the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments in the
case of Stauffer v. Brooks
Brothers, Inc. , Nos. 09-1428 et
al. The court must decide whether appellant Stauffer has standing to sue
the apparel company for labeling adjustable bowties with expired design
Gasper, an adult movie actor, was the president and sole
shareholder of Jules Jordan Video (JJV), the creator of the videos in which
Gasper appeared. Gasper and JJV filed a copyright action against defendants, alleging
that they had copied and sold copyrighted adult DVDs owned by JJV or Gasper and...
Stauffer v. Brooks
Bros., No. 2009-1428 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 31, 2010) [ enhanced
version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced
version available from lexisONE Free Case Law ]
28 days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit issued a concise opinion
holding that the district court erred...
U. Griffin III , William F. Long , Joshua D. Curry , and Rhett S. White
The false patent marking
statute, 35 U.S.C. § 292 , permits any person to bring a qui tam suit on
behalf of the United States against a patent holder and to share in the
recovery of any penalties assessed...
Circuit recently determined that an exclusive licensee had standing to assert rights
in several patents despite the fact that several third parties had a limited
right to license the patents in the alleged exclusive field of use.
In Wiav Solutions LLC
v. Motorola, Inc. , 2010 U.S. App....
A licensee's right
to exclude 3 rd party use does not amount to an "exclusive right" for
the purposes of copyright infringement standing,
according to the Seventh Circuit, and dismissal with prejudice is the appropriate
ruling when standing is lacking under the Copyright Act.
The Federal Circuit
recently decided that in order to bring an infringement action, an exclusive
licensee need not have the right to exclude all others from practicing a
patent. In this Commentary, Kimberly Seluga discusses infringement standing in
the context of exclusive licensees and examines the...
By Dabney Carr
In the most recent rulings in the long-running suit by Touchcom, Inc.
for malpractice against its Canadian patent firm, Bereskin & Parr
("B&P"), Judge Cacheris recently granted partial summary judgment
(found here ) to B&P that Touchcom, Inc. lacked standing...
By Matthew Osborne
Standing can be a tricky issue in situations where affiliated
corporate entities assign and cross-license patents amongst themselves.
In Pfizer, Inc., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. , Case No. 2:10cv128, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90021 (E.D.Va. Aug. 12, 2011) [ enhanced version...
2004, the Russian Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE) filed a lawsuit
accusing defendants of misappropriating the American trademarks for Stolichnaya
vodka. The Russian Federation created FTE and entrusted it with certain authority,
including the use of alcoholic products in accordance...
By Dabney Carr
A recent decision by Judge Spencer in the Eastern District of Virginia points out that patentees which file for bankruptcy during the pendency of an action must act promptly to preserve standing. Qimonda AG v. LSI Corp. , Case No. 3:08CV 735, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30559 (E.D.Va....
In what is likely to be viewed as an unusual ruling, U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) David P. Shaw dismissed an investigation for lack of standing. 1 The decision to dismiss is noteworthy because a motion for leave to amend to cure standing deficiencies at the...
WASHINGTON, D.C. - ( Mealeys ) The Second
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals properly found standing lacking in a trademark
infringement case by virtue of a covenant not to sue, an attorney for Nike Inc.
told the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday ( Already LLC d/b/a YUMS v. Nike Inc. ,
No. 11-982, U.S. Sup...
WASHINGTON, D.C. - ( Mealey's ) The Second
Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals properly rejected trademark counterclaims levied
against Nike Inc. where a covenant not to sue entered into by the counterclaimant
extinguished any justiciable controversy between the two, the U.S. Supreme
Court held today...
Can a trademark owner avoid a declaratory judgment that its mark is invalid by granting an accused infringer a covenant not to sue and seeking dismissal of the action? In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. [ enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers ], the U.S. Supreme Court answered that question...
by Robert Angle
Plaintiffs Porto Technology Co., Ltd.. and Porto
Technology, LLC (collectively, "Porto"), recently learned that their "Exclusive
Patent License Agreement" from the patent owner is NOT sufficient to give them
standing to pursue patent infringement claims against...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) The proper analytical framework for assessing standing in Lanham Act false advertising cases is the same for assessing standing in an antitrust action, counsel for Lexmark International Inc. told the U.S. Supreme Court Dec. 3 ( Lexmark International Inc. v. Static...
Lexmark Int'l Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 697 F.3d 387 (6th Cir. 2012)
In the never-ending toner wars, ink will once again be spilled as the Supreme Court considers a false advertising dispute in Lexmark Int'l Inc. v. Static Control Components ., 697 F.3d 387 (6th...
WASHINGTON, D.C. — (Mealey’s) In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that “to come within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under” Section 1125(a) of the Lanham Act, “a plaintiff must allege an injury to a commercial interest in reputation...
Who has standing to bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act? In Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, 2014 US LEXIS 2214 (Mar. 25, 2014), the Supreme Court ended a three-way circuit split, and held that standing is not limited to direct competitors [an enhanced...
by Dabney Carr
Three related corporations, Hill-Rom Company (HRC), Hill-Rom Services, Inc. (HRS) and Hill-Rom Manufacturing, Inc. (HRM), brought suit against General Electric for patent infringement. HRM is the sole manufacturer of products embodying the patented inventions, and HRC sells and distributes...
In its second false advertising case this term, in POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 2014 U.S. LEXIS 4165 (June 12, 2014), the Supreme Court held that a misleading food or beverage label may be actionable under the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act even if the label satisfies...