A plaintiff's request to add 12 new defendants to a patent infringement action after the close of fact discovery would cause undue delay, is
The assertion of allegedly invalid or abandoned trademark rights does not create a cause of action for unfair competition under section 43(a) of the
On January 17, 2013, the FTC reported a record number of pay-for-delay settlements in 2012, increasing to 40 from 28 in 2011. The agreements covered
Consistent use of trademarks is key. Brand modifications should be undertaken in conjunction with consultation of trademark counsel to ensure that
Corporations can assert privilege over advice of counsel on how to respond to third-party inquiries, particularly where the response is reasonably
In view of a split of authority on standing to bring a copyright infringement claim, the District of New Jersey held on January 4, 2013, that
The District of New Jersey denied defendants' motion for attorneys fees after judgment of invalidity in their favor and despite the Federal Circuit's indication in a prior litigation that the asserted patent may be obvious, in Teva Women's Health, Inc.
After a second jury trial for patent infringement, Judge Griesa of the Southern District of New York granted defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law as to non-infringement of the two patents in suit, in Hypoxico, Inc. v. Colorado Altitude Training LLC, No. 02-CV-6191, slip op. (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2012).
Claims for declaratory judgment concerning validity of a patent do not entitled the parties to the Seventh Amendment right for a trial by jury, the Southern District of New York held in Abbot Labs. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Trust.
Magistrate Judge Lindsay of the Eastern District of New York denied as premature plaintiff's motion to compel defendant's response to contention interrogatories concerning invalidity and noninfringement defenses where plaintiff had not yet repsonded to all of defedant's discovery demands and substantial discovery remained to be exchanged between the parties, in Carson Optical, Inc. v. Prym Consumer USA, Inc.