Federal district court decisions
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 refused to grant Anker summary judgment on multiple NEC patents, finding factual disputes over infringement and willfulness.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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 New Jersey federal court construed “defibrotide” to require less than 10% double-stranded DNA because the patent applicants clearly surrendered broader scope during prosecution.
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 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 New York federal court clarified that injury notice triggered Hardwire’s duty to investigate but left a jury to decide diligence, discovery of Freyssinet’s role, and fraudulent concealment.
A Washington federal court awarded nearly $1.25 million in fees after willful trade-secret misappropriation but denied exemplary damages as unnecessary for punishment and deterrence.
An Illinois federal court enjoined an unlicensed rooftop business from selling views of Cubs games and using Cubs trademarks after its royalty agreement expired.
A Connecticut federal court held that LEGO could not establish fair use as a matter of law for copying an artist’s painted jacket onto a Queer Eye minifigure, while dismissing the artist’s trade-dress claim for lack of likely confusion.
A North Carolina federal court granted Ruger summary judgment because the SCAR and SFAR rifle marks were materially different and the remaining marketplace factors could not establish likely confusion.
An Eastern District of Texas court let induced-infringement claims over contactless credit-card technology proceed and declined to invalidate five patents under Section 101 at the pleading stage.
A D.C. federal court held that detailed software, configuration, and roadmap allegations could support trade-secret claims even though related hardware appeared in an issued patent.
A Louisiana federal court held that Copyright Office registrations gave constructive notice that time-barred most of a former band member’s joint-ownership and royalty claims.
A Massachusetts federal court denied a software company’s preliminary injunction because it lacked technical proof of copying or trade-secret use and waited nearly three years to seek relief.
A New York federal court entered a $169,000 default judgment and broad injunction over a copycat website, hijacked accounts, and unauthorized use of the EVERYDAYPPL marks.
A New Jersey federal court confirmed ownership of a blood-drip necklace copyright but held that access, actual copying, willfulness, and damages remain jury questions.
A Florida federal court held that a Spanish streaming operator’s paid subscriptions, advertising, and substantial Florida traffic supported personal jurisdiction over Tencent’s copyright and trademark claims.
An Eastern District of Texas court found AlexSam’s patent suit exceptional from filing and awarded Cigna $1.76 million because the infringement theory conflicted with an agreed construction and binding Federal Circuit guidance.
A Massachusetts federal court reduced a trademark jury’s actual-damages award to $37,500 but accepted $15.4 million in equitable profit disgorgement against Beyond Meat.
A Florida federal court entered summary judgment against a design studio that could not connect the defendant to any reproduction or display of its registered architectural work.
An Eastern District of Pennsylvania judge awarded $975,000 after a jury found willful counterfeiting across two marks and three animal-rescue services plus cyberpiracy.
An Eastern District of Texas court found AlexSam’s patent case exceptional and awarded all reasonable defense fees because its infringement theory contradicted the agreed construction and prior appellate guidance.
Similar marks did not establish likely confusion where fish-skin dog treats and medical dermatology occupied distinct markets, and delay defeated urgency.
Producers who saw 1992 releases crediting someone else as sole writer could not assert copyright ownership decades later.
Disputes over when accused sandal sales became commercially significant prevented summary judgment on laches.
Patent demand letters were protected under Noerr-Pennington, and a non-owner lacked the patent rights needed to remain a declaratory-judgment defendant.
A pro se plaintiff failed to connect NEMO Arms to acquisition of identifiable trade secrets, while his trademark-related claims remained pending.
A California federal court held that two computer-networking and storage patents claimed specific technological improvements and plausibly alleged indirect and willful infringement.
An Eastern District of Texas court entered default judgment, awarded $42,000, enjoined further BitTorrent infringement, and ordered deletion of unauthorized copies.
An Ohio federal court held that factual disputes over abandonment and likely confusion require a trial in the Cheese Hog trademark dispute.
A wrestling promoter’s copyright suit was dismissed because he did not plausibly allege WWE’s access to his sequence or substantial similarity in protected expression.
A D.C. federal court allowed MEANS Database’s challenge alleging that FOOD RECOVERY NETWORK marks are generic to proceed past the pleading stage.
A Colorado federal court awarded $7,500 in statutory damages plus fees and costs for willful use of a copyrighted photograph on Pinterest.
A Florida federal court held that Schedule A defendants prevailed after the copyright plaintiff dismissed with prejudice and awarded $39,802.50 in fees.
A Delaware federal court preliminarily barred Operation Bluebird from using TWITTER-formative marks, while finding that X likely abandoned the TWEET mark and bird logo.
On reconsideration, a California federal court granted defendants partial summary judgment because the plaintiffs had not identified one copyrighted work containing the complete selection and arrangement they sought to enforce.
A Georgia federal court held that accepting an Instagram collaboration invitation may make an account a co-developer of a post, preventing dismissal on Section 230 grounds.
A Delaware federal court held that Lupin’s roughly 74% ivacaftor generic does not infringe Vertex patent claims requiring 80% or about 80% ivacaftor.
A Tennessee federal court awarded $276,283.35 in Lanham Act fees after trial testimony denying confusing use of STARSTRUCK was contradicted by the plaintiff’s own social-media marketing.