Quantcast
Home (page 19)

Tag Archives: Intellectual Property

Patent Licensee Must Join Owners as Plaintiffs (access required)

Plaintiff technology company does not have the necessary substantive right to the patents at issue to confer constitutional or statutory standing to prosecute this suit alleging infringement of two U.S. patents relating to computer-assisted mapping technologies licensed to plaintiffs, and ...

Read More »

Pretrial Rulings Issued in Patent Case (access required)

In this patent infringement suit, an Abingdon U.S. District Court rules on the parties’ motions in limine, including denying plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude defendants from offering evidence construing claim terms not already construed by the court. Plaintiff specifically ...

Read More »

No Venue Change in Ad-Display Patent Case (access required)

Although all three defendants have their principal places of business in New York, plaintiff, who is trying to protect its patents relating to web-advertising display, is entitled to keep the suit in the Norfolk U.S. District Court because plaintiff’s development, ...

Read More »

No ‘Reasonable Access’ to Copyrighted Home Designs (access required)

Although plaintiff architecture firm had its copyrighted designs for three home models – the Chadwyck, the Ballantrae and the Springfield, online and had cut sheets and sales handouts available for the Chadwyck, the firm nevertheless failed to show that defendant ...

Read More »

Trademark Dispute Is ‘Off to the Races’ (access required)

In this dispute over the rights to the service mark for “Strawberry Hill Races,” a century-old steeplechase horse racing tradition in Richmond, a Richmond U.S. District Court will allow plaintiff mark owners, who purchased the mark at a bankruptcy auction, ...

Read More »

T-Shirt Copyright Case Goes to Trial (access required)

A Charlottesville U.S. District Court says plaintiff owner of copyrights for t-shirt designs may try its claims for copyright infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference and unjust enrichment, for defendant’s alleged conduct of continuing to sell plaintiff’s copyrighted designs after ...

Read More »