-
The Patent Version of Righthaven
The news has been abuzz with Allergan, Inc,’s assignment of the patents in the highly lucrative “Restasis” dry-eye drug to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and in turn receiving an exclusive license back. The transfer was so that the validity of the patents could not be challenged in an inter partes review because of the… Continue reading
-
Not What Copyright Is For
I previously wrote about a puzzling case, Small Justice LLC v. Xcentric Ventures L.L.C., with the defendant better know as Ripoff Report. The First Circuit has now grappled with it, although based on a revised district court opinion amended with a highly consequential footnote. To distill it down as much as possible, a lawyer, Goren,… Continue reading
-
Patent Infringement Is a Frivolous Claim (If You Don’t Own the Patent)
There is a chicken-and-egg problem with patent ownership and a patent infringement claim. I’d guess that most patents are assigned, that is, since under US law it is the natural person who is the inventor, patents will generally be assigned to a business for exploitation. That underlying assignment, a contract, is therefore a creature of… Continue reading
-
I Think This One Is Wrong
Moreno v. Pro Boxing Supplies, Inc. is a precedential decision and, IMHO, clearly contrary to the Board’s controlling precedent. Opposer and petitioner Julie Moreno is the exclusive US licensee of the unregistered trademark CASANOVA for boxing equipment: Applicant and Registrant Pro Boxing Supplies is the owner of a registration for CASANOVA in standard character form… Continue reading
-
Assignment of a Name or Just a Trademark?
Section 2(c) of the Trademark Act requires a “written consent” for the registration of the name of a living individual. Is a trademark assignment a consent? Apparently so. “Jordan Maxwell” was the pen name of Russell Joseph Pine. Jordan Maxwell is a self-proclaimed “preeminent researcher and independent scholar in the field of occult / religious… Continue reading
-
It’s The Details
What a confusing ownership case (which perhaps means that the wise reader stops right here). Errors on every level, at the end of the day unrecoverable. The parties are Paradise Biryani, Inc. (PBI), Paradise Biryani Express, Inc. (Express), and Biryani Point Paradise LLC (PBB) on one side, and Paradise Hospitality Group, LLC (PHG) on the… Continue reading
-
The World’s Most Ambiguous Trademark Assignment
Gosh I love this case. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s resoundingly wrong, but what a fascinating way to get there. Plaintiff Quantum, Inc. sells natural health products. It owned the registered trademark MigreLief for “nutritional supplement containing feverfew and other natural ingredients for relieving headaches.” The trademark was registered in 1996, a date… Continue reading
-
Five Years Later, It Doesn’t Matter Who Filed It
It’s pretty official at this point, once a trademark registration is “mature,” that is, more than five years old, the registration cannot be challenged on the basis that the original application was not filed by the then-owner of the mark. The 6th Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, reached this conclusion and we now have the… Continue reading
-
Licenses, Consents or Assignments?
Lawn Managers, Inc. v. Progressive Lawn Managers, Inc. is about a trademark and a divorce, a case we’ve visited before. Where we last left it, the federal court was abstaining to allow the parties to figure things out in family court. As it turns out that order was vacated; on reconsideration the court concluded that… Continue reading
-
Who Should Own the Trade Dress?
Oneida Group, Inc. v. Steelite International U.S.A. Inc. is a demonstration of how our jurisprudence is essentially useless in deciding trademark ownership claims. The dispute is over ownership of the trade dress in the highly successful “Botticelli” and “Nexus” tableware patterns, part of Oneida’s “Sant’ Andrea” line: The tableware is considered premier and sold to… Continue reading