Monthly Archives: April 2015

Info-Hold, Inc. v. Muzak LLC

Docket No. 2014-1167 Reyna, Wallach, Taranto April 24, 2015 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ awarding zero royalty reversed; grant of SJ regarding inducement to infringe (“affirmative act to encourage infringement with the knowledge…actual knowledge or willful blindness”) reversed; DC … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Damages, Inducement to Infringe, Royalties | Leave a comment

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Docket No. 2012-1289 Newman, Schall, Wallach April 27, 2015 Brief Summary: On reconsideration after remand from the USSC requiring review under the “reasonable certainty” standard (as opposed to previous “not amendable to construction” or “insolubly ambiguous’” standards), DC decision of … Continue reading

Posted in Indefiniteness | Leave a comment

Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Technologies Corporation

Docket No. 2013-1528 REYNA, WALLACH, TARANTO April 24, 2015 Brief Summary: DC claim construction of the term “transmit” reversed as being limited to a preferred embodiment. Summary: Info-Hold appealed DC decision that AMTC does not infringe US 5,991,374 relating to … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction | Leave a comment

In Re: Simon Shiao Tam

Docket No. 2014-1203 Lourie, Moore, O’Malley Decided April 20, 2015 Update: On April 27, 2015, the court reinstated the appeal and will hear the case en banc. Brief Summary: PTO refusal to register the trademark THE SLANTS as being disparaging … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

In Re: TriVita, Inc.

Docket No. 2014-1383 Newman, Moore, Hughes Decided April 17, 2015 Brief Summary: FC concluded “that the relevant consumer, knowing that the goods are supplements containing nopal cactus juice, would understand the mark NOPALEA to convey information that the goods contain … Continue reading

Posted in Trademarks | Leave a comment

Ineos USA, LLC v. Berry Plastics Corporation

Docket No. 2014-1540 DYK, MOORE, O’MALLEY April 16, 2015 Brief Summary: DC grant of SJ for anticipation affirmed in part because questions regarding the criticality of the claimed ranges to the problem being solved were not raised. Summary: Ineos appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc. et al.

Docket No. 2014-1297 PROST, MOORE, O’MALLEY April 10, 2015 Brief Summary: DC decision refusing to award fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and § 28 USC 1927 vacated and remanded in view of Octane Fitness (US 2014). Summary: Vizio appealed … Continue reading

Posted in Attorney's Fees | Leave a comment