Posts in District Courts

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.

On Wednesday, January 11th, retractable roof system developer Uni-Systems LLC of Minneapolis, MN, filed a patent infringement suit against multiple defendants, including the United States Tennis Association (USTA). The lawsuit alleges that multiple defendants conspired to infringe upon Uni-Systems’ patents and trade secrets by planning to build a retractable roof over a USTA tennis stadium in New York. The patent infringement suit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (E.D.N.Y.).

The ‘156 patent discloses methods of treating and/or preventing metabolic diseases, particularly diabetes, in patients for whom metformin therapy is inappropriate due to intolerability or contraindication against metformin, e.g., renal disease, metabolic acidosis, congestive heart failure. Defendants alleged that the asserted claims are patent ineligible because the claims recite a natural law. Plaintiffs argued claims of the ’156 patent are directed towards methods of treating the targeted patient population with metabolic diseases using non-naturally existing DPP-IV inhibitors, which alter the natural state of the body in a new and useful way, and hence do not fall within the natural phenomena exception… Superficially, this decision may appear to be consistent with Mayo – methods of treatment claims that manipulate natural biological processes are considered to be directed to patent ineligible subject matter under § 101. However… it is not perfectly clear that the treatment claims of the patent-at-issue are directed to a law of nature or an abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an active practical application of a compound for treatment… The decision also appears at odds with the USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Examples.

This week’s news headlines include nomination hearings for the potential incoming U.S. Commerce Secretary, the Supreme Court’s granting certiorari for an important case in biologics, a patent infringement suit targeting the NFL, the expiration of copyright protecting the works of a very influential science fiction author from the early 20th century, and another sports figure — this time UFC Lightweight Champion Conor McGregor — filing trademark applications.

On January 5, 2017, the District of Delaware issued its long-awaited decision in the patent dispute pending between Amgen and Regeneron wherein the Court granted Amgen’s request for a permanent injunction against Regeneron’s new PCSK9-inhibitor cholesterol drug. Both Amgen and Regeneron each independently spent billions of dollars over the past decade-plus developing a new class of cholesterol drug. The drug itself comprises an antibody that binds to PCSK9 proteins… Whereas Regeneron managed to be the first to market, Amgen succeeded in getting to the Patent Office first. Amgen originally sued Regeneron, along with Sanofi, its European partner, in October 2014. Amgen asserted three patents directed to antibodies that bind to PCSK9. Over the next month, Amgen commenced additional lawsuits as new patents issued from the Patent Office. The cases were eventually consolidated, but Amgen eventually went to trial against Regeneron on only two of the originally asserted patents.

For the year patent infringement cases dropped by 22 percent from the previous year, from 5,823 cases in 2015 down to 4,520 cases in 2016. 2016 actually saw the lowest number of patent infringement lawsuits filed since 2011, when 3,578 cases were filed. There was no month during 2016 where more than 460 patent suits were filed; both 2014 and 2015 had at least one month where more than 650 patent suits were filed in district court.

On December 15th, Japanese electronics conglomerate Sony Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit in U.S. district court against Japanese photography and imaging company Fujifilm. At the center of Sony’s legal action are magnetic tape products marketed by Fujifilm which allegedly practice technology copied from Sony without a license. In the official complaint filed by Sony, the company asserts a series of four patents, which it alleges Fujifilm of infringing through the sale of the company’s Linear Tape-Open (LTO) format magnetic tapes, specifically generation four, five and six LTO tapes (LTO-4, LTO-5, LTO-6).

Trademark injunctions must take into account both online promotion and future expansion plans. A narrowly-tailored geographically limited injunction can be particularly damaging to growing businesses if the business is forced to accept trademark confusion in the event of future expansion. The geographic scope of a trademark injunction should, therefore, carefully take into consideration the total services, activities, and growth plans of the successful plaintiff’s business endeavors.

A patent and copyright squabble involving two players in the networking space for information technology (IT) development, which has ramped up in recent years, saw an interesting round of events play out in federal court and regulatory agencies this past December. At the center of the brouhaha is American networking and telecommunications giant Cisco Systems (NASDAQ:CSCO) of San Jose, CA, which has filed multiple legal actions against Arista Networks (NYSE:ANET) of Santa Clara, CA, alleging that Arista has moved into the networking equipment market using technologies developed and patented by Cisco, specifically through former Cisco employees who founded Arista.

Although the patent space surrounding VR headsets still looks very open, it’s interesting to note that Nintendo has an early lead over other top tech firms which have reportedly been working on their own virtual reality technologies. Fourth place in the VR headset space is Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) which owns nine IP assets in the sector. This total seems low given Microsoft’s work on developing its HoloLens mixed reality platform. Trailing closely behind in fifth place is Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOGL) with seven IP assets in the sector. Again, given research and development conducted by Alphabet’s Google subsidiary for its Google Glass head-mounted device, it’s interesting to see that the company hasn’t invested heavily in the virtual reality headset space. Following further behind in seventh place is Japanese electronics conglomerate Sony Corp. (NYSE:SNE). Tied in eleventh place are Intel Corp. (NASDAQ:INTC) of Santa Clara, CA, and the Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) of Burbank, CA.

On October 5, 2016, a jury in Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. – litigated before Judge Swain of the Southern District Court of New York – awarded Tiffany & Co. (Tiffany) $8.25 million in punitive damages for willful and bad faith infringement of their trademark by defendant Costco Wholesale Corp. (Costco). This award, in combination with an earlier award of $5.5 million in profits and statutory damages, brings the total damages owed by Costco to $13.75 million. The case is particularly notable for several reasons, but specifically because punitive damages were awarded.

On Thursday, December 15th, a subsidiary of Kenilworth, NJ-based pharmaceutical developer Merck & Co. (NYSE:MRK) was awarded $2.54 in royalty damages in a case involving one of the most popular available treatments for combating the hepatitis C virus (HCV). A federal jury decided that Gilead Sciences Inc. (NASDAQ:GILD), an American biotech firm headquartered in Foster City, CA, owed these royalties as a result of its infringement of patents for HCV treatments held by Merck’s Cambridge, MA-based subsidiary Idenix Pharmaceuticals. According to coverage of the verdict by Bloomberg, this $2.54 billion royalties award is the largest verdict for patent infringement in the history of the United States. The case was decided by jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.).

Dallas-based auction house Heritage Auctions filed a copyright infringement complaint against New York City-based Christie’s, Inc. and Christie’s database subsidiary Collectrium. The suit alleges that Christie’s and Collectrium engaged in stealing copyright-protected images and lifted other private data from Heritage’s servers in order to drive its own sales… Heritage first identified this July that a crawling “spider” software program was operating on its servers accessible through HA.com, Heritage’s official website for offering online-only auctions and providing image catalogues of items available through live auctions. In its complaint, Heritage noted that the activities conducted by the spider software program, including database scraping or copying content for commercial purposes, is prohibited under terms of a Website User Agreement to which each registered user of HA.com agrees upon creating an account.