Previous month:
September 2014
Next month:
November 2014

Cambridge University Press v. Albert

Three publishing houses, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and Sage Publications, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that members of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia and officials at Georgia State University (“GSU”) (collectively, “Defendants”) infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights by maintaining a policy which allows GSU professors to make digital copies of excerpts of Plaintiffs’ books available to students without paying Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged seventy-four individual instances of infringement, which took place during three academic terms in 2009. The District Court issued an order finding that Plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case ofinfringement in twenty-six instances, that the fair use defense applied in forty-three instances, and that Defendants had infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrights in the remaining five instances.

Finding that GSU’s policy caused the five instances of infringement, the District Court granted declaratory and injunctive relief to Plaintiffs. Nevertheless, the District Court found that Defendants were the prevailing party and awarded them costs and attorneys’ fees. Because we find that the District Court’s fair use analysis was in part erroneous, we reverse the District Court’s judgment; vacate the injunction, declaratory relief, and award of costs and fees; and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Download Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Albert

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

Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp.

Nonetheless, Grigoleit contends that even if Whirlpool was entitled to change its mind and shift from buying knobs to paying royalties, the amount it owes still should be calculated under the lost profits method of contract law. The main reason that it gives for this contention is that during their negotiations the parties decided not to set a per piece royalty. Only a contract measure of damages then is possible, the argument concludes. Yet ¶9 of the contract is an integration or entire agreement clause, in which Grigoleit and Whirlpool disclaim any understandings that do not appear in the contract’s final text. What the text tells us is that Whirlpool owes “royalties,” and lost profits differ from royalties. The caption on the contract is “LICENSE AGREEMENT” and the heading on ¶3 is “Royalties”. The district court therefore was not obliged to treat ¶3 as a requirements contract; the deal is a patent license. AFFIRMED

Download Grigoleit Co. v. Whirlpool Corp.

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

EMD Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Techs., Inc.

Plaintiffs-Appellants EMD Millipore Corporation, formerly known as Millipore Corporation; Merck Chemicals and Life Science AB, formerly known as Millipore AB; and Millipore SAS (collectively, “Millipore”) appeal the grant of summary judgment that Defendant-Appellee AllPure Technologies, Inc., now known as AllPure Technologies LLC, (“AllPure”) does not infringe the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,032,543 (“’543 patent”). See EMD Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Techs., Inc., No. 11- 10221, 2013 WL 5299372 (D. Mass. Sept. 17, 2013) (“Summary Judgment Order”). The district court found that AllPure’s TAKEONE device neither literally contains the claimed “removable, replaceable transfer member,” nor does it provide an infringing equivalent. Id. at *9. We agree with the district court that the TAKEONE device does not literally infringe. We also conclude that prosecution history estoppel prevents Millipore from asserting the doctrine of equivalents as to this claim limitation. On these grounds, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment.

Download EMD Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Techs., Inc.

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

American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co.

American Calcar Inc. (“Calcar”) appeals from the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,330,497 (“’497 patent”), 6,438,465 (“’465 patent”), and 6,542,795 (“’795 patent”) were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

Download Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.

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

Benefit Funding Sys., LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Ctrs., Inc.

Appellants, Benefit Funding Systems LLC and Retirement Capital Access Management Company LLC, appeal from the district court’s stay of patent infringement litigation pending covered business method review of the asserted claims. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court’s order staying the case.

Download Benefit Funding Sys., LLC v. Advance Am. Cash Advance Ctrs., Inc.

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

UPI Semiconductor Corp. v. ITC

Before the court are the appeal of respondentintervenor uPI Semiconductor Corp. (“uPI”) and the companion appeal of complainant-intervenors Richtek Technology Corp. and Richtek USA, Inc. (together “Richtek”) from rulings of the International Trade Commission in an action to enforce a Consent Order, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337- TA-698 (75 Fed. Reg. 446). We affirm the Commission’s ruling that uPI violated the Consent Order as to the imports known as “formerly accused products,” and affirm the modified penalty for that violation. We reverse the ruling of no violation as to the “post-Consent Order” products. The case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with our rulings herein.

Download UPI Semiconductor Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n

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