In a claim construction ruling on a coke oven corbel patent, the court gave “above” and “gas source” their plain meaning (with a clarification for “gas source”) and rejected an indefiniteness challenge to the “third passageway” limitation.
A California federal court granted only part of a default judgment against defendants in Mexico who re-uploaded extreme-weather videos, finding several plaintiffs lacked standing, declining willfulness enhancements, and cutting requested damages and fees.
An Eastern District of Texas judge let patent owners accuse a not-yet-released product before serving infringement contentions, but refused a temporary restraining order because their showing rested only on the defendants’ marketing statements, with no physical product or specifications to compare against the claims.
Granting default judgment against defendants who re-uploaded extreme-weather videos to YouTube, a California federal court awarded $195,000 in copyright statutory damages and $28,000 under the DMCA, far below the $1.225 million requested.
The Federal Circuit held that Microsoft Word metadata can independently corroborate an inventor’s testimony and upheld Valtrus’s earlier conception and diligence showing.
After a patent case pending since 2015, a Delaware federal judge held that claims directing bit and phase scrambling to reduce peak-to-average power ratio are patent-eligible, but that claims for calculating scrambled phases without applying them are abstract and lack an inventive concept.
A Massachusetts federal court construed four terms in Nike’s Flyknit patent case, including limits for footwear, flat-knit edges, heel structures, and ankle parts.
A California federal court awarded $177,500 for copied YouTube videos, removed copyright information, and false DMCA counter-notices.
An Eastern District of Texas court entered a $472,878 copyright default judgment and permanently enjoined online sellers from using Bee Cups’ media.
The UPC upheld Align Technology’s clear-aligner patent, found Angelalign’s Torque Ridge products literally infringed, and ordered coordinated relief across seventeen countries.
The Federal Circuit held that a patent covering remote diagnosis and treatment used generic devices to perform an abstract version of an ordinary doctor visit and lacked an inventive concept.
An Arizona federal court let Wayf Digital’s ACPA challenge over GEICO.AI proceed but denied emergency return of the domain because the evidence did not support likely success.
In construing claims across seven ballistic-blind patents, a Delaware federal court held that “blind” is not limited to slats and “anti-ballistic” is definite, but found the term “decorative” indefinite as too subjective.
An Ohio federal court held that a copyright plaintiff’s own allegations showed the Romo defendants began infringing before its works were registered, so 17 U.S.C. § 412 bars statutory damages and attorney’s fees against them.
Applying the Supreme Court’s Cox v. Sony decision, an Ohio federal court dismissed a t-shirt company’s direct and contributory copyright claims against Google over third-party Shopping Ads, with leave to seek amendment.
The Federal Circuit held that patent claims for repositioning and enforcing digital advertisements recited an abstract data-handling idea implemented with conventional computer components.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s anticipation and obviousness rulings against UPL’s fungicide patent and upheld denial of Syngenta’s proposed sanctions motion.
Massachusetts’ highest court held that a trade secret plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must show irreparable harm under ordinary equitable principles; likelihood of success on misappropriation does not create a presumption of harm.
A Delaware federal court let a technology company’s federal trade secret claim proceed against two former sales engineers and a rival, but dismissed the Delaware trade secrets act claim and held the employment agreements’ worldwide non-compete and non-solicitation covenants overbroad and unenforceable.
Calling the trademark merits murky, an Ohio federal court granted a narrow temporary restraining order barring HeartHero from sending further trademark enforcement communications to Apple’s and Google’s app stores about HeartFitt’s Heart Hero Solo app.
A Texas federal court granted in part a competitor’s motion for partial summary judgment, leaving for trial only a Lanham Act injunction claim over one allegedly false “all heme” statement and breach-of-settlement claims over iron supplement marketing.
An Ohio federal court denied cross-motions for summary judgment in a t-shirt company’s copyright suit over Amazon’s Merch on Demand, holding that Amazon could be liable as a direct or vicarious infringer but granting Amazon summary judgment on contributory infringement under Cox v. Sony.
Sitting by designation in Delaware, Federal Circuit Judge Bryson denied dismissal on patent eligibility grounds because the complaint plausibly alleged inventive concepts, but dismissed speculative pre-suit knowledge and multi-defendant direct infringement allegations with leave to amend.
In Oracle’s DTSA suit against Procore, a California federal court denied three motions to strike or exclude expert reports on trade secret damages and device forensics, while finding Oracle violated Rule 26 by not producing laptop images its expert used.
A Northern District of California magistrate judge denied a $1.5 million default judgment against a Ukraine-based YouTube channel operator, because the video producer did not address personal jurisdiction, did not show it was the copyright owner who sent the takedown notices needed to sue under DMCA Section 512(f), and offered no evidence of damages.
A D.C. federal judge granted partial summary judgment for an Icelandic influencer on liability for 52 reposts of her photos and videos by a travel company’s Instagram and TikTok accounts, holding that outsourcing the posting to overseas contractors does not avoid direct infringement liability, while rejecting her lost-sales damages theory and leaving other issues for a jury.
A California federal court held all asserted claims in VirtaMove’s software-containerization patents invalid because three key terms lacked objective boundaries.
A New Jersey federal judge denied a marker manufacturer’s request for a preliminary injunction and contempt finding against its former reseller, holding that the record did not show the reseller itself used the “Mighty Marker” mark on listings posted by third-party websites and that the manufacturer had not shown irreparable harm.
California lacked personal jurisdiction over Hyundai because its Korea-only Casper SUV campaign was not deliberately aimed at California.
A California federal court allowed projector makers’ noninfringement and most invalidity theories to proceed but dismissed patent-misuse, antitrust, and unfair-practice claims with leave to amend.
An Eastern District of Texas judge invalidated one Cloud Byte patent because the company’s infringement theory placed every claimed element in the prior art, while allowing other claims to proceed.
An Eastern District of Texas judge held that Oribel’s limited marking efforts could not support pre-suit patent damages, while leaving infringement and lost-profit issues for trial.
An Eastern District of Texas judge refused to grant Anker summary judgment on multiple NEC patents, finding factual disputes over infringement and willfulness.
A Massachusetts federal court entered default on trademark claims but denied an injunction and monetary recovery because liability by default did not prove irreparable harm, actual damages, or profits.
A California federal court held that Actian plausibly alleged direct, contributory, and vicarious copyright infringement based on Itron’s alleged distribution of database software beyond its licenses.
A Rhode Island federal court dismissed false-association and false-advertising claims because the complaint alleged neither a misleading statement nor actionable consumer confusion.
A Texas federal court held that NetLens received all substantial rights needed to sue Microsoft, but not the express right to recover for infringement predating its patent license.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the rejection of a mobile-messaging patent application because the applicant failed to preserve substantive challenges to the examiner’s and PTAB’s indefiniteness rulings.
A California federal court dismissed DirecTV’s challenge to ten Adeia patents because portfolio licensing demands and confidential negotiations did not create a sufficiently concrete patent-specific controversy.
The Federal Circuit held that a live patent-case indemnification dispute was not moot and qualified for Rule 60(b)(1) relief, while directing dismissal without prejudice after the parties agreed federal supplemental jurisdiction should end.
A Northern District of California court allowed a Lanham Act false-advertising theory involving competing antioxidant skincare products to proceed while dismissing theories involving products that were not plausibly substitutes.
A Texas federal court entered partial default judgment, awarded $200,000, and permanently enjoined a Houston-area drink seller from using Tropical Isle’s Hand Grenade word and product-design marks.
The Federal Circuit broadened the ordinary meaning of “joined,” ordered partial summary judgment of infringement on three powered cover-plate patent claims, and affirmed noninfringement on others.
A Minnesota federal court refused to enter default judgment against an absent manufacturer while a related supplier actively contests the validity of the same livestock-prod trademarks.
A Pennsylvania federal court awarded $400,000 in statutory damages per defendant and permanently enjoined 32 online sellers that willfully copied Nifty Home Products’ BACON BIN works.
A Pennsylvania federal court held that Workers United plausibly alleged a live controversy over its Starbucks Workers United name and raised-fist logo, allowing its trademark and copyright declaratory claims to proceed.
A California federal court held that video creators plausibly alleged standing and a DMCA anti-circumvention claim based on ByteDance’s alleged bypass of YouTube safeguards to collect AI training data.
A New Jersey federal court construed “defibrotide” to require less than 10% double-stranded DNA because the patent applicants clearly surrendered broader scope during prosecution.
The Federal Circuit held that later experimental data may show whether a patent enabled its full scope and affirmed the invalidation of an enormous enzyme genus.
The Federal Circuit affirmed judgment against Truinject because its lost-deal damages theory lacked causation and its new appellate theories were forfeited.