 |
Recent Law Watch Results
Loislaw LawWatch is provided as a service of Loislaw.com, a division of Aspen Publishing. Loislaw LawWatch provides access to recent cases based on the search criteria provided by your section. The search criteria may be by area of practice, by court, and /or by date. The NYSBA also provides a basic level of free legal research to all members. You may access free legal research from Loislaw through your MyNYSBA page or through For Attorneys. patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
patent - patent
WM. WRIGLEY JR. CO. v. CADBURY ADAMS USA LLC, 2011-1140 (Fed. 6-22-2012)
2011-1140, 2011-1150
Decided: June 22, 2012
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. and Cadbury Adams USA LLC compete in the consumer market for chewing gum. This case involves chewing gum that provides a cooling sensation when chewed. Historically, chewing gum makers have achieved that cooling sensation (known as "physiological cooling") by adding menthol to their products. Menthol, however, has disadvantages, including a strong peppermint flavor and bitterness in high concentrations. During the 1970s and 1980s, Wilkinson-Sword Ltd. attempted to develop ... Nonetheless, the district court states, and my colleagues agree, that there was "no evidence of any nexus between the success of Wrigley's chewing gums covered by Claim 34 and the specific combination of menthol and WS-23." Maj. op. at 12. The record is rife with such evidence. ...
patent - patent
STATE v. SHINNECOCK INDIAN NATION, 08-1194-cv (2nd Cir. 6-25-2012)
Nos. 08-1194-cv(L), 08-1195-cv(CON)
Decided: June 25, 2012
The Shinnecock Indian Nation and its tribal officials (collectively, the "Shinnecock" or the "Tribe") appeal from a Page 3 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Joseph F. Bianco, Judge). After a bench trial, the district court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the Tribe from developing a casino on a plot of land known as Westwoods without complying with the laws of New York State and the Town of Southampton. The Shinnecock object to a number of the ...
copyright - copyright
BUDAY v. NEW YORK YANKEES PARTNERSHIP, 11-4803-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-4803-cv.
June 26, 2012.
Plaintiff-appellant Tanit Buday appeals from the district court's judgment granting the motion of the New York Yankees Partnership to dismiss Buday's complaint, which alleged that the Yankees failed to pay her uncle, Kenneth Timur, for a logo that he designed for the team in the 1930s and revised in 1947. The district court concluded that because this suit does not involve a federal question, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that, even if jurisdiction existed, Buday's complaint failed ... "We review dismissal of a cause of action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) de novo." Jaghory v. N.Y. State Dep't of Educ., 131 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate "when the district court lacks the...
copyright - copyright
FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK, INC., 11-2011-cv (2nd Cir. 6-26-2012)
No. 11-2011-cv
Decided: June 26, 2012
Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Tove Christensen, and Hayden Christensen appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Colleen McMahon, Judge) granting Defendant-Appellee Universal Television Network's motion to dismiss on the grounds that this breach of contract action is preempted by the Copyright Act. We reach a different conclusion. Plaintiffs-Appellants adequately alleged a contract that includes an implied promise to pay. Because this ... This dispute over the concept for a television show presents the question of the extent to which the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., preempts contract claims involving copyrightable property. Plaintiffs-Appellants Forest Park Pictures, Hayden...
patent - patent
IN RE MOUTTET, 2011-1451 (Fed. 6-26-2012)
No. 2011-1451
Decided: June 26, 2012
at least one crossbar array including a first set of N conductive parallel wires (N≥2) forming a set of columns and a second set of M conductive parallel wires (M≥2) forming a set of rows, and formed so as to intersect the first set of conductive parallel wires, wherein intersections are formed between the first and second sets of wires forming MxN crosspoints wherein each of the crosspoints is programmable so as to be in a relatively high conductive state representative of a binary value 1 Page 3... Mouttet's crossbar array consists of two intersecting sets of conductive parallel wires. At the wire junctions, or "crosspoints," a thin film material or molecular component acts as a bridge between the wires. The resistance of the thin film material or molecular component between the intersecting wires...
patent - patent
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, 10-1293 (U.S. 6-21-2012)
No. 10-1293
Argued January 10, 2012, Decided June 21, 2012[fn*] OCTOBER TERM, 2011
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1464 bans the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane language." The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) began enforcing § 1464 in the 1970's. In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U. S. 726, this Court found that the Commission's order banning George Carlin's "Filthy Words" monologue passed First Amendment scrutiny, but did not decide whether "an occasional expletive . . . would justify any sanction," id., at 750. In the ensuing years, the Commission went from ... B It was against this regulatory background that the three incidents of alleged indecency at issue here took place. First, in the 2002 Billboard Music Awards, broadcast by respondent Fox Television Stations, Inc., the...
patent - patent
SRAM v. KAPPOS, 2012-1146 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
Nos. 2012-1146, -1147., Reexamination No. 95/001,309.
June 21, 2012.
Appeals from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. SRAM, LLC moves to remand this appeal for further proceedings. SRAM states that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office consents to this motion. SRAM also moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its opening brief. In its papers, SRAM states that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences erred in relying on a new ground of rejection in regard to claims 2, 6, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,559,414. Because we agree with the parties' contentions that the Board should have identified its new ground of rejection and allowed SRAM an opportunity to respond, we vacate the Board's decision and remand for appropriate further findings. See In re Leithem, 661 ...
patent - patent
ACCENT PACKAGING v. LEGGETT & PLATT, 2012-1011 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1011.
June 21, 2012.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in case no. 10-CV-1362, Judge Lynn N. Hughes. ON MOTION ORDER Accent Packaging, Inc. moves unopposed for the court to take judicial notice of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0012013 (for application 13/220,798). Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves unopposed for leave to file a surreply. Application 13/220,798 ("the `798 application") was not published until after Accent filed its opening brief in this appeal. Accent addressed the `798 application in three pages of its reply brief. Leggett ~amp~ Piatt moves for leave to file a surreply for the limited purpose of addressing the arguments set forth in Accent's reply brief relating to the `798 application. (2) The motion for leave to file a surreply is...
patent - patent
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1305., Serial No. 77/939,659.
June 21, 2012.
IN RE ALVOGEN IP CO., 2012-1305 (Fed. 6-21-2012) Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office moves without opposition to remand this matter to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") for further processing. Alvogen IP Co. S.A.R.L. ("Alvogen") appealed the Board's decision refusing to register its trademark as likely to cause confusion with the design mark shown in Registration No. 3,127,143. Because Registration No. 3,127,143 has now been canceled, it no longer poses a bar to registration.
patent - patent
GREENE v. PITKA, 2012-1277 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1277., Cancellation No. 92054391.
June 21, 2012.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.] Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. ORDER Hal Greene moves without opposition to remand to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) for further proceedings and to dismiss the appeal. The court cannot both dismiss the entire appeal and remand, as those are mutually exclusive dispositions. We Page 2 understand that Greene seeks a remand so that the Board can rule on his motion for relief from final judgment, which the Board has indicated it will grant if the case is remanded.
patent - patent
PA ADVISORS v. GOOGLE, 2012-1448 (Fed. 6-21-2012)
No. 2012-1448.
June 21, 2012.
PA ADVISORS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GOOGLE, INC. AND YAHOO! ORDER Jonathan Lee Riches appeals the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's denial of his motion to intervene in case no. 07-CV-0480. The district court denied Riches's motion to intervene, noting that his motion "fail[ed] to disclose any information relating to the subject-matter of this case, namely patent infringement." The court further noted that none Page 2 of the parties were aware of any connection between Riches and the law suit at issue. (1) Riches is directed to show cause within 60 days of the date of this order as to why the district court's ruling should not be summarily affirmed. PA Advisors, LLC, Google, Inc., and Yahoo!
patent - patent
EATONI ERGONOMICS v. RESEARCH IN MOTION CORP., 11-5328-cv (2nd Cir. 6-21-2012)
No. 11-5328-cv.
June 21, 2012.
Plaintiff Eatoni Ergonomics, Inc. ("Eatoni") appeals from (1) the confirmation of a June 8, 2010 arbitration award for defendants Research in Motion Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (collectively, "RIM") on Eatoni's claims that RIM breached its obligations under an agreement settling litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas relating to RIM's alleged infringement of Eatoni's patent for "reduced QWERTY" keyboard technology for cellular telephones; and (2) the ...
patent - patent
BGC PARTNERS, INC. v. REFCO SECURITIES, LLC, 6624 (1st Dept 6-21-2012)
6624, 6625
Decided on June 21, 2012
Pursuant to the parties' "Master Software License, Maintenance and Service Agreement," defendant had the right to the use of certain software and equipment and to maintenance and support services, in exchange for the payment to plaintiff of an annual licensing fee and a monthly maintenance fee (the Fixed Fees). Defendant also agreed to share with plaintiff portions of any commissions it received as a result of trading activity by its clients. The Fixed Fees were required to be paid through the six-year ... Approximately four years into the term of the agreement, defendant ceased doing business, and ceased paying the Fixed Fees. Plaintiff negotiated new commission contracts, which did not include payment of the Fixed Fees, with former clients of defendant. After plaintiff...
|
LOIS LawWatch
