Tag Archives: patent

Lack of damages dooms false marking, advertising claims

Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 2017 WL 1349278, No. 2016-2318 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2017) Gravelle sued his competitor Kaba for falsely marking its key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for a time, as Kaba eventually admitted, and sought monetary relief … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Lack of damages dooms false marking, advertising claims

Gravelle v. Kaba Ilco Corp., 2017 WL 1349278, No. 2016-2318 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2017) Gravelle sued his competitor Kaba for falsely marking its key-cutting machines as “patent pending” for a time, as Kaba eventually admitted, and sought monetary relief … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Lexmark injury requirement no bar to competitor’s standing at pleading stage

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., 2017 WL 1229707,  No. 06–cv–00605 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2017) Crocs sued Effervescent for patent infringement; in 2006, defendants moved to stay the case pending ITC proceedings.  In 2015, defendant Dawgs moved to reopen the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

interpreting state law narrowly, court denies bad faith patent assertion claim

Digital Ally, Inc. v. Utility Associates, Inc., 2017 WL 1197561, No. 14-2262-CM (D. Kan. Mar. 30, 2017) The parties compete in the market for in-car video and surveillance systems (which makes the court’s conclusion below that they’re not competitors a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 4

Chris Buccafusco & Mark Lemley, Screening Functionality Commentators: Abraham Drassinower and Jim Gibson Gibson: regime shopping is even more troublesome than scope problems in one regime. Design patents seem to exist purely for regime shopping; everyone wants a patent right … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Notre Dame Scope Roundtable, part 3

Pam Samuelson, Functional Compilations Commentators: Zahr Said and Steve Yelderman Said: Framing questions: what is functionality? Does it differ in compilations v. other things?  Is it the same as the useful articles doctrine?  How do owners/litigants determine and assess functionality? … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dastar/preemption bars claims based on allegedly false claims of credit for innovation

OptoLum, Inc. v. Cree, Inc., No. CV-16-03828, 2017 WL 1057924 (D. Ariz. Mar. 21, 2017) The parties compete in the market for LED lights. OptoLum claims to be the inventor of technology used inside LED bulbs allowing them to have … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment