Updates to Prior Stories:
January 14, 2016—Cooper v. Lee: In light of the Federal Circuit's rejection of constitutional challenges to IPRs in December 2015 in the MCM case, the Federal Circuit granted plaintiff Cooper's procedural motion for affirmance of the district court's ruling, effectively ending his case. Update to our December 2015 newsletter article entitled "On the Watch List: Federal Circuit Rejects Constitutional Challenge to IPRs inMCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co."
December 28, 2015—Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.: On remand from the Supreme Court (which had held on 5/26/15 that a defendant's good faith belief regarding patent invalidity is not a defense to an induced infringement claim), the Federal Circuit held that Cisco never directly infringed on Commil's patents in the first place, thus precluding Cisco's liability under either of Commil's direct or induced infringement claims. Update to our December 2015 newsletter entitled "Eye on the Courts: IP Roundup—What do Wireless Equipment, Fingerprint Scanners, Textbooks, Skin Care Products, Military-Style Watches and Tiffany Ring Settings have in common?"
Items of Note:
December 21, 2015—Apple and Ericson settled their long-running patent infringement litigation: The parties entered into a seven-year license agreement that covers patents owned by both companies (reported to be similar to the agreement Ericson entered into with Samsung in 2014) pursuant to which Apple will make an initial payment to Ericson followed by royalties.
December 7, 2015—The PTO granted the Napa Valley Vintners (NVV) nonprofit trade association a "first of its kind" certification mark: The Certification Mark, reported to be the "first of its kind in the U.S.," will assist the NVV in protecting consumers from deceptive wine labeling practices. Certification Marks function to "certify" the nature or origin of goods and services, including the geographic location where they originated.
November 6, 2015 (dismissed January 15, 2016)—In-N-Out v. DoorDash: On 11/6/15, In-N-Out filed a complaint in the Central District of California against DoorDash for trademark infringement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, seeking to stop DoorDash from using In-N-Out's trademarked logos on its food delivery site and from delivering food acquired at In-N-Out restaurants to consumers. Without further action or answer filed by DoorDash, In-N-Out filed a motion for voluntary dismissal that was granted with prejudice on January 15, 2016.