Litigation – Page 3 – IP Law Watch

Substance Over Form: The Importance of Substantive Grounds in Parallel District-Court Litigation and Prior Petition IPR Denials in OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC

Jan 09 2022

On 23 December 2021, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) instituted inter partes review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 B2 (“the ’759 patent”). See OpenSky Indus., LLC v. VLSI Tech. LLC IPR2021-01064, Paper 17 (Dec. 23, 2021). Petitioner OpenSky Industries, LLC (“OpenSky”) relied on expert declarations of Dr. Sylvia D. Hall-Ellis and Dr. Bruce Jacob originally filed by Intel Corporation in two other IPR proceedings (“Intel IPRs”).¹ Indeed, the declaration included the same coversheet that accompanied the declaration in the Intel IPR. The Board analyzed OpenSky’s Petition under §314(d) and §325(d), declining to deny institution, finding, in part, that since Fintiv and General Plastic did not warrant discretionary denial, the arguments, which were almost identical to those made in the Intel IPRs, deserved to see their day in court at the PTAB.

Ferrari Obtains New Guidance From the CJEU on Protection of Parts Under the Unregistered Community Design Regime

Nov 29 2021

The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has handed down its decision in the case Ferrari v. Mansory Design on the scope of protection of Unregistered Community Designs (case C 123/20). This case is particularly relevant as it shines a new light on the scope of protection of part of a product under the Unregistered Community Designs (UCD) regime.

Federal Circuit Further Clarifies Venue in Hatch-Waxman Cases

Nov 14 2021

Last year, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Federal Circuit confirmed that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole venue provision for domestic defendants in Hatch-Waxman actions.¹ On Friday 5 November 2021, the Federal Circuit provided even greater clarity on venue rules in such cases, concluding that, for venue purposes, only submission of the ANDA qualifies as an act of infringement, not any action related to the submission.²

The Dangers of Informal Licensing Agreements – An Update on the Hardingham v RP Data Case

Nov 05 2021

In February 2020, we wrote about the Federal Court’s decision in Hardingham v RP Data Pty Ltd, in which Justice Thawley held that RP Data (the operator of a real estate commercial information database) did not infringe copyright owned by Real Estate Marketing (REMA) and its sole director, Mr Hardingham, in images and floorplans created for real estate listings. Justice Thawley found that REMA/Mr Hardingham had effectively authorised the use of their copyright materials by RP Data, via a chain of implied licences and sub-licences from REMA/Mr Hardingham to real estate agencies, to the operator of realestate.com.au and ultimately to RP Data. This was despite the fact that there was no clear or written agreement between REMA/Mr Hardingham and the real estate agencies to whom the copyright images and floorplans were supplied.

Full Federal Court Decision Reaffirms That There Is No Infringement By Authorisation Under Australian Trade Mark Law

Aug 24 2021

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia has reaffirmed that a registered trade mark can only be infringed by the primary user of a trade mark and there is no concept of authorisation of infringement recognised under Australian trade mark law.

Guide: How to Enforce Intellectual Property Rights in China

Aug 18 2021

This step-by-step guide sets out the actions to be taken upon discovering an infringement of an intellectual property right (IPR) in the People’s Republic of China (China). The IPRs addressed in this guide include copyright, trademark, patent, and unfair competition (including counterfeiting).

View the full article here

Registrability of Shape Marks and Technical Function of Complex Products: The Pirelli Case

Aug 02 2021

The CJEU has rendered its decision on the invalidity actions brought by Yokohama against the below shape mark filed by Pirelli. The mark represents a single groove of a tyre tread, covering “tyres, solid, semi-pneumatic and pneumatic tyres, rims and covers for vehicle wheels of all kinds, vehicle wheels of all kinds, inner tubes, wheel rims, parts, accessories and spare parts for vehicle wheels of all kinds“ in class 12.

Jul 26 2021

Many companies and activists toe the line of trade mark and copyright infringement in the name of parody, satire and criticism. In Australia, the fair dealing copyright exception for the purpose of parody or satire had rarely been judicially considered. There have now been two recent cases considering the defence.

May 19 2021

A clear cut case of copyright infringement involving Twisted Sister’s hit song “We’re Not Gonna Take It” (WNGTI) has demonstrated the Court’s willingness to award significant financial penalties where intellectual property rights have been “flagrantly” infringed.

In Universal Music Publishing Pty Ltd v Palmer (No 2) [2021] FCA 434, Justice Katzmann of the Federal Court ordered Australian businessman and United Australia Party (UAP) founder Clive Palmer to pay AU$1.5 million in damages after finding that he had infringed copyright in WNGTI. Katzmann J notably awarded AU$1 million in additional damages, two-thirds of the total award, under section 115(4) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) (Act).

The action was brought against Mr Palmer by joint applicants Universal Music Publishing Pty Ltd and Songs of Universal (collectively, Universal), which are the exclusive Australian licensee and copyright assignee respectively.

Just One More Thing For Swatch and Apple to Fight About

Apr 15 2021

Since the launch of the Apple Watch in 2015, Swatch, a well-known Swiss watch manufacturer, has been involved in a number of trade mark disputes against Apple regarding their overlapping product markets.

These disputes have concerned the marks ‘I-WATCH’ and ‘I-SWATCH’, ‘TICK DIFFERENT’ and ‘THINK DIFFERENT’ and, more recently, the mark ‘ONE MORE THING’.

Category:Litigation