Manual IP News and Unitary Patent News edited by Arnold & Siedsma
 
Unified Patent Court News edited by Bristows
 
Kluwer Copyright Cases edited by IViR
 
Kluwer Patent Cases edited by Brinkhof
 
IP Law Daily - Selected US Cases edited by CCH
 
Volume 2017 - Issue 11-12
June 2017
 
 
 

News

 
General Information (3)
 
 
EUIPO opens new Open Data Platform
 
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has recently opened a new Open Data Platform, a new application that makes the Register available to the general public for bulk download.

 
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
EUIPO launches online tool for appeals
 
The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) has recently announced launching of eAppeal, a new online tool that allows users to file an appeal online.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
USPTO sets up Working Group on Regulatory Reform
 
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) last month announced setting up of a Working Group on Regulatory Reform to review and recommend revisions to improve and streamline the existing USPTO regulations, and also sought ideas from general public towards revising, improving and streamlining the USPTO regulations.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Patents/Utility Models (21)
 
 
Dossier content from Australia now available in PATENTSCOPE
 
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has added the national dossier content of Australia to the PATENTSCOPE database, a free search service offered by the WIPO.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Australia Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Brazilian PTO and health agency reach agreement on pharma patent
 
To bring more clarity between the powers of the Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) and the Brazilian National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) with regard to patent applications in the pharmaceutical field, the two agencies reached an agreement under which the ANVISA will only examine patent applications for public health issues and the INPI will evaluate the patentability requirements.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Brazil Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Canada passes law to make changes to pharma patent regulations
 
On 11 May 2017, the Canadian Senate passed Bill C-30, “An Act to implement the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union and its Member States and to provide for certain other measures,” which will become a law once it gets Royal Assent by the Governor General.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Canada Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Chinese FDA seeks public comments on patent linkage scheme
 
On 12 May 2017, the Chinese Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) published a Policy Notice entitled “Policies Relevant to the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Innovators for the Encouragement of Innovation in Drugs and Medical Devices”, seeking comments from the general public.

 
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
China Full text
 
 
 
 
 
IP5 to harmonize IP practices
 
On 2 June 2017, during the conclusion of a meeting on the eve of tenth anniversary of working together, the IP5, the world’s five largest Intellectual Property Offices—the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)—have announced their resolve to further harmonise their patent practices.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
China, European Patent Organization, Japan, South Korea, United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Patent data from Denmark now in PATENTSCOPE
 
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has added the national patent collections of Denmark to the PATENTSCOPE database, a free search service offered by the WIPO.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Denmark Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Egypt increases official patent fees
 
Following the drop in the local currency, the Egyptian Patent Office has announced a steep hike in patent-related official fees effective from 13 February 2017.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Egypt Full text
 
 
 
 
 
US Supreme Court ruling could make UPC attractive forum
 
The US Supreme Court ruling limiting a patentee’s choice to bring cases in patentee-friendly jurisdictions, such as the Eastern District of Texas, may attract patent litigation to Europe.

This is argued in a Bristows report. The UPC Agreement gives four options as to where to bring infringement proceedings. ‘With patentees retaining significant control (…), the UPC may become an attractive forum for patentees facing increasing restrictions in the US.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union, United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Reports published on 4th annual meeting EPLIT
 
The EPLIT, the European Patent Litigators Association, has published reports on its 4th annual meeting, 12 May 2017, on the website.

Among others, a presentation was given on the Case Management System of the UPC.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Article 48 Representatives in CMS UPC
 
Since the latest update to the beta CMS of the Unified Patent Court, there is a new entry in the applications list on 'article 48' (UPCA) representatives.

According to a Bristows report, the new entry allows persons to apply to be entered on the Register as an “Article 48 Representative”’.

For more information please click here.

 
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Version 0.38 of the UPC's CMS analysed
 
The Opt-out section has been given its own place in the Dashboard menu of the UPC’s website under construction, v0.38.

This has been reported by IP Copy, which made a ‘What’s new’ summary of the new version of the court’s CMS.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Delays may make UPC less attractive for potential judges at the court
 
The biggest threat for the UPC is not the non-participation of the UK, but the possibility that experienced European patent judges, fed up with the uncertainty and delays, will no longer be interested in working at the UPC.

This is argued in a commentary of the German legal website JUVE.  ‘If the most qualified judges do not end up in the UPC because they don’t believe in the project any longer, the court is already devalued at the hour of his birth.’

For more information (German) please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
File your opt-out as soon as possible
 
Those wishing to file requests to opt out of the Unified Patent Court should ‘do so as soon as the sunrise period commences, in order that they should be at the front of the queue.’

This is advised in a Marks & Clerk article on opting out under the new Unitary Patent system. ‘As a matter of logistics, it is likely that the Case Management System will be flooded with requests to opt out during the sunrise period.’

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
German judges most wanted for UPC
 
German judges top the list of most favourite judges for the Unified Patent Court.

This has been reported by the German legal website JUVE, which asked representatives of the Eurepean patent world which judges they would like to see in the divisions of the Unified Patent Court.

Number one in the list is Dr. Thomas Kühnen, currently judge of the Oberlandesgericht in Düsseldorf.

For more information please click here.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unified Patent Court NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union, Germany Full text
 
 
 
 
 
'Clarity needed about number of UP member states'
 
More clarity is needed about how many participating states will be involved in the UP/UPC, as this feeds into any cost/benefit analysis in opting for a UP rather than national patents.

This was argued by Tim Frain of Nokia during an AIPPI seminar last week. IP Kat reported about the seminar.

Frain explained ‘there are various logistical considerations that industry must grapple with.  Are your existing patent record systems compatible with the forthcoming UP? Is it possible to record opt-out status on your system? Can you record UPs? Can you capture what territories are covered and which are not at any given time (these will change over time as more participants join the new system)? Industry must also consider training for in-house patent attorneys (…).’

For more information please click here.  
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Unitary Patent NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text
 
 
 
 
 
UK publishes proposed changes to patent fees
 
The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has recently published the proposed revisions to patent-related fees, seeking comments from the public on the proposed changes.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United Kingdom Full text
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. apex court rules on patent venue case
 
Interpreting the term “residence” found in Section 1400(b) of Title 28 of the United States Code, the United States Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC ruled on 22 May 2017 that “residence” means the state in which a company is incorporated and that it does not extend to mere business activity.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. apex court agrees to hear SAS case on inter partes review
 
On 22 May 2017, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the SAS Institute, Inc. v. Lee case, where the Court will decide whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) can issue a final written decision on the patentability of only some of the claims challenged in a petition for inter partes review (IPR) or the PTAB is obligated to issue the final written decision with respect to all of the challenged claims.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
U.S. apex court rules on patent exhaustion doctrine
 
On 30 May 2017, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. that a sale of a patented article authorized by the patentee, whether inside or outside of the United States, exhausts the U.S. patent rights in that article, regardless of whether it is a conditional sale transferring title to the patented item with post-sale restrictions on its use or resale.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Vietnam IP office restarts accepting applications under JPO-NOIP PPH
 
Effective 24 August 2016, the National Office of Intellectual Property of Vietnam (NOIP) had stopped accepting application under the three-year Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programme between the Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the NOIP as the number of requests for the PPH programme filed with NOIP reached its annual limit of 100, but the NOIP has now restarted accepting application under the PPH on 1 April 2017.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Vietnam Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Zambia adopts new Patent Act
 
Replacing the old Patent Act Cap 400, a new Patent Act came into force in Zambia on 27 December 2016.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Zambia Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Trademarks (9)
 
 
Brunei Darussalam notifies intention to receive individual fees
 
Pursuant to the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the Government of Brunei Darussalam has notified the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on 3 April 2017 of its intention to receive an individual fee instead of a share in the revenue produced by the supplementary and complementary fees when Brunei Darussalam is designated in an international registration application or a renewal application.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Brunei Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Cambodia introduces e-filing
 
On 25 May 2017, Cambodia became the seventh ASEAN country to implement online trademark registration after Singapore, Malaysia, Philippine, Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia. This initiative of Cambodia is expected to encourage small businesses while ensuring that their innovation and intellectual property rights are protected.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Cambodia Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Guatemala ratifies TLT
 
On 29 May 2017, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs published the ratification of the Trademark Law Treaty (TLT) and the Regulations, which was made by the President of the Republic of Guatemala.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Guatemala Full text
 
 
 
 
 
India publishes guidelines for filing well-known trademark applications
 
The Indian Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) has issued a public notice containing new guidelines that allows an applicant to declare a mark as “well-known” by filing an application with the Trademark Office.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
India Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Lesotho notifies requirement to file declaration of intention to use
 
Pursuant to the provisions of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Agreement and Protocol Concerning the International Registration of Marks, the Government of Lesotho has notified the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on 31 March 2017 that holders of international registration containing a designation of Lesotho should file declaration of intension to use a mark that is the subject of the registration.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Lesotho Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Mozambique allows re-filing of refused trademark applications
 
The registry in Mozambique, which has not been allowing re-filing of trademark applications that had been refused, has now begun to accept such applications.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Mozambique Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Peru publishes new law on POA and trademark application filing date
 
On 29 May 2017, a new Supreme Decree, covering issues such as the requirement of filing a power of attorney (POA) and assignment of trademark application filing date, was published in the Peruvian Official Gazette.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Peru Full text
 
 
 
 
 
USPTO contemplates streamlining trademark cancellation procedure
 
To improve the integrity of the trademark register, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning to streamline trademark cancellation procedures before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), and it invited comments from the public in this regard.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Uzbekistan revises trademark law
 
The Republic of Uzbekistan has recently introduced the new law “On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan” dated 18 April 2017 effecting amendments to the Civil Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Law on Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin and the Law on Competition.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Uzbekistan Full text
 
 
 
 
 
Industrial Models and Designs (1)
 
 
Russia publishes search reports in its official bulletin
 
Pursuant to the changes introduced in 2014 and 2015 to the Russian Civil Code relating to the intellectual property regime, Russia has recently published the search reports in the Official Bulletins of Inventions and Utility Models.
 
Author(s): Kluwer IP Reporter
 
Source: Manual IP NewsDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Russian Federation Full text
 
 
 
 

Cases

 
Copyright (5)
 
 
European Union: Hotel Edelweiss, European Court of Justice (ECJ), C-641/15, 16 February 2017
 
The CJEU held that the price of a hotel room should not be regarded as an 'entrance fee' in relation to the exclusive right of broadcasters provided for in Article 8(3) of Directive 2006/115, as the communication of television and radio broadcasts through television sets installed in hotel rooms does not constitute a communication made in a place accessible to the public against payment of an entrance fee. 
 
Author(s): Sophia Urlich
 
Source: Kluwer Copyright CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
European Union Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
Spain: Architectural project, Supreme Court of Spain, First Civil Law Chamber, ECLI:ES:TS:2017:1644, 26 April 2017
 
In this judgment, the Spanish Supreme Court ruled on the concept of originality in respect of architectural works, and for the first time established clear and specific guidelines for applying copyright protection to works of this nature.
 
Author(s): Patricia Mariscal Garrido-Falla, Elzaburu, Madrid
 
Source: Kluwer Copyright CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Spain Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Indigo Group USA, Inc. v. Ralph Lauren Corp, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 14-56429, 11 May 2017
 
A manufacturer of denim garments for Ralph Lauren Corp. was precluded from filing a second complaint requesting a declaration of co-ownership of copyrights in “cut-and-sew” patterns that the manufacturer developed, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia has decided. The manufacturer did not have the right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant. A district court was within its discretion to dismiss the second action. The manufacturer retained the right to challenge the district court’s orders in the first action on direct appeal (Indigo Group USA, Inc. v. Ralph Lauren Corp. , May 11, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, No. 16-13726, 18 May 2017
 
For the purpose of meeting the statutory requirement that copyrights be registered with the Copyright Office before copyright infringement actions are instituted, "registration" occurs when the Register of Copyrights has registered the copyright claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta has ruled. Filing a copyright application did not amount to registration. The ruling of the Eleventh Circuit agreed with the findings of the Tenth Circuit but disagreed with the findings of the Fifth, Eighth (in dicta), and Ninth Circuits, and thus extended the split among circuit courts on the meaning of "registration." Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the decision of the trial court, which had dismissed an infringement action because the Register of Copyrights had not registered the plaintiff’s copyright before the lawsuit was filed (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, May 18, 2017, Pryor, W.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, No. 16-3817, 06 June 2017
 
Likening plaintiff Design Basics, LLC, to "so-called intellectual property trolls," the federal court of appeals in Chicago has affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing Design Basics’ copyright infringement claims against Lexington Homes, Inc. Design Basics failed to establish that Lexington Homes either accessed Design Basics’ allegedly infringed plans, or that the parties’ home designs were substantially similar (Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc., June 6, 2017, Hamilton, D.).
 
Author(s): Robert Margolis, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
Patent (29)
 
 
Portugal: Expiration term to bring arbitration in patents v generics, Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal, 554/15.7YRLSB.L1.S1, 07 December 2016
 
The 30-day period to initiate mandatory arbitration proceedings against apllicants of authorization to introduce generic medicines in the market is an expiration or final term.
 
Author(s): Alexandre L. Dias Pereira, Law Faculty of Coimbra University
 
Source: Kluwer Patent CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Portugal Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
Portugal: The Court of Intellectual Property has exclusive jurisdiction to revoke patents, Supreme Court of Justice of Portugal, 1248/14.6YRLSB.S1, 14 December 2016
 
The Court of Intellectual Property has exclusive jurisdiction to revoke patents. The mandatory arbitration court established by Law 62/2011 cannot declare the nullity of a pharmaceutical patent even if the issue is raised merely as a defence and with effects limited to the parties to the proceedings.
 
Author(s): Alexandre L. Dias Pereira, Law Faculty of Coimbra University
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected Trade Secret CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
Portugal Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2016-1143, 10 May 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board erred in holding that certain claims of a fiber optic communications signal patent met the written description requirement, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Board, however, properly rejected a diverting element claims for lack of written description support (Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC, May 10, 2017, Chen, R.).
 
Author(s): Jody Coultas, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: In re AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1830, 10 May 2017
 
The USPTO did not exceed its statutory authority when it instituted an inter partes reexamination of an AT&T patent concerning methods of compressing and transmitting digital video data, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. Although the party that requested reexamination later asked the USPTO to reject its request, it did not formally withdraw from the proceeding or withdraw its initial request. Therefore, the statutorily required request and requester were present. In addition, substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the patent claims at issue were invalid as anticipated by prior art (In re AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., May 10, 2017, Reyna, J.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1599, 11 May 2017
 
Statements made by Aylus Networks during inter partes review (IPR) of patent claims involving systems and methods for implementing "digital home networks with a control point located on a wide area network" constituted a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Statements by a patent owner during an IPR proceeding, whether they were made before or after an institution decision, could be relied on to support a finding of prosecution disclaimer, the court held. In light of the disclaimer by Aylus, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s claim construction and grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Apple Inc. (Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., May 11, 2017, Stoll, K.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: NOVA Chemicals Corporation (Canada) v. Dow Chemical Company, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1576, 11 May 2017
 
The federal district court in Delaware did not abuse its discretion in determining, under the totality of the circumstances, that an equity action brought by NOVA Chemicals Corp. (Canada) and NOVA Chemicals Inc. (Delaware) (collectively, NOVA) against Dow Chemical Co., and seeking relief from a prior judgment finding that Nova had infringed Dow’s patents, was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined. Although the district court erred to the extent that it based the exceptional determination on the nature of the equity action itself, it did not abuse its discretion in finding that the case was exceptional based on the strength of NOVA’s litigation position. Thus, the lower court’s award of approximately $2.5 million in attorney fees to Dow was affirmed (NOVA Chemicals Corporation (Canada) v. Dow Chemical Company, May 11, 2017, Prost, S.).
 
Author(s): Peter Reap, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 16-2233, 11 May 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of four claims of a metallurgy patent has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Board did not sufficiently explain the basis for its obviousness determination. The Board initiated inter partes review based on the petitioner’s proposed claim construction, but its final decision was based on the patent owner’s construction and implicit factual findings and inferences of obviousness drawn from the patent owner’s submissions. Because the Board’s reasoning was unclear, the court could not determine whether the Board had afforded the patent owner adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The decision was vacated and the case remanded (Rovalma, S.A. v. Bohler Edelstahl GmbH & Co. KG, May 11, 2017, Taranto, R.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson America, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Nos. 2017-1517, 11 May 2017
 
An appeal asking whether Article III of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the Patent Trial and Appeal Board from canceling claims of an issued patent following inter partes review (IPR) will be heard in the first instance by a three-judge panel, rather than by the en banc court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided. A patent owner petitioned for an initial en banc ruling because a decision in its favor would require the court to overrule a precedential decision, which cannot be done by a three-judge panel. A majority of the circuit judges voted to deny the petition, but Circuit Judges Kathleen O’Malley and Jimmy Reyna dissented from that denial. Judge O’Malley favored en banc consideration to resolve the issue of whether a patent confers a public or a private right, while Judge Reyna opined that the court should grant the petition because the appeal invoked the separation of powers and the private/public right distinction, and because the court’s prior decisions did not distinguish long-standing Supreme Court precedent. Circuit Judges Timothy Dyk and Pauline Newman each filed concurring opinions (Cascades Projection LLC v. Epson America, Inc., May 11, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Nos. 14-56382, 11 May 2017
 
In a qui tam action under the False Claims Act, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit found that a federal district court did not err in ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit that generic drug maker Amphastar brought against Aventis Pharmaceuticals. Amphastar alleged that Aventis and two affiliates had committed fraud against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by intentionally making material nondisclosures and false representations regarding a patent application for a new version of the blood thinner enoxaparin. Because the application was successful and resulted in a patent, Amphastar argued that Aventis obtained an illegal monopoly on enoxaparin and knowingly overcharged the U.S. government. The panel found that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the qui tam action because the complaint was based on public disclosures (fraud allegations in a prior infringement suit). It also found that Amphastar failed to show that it was the original source of the information on which its pleadings were based. For those reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reversed, however, the denial of attorney fees to Aventis. The case was remanded for resolution of the attorney fees issue (Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aventis Pharma SA, May 11, 2017, O’Scannlain, D.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: e2Interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1775, 11 May 2017
 
Sixty-six challenged claims of a patent related to security check methods for prepaid Stored Value Cards, such as gift cards, were properly rejected by the USPTO as obvious over various combinations of prior art references, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The court affirmed a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, affirming the USPTO examiner’s determination in an inter partes reexamination that the claims were unpatentable. The Board did not err in construing a key claim term—"transaction type"—and finding that, under that construction, certain prior art references taught a particular claim limitation. Because the patent-holder’s arguments all were based on its claim construction contention, the court also affirmed the Board’s finding that skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine those references with other prior art that taught all of the other limitations of the challenged claims (e2Interactive, Inc. v. Blackhawk Network, Inc., May 11, 2017, Lourie, A.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Elliott v. Google, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 15-1580, 16 May 2017
 
In an action seeking cancellation of the registered mark GOOGLE—on the ground that the word "google" was primarily understood as a generic term that was "universally used to describe the act[] of internet searching"—the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has found that a federal district court did not misapply the primary significance test or improperly weigh the record evidence when it granted summary judgment to Google on the plaintiffs’ claims of genericness. Because the plaintiffs failed to proffer sufficient evidence to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understood the word "google" as a generic name for Internet search engines—and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular—judgment in favor of Google was affirmed (Elliott v. Google, Inc., May 16, 2017, Tallman, R.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1357, 16 May 2017
 
The federal district court in Wilmington, Delaware, possessed jurisdiction to consider, on remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the validity of two claims in a reissue patent directed to the fabrication of type of mechanically-resistant steel sheet, the Federal Circuit has held in a split decision. There was an active controversy between the parties regarding the claims, and the district court acted pursuant to a mandate from the appellate court. The dispute was not mooted by the tender of a conditional covenant not to sue by the patent holder. Additionally, the district court correctly entered summary judgment invalidating the claims on obviousness grounds. The claims were the last two remaining of 25 claims originally asserted by patent holder ArcelorMittal in an infringement action against competitor AK Steel Corporation. The decision puts an end to the older of two consolidated infringement actions, which had begun in 2010 and twice made its way to the Federal Circuit before the current decision (ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corp., May 16, 2017, Hughes, T.).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2017-1645, 19 May 2017
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a preliminary injunction prohibiting Indian drug maker Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and two affiliates from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing a lymphatic imaging agent called isosulfan blue ("ISB"), which allegedly infringed three Apicore patents that were licensed to Mylan Institutional. Although the district court had erred in granting an injunction under two of the asserted patents, it correctly granted one under the third patent (Mylan Institutional LLC v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., May 19, 2017, Lourie, A.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1290, 23 May 2017
 
The federal district court in Seattle did not err in dismissing copyright, patent, and trademark infringement claims filed by Milo & Gabby LLC against Amazon.com, Inc., for providing an online marketplace where third-party sellers sold knock-off imitations of Milo & Gabby’s animal-shaped pillow cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. Amazon was not a "seller" for the purposes of the Copyright Act because the third-party vendors retained title to the infringing pillowcases at all times and Amazon merely provided an online marketplace and in some cases, shipping services. Milo & Gabby waived its argument that Amazon was a seller for purposes of the Patent Act and it failed to develop its argument that Amazon committed palming off in violation of the Lanham Act (Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., May 23, 2017, O’Malley, K.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Rivera v. International Trade Commission, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1841, 23 May 2017
 
The International Trade Commission (ITC) did not err in holding that a patent held by Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises covering an adapter for single-pod coffee brewers was invalid for lack of written description, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Rivera v. International Trade Commission, May 23, 2017, Linn, R.).
 
Author(s): Jody Coultas, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1089, 24 May 2017
 
In its denial of a petition to cancel a registration for the mark ALEC BRADLEY STAR INSIGNIA, for cigars and cigar products, on likelihood of confusion grounds, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board erred in giving no weight to the "fame" of the petitioner’s registered mark INSIGNIA, for wine, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The Board erroneously analyzed the fame of INSIGNIA wine as an all-or-nothing factor and failed to properly apply the totality of circumstances standard, which requires consideration of all relevant factors on a sale appropriate to their merits. The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration (Joseph Phelps Vineyards, LLC v. Fairmont Holdings, LLC, May 24, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Thomas Long, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Twin Peaks Software Inc. v. IBM Corp, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2177, 26 May 2017
 
The federal district court in Oakland did not err in finding that two independent means-plus-function claims of a virtual file system patent asserted against IBM were invalid as indefinite, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has decided. The patent owner, Twin Peaks Software, Inc., failed to show that the patent’s specification disclosed adequate structures to support the respective means limitations recited in the claims (Twin Peaks Software Inc. v. IBM Corp., May 26, 2017, Lourie, A.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: In re NuVasive, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2015-1841, 31 May 2017
 
In an inter partes review (IPR) of a method patent that described the insertion of a spinal fusion implant along a "lateral, trans-psoas path to the spine," the Patent Trial and Appeal Board gave the claim phrase "lateral, trans-psoas path" an unreasonably broad construction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Because the erroneous construction was not a harmless error, the court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded the matter for a proper determination of whether the prior art disclosed a lateral trans-psoas path under a correct—i.e., broadest reasonable—construction (In re NuVasive, Inc., May 31, 2017, Taranto, R.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1361, 31 May 2017
 
A Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision invalidating challenged claims of a mobile wireless hotspot system patent following inter partes review has been reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit because the Board failed to consider the patent owner’s evidence purporting to show conception prior to the critical date of the allegedly anticipating prior art. On remand, the Board was directed to reconsider all pertinent evidence under the rule of reason standard (Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, May 31, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Preston v. Nagel, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1524, 01 June 2017
 
Subject matter jurisdiction was lacking over the appeal of a federal district court’s remand order, which returned to state court an action that included multiple counterclaims for declarations of non-infringement of several patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The lawsuit was filed in state court and removed to federal court, but the federal court remanded the case because the plaintiffs’ state-law claims did not arise under federal law and the defendants’ counterclaims did not present a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Because 28 U.S.C. §1447(d) barred the Federal Circuit’s review of the district court’s remand order, the defendants’ appeal was dismissed (Preston v. Nagel, June 1, 2017, Hughes, T.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2521, 05 June 2017
 
The federal district court in Marshall, Texas, erred in failing to award attorney fees to home security company ADS Security from plaintiff Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. In finding that Rothschild’s patent infringement claims, which were withdrawn before the expiration of the Rule 11 safe harbor provision, were not so frivolous or exceptional as to warrant an award of attorney fees, the district court misjudged the strength of Rothschild’s litigation provision. Further, the lower court misjudged Rothschild’s conduct in the numerous other patent infringement suits it had asserted, and it improperly conflated Rule 11 with 35 U.S.C. § 285. The ruling of the district court was reversed and the case remanded (Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Protection Services, Inc., June 5, 2017, Wallach, E.).
 
Author(s): Peter Reap, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Evans v. Building Materials Corporation of America, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2427, 05 June 2017
 
The developers of a "Roof N Box" product—a three-dimensional model of a roof and its materials, created as an explanatory tool for roofing companies—could proceed with design patent and trade dress claims against a competitor that sold a similar product, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Because the competitor’s motion for a stay pending arbitration was based on groundless assertions that the plaintiffs’ claims were subject to an arbitration clause in a prior agreement between the parties, a district court’s refusal to stay the claims, pending arbitration, was affirmed (Evans v. Building Materials Corporation of America, June 5, 2017, Taranto, R.).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-1397, 05 June 2017
 
For the second time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has reversed the federal district court in Philadelphia’s award of attorney fees to All-Tag Security S.A., All-Tag Security Americas, Inc., Sensormatic Electronics Corp., and Kobe Properties SARL (collectively, "All-Tag") in a patent infringement dispute with Checkpoint Systems. The district court erred, and thus abused its discretion, in its assessment of "exceptional case," because the record showed that the charge of infringement was reasonable and the litigation was not brought in bad faith or with abusive tactics (Checkpoint Systems, Inc. v. All-Tag Security S.A., June 5, 2017, Newman, P.).
 
Author(s): Peter Reap, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Crossroad Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2016-2017, 06 June 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in finding following inter partes review that all claims of three computer storage patents owned by Crossroads Systems were unpatentable as obvious, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Crossroad Systems, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., June 6, 2017, Reyna, J.). The court concurrently issued a second decision, affirming two additional Board decisions invalidating as obvious the challenged claims of one of the patents for the same reasons articulated in the first decision.
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2018, 07 June 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in finding following inter partes review that the challenged claims of a patent claiming a method for transferring audio and video files to a wireless were invalid as obvious in view of prior art, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled (Skky, Inc. v. MindGeek, S.A.R.L., June 7, 2017, Lourie, A.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Pecher v. Owens-Illinois, Inc, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, Nos. 16-1799, 06 June 2017
 
Owens-Illinois, the owner of a patent on a "Composite Fire Door," could not be held liable for asbestos-related injuries to individuals who had developed mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago has ruled (Pecher v. Owens-Illinois, Inc., June 6, 2017, Manion, D.). The plaintiffs sued Owens under a theory of negligence for its patent design, but the court found that the claims were frivolous because product liability could not attach to the "mere licensing" of a patent. The dismissal of the claims against Owens was therefore affirmed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to explain why their appeal was not frivolous under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Public and private nuisance claims against Weyerhaeuser Company were similarly dismissed.
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Lyons v. American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2055, 08 June 2017
 
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board did not err in cancelling a Supplemental Registration for the service mark "The American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation" on the ground that the mark was actually owned by a veterinary certification and educational organization rather than by the registrant, veterinarian Sheila Lyons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. Substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that the organization was the first to use the mark in commerce and that the relevant public associated the mark with the organization (Lyons v. American College of Veterinary Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation, June 8, 2017, Lourie, A.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: New World International, Inc. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2097, 08 June 2017
 
Ford Global Technologies ("FGTL") was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas for purposes of a suit brought by New World International, Inc., and National Auto Parts, Inc., (collectively, "New World") that sought a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity with regard to two design patents that FGTL had licensed to LKQ Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined. The agreement’s indemnification provision, and enforcement provision, which required FGTL to "not unreasonably" refuse a request by the licensee to enforce the licensed patents against alleged infringers, were insufficient to subject FGTL, which did no business in Texas, to jurisdiction there. Thus, a decision by the federal district court in Dallas was affirmed (New World International, Inc. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, June 8, 2017, Bryson, W.).
 
Author(s): Peter Reap, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, No. 2016-2001, 09 June 2017
 
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board did not err in instituting Covered Business Method ("CBM") review and finding several claims of a financing method patent owned by Credit Acceptance Corporation ("CAC") to be directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled. The Board correctly rejected CAC’s argument that a prior CBM proceeding invalidating other claims of the same patent estopped petitioner Westlake Services from maintaining the present proceeding. In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Mayer expressed his view that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the Board’s estoppel ruling because it was closely tied to a non-appealable institution decision (Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, June 9, 2017, Dyk, T.).
 
Author(s): Cheryl Beise, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
Trademark (2)
 
 
USA: BHTT Entertainment, Inc. v. Brickhouse Cafe and Lounge, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, No. 16-10687, 24 May 2017
 
Challenges to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans’s jurisdiction over a case in which the federal district court in Dallas entered a default judgment against Brickhouse Cafe & Lounge, LLC, Brickhouse Restaurant and Bar, LLC, and Jonah Investments, LLC (collectively, "Brickhouse") for infringing BHTT Entertainment’s trademarks were without merit, the appellate court decided. BHTT’s contentions that a failure by the appellate court to recall the mandate was fatal to jurisdiction, and that Brickhouse waived its insufficient service of process arguments were rejected, as was Brickhouse’s claim that invalid service of process required the default judgment to be set aside (BHTT Entertainment, Inc. v. Brickhouse Cafe and Lounge, LLC, May 24, 2017, Smith, J.).
 
Author(s): Peter Reap, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
USA: 2Die4Kourt v. Hillair Capital Management, LLC, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 16-56217, 26 May 2017
 
A federal district court did not err in awarding a preliminary injunction to Kourtney, Kim, and Khloe Kardashian and their companies—2Die4Kourt, Kimsaprincess Inc., and Khlomoney Inc.—that barred Hillair Capital Management and four related individuals and entities from using the Kardashians’ trademarks, the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco has ruled. The preliminary injunction was therefore affirmed (2Die4Kourt v. Hillair Capital Management, LLC, May 26, 2017, per curiam).
 
Author(s): Mark Engstrom, CCH
 
Source: IP Law Daily - Selected US CasesDate: 13 Jun 2017
 
United States of America Full text Full text as PDF
 
 
 
 
 
 
If you do not want to receive this email anymore, please click here to unsubscribe