Tag:IP Litigation

1
UK Supreme Court Judgment Finds Directors may not be Liable for IP Infringement Without Knowledge of Essential Facts
2
Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges
3
USPTO Considering Changes to Enforceability of Patents Subject to a Terminal Disclaimer
4
Federal Circuit Finds Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Over Patent Owner Through Amazon APEX Agreement
5
Victory for Chanel in Luxury Reseller Trial
6
Burger Wars: The Big Beef Between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s–McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412
7
Full Federal Court Takes ‘New Aim’ at Experts: Appeal Decision Handed Down in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67
8
Unicolours v. H&M: Copyright Registration Validity
9
Sky v Skykick AG – is this the end of a claim for “computer software?”
10
U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Copyright Cases and Impacts Registration Strategy for Copyright Owners

UK Supreme Court Judgment Finds Directors may not be Liable for IP Infringement Without Knowledge of Essential Facts

Earlier this month in Lifestyle Equities CV and another v Ahmed and another the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the company directors of Hornby Street Limited, siblings Kashif and Bushra Ahmed, were not jointly liable with their company for trade mark infringement.

Read More

Federal Circuit Relaxes Standard for Design Patent Obviousness Challenges

On 21 May 2024, the Federal Circuit overturned the Rosen-Durling test used to assess non-obviousness of design patents. In LKQ Corporation v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, the Court en banc ruled the same conditions for patentability that apply to utility patents apply to design patents, specifically holding the obviousness rationale articulated in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), will now apply to design patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Glob. Tech. Operations LLC, No. 2021-2348, 2024 WL 2280728, at 1 (Fed. Cir. May 21, 2024) (en banc).

Read More

USPTO Considering Changes to Enforceability of Patents Subject to a Terminal Disclaimer

On 10 May 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking aimed at changing the current practices surrounding terminal disclaimers. The proposed change could have substantial effects on the enforceability of patents that are subject to a terminal disclaimer.

Read More

Federal Circuit Finds Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction Over Patent Owner Through Amazon APEX Agreement

On 2 May 2024, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit) entered its decision in SnapRays, dba SnapPower v. Lighting Defense Group,1 holding the submission of an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Agreement against infringing third-party product listings is a “purposefully directed extra-judicial patent enforcement activit[y]” subjecting the patent owner to personal jurisdiction in the alleged infringer’s home state.2

Read More

Victory for Chanel in Luxury Reseller Trial

A New York federal jury sided in favor of Chanel on all of it claims against luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), awarding Chanel US$4 million in statutory damages for sales of counterfeit Chanel-branded handbags. In Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, et al., 1:18-cv-02253 (SDNY), WGACA was found liable for trademark infringement, false association and unfair competition, and false advertising claims. The jury further found that WGACA acted willfully, with reckless disregard, or with willful blindness. 

Read More

Burger Wars: The Big Beef Between McDonald’s and Hungry Jack’s–McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412

In McD Asia Pacific LLC v. Hungry Jack’s Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1412, fast-food giant McDonald’s and Australian dinner-time rival Hungry Jack’s faced off in the Federal Court of Australia over their burger names BIG MAC vs BIG JACK and MEGA MAC vs MEGA JACK.

Read More

Full Federal Court Takes ‘New Aim’ at Experts: Appeal Decision Handed Down in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia handed down its appeal decision on 10 May 2023 in New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung [2023] FCAFC 67 (Appeal). A five judge panel presided over the Appeal and ultimately found in favour of the Appellant, New Aim Pty Ltd, including in relation to appeal ground 12 which contended that the primary judge erred in rejecting the entirety of the written and oral evidence of New Aim’s expert at trial, Ms Chen.

Read More

Unicolours v. H&M: Copyright Registration Validity

On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the ongoing case of Unicolors v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., No. 20-915.  With a nearly $1 million copyright verdict on the line, pattern manufacturer Unicolors, Inc.’s (“Unicolors”) fate is now at the Supreme Court to decide whether courts should refer copyright registration validity challenges to the Copyright Office where there is a known misrepresentation in the registration, but no evidence of intent to defraud.

 A copyright registration certificate is not valid if obtained by offering false information and that information, if known, would have resulted in the registration being denied. Under 17 U.S.C. §411(b)(2), where knowingly inaccurate information is included in an application for copyright registration, “the court shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the inaccurate information if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse the registration.” 

Read More

Sky v Skykick AG – is this the end of a claim for “computer software?”

On 16 October 2019, Advocate General Tanchev of the CJEU has issued his opinion in Sky v SkyKick one of the most intriguing trade mark cases at the moment which will likely have a significant impact on EU trade mark law. Crucially the AG has advised that:

  1. “registration of a trade mark for ‘computer software’ is unjustified and contrary to the public interest” because it confers on the proprietor a “monopoly of immense breadth which cannot be justified”, and it lacks sufficient clarity and precision; and
  2. trade mark registrations made with no intention to use, in relation to the specified goods and services, may constitute bad faith.
Read More

U.S. Supreme Court Decides Two Copyright Cases and Impacts Registration Strategy for Copyright Owners

March 4, 2019, marked the first time in over 100 years that the Supreme Court of the United States issued two copyright decisions in the same day[1] – both unanimous and both strict interpretations of statutory language.  In the first of these two decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com that copyright owners must obtain a registration from the U.S. Copyright Office prior to filing an infringement action.[2]  The Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, resolved a long-standing circuit split on whether the “application approach” (merely filing a copyright application) or the “registration approach” (obtaining a copyright registration) is sufficient to file a copyright infringement suit under § 411(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976.  In the second decision, the Court in Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. determined that “full costs” under § 505 of the Copyright Act did not authorize awarding litigation expenses beyond those specified in the general costs statute.

Read More

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.