Quantcast
Home (page 13)

Tag Archives: Intellectual Property

Patent Plaintiff Must Pay PTO Lawyers’ Fees (access required)

A plaintiff seeking trademark protection for a fertilizer mark owes the Patent and Trademark Office $32,926.59 in PTO attorney and paralegal salaries under a statute that requires plaintiff to pay “all expenses of the proceeding,” an Alexandria U.S. District Court ...

Read More »

Bank Claims Patent Misuse by ‘Patent Troll’ (access required)

An Alexandria U.S. District Court dismisses defendant Capital One’s antitrust counterclaims and strikes its affirmative defense of patent misuse in this lawsuit; the patent misuse defense, like Capital One’s antitrust claims, asserts that plaintiff “patent troll” threatens to enforce in ...

Read More »

‘SWAP’ Watch Does Not Violate ‘SWATCH’ Mark (access required)

In Swatch AG’s challenge to defendant Beehive Wholesale’s trademark application for its “SWAP” watch bands with interchangeable faces, the 4th Circuit affirms dismissal of Swatch’s claims for federal, state and common law trademark infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition. Swatch ...

Read More »

Jury Should Hear Baby Stroller Patent Claims (access required)

In plaintiff Baby Jogger LLC’s suit alleging defendant Britax Child Safety Inc. infringed plaintiff’s patents and trade dress of its baby strollers, the Norfolk U.S. District Court says a jury should hear counterclaims that Baby Jogger infringed Britax’s ‘431 patent ...

Read More »

Judicial Notice Used in Willful Infringement Claim (access required)

A Norfolk U.S. District Court refuses to dismiss plaintiff’s willful infringement claims on three patents defendant Samsung allegedly infringed for inventions intended to enhance viewing multimedia content on mobile devices’ small screens, after taking judicial notice of a Notice of ...

Read More »

Injunction Violated in Web At Placement Dispute (access required)

In this dispute over website advertising for mountain cabins, a Harrisonburg U.S. District Court says defendant violated a consent injunction’s non-disparagement clause by posting an ad for plaintiff that advised users to beware of hidden fees and charges, and the ...

Read More »