• Posts Tagged ‘nunc pro tunc’

    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 →

    Pick Your Story

    by  • May 16, 2016 • trademark • 1 Comment

    When you have one theory for one court, and a different theory for a later one, it probably isn’t going to turn out too well. In the latter suit before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, famous maker of grills, petitioned to cancel the registration for a stylized “Q” trademark owned...

    Read more →

    The New Federal Law of Patent Assignment

    by  • March 26, 2011 • patent

    In Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta, LLC last November, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit examined a set of transactional documents and held that the plaintiff did not own the patents when the suit was filed and therefore did not have standing (blog post here).  This wasn’t your run-of-the...

    Read more →

    What Nunc Pro Tunc Means

    by  • March 3, 2011 • patent

    Patent standing cases are a dime a dozen, so I don’t necessarily blog them.  But Epic Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Fungoman LLC gives a really good summary of the legal significance of an assignment nunc pro tunc, so I thought I’d share it. On August 1, 2006 the asserted patent (U.S. Patent 7.082,938 titled “Baseball Fielding...

    Read more →

    Claims Left Barely Standing

    by  • June 27, 2010 • copyright, trademark

    Commerce Bancorp LLC v. Hill is a meaty enough case on ownership issues alone it’s good for two blog posts.  First is a standing problem that cropped up, second an allegation of trademark abandonment.  I’ll do standing now and abandonment later. I am always somewhat baffled by changes in ownership of intellectual property when...

    Read more →

    What Every Transactional Counsel Should Know

    by  • September 20, 2009 • patent

    Intellectual property specialists may not be involved in the preparation of merger and acquisition documents, and a couple of recent cases show what can go wrong when the form is missing something important. In one case the patentee won, but in the other the patentee didn’t. In Carotek, Inc. v. Kobayashi Ventures, LLC, the...

    Read more →

    A Less than Iron Clad Theory

    by  • January 30, 2009 • trademark

    In the past few years John Welch at the TTABlog has organized a Boston road trip for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. They’re great events and I highly recommend that anyone nearby make it there. This past October, the TTAB held an inter partes hearing in Iron Man Magazine versus the Ironman Triathalon...

    Read more →

    Positively Perfect in Every Way

    by  • September 30, 2008 • patent

    Positive Technologies whiffed the first patent infringement complaint by filing in the name of the wrong entity, Positive-California, when it should have been filed in the name of Positive-Nevada.  Positive calls a mulligan and refiles in the correct entity’s name, then the two companies merge into Positive Technologies, Inc. The standing problems aren’t over...

    Read more →