Category Archive for "Litigation"

How the disavowal exception trashed a patent infringement claim

Courts in infringement cases construe terms in patent claims by their plain and ordinary meaning — usually. As the patentee in Poly-America, L.P. v. API Industries, Inc., learned the hard way, the Federal Circuit doesn’t take that approach when the disavowal of claim scope applies.

Read More

Court shoots down trademark infringement defendant

Two firearms manufacturers came out shooting when a dispute arose over which one had the right to use the mark “SCAR” for guns and related items. The case, FN Herstal SA v. Clyde Armory Inc., raised the common trademark issue of priority of use, as well as the less-common unlawful use doctrine.

Read More

Fair Use Doctrine: Comedy routine fails to get laughs from plaintiff – or court

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery — or so the saying goes. However, when it comes to copyrighted material, imitation can also be unlawful infringement if use of the work isn’t deemed a “fair use.” What constitutes fair use was central to a recent Second Circuit Court of Appeals case involving the incorporation of an iconic comedy routine into a Broadway play.

Read More

Can you hear me? Court turns deaf ear to wireless radio patent-holder

Cases regarding the patent eligibility of abstract ideas continue to pile up at the Federal Circuit, which hears all patent-related appeals. In its recent ruling in Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC, v. DIRECTV LLC, the court found that two patented inventions failed both parts of the patent eligibility test.

Read More

Damages Dismissed in Sturgis Trademark Dispute

Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc. (RPG), the Niemann family, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are celebrating a victory over Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. (SMRI) in a controversial, six-year trademark dispute over the name “Sturgis.” On March 10, the Court found that RPG and Wal-Mart had valid equitable defenses to SMRI’s trademark claims. The Court vacated and dismissed the entire jury damage award of $912,500, ruling that “SMRI is barred from recovering damages and profits from the defendants for the time period prior to October 30, 2015.”

Read More

3 Signs You May Need a Patent Litigator

A patent lawsuit can be one of the harshest realities facing your innovative business. Whether enforcing or defending one, a patent lawsuit undoubtedly brings cost and uncertainty—two things all companies wish to avoid. For small and medium sized businesses, these lawsuits can be devastating. Fortunately, you can limit this cost and uncertainty by talking to an intellectual property attorney. Timing is everything when it comes to protecting your business and IP. Here are three examples of when it may make sense to do so:

Read More

Why Patent Litigation is Necessary

Obtaining patent protection is the culmination of hard work and perseverance—from the engineers/inventors/R&D team who develop the invention to company leadership who make the financial investment to the attorneys who take the idea through the patent process. The result is an intangible asset that provides the patent owner with an advantage over the competition and one that should be jealously guarded.

Read More

Eric Chadwick Selected for National Fellowship

Eric Chadwick, intellectual property attorney and head of the litigation department at Patterson Thuente IP, has been selected as a Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America (LCA).

Read More

New Year IP Resolution

New years resolutions are one of the world’s longest standing traditions. Throughout January, people will reflect on their personal and professional goals and ambitions to set forth on a new journey—often making a list of what they hope to accomplish. This year, we recommend adding one small piece to that list—protecting your ideas.

Read More

Intent to infringe

Verdict goes against medical device maker When the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that an appellate court’s infringement ruling should be reconsidered, it probably seemed like good news to the medical device maker that had been found liable in the initial ruling. Alas, the new ruling that followed reconsideration also went against the company. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals found the position in the company’s defense “objectively unreasonable.”

Read More