Posts in District Courts

On January 23rd, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it had taken steps to resolve antitrust charges involving business activities employed by Irish/U.S. drugmaker Endo International (NASDAQ:ENDP) designed to delay the entry of generic pain medications into the U.S. to preserve monopoly profits. The FTC filed a complaint for injunctive relief and a motion for entry of stipulated order for permanent injunction against Endo and others in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.). These actions revive charges from a lawsuit filed by the FTC last March against Endo involving pay-for-delay patent settlements.

On January 20th, NYC-based drugmaker Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE:BMY) and Kenilworth, NJ-based pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co. (NYSE:MRK) announced that the two companies had entered into a settlement and licensing agreement resolving worldwide patent litigation over a cancer treatment. As per the announced terms of the settlement, Merck will make a one-time payment of $625 million to Bristol-Myers Squibb and will also pay future royalties through 2026 on sales of Merck’s Keytruda.

Kylie Minogue reports victory in a trademark opposition filed against Kylie Jenner, but the electronic records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are cause for confusion. Also, the estate of Dr. Seuss supports its copyright infringement claims against a New York City playwright and all 12 districts of the Federal Reserve System seek invalidation of two patents on electronic fraud-proof payment systems, plus Netflix, Beyoncé and our weekly updates on what is happening on Capitol Hill and on Wall Street.

On Wednesday, February 1st, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (N.D. Tex.) entered a case verdict which orders virtual reality developer Oculus VR to pay $500 million to Rockville, MD-based interactive computing firm ZeniMax Media Inc. The verdict is the latest activity in a case involving allegations of copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation levied against Oculus, now a subsidiary of social media giant Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) of Menlo Park, CA.

Although it seems likely that Snap will seek to secure around $25 billion during its IPO, the company itself doesn’t engage in a great deal of patent filing activity compared to other tech companies. According to analysis of Snap’s patenting activities published last November by CB Insights, a total of 46 U.S. patent applications filed by Snap between 2012 and 2016 were identified; this total is likely short of actual Snap patent application filing numbers during those four years because of the 18-month period it takes before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office publishes filed patent applications. Snap filed a total of 18 U.S. patent applications during both 2014 and 2015. 22 of Snap’s patent applications identified by CB Insights were directed at user interface and user experience inventions but other areas covered by Snap patent applications include automated content curation, network, spectacles as well as object, facial and audio recognition.

Mylan had to show by clear and convincing evidence that the idea for the ’445 patent claim was conceived by someone at the FDA and communicated to Mr. Pavliv, the named inventor. The Court agreed with the district court that Mylan did not carry the burden of showing that someone other than Mr. Pavliv had conceived a “definite and permanent idea” of an EDTA-free Acetadote formulation. Mylan argued that Mr. Pavliv’s prior communications with the FDA, including the FDA’s request for justification of the inclusion of EDTA, required Cumberland to undertake research that would have inevitably led to the invention. However, this was not the same as a suggestion to remove EDTA. Derivation is not proved by showing conception and communication of an idea different from the claimed invention, even if that idea would make the claimed idea obvious.

Practitioners dealing with a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation should be sure to preserve objections for appeal, since failing to object may lead to a more deferential, plain error standard of review, depending on the applicable circuit law. Further, in seeking a preliminary injunction, evidence of harm from pre-issuance of the asserted patent is relevant to show likelihood of irreparable harm from similar injuries in the future.

On Thursday, January 26th, Burbank, CA-based entertainment giant Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) and movie production firm DreamWorks of Universal City, CA, were named as defendants in a copyright infringement suit involving the 2016 romantic drama The Light Between Oceans. The suit, which also targets the screenplay author and NYC-based book publisher Simon & Schuster, Inc., charges that both the 2016 movie and the 2012 novel upon which it is based were both plagiarized from a 2004 screenplay written by the plaintiff, Joseph Nobile. The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.).

This week, a patent battle between two American tech giants expands its scope to China, patents covering a well-known multiple sclerosis treatment were invalidated in U.S. district court and Trumpcare emerges as a possible trademarked moniker for the next incarnation of the country’s healthcare system, Disney files a patent application on evaluating human emotions while on amusement park rides, Ajit Pai holds his first open FCC meeting as Chairman and not surprisingly says he wants to reduce regulations, plus a whole lot more.

In the official complaint filed by McCartney, the British rock legend is seeking to reclaim ownership of the Beatles copyrights under provisions of the Copyright Act, as amended in 1976. Section 304(c) of that legislation gives authors the right to terminate transfers to reclaim copyright interests for copyrights that were assigned to transferred to third parties before January 1st, 1978. Living authors, or surviving family members of authors who have died, have a five-year period starting 56 years from the date the copyright was secured during which they can send advance notice to copyright holders notifying them of an intent to terminate the copyright transfer.

According to Honeywell’s press release, the company is seeking to recover damages caused by the sale of infringing barcode readers marketed by Code, such as the Code Reader 2600. Honeywell is also seeking to prevent Code’s use of the technology in future barcode readers. “We welcome competition, but we have zero tolerance for those who infringe our intellectual property,” said Lisa London, president of the productivity products division at Honeywell, in the press release. “Protecting patents is critical to ensuring a level playing field for all market players… Fair competition means protecting the patent rights of others.”

On Friday, January 20th, Cupertino, CA-based consumer tech firm Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) filed a lawsuit against San Diego, CA-based semiconductor giant Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) The lawsuit seeks $1 billion in damages which Apple alleges that Qualcomm is withholding from the iPhone developer in violation of an agreement between the two companies, including injunctive and other relief. The suit, which includes breach of contract claims, patent claims and antitrust claims, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.).

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision, a six-figure damages verdict goes in favor of former USPTO Deputy Director Russell Slifer, a TTAB petition is filed to challenge the trademark application for an NFL franchise currently in the relocation process, an announcement by a Japanese academic-industry research project that claims to have doubled the effectiveness of solar cell panel conversion rates, the FTC takes action against a pharmaceutical company and much more.

On Tuesday, January 17th, children’s toy maker Fisher-Price Inc. of East Aurora, NY, filed a patent infringement suit against bicycle distributor Dynacraft BSC, Inc. of American Canyon, CA. At issue in the case is a series of patents covering electronic speed control technologies used in battery-powered ride-on products marketed by Dynacraft. The patent infringement suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.).

On Wednesday, January 18th, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) began a probe into a Section 337 patent infringement complaint involving graphics processors and memory controllers against a collection of 17 firms, according to Reuters. These firms include some tech giants in the world of semiconductors and electronics, including Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM), Sony Corp. (NYSE:SNE), LG Electronics (KRX:066570), Lenovo Group (HKG:0992), Motorola Mobility LLC and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMD) The Section 337 complaint was filed on December 16th by ZiiLabs Ltd., a Bermuda subsidiary of Hong Kong’s Creative Technology Asia Limited.