|
Below are some of the reported cases that we have successfully litigated in the courts for our clients which involve all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright, trade dress, trade secret and domain dispute litigation. Numerous other cases have been handled which are not reported in the various legal journals, but have also been successes for our clients.
MY HEALTH, INC. V. TOP TIER CONSULTING, INC., National Arbitration Forum Claim No. FA1006001332064, ICANN domain name arbitration proceeding, decided August 26, 2010, where Cislo & Thomas LLP successfully defended Top Tier Consulting, Inc., the panel declining relief, expressly finding that Top Tier Consulting registered and used the domain name myhealth.com in good faith when registration occurred more than fourteen (14) months prior to the Complainant’s first use of its registered trademark My Health, and that in spite of not making an active use of the domain name, Top Tier Consulting demonstrated it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name by reason of its preparations to use the disputed domain name, including efforts to seek funding for its medical website/healthcare portal, which was deemed in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services under ICANN Policy.
SUNBEAM PRODUCTS, INC. DBA JARDEN CONSUMER SOLUTIONS V. HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC., HOMELAND HOUSEWARES, LLC, ALCHEMY WORLDWIDE, LLC, ALCHEMY WORLDWIDE, INC., AND BACK TO BASICS PRODUCTS, LLC, U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74001; July 22, 2010, Decided.
In a patent infringement case involving blender patents, Plaintiff Sunbeam accused Homeland Housewares, LLC (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP), among others, of patent infringement. During discovery in the case, Cislo & Thomas LLP learned that one of its former attorneys who while at Cislo & Thomas performed a substantial amount of patent prosecution and litigation on behalf of Homeland Housewares on the same product that was accused of infringement by Sunbeam, now worked at Steptoe & Johnson. Homeland Housewares moved to disqualify Steptoe & Johnson for a conflict of interest based on Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(a) and 1.10(a). The main issue was whether the successive representations were substantially related. After a substantial amount of briefing and a hearing, the District Court granted Homeland Housewares’ motion and disqualified Steptoe & Johnson from continuing to represent Plaintiff Sunbeam Products in the case.
INTERNATIONAL SEAWAY TRADING CO. v. WALGREENS CO., 589 F. 3d. 1233 (Fed. Cir., 2009):
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals adopted our argument that the legal standard the Federal Circuit had used for over twenty-five years in determining whether a design patent is invalid must be overturned. As a result of this decision, design patents will in general be measurably easier for an alleged infringer to invalidate, and this new legal standard, as we argued, comports with U.S. Supreme Court precedent as well as more accurately mirrors the existing legal standard for determining whether a design patent is infringed by an accused design.
KIRBY MORGAN DIVE SYSTEMS, INC. v. SUBMARINE SYSTEMS, LTD., Case No. CV 08-7722 SVW (PJWx), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Kirby Morgan sought judgment against Submarine Systems for trademark and trade dress infringement of its registered helmet designs, breach of a prior settlement agreement between the parties, false advertising concerning commercial deep sea dive equipment, tortious interference with economic relations, and unfair competition. Submarine Systems defaulted and the court entered an order of default judgment in Kirby Morgan’s favor with respect to all of the claims, and awarded Kirby Morgan $300,000 in damages in connection with its causes of action for trademark and trade dress infringement, finding that such infringement was willful, and attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $41,422.67.
COLLEZIONE EUROPA USA, INC. v. AMINI INNOVATION CORP. U.S.D.C., District of
New Jersey,
2009
U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 76411; August 26, 2009, Decided
In a long-running case between two companies in the furniture industry in which, among other things, Amini Innovation Corporation (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) has alleged that Collezione Europa has infringed a number of its copyrights and design patents, the Court granted Amini Innovation Corporation’s motion for leave to file a second amended counterclaim to the extent the motion sought to add the two individual owners of Collezione Europa into the case as counterclaim-defendants. This case was commenced in 2006 largely as a declaratory relief action by Collezione Europa. Amini Innovation Corporation then counterclaimed for, among other things, copyright and design patent infringement. In 2008, Collezione Europa filed for bankruptcy protection, and the case was automatically stayed pursuant to the bankruptcy laws. Amini Innovation Corporation obtained relief from the automatic stay and ultimately moved the district court for leave to file a second amended counterclaim to add the owners of Collezione as defendants in their individual capacities with a view towards holding them personally liable for Collezione’s allegedly infringing activities. The Court granted this aspect of Amini Innovation Corporation’s motion by rejecting Collezione’s undue delay and futility arguments under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), and noting that individuals who possess the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and who have an obvious and direct financial interest in the exploitation of copyrighted material can be held indirectly liable for copyright infringement. This ruling confirms that those with decision-making power in companies that infringe the intellectual property rights of others may be subject to liability for the companies’ infringing acts.
AMINI INNOVATION CORP. v. COSMOS FURNITURE LTD. U.S.D.C., Central District of
California
, 91 U.S.P.Q 2d 1150, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29812; March 16, 2009, Decided
On March 16, 2009, a federal judge in the Central District of California denied a Canadian defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction where the complaint alleged willful copyright and design patent infringement, and the record demonstrated that the defendant knew that the plaintiff resided in Southern California and that the alleged infringements would harm the Southern California company. This ruling is significant in several respects. First, in cases of intellectual property infringement where an out-of-state defendant brings a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2), if the complaint alleges willful infringement and the plaintiff provides uncontroverted evidence tending to show that the defendant knew the plaintiff was a resident of the forum, then jurisdiction may attach under the Calder effects test. Second, this ruling extends the holding of Amini Innovation Corp. v. JS Imports, Inc., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (C.D. Cal. 2007) to not only out-of-state defendants, but foreign (non-U.S.) defendants, which is particularly significant in today’s global economy. This ruling provides plaintiffs suing out-of-state, or even non-U.S., defendants with a powerful tool to maintain intellectual property lawsuits in the plaintiff’s home forum.
220 LABORATORIES, INC v. DAVID DADAII, ET AL., United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV 08-6125 PSG (SSx)
In a case removed from the California Superior Court on grounds the action involved federal claims preempted by the Copyright Act, 220 Laboratories successfully persuaded the Federal District Court that the case should be remanded back to state court. The Court determined on December 8, 2008, that the claims arising out of the defendants’ improper use of plaintiff’s trade secrets, did not involve “works” fixed in a tangible medium of expression as required by 17 U.S.C. § 102(a) and that the state law claims, having an “extra element,” were not equivalent to the rights contained in the Copyright Act, remanding the case to state court. The decision confirms a plaintiff’s right to be the “master of the claim” by bringing non-equivalent/non-copyright causes of action in state court, free from removal to Federal Court.
INTERNATIONAL SEAWAY TRADING CORP. v. WALGREEN CO. AND TOUCHSPORT FOOTWEAR USA, INC., 2009
U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 6240 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2009).
In a design patent infringement case, we successfully moved for summary judgment on invalidity of three design patents on behalf of Walgreens and Touchsport having to do with shoes. The Court agreed with our position that the patentee's designs were a "knock off" of existing Crocs shoes, and designed to look similar to the original so that they could be mistaken for the Crocs design. The Court invlaidated the patents as anticipated by the Crocs prior art, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court's opinion is noteworthy as it is the first case to apply the Federal Circuit's most recent design patent infringement opininon, Egyptian Goddess v. Swisa, 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), to an invalidity analysis.
MH SYSTEMS v. MCNULTY, 2008
U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 106916 (C.D.
Cal.
Dec. 31, 2008).
On behalf of the defendants, Cislo & Thomas successfully defended against a Rule 60(b) motion to vacate dismissal of the plaintiff’s patent infringement case. After filing the complaint, Plaintiff filed a patent reissue application, and requested a stay of the court case during its examination. After two years of complete inactivity on the reissue application, the Court demanded an explanation, but the plaintiff failed to provide one. Thus, the Court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff then made a motion to vacate the dismissal. The Court denied plaintiff’s motion due to plaintiff’s unexplained delays in prosecuting the reissue application, as well as plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders. The final outcome was that the Court dismissed the plaintiff’s case against our client.
KIRBY MORGAN DIVE SYSTEMS v. HYDROSPACE LTD. AND SMITH, Case No. CV 08-06531 PSG (FFMx), U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Kirby Morgan successfully defeated a Petition to Quash a Claim in Arbitration filed by David Smith seeking to avoid the arbitration proceeding Kirby Morgan initiated against him and Hydrospace, Ltd. Smith filed the petition in the Central District of California claiming that Kirby Morgan lacked jurisdiction over him to bring him into the pending arbitration proceeding. The parties briefed complex issues of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction with respect to an international party, Smith, and the ability to file a demand for arbitration against him. On January 2, 2009, the Court sided with Kirby Morgan and dismissed Smith’s petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it did not have the proper authority to hear Smith’s Petition.
GIRAFA.COM, INC v. SNAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AMAZON, INC., AMAZON WEB SERVICES, LLC, ALEXA INTERNET, INC., IAC SEARCH & MEDIA, INC., YAHOO! INC., EXALEAD, S.A., EXALEAD, INC. U.S.D.C., District of Delaware, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99196; December 9, 2008, Decided
Overview: Plaintiff sought a motion for preliminary injunction against Snap Technologies (represented by Cislo & Thomas LLP) among others to enjoin Snap from providing internet users with the ability to visually preview web pages referenced by hyperlinks on a web page, claiming that such actions infringed a utility patent for computer hardware and software that adds thumbnail images to web pages with hyperlinks. The opposition to Plaintiff's motion persuaded the court that Plaintiff's claim constructions in support of its motion were unsupported, that there was no irreparable harm to Plaintiff, and that the balance of hardships did not favor Plaintiff. As a result, the court denied Plaintiff's motion finding that substantial questions as to infringement and validity existed.
AMINI INNOVATION CORP. v. JS IMPORTS and DESIGNER FURNITURE WAREHOUSE
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43758; May 21, 2007, Decided
Overview: New York and Maryland-based defendants were accused of willfully infringing copyrights and design patents owned by plaintiff and covering the ornamental features of the furniture plaintiff sells. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and/or improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York. The Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss under the Calder “effects test” finding that the evidence tended to show that defendants must have known that their alleged willful copyright infringements would cause harm plaintiff, a California corporation. The court denied defendants’ motion to transfer because, among other things, they failed to set forth the identity and anticipated testimony of non-party witnesses who might be inconvenienced by the case going forward in California.
ALAN LEE DISTRIBUTORS, INC. dba ADI PET, INC. and CHRISTOPHER WEINBERG v. VAN BROWN
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 12460; May 18, 2007, Decided
Overview: The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment finding that the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit covering meat-filled rawhide chew toys for dogs were invalid for obviousness pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
TIME ‘N TEMPERATURE CO. (TNT), v. SENSITECH, INC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 2273; January 30, 2007, Decided
Overview: The Federal Circuit held that a patent directed to an electronic monitoring device capable of sensing and recording external parameters was invalid as anticipated by the prior art. The district court’s order enjoining the sale of TNT’s devices was reversed. A subsequent petition for rehearing was denied by the Federal Circuit.
AMINI INNOVATION CORP. v. ANTHONY CALIFORNIA, INC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 420; January 8, 2007, Decided
Overview: The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s order granting summary judgment of non-infringement of a design patent for a dresser since it was improper to focus on specific elements of the dressers rather than analyzing the designs as wholes from the perspective of an ordinary observer. The design patent and a photograph of the competitor’s dresser created a factual issue as to whether an ordinary observer was likely to purchase one dresser thinking it was the other.
AMINI INNOVATION CORP. v. ANTHONY CALIFORNIA, INC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 439 F.3d 1365; 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5383; 78 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1147; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P29,142, March 3, 2006, Decided
Overview: In a case involving an alleged infringer of copyrights and a furniture design patent, because the Trial Court mistakenly applied both the extrinsic and intrinsic tests for substantial similarity in copyright infringement, and an element-by-element test for design patent infringement, the Court reversed Summary Judgment Grants of Non-Infringement.
SWITCHMUSIC.COM., INC. v. U.S. MUSIC CORP.
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 416 F. Supp. 2d 812; 2006 U.S. Dist. Lexis 25178, January 24, 2006, Decided
Overview: California guitar manufacturer was entitled to Summary Judgment in its action seeking a declaration of Non-Infringement of Trade Dress, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(A), as to body shape of Illinois guitar manufacturer's "Parker" line of guitars; body shape trade dress was functional, did not have secondary meaning, and there was no likelihood of confusion.
WOLF DESIGNS, INC. v. DHR & CO., COLLECTIVES, INC.
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, 231 F.R.D. 430; 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29653; 63 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 179, September 27, 2005, Decided
Overview: In the trade dress and patent infringement action, Court refused to undo discovery rulings made by California Court prior to transfer under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(A) where discovery deadlines had expired. The Court disallowed competitors' leave to amend answer to add known affirmative defense where they failed to show good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16.
WOLF DESIGNS v. DONALD MCEVOY LTD., INC.
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 5853, April 6, 2005, Decided
Overview: A motion for reconsideration of the denial of a motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(A) was denied because Defendants failed to show that the cases could have been brought in the transferee forum and they possessed "new" evidence supporting minimum contacts with the transferee forum at the time they brought their original motion.
LAWRENCE MUSIC, INC. v. SAMICK MUSIC CORP.
U.S.D.C., Western District of Pennsylvania, 227 F.R.D. 262; 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14741, March 23, 2005, Decided
Overview: Motion to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(B) was denied because for the insurance exchange to interject itself into the proceedings at the extremely late date, disrupt the trial, and delay the proceedings was inexcusable given the time lapse and the fact that such problems could have easily been avoided if it had been diligent.
WOLF DESIGNS, INC. v. DONALD MCEVOY LTD., INC.
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, 355 F. Supp. 2d 848; 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3171, January 31, 2005, Decided
Overview: Where competitors who sought transfer of lawsuits alleging trade dress and patent infringement failed to prove that, absent their consent, they would have been subject to personal jurisdiction in Georgia when patent holder filed instant suits in Texas, they also failed to establish that 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404 authorized transfer of suits to Georgia.
AMINI INNOVATION CORP. v. CLASSIC WORLD IMPORTS, INC.
U.S.D.C., Northern District of
Texas
, 2005
U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 406;
January 12, 2005
, Decided
Overview: In an effort to prevent Plaintiff from enforcing its copyrights for furniture designs, Defendant requested that the court stay the action pending the resolution of certain allegedly related actions filed by Plaintiff in a
California
court, claiming that a stay would promote judicial economy and avoid the possibility of inconsistent rulings between
Texas
court and court in
California
. The
Texas
court denied Defendant’s motion finding that a stay would only delay Plaintiff’s attempt to recover for the copyright infringements and not serve judicial economy where the cases in
California
were not shown to be related to the
Texas
action.
AMINI INNOVATION CORP. v. ANTHONY CAL., INC.
U.S.D.C. for the Central District of California, 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29980, November 29, 2004, Decided, December 3, 2004, Filed, Reversed By, Remanded By, Patent Interpreted By Amini Innovation Corp. v. Anthony California, Inc., 439 F.3d 1365, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 5383 (Fed. Cir., 2006).
LAWRENCE MUSIC, INC. v. SAMICK MUSIC CORP.
U.S.D.C., Western District of Pennsylvania , 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28217, November 17, 2004, Decided, Motion Denied By Lawrence Music, Inc. v. Samick Music Corp., 227 F.R.D. 262, 2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14741 (W.D. Pa., 2005).
Overview: When a guitar dealer registered and commercialized a domain name containing a manufacturer's name, it was an authorized dealer for the manufacturer, thus, the manufacturer's infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin counter claims under 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 1114, 1125(A), failed as to sales of the manufacturer's goods.
LAWRENCE MUSIC, INC. v. SAMICK MUSIC CORP.
U.S.D.C., Western District of Pennsylvania , 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 28216, November 4, 2004, Decided, Summary Judgment Granted, In Part, Summary Judgment Denied, In Part
Overview: In an action by a musical instrument seller against a musical instrument manufacturer, a portion of a transcript of a videotaped conversation was stricken from the evidence where, although there was a U.S. Const. Amend. v. self-incrimination issue raised by the videotape, the seller failed to disclose the transcript before the close of discovery.
WOLF DESIGNS, INC. v. DONALD MCEVOY LTD.
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, 341 F. Supp. 2d 639; 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21894, October 15, 2004, Decided
Overview: Plaintiff's patent infringement action in Texas was stayed pending resolution of a California action because the issues in the cases were substantially similar, the witnesses overlapped, ad the California action was the first-filed action.
WOLF DESIGNS, INC. v. DHR & CO.
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 322 F. Supp. 2d 1065; 2004 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12124, May 19, 2004, Decided
Overview: Personal jurisdiction existed over a Georgia resident, the president of a corporation, where there was evidence that the President was directly involved in the Corporation's alleged passing off of inferior products as those of a seller.
MIRACLE BLADE, LLC v. EBRANDS COMMERCE GROUP, LLC
U.S.D.C., District of Nevada, 207 F. Supp. 2d 1136; 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15120; 63 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1265; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,484, June 4, 2002, Decided
Overview: Knife retailer was denied preliminary injunction in its copyright infringement action as most of its infomercial was not based on original material or was scenes a faire, and there were significant differences in settings, moods, plots, and dialogue.
GUTHY-RENKER CORP. v. BERNSTEIN
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 39 Fed. Appx. 584; 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 8369; Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,429, April 11, 2002, Argued and Submitted
Overview: Where a photograph was aired over 9,000 times before copyright holder alerted corporation to its breach of the licensing agreement, it was not error to hold liquidated damages provision, requiring payment of $5,000 for each omission, unenforceable.
LOHAN MEDIA LLC v. THANE INT'L, INC.
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23571; 62 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1042, November 16, 2001, Decided
Overview: Company's evidence that the competitor infringed the company's copyrighted infomercial failed where the two infomercials consisted of a series of non-original elements, which were not protectable.
ELECTROPIX INC. v. LIBERTY LIVEWIRE CORP.
U.S.D.C. for the Central District Of California, 178 F. Supp. 2d 1125; 2001 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15228; 60 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1346, August 20, 2001, Decided
Overview: Injunctive relief was granted enjoining competitor and its subsidiary from using producer's mark by itself or with generic or descriptive terms, but was denied as to use of mark in connection with competitor's and subsidiary's business.
CONTINENTAL LAB. PRODS. v. MEDAX INT'L
U.S.D.C., Southern District Of California, 114 F. Supp. 2d 992; 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 13762; 56 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1548, September 18, 2000, Decided
Overview: Trade dress infringement suit for disposable pipette tips trays failed as plaintiff had no direct evidence of secondary meaning; circumstantial evidence of advertising, promotional expenditures, and sales was insufficient to prove secondary meaning.
GUTHY-RENKER CORP. v. BERNSTEIN
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 23361; 27 Media L. Rep. 2084, March 5, 1999, Decided
Overview: A liquidated damage provision regarding a photographer's missing screen credit from an infomercial was held to be an unenforceable penalty where the parties made no effort to estimate the actual damages that would flow from the omission of such credit and where the liquidated damages amount had no reasonable relationship to damages.
SLIP TRACK SYS. v. METAL LITE
United States Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 159 F.3d 1337; 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 22408; 48 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1055, September 14, 1998, Decided
Overview: A District Court improperly stayed Appellants' interfering patents suit where a foreseeable consequence of the stay was that Appellants would have been unable to raise the issue of prior invention in any forum.
GUTHY-RENKER FITNESS L.L.C. v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16553; 48 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1058, July 15, 1998, Decided
Overview: In a patent infringement claim, a motion to stay proceedings was warranted pending the reexamination of a patent and a security requirement during the stay was not required.
JIN CHING INDUS. v. WONG'S INT'L TRADING IMPORT & EXPORT
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14759; 47 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1509, May 26, 1998, Decided
Overview: A summary judgment in favor of corporations was proper on their Copyright infringement claim as the mere fact that a similar, even identical, work, by competitors, predated the corporations' sculptures did not invalidate their Copyright. Successfully took over case and settled with insurance company paying all damages and no further obligation to clients.
GUTHY-RENKER FITNESS L.L.C. v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS
U.S.D.C., Central District Of California, 179 F.R.D. 264; 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7172; 46 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1344, March 16, 1998, Decided
Overview: A patent holder's letter to a manufacturer did not provide a sufficiently specific indication of the patent holder's intent to file suit that would justify departing from the first-to-file rule in the parties' competing suits.
CITICASTERS CO. v. COUNTRY CLUB COMMUNS.
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17238; 44 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1223, July 21, 1997, Decided
Overview: The Court had discretion under the "Primary Jurisdiction" Doctrine or through its power to monitor its own docket to grant corporation stay pending the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's Decision in the cancellation proceeding involving broadcaster.
SUNTIGER, INC. v. TELEBRANDS ADVER. CORP.
U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24123, May 30, 1997, Decided
Overview: In claim for infringement of four patents, Defendants' motions for summary judgment were denied as to one; action was stayed pending decision of Patent and Trademark Office on Plaintiffs' petition to revive application. As to one, Court could not find that original specification did not disclose invention and manner of making and using invention.
NO TOUCH N. AM. v. BLUE CORAL
U.S.D.C., Central District Of California, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16153; 43 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1862, May 29, 1997, Decided
Overview: Court had limited jurisdiction over Defendant where Defendant accepted assignment of trademark that was subject of lawsuit in district and Defendant did not show proceeding in district would result in clear inconvenience.
NATIONAL CUSTOMER ENG'G v. LOCKHEED MARTIN
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10757; 43 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1036, February 14, 1997, Decided
Overview: Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction in trademark infringement action was granted because plaintiff showed probability of success on merits through likelihood of confusion, and showed possibility of irreparable harm.
STULBERG v. INTERMEDICS ORTHOPEDICS
U.S.D.C., Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 18408, November 29, 1995
Overview: Plaintiffs were not entitled to an Order To Stay pending arbitration of Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment because Plaintiffs waived that right by engaging in considerable discovery prior to the motion.
ELLISON EDUC. EQUIP. v. TEKSERVICES, INC.
U.S.D.C., District of Nebraska, 903 F. Supp. 1350; 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 19725; 37 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1563, April 12, 1995, Dated
Overview: Corporation granted preliminary injunction against alleged copyright infringer because demonstration of likelihood of success on merits and irreparable harm made; Court found no false advertising or trade dress infringement.
MAGNESYSTEMS v. NIKKEN
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1994 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20182; 34 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1112, June 13, 1994, Decided
Overview: Plaintiff was granted summary judgment in patent infringement case where Plaintiff proved that the undisputed facts established literal infringement, and Defendants were unable to establish that Plaintiff's patent was invalid. Successfully settled case in favor of client.
BMMG, INC. v. AMERICAN-TELECAST CORP.
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1993 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21072, May 6, 1993, Decided
Overview: Infomercial producers were entitled to summary judgment because golf instruction video maker failed to show causation between alleged falsities and loss in sales when he assumed causation was proved by comparative sales instead of sales lost thereby.
CABLESTRAND CORP. v. WALLSHEIN
United States Court Of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 989 F.2d 472; 1993 U.S. App. Lexis 4250; 26 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1079, March 8, 1993, Decided
Overview: Because the Court had no basis on which to review the Appealed Judgment in the patent infringement action without findings of fact and conclusions of law, remand was appropriate for the Trial Court to make the findings of fact and conclusions of law.
WESTWARD CO. v. GEM PRODUCTS, INC.
U.S.D.C., Eastern District Of Michigan, Southern Division, 570 F. Supp. 943; 1983 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15379; 219 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 784, July 18, 1983
Overview: Plaintiff was enjoined since there was a likelihood of confusion, secondary meaning was shown with product designators, and trade dress was similar; damages were denied because defendant did not establish actual damages.
MODEL RECTIFIER CORP. v. TAKACHIHO INTL., INC.
United States Court Of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 709 F.2d 1517; 1983 U.S. App. Lexis 27579; 221 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 502, May 18, 1983
Overview: Appellee was entitled to preliminary injunction in trademark infringement action against appellant importers and retailers by demonstrating probable success on the merits of its claim and irreparable harm.
FELTMAN-LANGER, INC. v. COAST ORIENT TRADING CORP.
U.S.D.C., Central District of California, 1983 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17711; 223 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 366, April 14, 1983, Decided
Overview: Manufacturer was entitled to preliminary injunction under Lanham Act enjoining distributor from selling a product that was substantially identical to manufacturer's product in its configuration, trade dress, and packaging.
MODEL RECTIFIER CORP. v. TAKACHIHO INTERNATIONAL, INC.
U.S.D.C., Central District California, 1982 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17601; 220 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 508, August 4, 1982
Overview: A trademark holder for plastic model kits won a preliminary injunction against importers because it was likely that the trademark holder would prevail in its suit against the importers for alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition.
PHOCEENE SOUS-MARINE, S. A. v. U. S. PHOSMARINE, INC.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 682 F.2d 802; 1982 U.S. App. Lexis 17091; 34 Fed. R. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 951, April 8, 1982, Argued and Submitted
Overview: Default judgment was not a proper sanction for a party's deception where that deception related only to the need for a continuance not the merits of the case.
M-C INDUSTRIES, INC. v. PRECISION DYNAMICS CORP.
United States Court Of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, 634 F.2d 1211; 1980 U.S. App. Lexis 11074; 211 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 22, December 29, 1980, Decided
Overview: After determining the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue, and the level of ordinary skill in the art, patents were held invalid because they were not obvious.
AJAX HARDWARE CORP. v. PACKAGING TECHNIQUES, INC.
U.S.D.C., Central Division of California, 1974 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9082; 182 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 559, Apr. 8, 1974 and Apr. 23, 1974
Overview: Under Lanham Act of 1946, where party who registered a Trademark did not have exclusive use of the mark for period preceding the registration, registration was invalid and subject to cancellation. |
