You have someone sign an NDA that says this: If you can’t read it, it says 4. Beverly Johnson shall not directly or indirectly acquire any interest in, or design, create, manufacture, sell or otherwise deal with any item or product, containing, based upon or derived from the information, except as may be expressly...
Read more →I have called Righthaven the gift that keeps on giving. In Righthaven, the plaintiff tried to obscure the fact that there wasn’t a true copyright assignment by putting the relevant terms in different agreements. Righthaven, a copyright troll, eventually got whacked for it by the 9th Circuit. Now, when defendants see any kind of...
Read more →Jay-Z’s win in a copyright infringement suit has been widely reported. Jay-Z obtained a license to use an Egyptian work written by Baligh Namdi called “Khosara, Khosara” in “Big Pimpin”: Namdi’s heir, Fahmy, sued Jay-Z claiming that “Big Pimpin” was an unlawful derivative work, infringing both the moral and economic rights in Khosara, Khosara....
Read more →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 →Every patent litigation starts with an examination of the chain of title, or at least it should. Often there are multiple inventors; every link for each one has to be there, and even the language of the employment agreement has to be just right. Even after that, every corporate assignment has to be done...
Read more →Mr. Hillyar was the the former director of Gems TV (UK). Gems TV (UK) was owned by Gem TV Holdings Ltd. Gems TV (UK) owned the ‘211 Patent and intended to assign it to Gem TV Holdings Ltd. but didn’t. Gem TV Holdings Ltd. then sold Gems TV (UK) in a stock purchase agreement...
Read more →I’ve written in the past about a patent ownership stand-off, where, because of a mix-up in assignments and a disinterested possible co-owner, the interested owner cannot enforce the patent (original decision here and en banc decision here). The Supreme Court has refused to review the decision, so Ethicon, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp.,...
Read more →Oh those patent trolls, cleverer and cleverer. To try to keep their cases in Texas, NPEs have rented empty office space in Texas and
Read more →Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport first sued Spirits International B.V. over the STOLICHNAYA trademark 10 years ago, in October, 2004. Two lawsuits later, FTE still hasn’t survived an examination of its standing. The case has been dismissed a second in the district court, but even the district court thinks that an appeal is warranted: “In the...
Read more →I previously wrote about a Federal Circuit decision with a bit of an odd fact pattern. There was some kind of joint development between the University of New Mexico (UNM) and Sandia. A Sandia inventor assigned a resulting patent, the ‘998 patent, to UNM instead of his employer, Sandia. UNM then assigned the patent...
Read more →Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
© 2013-2022 Pamela S. Chestek. All rights reserved.