Filewrapper-old

New and Useful - January 31, 2013
January 29, 2013

    · In Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc. the Federal Circuit vacated in part and reversed in part an Eastern District of Texas decision finding Newegg Inc. liable for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,715,314, 5,909,492, and 7,272,639, all relating to electronic commerce. The Federal Circuit offered clarifying insight on the obviousness doctrine. The background facts are as follows: Soverain Soft....... Read More


    New and Useful - January 23, 2013
    January 23, 2013

      · In Wax v. Amazon Techs., the Federal Circuit upheld the TTAB’s denial of registration of the mark AMAZON VENTURES. Applicant filed and intent-to-use application to register the mark for “investment management, raising venture capital for others, . . . and capital investment consultation.” Amazon Technologies, Inc.—online retailer and owner of several AMAZON.COM marks&mdas....... Read More


      New and Useful - Janurary 14, 2013
      January 14, 2013

        · The Supreme Court handed down its decision in Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. The Court held that Nike’s covenant not to sue Alreadyfor alleged infringement of Nike’s AIR FORCE 1 trademark—entered into after Nike had filed suit and Already had filed a counterclaim challenging the mark’s validity—rendered both Nike’s claims and Already’s counterclaims moot. Th....... Read More


        Federal Circuit again deals with standing
        March 02, 2007

          In yet another case, the Federal Circuit has dealt with whether a party asserting a patent infringement claim had title to the patent, and thus standing to bring the claim against the defendant. Here, once the standing issue was raised at the district court, the Plaintiff opted to fix the chain of title, voluntarily dismiss its claim, and refile a new case against the defendant. The court granted the dismissal (....... Read More


          Today's lesson from the Federal Circuit (that you should already know): Don't miss deadlines
          February 27, 2007

            In a case decided today, the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's dismissal of a party's cancellation claim. The party seeking cancellation sought to do so by proving uncontrolled licensing of the trademark, but failed to file a notice of reliance with regard to the relevant testimony on the issue before the deadline. The TTAB denied the motion to reopen the testimony period, finding no excusable neglect. The Fe....... Read More


            Voluntary dismissal prevents award of attorney fees under ยง 285
            February 27, 2007

              In a recent case, the Federal Circuit found that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses its case under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) before an answer is served, the defendant is not a "prevailing party." As a result, attorney fees under § 285 could not be awarded by the district court. More details of the case after the jump.RFR Industries holds two patents directed toward railroad crossing fillers, specifically a produ....... Read More


              Jurisdiction over Foreign Patents Requires ? 1367(c) Analysis
              February 02, 2007

                The question before the Federal Circuit in Jan K. Voda, M.D. v. Cordis Corporation was whether where an accused infringer is shown to have moved its infringing activities offshore to Germany, the U.K. and elsewhere, does supplemental jurisdiction of the court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ? 1367, permit an infringement determination under the parallel foreign patents, where all patents originate from a single Patent Coo....... Read More


                Federal Circuit Places Members of the Bar on Notice
                January 29, 2007

                  It's not over until it's over. In International Electronic Technology Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Company, DirecTV, Inc. and Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., the Federal Circuit dismissed International Electronic's appeal for lack of jurisdiction. In its ruling, the Federal Circuit stated: "The court takes umbrage at parties who have not carefully screened their cases to ascertain whether or not a judgment ....... Read More


                  University Can't Have Its Cake and Eat It Too?Immunity Negated
                  January 25, 2007

                    The University of Missouri's waived its constitutional immunity under the Eleventh Amendment when it fully participated in an interference action against Vas-Cath, Inc. A Vas-Cath patent had issued while the University's application, although filed before the Vas-Cath application, was still pending. The University invoked the procedures to institute an interference between the University's pending application an....... Read More


                    Federal Circuit proposes revised circuit rules
                    January 23, 2007

                      The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has proposed changes to its Circuit Rules. The revised rules would require parties, in addition to filing paper copies of briefs and appendices, to also file the briefs and appendices in electronic form unless counsel certifies that filing an electronic copy would not be practical or constitute hardship. The purpose of the new rule is to facilitate posting of the briefs and a....... Read More


                        Newer Posts Older Posts  

                      Purpose

                      The attorneys of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. designed this blog as an informational and educational resource about intellectual property law for our clients, other attorneys, and the public as a whole. Our goal is to provide cutting-edge information about recent developments in intellectual property law, including relevant case law updates, proposed legislation, and intellectual property law in the news.

                      Disclaimer

                      McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. provides this blog for general informational purposes only. By using this blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C. Do not consider this blog to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified, licensed attorney. While we try to revise this blog on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. We consciously refrain from expressing opinions on this blog and instead, offer it as a form of information and education, however if there appears an expression of opinion, realize that those views are indicative of the individual and not of the firm as a whole

                      Connect with MVS

                      Enter your name and email address to recieve the latest news and updates from us and our attorneys.

                      Subscribe to: MVS Newsletter

                      Subscribe to: Filewrapper® Blog Updates

                        I have read and agree to the terms and conditions of McKee, Voorhees & Sease, P.L.C.