• Posts Tagged ‘chain of title’

    You Can’t Just “Re-Form” a Plaintiff

    by  • April 27, 2020 • patent • 0 Comments

    Here are the facts: Ness Stewart Irvine was a patentee. Irvine assigned his patents-in-suit to InterAD Technologies, LLC. InterAD assigned them to Zeroclick, LLC (“Zeroclick I”), the plaintiff, a Texas entity. Zeroclick I sued Apple for patent infringement. Erich Spangenberg, listed as the “governing person,” terminated the Zeroclick I entity.1 Non-party Granicus IP, LLC...

    Read more →

    It’s About the Evidence

    by  • August 27, 2018 • trademark • 0 Comments

    Whole Foods Market filed an application to register the mark IDEAL MARKET for grocery stores, giving a first use date in 1940. Opposers Muwafak Kaki and Kaki Inc. opposed on the basis that they were joint owners of an IDEAL MARKET trademark that predated Whole Foods’ first use. Whole Foods filed a motion for...

    Read more →

    What It Takes to Get Attorneys’ Fees

    by  • January 30, 2017 • patent • 0 Comments

    This is a bit of a “duh” case from the Federal Circuit, a nonprecedential decision. The only surprising part of it is that the trial court, Judge Sparks in the Western District of Texas, didn’t impose even greater sanctions. It was quite a show of generosity. The patent-in-suit has a short chain of title;...

    Read more →

    More on What Nunc Pro Tunc Means

    by  • December 5, 2016 • patent • 0 Comments

    One of my most read posts is “What Nunc Pro Tunc Means.” It means “now for then” in Latin, which is hardly much help. Extensive Google research tells me that it’s used to correct judicial orders, but that’s not what brings readers to my blog. In the IP field we typically use “nunc pro...

    Read more →

    You Had One Job

    by  • September 21, 2015 • patent • 0 Comments

    The court: Exploiting the patent-in-suit in these cases, U.S. Patent No. 5,781,788 (the ‘788 patent), was AVT’s sole reason for being. The only precondition to Plaintiff’s fulfilling its singular purpose was its acquisition of title to the ‘788 patent. Obtaining ownership of the patent was AVT’s sine qua non, the only thing Plaintiff absolutely...

    Read more →

    Not His First Time at the Rodeo

    by  • January 20, 2015 • trademark • 0 Comments

    In 1992, plaintiff Oleg Pogrebnoy began publishing a Russian language newspaper in New York titled in Cyrillic “KYPbEP,” which translates as “courier”; Pogrebnoy also later used the word “Kurier.” Pogrebnoy claimed ownership of the unregistered trademarks through a chain of transactions, starting with his own use in 1992, through five different companies (probably all...

    Read more →

    The Value of Recording

    by  • July 2, 2013 • copyright • 0 Comments

    A company assigned the same copyright in a film to two different companies. Who owns it? The film is Italian classic La Dolce Vita: The parties agree that a a company called Cinemat S.A. was the owner of the copyright, by assignment from original producer Riama Films S.p.A. The problem arises with the next...

    Read more →

    Another Band Name Ownership Decision

    by  • October 21, 2012 • trademark • 0 Comments

    Ok, I’m very confused by the decision in the TTAB case O.T.H. Enterprises, Inc. v. Vasquez. What’s confusing is that the Board discusses, in two separate parts of the decision, ownership of the mark and priority. I don’t really get that – if the case is about who owns the mark, what other mark...

    Read more →