Category Archives: Intellectual Property

CAFC finds that CD Cal failed to provide a “full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issues.”

The opinion beginsDefendant Zinus, Inc., appeals from a summaryjudgment entered in favor of plaintiff Cap Export, LLC,and third-party defendants Abraham Amouyal and4Moda Corp. (collectively, “Cap Export”) by the UnitedStates District Court for the Central District of California.The district court ordered Zinus, the owner of U.S. PatentNo. 8,931,123 (“the ’123 patent”), to file a motion forsummary judgment of validity of that patent. Followingbriefing, the court held two of the asserted claims ofZinus’s patent invalid for obviousness. The court thendismissed all of Zinus’s counterclaims with prejudice. Wevacate the district court’s summary judgment and remandfor further proceedings.Of the issues leading to decision to vacate:On appeal, Zinus raises a number of objections to thedistrict court’s summary judgment ruling. Three ofZinus’s arguments are persuasive.First, the district court improperly granted summaryjudgment….. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More Fair Use of the Super Bowl Trademark?

Downtown Minneapolis is starting to come alive for upcoming Super Bowl LII, you can feel the energy building and commerce flowing, new ads and signage being erected almost daily: What do you think, is the Super Bowl reference in the above temporary sign, a fair use? More particularly, nominative fair use? I do. But, will the NFL agree? Stay tuned. The post More Fair Use of the Super Bowl Trademark? appeared first on DuetsBlog... To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Redbox Says Disney Engaging in Copyright Misuse to Protect Coming Streaming Service

Disney is seeking an injunction to prevent Redbox from disassembling "combo packs" and selling movie download codes separately.read more.. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hilfreich: Ransomware entschlüsseln mit dem «Crypto Sheriff»

Ransomware verschlüsselt Daten auf den Computern der Opfer. Danach wird den Opfern mit einem Sperrbildschirm angeboten, die Dateien gegen Bezahlung zu entschlüsseln. Die Bezahlung muss häufig mit Bitcoin oder einer anderen (scheinbar anonymen) «Kryptowährung» geleistet werden. Ohne funktionierende Datensicherung sehen die Opfer solcher Trojaner häufig keine andere Möglichkeit als das «Lösegeld» zu bezahlen. Wenn sie Glück im Unglück haben, werden die Daten nach erfolgter Bezahlung tatsächlich entschlüsselt. Erfreulicherweise gibt es mit «NO MORE RANSOM!» nun eine weitere und kostenlose Möglichkeit, wenn man einem Verschlüsselungstrojaner zum Opfer gefallen ist: Malware identifizieren und entschlüsseln mit dem «Crypto Sheriff» Der «Crypto Sheriff» versucht aufgrund von zwei verschlüsselten Dateien herauszufinden, welcher Erpressungstrojaner….. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Guest Post: Deconstructing the Question Presented in WesternGeco

Guest post by Prof. Timothy Holbrook of Emory Law.  Professor Holbrook has written extensively on extraterritoriality and patents.  In the interest of full disclosure, he anticipates that this post will likely form the basis of an amicus brief. Patent law remains hot at the Supreme Court.  The Court on January 14, 2018, agreed to review WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.  WesternGeco joins two other patent cases at the Supreme Court (so far) for its October 2017 term. WesternGeco is interesting because it is the third time in the since the October 2006 term that the Court has reviewed a fairly esoteric patent law provision, 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).  The Court addressed this provision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp. and, just last term, in Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation. Section 271(f) creates a form of patent infringement that is extraterritorial in nature.  This provision makes a party liable for patent….. To continue reading this legal news please click Read full information...

Posted in Intellectual Property | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment