (“reverse confusion”). The district court held that Fortres Grand failed to state a claim under either theory, and that Warner Bros.’ use of the words “clean slate” was protected by the First Amendment. Fortres Grand appeals, arguing only its reverse confusion theory, and we affirm without reaching the constitutional question.

Download Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.

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

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. These consolidated appeals arise from a jury trial followed by a contempt proceeding. At trial, Defendants N2G Distributing, Inc. (“N2G”) and Alpha Performance Labs were found to have infringed the trademark and trade dress of 5-hour ENERGY (“FHE”)—a product sold by Plaintiff Innovation Ventures, LLC—in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq. The district court then held Defendants in contempt, along with their owner, Jeffrey Diehl, for violating the permanent injunction entered after trial. Defendants appeal many of the district court’s rulings, but for the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the district court in full.

Download Innovation Ventures, LLC v. N2G Distrib., Inc.

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

ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Assocs.

Plaintiffs ScriptPro, LLC and ScriptPro USA, Inc. (collectively, ScriptPro) sued Innovation Associates, Inc, alleging infringement of claims 1, 2, 4, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601. The district court granted summary judgment for Innovation Associates, holding that the asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 (now § 112(a)), which requires, for a claim to be valid, that the patent’s specification describe the subject matter defined by the claim. The court rested its holding on a single conclusion—that the specification describes a machine containing “sensors,” whereas the claims at issue claim a machine that need not have “sensors.” ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Assocs., Inc., No. 06-2468, 2012 WL 2402778 (D. Kan. June 26, 2012). ScriptPro appeals. Because summary judgment of invalidity on that ground is not appropriate here, we reverse. We do not have before us, and therefore do not address, other questions that may be raised by the generality of the language of the claims.

Download ScriptPro, LLC v. Innovation Assocs.

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

Tyco Healthcare Grp. v. Mut. Pharm. Co

Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc., and United Research Laboratories, Inc., (collectively, “Mutual”) appeal from a summary judgment entered by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in favor of Tyco Healthcare Group LP and Mallinckrodt, Inc., (collectively, “Tyco”). In the order on appeal, the district court held that Tyco did not violate the antitrust laws by filing suit against Mutual or by filing a “citizen petition” with the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking to bar Mutual from obtaining FDA permission to market its generic version of one of Tyco’s drugs. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Download Tyco Healthcare Grp. v. Mut. Pharm. Co

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