Property, intangible

Six inventors, four changes in ownership before the patent issued and four more after. That’s a recipe for a standing problem. In Mayfair Wireless LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Mayfair Wireless did a lot of due diligence and even some extra clean-up — it had the six original inventors assign any rights to… Continue reading

Hold on, we’ve got a complicated one here. Save it for your “very long reading” queue. One trademark, three potential owners in the distribution chain with overlapping periods of time during which they claim ownership. The mark: “Smart Candle” (Smart Candles, SMARTCANDLE, SmartCandles, etc.) for electronic candles. The companies: Smartcandle.co.uk Limited (“SCK”) — non-party UK… Continue reading

Here’s an interesting tidbit to keep in mind—the assignee of a patent may be able to claim that a legal opinion given to the original owner of a patent is privileged despite the assignment of the patent. The case is SimpleAir, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., and the challenger to the claim of privilege is Google.… Continue reading

The Continue reading

This is a copyright case. Here is the sequence of events according to the plaintiffs’ timeline: 1995: Image created by artist Beasley 1997: Image used by defendant with permission 2003: Image used by defendant without permission 2009: Image used by defendant without permission 2009: Assignment of the copyright in the image from Beaseley to his… Continue reading

Sometimes you just have to remind yourself that the facts are the facts, and no amount of sharp lawyering is going to change them. That was the situation for defendant ABN AMRO Bank N.V. (“ABN”). It had hastily negotiated a sale of certain assets to Bank of America (“BAC”) in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid… Continue reading

If you think that there is any way around the prohibition in Section 10 of the Lanham Act restricting the assignment of intent-to-use applications,* just give up on the idea. The registrant in Central Garden & Pet Co. v. Deskocil Manufacturing Co., having assigned intent-to-use applications from a wholly-owned grandchild subsidiary up to the parent,… Continue reading

Since the Acacia Research Group‘s business model is based on acquiring patents, you would expect them to be fairly diligent about ensuring that the chain of title is solid. But it wasn’t in Endotach LLC v. Cook Medical Inc. Endotach claimed to be an exclusive licensee of two patents, having acquired its rights from Acacia.… Continue reading

I’ve already written a couple of times about Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport v. SPI Spirits Ltd. The plaintiff in the case, FTE, manages the STOLICHNAYA trademark on behalf of the Russian government. The first time the case went to the Court of Appeals, the appeals court reversed the trial court and held that the incontestability… Continue reading

My last post was on the Legal Rights Objection (LRO) between Merck KGaA and Merck & Co., and today it’s the one between Del Monte Corp. and Del Monte International GmbH. Both are proceedings between parties that have a common history and an ongoing relationship defined by agreements. Nevertheless, in Merck, the Panel found that… Continue reading