Previous month:
July 2016
Next month:
September 2016

Urbont v. Sony Music Ent

Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Buchwald, J.) granting Defendants-Appellees’ motions for summary judgment on plaintiff’s federal copyright claim and his related state law claims. We hold that the district court erred in determining that plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact with respect to his federal copyright infringement claim but that the court properly granted summary judgment to the appellees on plaintiff’s state law claims. The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED in part and VACATED and REMANDED in part.

Download Urbont v. Sony Music Ent

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

Oriental Fin. Group, Inc. v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Oriental

Four years ago, we affirmed a judgment that a Puerto Rico credit union (in Spanish, a "cooperativa") infringed on the trademark rights of a competing bank by adopting a confusingly similar logo and trade dress. Oriental Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Crédito Oriental, 698 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2012) ("Oriental I"). In this subsequent appeal, we consider whether the credit union also infringed the bank's word mark and trade name ORIENTAL with its competing marks COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, ORIENTAL POP, and CLUB DE ORIENTALITO. Notwithstanding the similarity between them, the district court found that the latter marks did not infringe upon the former, and refused to enjoin their use.

With regard to COOP ORIENTAL, COOPERATIVA ORIENTAL, and ORIENTAL POP, the district court's determination of noninfringement was clearly erroneous. We reverse that portion of the judgment and remand for reconsideration of whether the injunction should be expanded to remedy the infringing use of those marks. We conclude, however, that the district court's determination is supportable as to CLUB DE ORIENTALITO, and affirm that portion of the judgment.

Download Oriental Fin. Group, Inc. v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Oriental

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

Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.

Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS”) appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 14-cv-80651 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014) (J.A. 2–37), which found that claims 3 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (“the ’728 patent”) and claims 5 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 7,672,681 (“the ’681 patent”) (together, the “patents-in-suit”) invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6, and that the claims are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 (2006).1 Although the district court found these claims indefinite, it did not address the issue of invalidity because Appellee, Life360, Inc., (“Life360”) did not request a finding of invalidity. The parties subsequently stipulated that these claims were invalid for indefiniteness, see J.A. 857, and the court entered its Final Judgment on May 12, 2015, see J.A. 1. For the reasons articulated below, we affirm the district court’s decision that the claims are indefinite, and accordingly conclude that the asserted claims are invalid.

Download Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.

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

Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) appeals a district court order denying Illumina’s motion to compel arbitration. Illumina and Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. (“Ariosa”) entered into a supply agreement in which the parties agreed that certain disputes will be subject to compulsory arbitration. The arbitration clause came into dispute when Illumina sued Ariosa for patent infringement, and Ariosa counterclaimed for breach of contract on grounds that, under the terms of the supply agreement, Ariosa had a license to the patent-in-suit. Illumina invoked the arbitration clause of the supply agreement and moved to compel arbitration. The district court concluded that Ariosa’s counterclaims are not subject to arbitration. We affirm the district court’s order denying compulsory arbitration.

Download Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc.

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

Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

McClinton Energy Group, LLC filed a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,079,413 (the “’413 patent”), owned by Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd. (“Magnum”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) instituted review and issued a final written decision holding all challenged claims of the ’413 patent obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Subsequently, McClinton and Magnum settled their dispute over the ’413 patent and other patents not at issue here. Magnum now appeals the Board’s judgment regarding the ’413 patent. The Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) intervened in the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 143. For the following reasons, we reverse.

Download Magnum Oil Tools Int'l, Ltd.

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

Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Unwired Planet, LLC (“Unwired”) appeals the United States District Court for the Northern District of California’s summary judgment of non-infringement on U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,446; 6,647,260; 6,317,831; and 6,321,092 in favor of Apple Inc. (“Apple”). We affirm-inpart, vacate-in-part, and remand.

Download Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.

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

FIU v. FNU

At issue in this trademark case is whether Florida National University, Inc. (“FNU”), infringed the trademark rights of Florida International University (“FIU”) in its registered trademark “FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNVERSITY” or committed unfair competition when FNU changed its name from “Florida National College” to “Florida National University.” After thorough review and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s entry of final judgment in favor of FNU on all claims.

Download FIU v. FNU

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

Russell Road Food & Beverage v. Spencer

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the plaintiff was the assignee of a valid trademark co-existence agreement entered into with the former owner of the registered mark “Crazy Horse” and therefore had the right to use the mark.

Download Russell Road Food & Beverage v. Spencer

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

Phoenix Ent. Partners, LLC v. Rumsey

Slep-Tone Entertainment Corporation and its successor in interest, Phoenix Entertainment Partners, LLC (collectively, “Slep-Tone”) contend in this litigation that the defendants, a pub and its owner, committed trademark infringement by passing off unauthorized digital copies of Slep-Tone karaoke files as genuine Slep-Tone tracks. See Bretford Mfg., Inc. v. Smith Sys. Mfg. Corp., 419 F.3d 576, 580 (7th Cir. 2005) (describing passing off and reverse passing off cases). Because we agree with the district court that Slep-Tone has not plausibly alleged that the defendants’ conduct results in consumer confusion as to the source of any tangible good sold in the marketplace, we affirm the dismissal of its complaint.

Download Phoenix Ent. Partners, LLC v. Rumsey

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

WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

Kohler Co. appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ denial of judgment as a matter of law that claims 1–6, 8, and 10–12 of U.S. Patent No. 7,314,044 and claims 26 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 7,832,196 (collectively “asserted claims”) would have been obvious and lack sufficient written description and the determination that Kohler willfully infringed the asserted claims. WBIP, LLC cross-appeals the court’s denial of its post-trial motion for a permanent injunction. We affirm the court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on all issues raised by Kohler and its willful infringement determination, vacate the court’s denial of WBIP’s motion for a permanent injunction, and remand for further consideration.

Download WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.

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