Excellence. Integrity. Success.

On May 13, 2020, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to all corporate and individual defendants with respect to Plaintiff’s non-source-code, “know-how”-based Defend Trade Secret Act (“DTSA”) (18 U.S.C. §§ 1830-1839) claims seeking relief for misappropriation of trade secrets.  All source-code based claims

A contentious copyright opinion by the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment decision, finding that fact issues precluded summary judgment on whether one songwriter repudiated the other’s co-authorship, or whether their agreement transferred ownership and, as such, could be terminated pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 203.  Between the

On April 27, 2020, in a 5-4 decision with two dissenting opinions, the United States Supreme Court held that the annotations included in Georgia’s official statute are not copyrightable.  The ruling, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, was based on the majority’s conclusion that work performed in official legislative capacity does

On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court resolved an even circuit split[1] by unanimously holding that willful infringement is not a pre-condition to a profits award in a trademark infringement suit.  This ruling increases the likelihood that, in the affected Circuits, more trademark infringement suits will settle for

Plaintiff Stephanie Sinclair brought suit against Defendant Mashable and its parent company, alleging copyright infringement when Mashable posted Sinclair’s photograph on its website without Sinclair’s authorization.  The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, finding that the Defendants had a valid sublicense from Instagram to post the photograph. Stephanie Sinclair is

The Federal Circuit recently held that trademarks for product packaging consisting of certain colors arranged in a particular design or pattern can be inherently distinctive, regardless of whether the design has any defined peripheral shape or border.  In re Forney Indus., Inc., Case No. 19-1073 (Fed. Cir. April 8, 2020)

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting patent infringement threats and allegations on the grounds that the district court failed to consider whether the statements were made in bad faith, reaffirming longstanding Federal Circuit precedent regarding the scope of a patentee’s protected speech. In March

Plaintiff Bovinett brought suit against Defendant HomeAdvisor and other companies in August 2017 generally alleging improper use of Plaintiff’s image in HomeAdvisor advertising.[1]  During the course of the litigation, HomeAdvisor filed several motions for sanctions, including requests for sanctions against Plaintiff’s Attorney.  During the course of the litigation, Plaintiff’s Attorney

In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court recently held that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (“CRCA”) did not validly abrogate States’ sovereign immunity for copyright infringement.[1]  The Supreme Court relied on its 1999 decision in Florida Prepaid;[2]which held that Congress could not use its powers under

On September 5, 2018, Heineken filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission against Anheuser-Busch alleging a violation of § 337 of the Tariff Act, in the importation into or sale in the United States of beverage dispensing systems and components that allegedly infringed claims 1–11 of Heineken U.S. Patent

On March 9, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, en banc, affirmed the district court’s judgment of noninfringement of copyright in favor of Led Zeppelin and, notably, joined the majority of circuits by overruling the “inverse ratio rule” for copyright infringement in its jurisdiction and further found

Cleantech Corp. (“CleanTech”), the owner of four patents directed to recovering oil from an ethanol plant’s byproduct, began filing infringement actions against numerous defendants around the country beginning in 2009.  After the disparate actions were combined by the multidistrict litigation panel, the defendants moved for summary judgment on invalidity of

The Federal Circuit held that a server owned by Google, Inc. that was installed in a third-party contractor’s datacenter did not constitute a “regular and established place of business” under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because none of Google’s employees did business at the site.  In re:

The Federal Circuit recently vacated an order granting summary judgment of non-infringement on the grounds that a settlement agreement executed shortly before the order mooted the case.  The Federal Circuit concluded that continuing obligations of the parties, as set forth in the settlement agreement, did not preclude this result.[1] In

The Seventh Circuit held that internet sales of products with allegedly infringing branding from a national advertising company will establish personal jurisdiction in Illinois under the Illinois long-arm statute.  In trademark infringement cases, unlike patent cases, even a seemingly small number of allegedly infringing sales can be sufficient to establish