SoCal IP Institute :: October 28, 2013 :: Patent Infringement and Trade Secret Cases

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 28, 2013 will be a discussion of trademark infringement and copyrights in space. Brief synopses appear below.

Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz, Case No. 2013-1007 (Fed. Cir. 10/22/2013) (available here). Plaintiff Ibormeith held a patent which aided in alerting drivers when they were becoming sleepy at the wheel. Ibormeith sued Mercedes-Benz for infringing its patent. The claims asserted were means-plus-function claims and the district court held that the claims were indefinite because the disclosure did not disclose a structure that corresponded to the means-plus-function limitations. Ibormeith appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Mercedes-Benz that Ibormeith’s patent was indefinite.

Angelica Textile Services, Inc. v. Jaye Park, Case No. D062405 (Cal. Ct. of Appeal 4th District 10/15/2013) (available here). Plaintiff is a large scale laundry business that sells linens to health care facilities. Plaintiff sued the defendant alleging numerous causes of actions, including a claim under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment motion on all of plaintiff’s non-UTSA claims finding that those claims were preempted by UTSA. Following a jury trial, the court held that defendants had not misappropriated any information as none of the information was a trade secret under the UTSA. The plaintiff appeals the district court’s ruling granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants with respect to the non-UTSA claims.

All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 28, 2013 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.

SoCal IP Institute :: October 21, 2013 :: Pharrell Williams And Will-I-Am in IP Dispute; Bentley Prevails in Trademark Dispute

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 21, 2013 will be a discussion of Singer-songwriter Pharrell Williams lawsuit for declaratory relief that his trademark “I am OTHER” company is not infringing on Will.i.am’s “I AM” trademark.  The complaint can be found here, and the Answer with Counterclaims can be found here.

We will also discuss Bentley’s successful trademark lawsuit against a pair of auto customization companies in Florida, barring them from continuing to manufacture and install body kits based on Bentley’s GTC model. A copy of the order can be seen here. 

All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 21, 2013 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.

SoCal IP Institute :: October 14, 2013 :: Species Election and Confusing First Impressions

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 14, 2013 will be a discussion led by Guy Cumberbatch of our Santa Barbara Office regarding the effects of species restrictions on patent claim scope, a series of TTAB decisions testing whether you can spot likelihood of confusion, and an examiner’s response to a patent claiming godly powers. A brief synopsis of the patent case appears below.

Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (available here). Plantronics sued Aliph for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,712,453, entitled “Concha Headset Stabilizer.  The district court granted Defendant’s motion on claim construction, partly based on a species election during prosecution of Plantronics patent.  The Federal Circuit reversed on that issue because the election did not clearly disavow certain structures.

We will also discuss four recent Section 2(d) likelihood of confusion cases in front of the TTAB.  Can you predict the outcome just by looking at the marks and the identified goods/services, without more? Two of the four refusals were reversed–which are they?

Finally, we will briefly discuss an examiner’s response to a patent application claiming “godly powers.”

All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 14, 2013 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.

SoCal IP Institute :: October 7, 2013 :: Trademark Infringement and Copyrights in Space

Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 7, 2013 will be a discussion of trademark infringement and copyrights in space. Brief synopses appear below.

Trader Joe’s v. Hallatt, Case No. 13-768 (D.Ct. Wash. 10/2/2013) (available here). Plaintiff Trader Joe’s sued Defendant Hallant alleging trademark infirngement, unfair competition and other causes of action. Defendant Hallant owns and operates a grocery store under the name “Pirate Joe’s” in Vancouver. Defendant Hallant purchased products at Trader Joe’s stores in Washington and then resold them at his store in Vancouver. Defendant Hallant brought a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court granted Defendant’s motion.

“How do Copyrights Work In Space?”, The Economist (May 22, 2013) (available here). Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield recorded a version of David Bowie’s, “Space Oddity” while on the International Space Station. While Commander Hadfield had obtained permission from David Bowie to record and distribute the song, it still raises an interesting issue as to how copyrights apply to works recorded and distributed while in space. We will have a roundtable discussion about copyrights in space. 

All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 7, 2013 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.