CHICAGO - A federal judge in Illinois on Aug. 7 denied a motion to dismiss brought by a counterdefendant in a tobacco product trademark infringement suit after finding that the court had jurisdiction over the counterclaims because the counterdefendant, which is based in California, has done business in Illinois (Republic Technologies, et al. v. BBK Tobacco & Foods, No. 16-CV-3401, N.D. Ill., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124673).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was entitled to prevail on its petition before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which challenged the validity of a podcast technology patent, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 7 (Personal Audio LLC v. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, No. 16-1123, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14485).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - An insurer of an affiliate of former Chapter 11 debtor Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC sued Garlock, its parent and another former debtor affiliate in North Carolina federal court on Aug. 2, seeking to force the Garlock parties to arbitrate a dispute over whether the insurer owes any money to the parties under an excess policy issued in 1983 (Safety National Casualty Corp. v. Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, et al., No. 3:17-cv-00458, W.D. N.C.).
ATLANTA - The 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 1 upheld the convictions of five men on cocaine trafficking charges after affirming the trial court's allowance of expert testimony by a U.S. Coast Guard officer on technology used by law enforcement to detect trace amounts of drugs (United States of America v. Vanston Venner Williams, et al., No. 15-15360, 11th Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13906).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Findings by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that the mark "Earnhardt Collection" is not primarily merely a surname may have relied on an improper application of In re: Hutchinson Technology Inc., the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 27 (Teresa H. Earnhardt v. Kerry Earnhardt Inc., No. 16-1939, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13576).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - An Arkansas federal judge's grant of summary judgment in favor of a patent infringement defendant should be reversed because the defendant "fails to show a lack of genuine issues of material fact on even one of the elements of equitable estoppel," a patent owner told the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a July 26 reply brief (John Bean Technologies Corp. v. Morris & Associates Inc., No. 17-1502, Fed. Cir.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A group of Seagate Technology LLC employees on July 27 moved for preliminary approval of a putative class action over a 2016 phishing incident at the company that exposed their personally identifiable information (PII), asking a California federal court to greenlight relief in the form of restitution and identity theft protection, potentially valued at $42 million (Everett Castillo, et al. v. Seagate Technology LLC, No. 3:16-cv-01958, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - The plaintiffs in a putative class action over the sharing of contact information on devices made by Apple Inc. saw their class certification motion denied July 25, with a California federal judge finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary predominance factors in their false advertising and unfair competition claims against Apple (Marc Opperman, et al. v. Kong Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:13-CV-00453, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116333).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Findings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board that various claims of two patents covering a computer memory module are unpatentable were vacated and remanded July 25 by the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (Netlist Inc. v. Diablo Technologies Inc., Nos. 16-1742, -1743, -1744 Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13355).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - A patent directed to methods and systems for receiving and responding to a request for image data would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art, Microsoft Corp. contends in a July 20 petition for inter partes review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Microsoft Corp. v. Bradium Technologies LLC, No. IPR2017-01818, PTAB).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 18 ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to explain to two environmental groups why the agency relied on surrogates to determine maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for emissions of three hazardous air pollutants when implementing a final rule entered in June 2015, after denying the agency's motion to dismiss the groups' petition as untimely (Sierra Club, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 15-1246, D.C. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 12842).
NEWARK, N.J. - A New Jersey federal magistrate judge on July 14 granted an insured's motion to consolidate a subrogation lawsuit filed by a property owner against an insured and an insurance coverage lawsuit filed against the insured after determining that the suits involve common questions of law regarding subrogation of costs and coverage for a property contaminated with mercury (BRG Harrison Lofts Urban Renewal LLC v. General Electric Company, et al., and Evanston Insurance Co. v. Accredited Environmental Technologies Inc., et al., Nos. 16-6577, 17-1584, D. N.J., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109447).
WILMINGTON, Del. - An effort by a defendant to obtain dismissal of allegations that it infringed a patented invention that - among other things - would purportedly replace human meter readers was unsuccessful July 11, when a Delaware federal judge ruled that the case should proceed (Smart Meter Technologies Inc. v. Duke Energy Corporation, No. 16-208, D. Del., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106493).
SAN FRANCISCO - A semiconductor developer and certain of its executive officers will pay more than $7 million to settle claims that they violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose certain related party transactions in the company's financial statements, lead plaintiffs say in a motion for preliminary approval of settlement filed July 10 in California federal court (In re Montage Technology Group Limited Securities Litigation, No. 14-0722, N.D. Calif.).
SAN FRANCISCO - After five years of litigation, a California federal judge on July 6 granted preliminary approval to a $5.3 million settlement between a class of Apple Inc. device users and the developers of apps that allegedly accessed users' private address books without permission (Marc Opperman, et al. v. Kong Technologies Inc., et al., No. 3:13-CV-00453, N.D. Calif., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104507).
MIAMI - A lead plaintiff's failure to show that there are any potential opt-in plaintiffs is fatal to his motion for certification of a misclassification collective action, a Florida federal judge ruled June 27 (Sebastian A. Rojas v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 16-23670, S.D. Fla., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98716).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - In a final written decision issued June 14, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board agreed with a petitioner that 15 claims of a patented subsea Christmas tree system for use in oil and gas wells are unpatentable pursuant to Section 102 and 103 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq. (FMC Technologies Inc. v. OneSubsea IP UK Limited, No. IPR2016-00328, PTAB).
CHARLOTTE, N.C. - A North Carolina federal judge on June 12 confirmed the plan of reorganization for Chapter 11 debtor Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC after an insurer's remaining objections to the plan were resolved at a one-day bankruptcy court confirmation hearing in May (In re: Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC, et al., No. 3:17-cv-275, W.D. N.C.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Efforts by Purdue Pharma L.P. to overturn a Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that myriad claims of two patent applications are unpatentable for lack of written description support failed June 13, when the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals instead upheld the board's rejection (Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Recro Technology LLC, No. 16-2260, Fed. Cir., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. - In a June 2 final written decision, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board deemed seven claims of a process for fabricating semiconductor devices unpatentable as anticipated under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 102(b) (Intel Corp., et al. v. DSS Technology Management Inc., No. IPR2016-00287, PTAB).