Previous month:
October 2015
Next month:
December 2015

Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek LLC

Belden Inc. owns U.S. Patent No. 6,074,503, which discloses and claims a method for making a communications cable. On a petition for inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 311 et seq. filed by the predecessor of Berk-Tek LLC, the Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a review and later reached a mixed decision: it rejected claims 1–4 of the ’503 patent for obviousness, while confirming claims 5 and 6. We now affirm the rejection of claims 1–4 and reverse the upholding of claims 5 and 6. We also reject Belden’s contention that the Board denied it procedural rights in the review.

Download Belden Inc. v. Berk-Tek 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.

Tesco Corp. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P.

Plaintiff Tesco Corporation (“Tesco”) and interested parties-appellants Glenn A. Ballard, Jr. and John F. Luman, III (collectively “the Attorneys”) filed this appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas dismissing Tesco’s patent infringement suit with prejudice pursuant to the court’s inherent authority to sanction. Tesco Corp. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc., No. H-08-2531, 2014 WL 4244215 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2014) (“Sanctions Order”). During the pendency of the appeal, Tesco and defendant-appellees National Oilwell Varco, L.P., Offshore Energy Services, Inc., and Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. (collectively “NOV”) entered into a settlement resolving all outstanding issues. The Attorneys also participated in the settlement, with the parties and all counsel signing mutual releases. The Attorneys contend that, despite the settlement, the harm to their reputation from the district court’s opinion justifies our continued jurisdiction over the appeal. Because we find that there is no remaining case or controversy to adjudicate, we dismiss the appeal.

Download Tesco Corp. v. Nat'l Oilwell Varco, L.P.

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.

Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. Inc. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., Inc.

ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Allied Erecting and Dismantling Co., Inc. and Allied-Gator, Inc. (together, “Allied”) appeal the district court’s Federal Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of their Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“OUTSA”) lawsuit based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction against Genesis Attachments, LLC and its parent company, International Equipment Solutions, LLC (together, “Genesis”). For the reasons that follow, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Download Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. Inc. v. Genesis Equip. & Mfg., 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.

Keeling v. Hars

The primary question presented is whether an unauthorized work that makes “fair use” of its source material may itself be protected by copyright.  

We hold, for substantially the reasons stated by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Thomas P. Griesa, Judge), that, if the creator of an unauthorized work stays within the bounds of fair use and adds sufficient originality, she may claim protection under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 103, for her original contributions.  We also reject defendant’s challenges to the District Court’s jury charge.    The District Court’s January 11, 2013 judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.

Download Keeling v. Hars

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.

Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc.

Atlas IP, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 5,371,734, which describes and claims a protocol for controlling wireless network communications between a hub and remotes. In December 2013, Atlas sued Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic USA, Inc., and Medtronic MiniMed, Inc. (collectively, “Medtronic”), alleging that certain Medtronic medical products for monitoring a patient’s condition infringed the ’734 patent. In a related case, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida adopted claim constructions that, by agreement, govern the present case. Atlas IP, LLC v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., No. 14-21006-CIV, 2014 WL 3764129 (S.D. Fla. July 30, 2014). The district court in this case then issued two summary-judgment orders concerning claim 21, the only claim at issue here. It granted summary judgment of non-infringement by Medtronic, J.A. 2–6; and it granted summary judgment rejecting anticipation and obviousness challenges to claim 21, Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 13-23309-CIV, 2014 WL 5305577 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2014). Atlas appeals the non-infringement ruling, which we affirm. Medtronic cross-appeals the validity ruling, which we reverse. We remand for further proceedings on invalidity.

Download Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, 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.

Hanover Ins. Co v. Urban Outfitters Inc

Risk is a concept with which we are intimately acquainted.36 Those who wager correctly are rewarded and those who guess wrong suffer losses. The purpose of insurance is to disperse that risk. But “[a]n insured cannot insure against something that has already begun and which is known to have begun.”

The “prior publication” exclusion prevents a continuing tortfeasor from passing the risk for its misconduct on to an unwitting insurer. Taking Navajo Nation’s underlying allegations as true, Urban Outfitters engaged in similar liability-triggering behavior both before and during Hanover’s coverage period. We therefore hold that the exclusion applies. For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s order granting Hanover’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Download Hanover Ins. Co v. Urban Outfitters 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.