Tag Archives: patent

Are Crocs’ uniqueness claims a crock?

Posted on October 2, 2017 by rtushnet

Crocs, Inc. v. Effervescent, Inc., No. 06-cv-00605, 2017 WL 4286148 (D. Colo. Sept. 25, 2017) Crocs makes molded clogs, and Dawgs is a competitor. Allegedly, “[e]ach and every functional feature disclosed in the [’858] patent application, except the heel strap, … Continue reading →

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

IPSC Breakout Session III

Posted on August 10, 2017 by rtushnet

Useful Articles  Star Athletica: Stuck on the Merry-Ground  – Alfred C. Yen We’re just going round and round. Those who can’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it; a page of history is worth a volume of logic. For … Continue reading →

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

IPSC Breakout Session II

Posted on August 10, 2017 by rtushnet

IP Theory  The Boundaries of Intellectual Property: A Preliminary Exploration of Constitutional Salience – Amy Kapczynski What IP law is about: what values beyond efficiency we might be able to say this law serves.  You can’t justify IP v. grants … Continue reading →

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

false patent marking falls w/false advertising claim

Posted on August 7, 2017 by rtushnet

Infinity Headwear & Apparel, LLC v. Jay Franco & Sons, Inc., 2017 WL 3309724, No. 15-CV-1259 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2017) Infinity sued Jay Franco for patent infringement, false marking, and false advertising.  Infinity has U.S. Patent No. 8,864,544, “Hooded Blanket … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Lack of damages dooms false marking, advertising claims

Posted on April 14, 2017 by rtushnet

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

Posted on April 14, 2017 by rtushnet

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

Posted on April 6, 2017 by rtushnet

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

Posted on April 4, 2017 by rtushnet

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

Posted on March 31, 2017 by rtushnet

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

Posted on March 31, 2017 by rtushnet

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