SAN FRANCISCO - Although a California federal judge on Jan. 29 found some flaws with antitrust claims brought by three airline passengers against a provider of in-flight Internet service, he found that the claims were sufficiently pleaded to survive the provider's dismissal motion (James Stewart, et al. v. Gogo Inc., No. 3:12-cv-05164, N.D. Calif.).
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - A defendant won a second stay of patent litigation on Jan. 29 in light of an ex parte re-examination by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) (Hansen Manufacturing Corp. v. Intersystems International Inc., No. 11-4030, D. S.D.).
NEWARK, N.J. - With allegations including breach of contract, negligence and consumer fraud, a husband and wife on Jan. 28 filed suit against their health care provider in New Jersey federal court related to the theft of two of the companies' laptops that may have contained sensitive customer information (Karen Pekelney, et al. v. Horizon Healthcare Services Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00584, D. N.J.).
MARSHALL, Texas - Allegations of patent infringement by retailers offering a store locator feature on their websites will proceed, U.S. Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas ruled Jan. 29 (Geotag Inc. v. Frontier Communications Corp., No. 10-265, E.D. Texas).
DALLAS - A federal judge in Texas on Jan. 27 refused to dismiss allegations that a business contributed to the infringement of a patent covering a method for generating custom reports (B-50.com LLC v. InfoSync Services LLC, No. 10-1994, N.D. Texas.).
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - A plaintiff's claim that his sister committed trademark infringement by using her maiden name in connection with psychic medium services will proceed, a New York federal judge ruled Jan. 28 (James Van Praagh v. Lynn Gratton, No. 13-375, E.D. N.Y.).
SAN FRANCISCO - Efforts by Fox Broadcasting Co. to bar Dish Network LLC's "Hopper" commercial-skipping feature were again unsuccessful on Jan. 27, when the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals refused to rehear the dispute (Fox Broadcasting Company v. Dish Network LLC, No. 12-57048, 9th Cir.).
NEWARK, N.J. - The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis does not apply to a settlement between a holder of a drug patent and a generic manufacturer that delays entry of a generic drug but does not involve a cash payment, a federal judge in New Jersey ruled Jan. 24 (In re: Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation $(All Direct Purchaser Actions$), No. 12-995, D. N.J.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9257).
MILWAUKEE - Efforts by a prevailing patent infringement defendant to obtain an award of attorney fees were unsuccessful on Jan. 27, when a Wisconsin federal judge refused to declare the case "exceptional" pursuant to 35 U.S. Code Section 285 (Orbis Corporation v. Rehrig Pacific Company, No. 12-1073, E.D. Wis.).
SAN ANTONIO - A plaintiff's request for upwards of $15 million in punitive damages for mental anguish he suffered as a result of alleged copyright infringement was dismissed Jan. 27 by a Texas federal judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Herman Leon Brickey v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., No. 13-961, W.D. Texas).
NEW YORK - Bloomberg L.P.'s unauthorized use of a sound recording of a foreign public company's earnings call was fair pursuant to 17 U.S. Code Section 107, the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed Jan. 27 (The Swatch Group Management Services Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P., Nos. 12-2412, 12-2645, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A District of Columbia judge properly found on summary judgment that two patents are not patent eligible under Section 101 of the Patent Act, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 24 (SmartGene Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories S.A., No. 13-1186, Fed. Cir.).
CINCINNATI - A Michigan judge did not err in granting a defendant summary judgment on claims of copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 24 in a dispute involving software and a "customer defection" (Dice Corporation v. Bold Technologies, Nos. 12-2513, 13-1712, 6th Cir.).
NEW YORK - A December order granting summary judgment to a defendant accused of trade dress infringement will not be reconsidered, a New York federal judge ruled Jan. 23 (Luv 'N Care Ltd., et al. v. Regent Baby Products Corp., No. 10-9492, S.D. N.Y.).
CHICAGO - Efforts by a copyright infringement defendant to obtain judgment on the pleadings were unsuccessful Jan. 22, when an Illinois federal judge instead ruled that the plaintiff's claims are adequately pleaded (Skyline Design Inc. v. McGrory Glass Inc., No. 12-10198, N.D. Ill.).
ATLANTA - A Florida federal judge erroneously concluded that the estate of an original member of the 1970s pop musical group K.C. and the Sunshine Band lacked statutory standing to sue for infringement of the musical work "Spank," the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Jan. 22 (Ronald Smith Jr. v. Henry Casey, et al., No. 13-12351, 11th Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1139).
LOS ANGELES - A California federal judge on Jan. 22 stayed an insurer's declaratory judgment lawsuit disputing coverage for underlying claims that the insured used actress Reese Witherspoon's name and image without her permission for the sale of jewelry products (Maryland Casualty Co. v. Reese Witherspoon, et al., No. 13-07847, C.D. Calif.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7957).
PORTLAND, Ore. - Reversing a trial court's defamation judgment against a blogger, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel on Jan. 17 held that the negligence requirement for defamation lawsuits established by Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (418 U.S. 323, 350 ) is "not limited to cases with institutional media defendants," but can also apply to Internet bloggers (Obsidian Finance Group LLC, et al. v. Crystal Cox, No. 12-35238 and 12-35319, 9th Cir.; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 948).
SAN FRANCISCO - PersonalWeb Technologies LLC will be permitted an opportunity to amend its patent infringement allegations against Google Inc. and YouTube LLC (Google, collectively), a California federal magistrate judge decided Jan. 17 (PersonalWeb Technologies LLC v. Google Inc. and YouTube LLC, No. 13-1317, N.D. Calif.).
INDIANAPOLIS - Allegations that a copyright infringement defendant's redesigned product continues to infringe were not well received on Jan. 21 by an Indiana federal judge, who denied a plaintiff's request for preliminary injunctive relief (Silver Streak Industries LLC v. Squire Boone Caverns Inc., No. 13-173, S.D. Ind.).
SEATTLE - The copyright holder of a movie offered only conclusory allegations in bringing copyright infringement claims against four people alleged to have downloaded the film, a Washington federal judge ruled Jan. 17, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss (Elf-Man LLC v. Eric Cariveau, et al., No. 2:13-cv-00507, W.D. Wash.; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6453).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals holding that a patent licensee bears the burden of proving noninfringement under the Declaratory Judgment Act was reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court on Jan. 22 (Medtronic Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures LLC et al., No. 12-1128, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK - Musician Kanye West can serve immediate discovery requests to learn the identities of the operators of websites offering virtual currency that he says infringe federal trademarks in his name, a New York federal judge ruled Jan. 17, granting the rapper's ex parte application to take immediate discovery (Kanye West, et al. v. 0daycoins.com, et al., No. 1:14-c-00250, S.D. N.Y.)
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The defense of laches cannot serve as a bar to allegations of copyright infringement, an attorney for the holder of renewal rights in the screenplay "The Raging Bull" told the U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 21 (Paula Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc., No. 12-1315, U.S. Sup.).
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Competing challenges pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (509 U.S. 579 $(1993$)) to two proposed expert witnesses in a dispute over the "Invisible Fence" trademark were rejected Jan. 17 by a Tennessee federal magistrate judge (Invisible Fence Inc. v. Fido's Fence Inc., No. 09-25, E.D. Tenn.).