Opinions Archives - Jafari Law Group | California Employment Litigation & Patent Lawyers

$30 Million Verdict Against Google Overturned Due (in part) to Prior Art Admissions in Patents

August 15 2014

On August 15, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in I/P Engine, Inc. v. AOL, Inc. et al, reversed a lower court’s decision granting I/P Engine, Inc. an award for over $30 million in damages against Google, AOL, and Target for patent infringement. The Appeals Court’s reversal was based on …

Continue reading “$30 Million Verdict Against Google Overturned Due (in part) to Prior Art Admissions in Patents”

Swatch Unable to Stop Beehive's Watch “SWAP” Trademark

June 04 2014

If you were browsing for watches or watch accessories and saw a watch brand, SWATCH, sitting aside another watch brand, SWAP, would it be plausible to think the two were in some way related? The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia doesn’t think so, and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit …

Continue reading “Swatch Unable to Stop Beehive's Watch “SWAP” Trademark”

Stereolithography (SL) Resin Maker Desotech Fails to Prove Antitrust Claims

May 30 2014

3D Systems (DDD) won a second legal battle against DSM Desotech Inc. (Desotech) primarily regarding antitrust claims pertaining to resins used in additive manufacturing or 3D printing, specifically stereolithography (SL). Last month, the Appeals Court for the Northern District of Illinois affirmed the summary judgment granted by the District Court for defendant, 3D Systems. 3D …

Continue reading “Stereolithography (SL) Resin Maker Desotech Fails to Prove Antitrust Claims”

Hookah Company Inhales Copyright Loss, Exhales Attorney Fees

January 13 2014

Last week, the California Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the Court) affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment for defendant Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc. (Starbuzz), stating that Starbuzz did not violate the copyright protection granted to Inhale, Inc (Inhale) in 2011 for their hookah water container. The case, Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco, Inc., specifically …

Continue reading “Hookah Company Inhales Copyright Loss, Exhales Attorney Fees”

Galderma Labs Patents Invalidated for Obviousness

December 19 2013

Last week, on December 11, 2013, in Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Newman, Bryson, Prost*) reversed the district court’s judgment that U.S. Patents No. 7,579,377, No. 7,737,181, No. 7,834,060, No. 7,838,558, and No. 7,868,044, (the Patents) were not invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § …

Continue reading “Galderma Labs Patents Invalidated for Obviousness”

Petronas v. GoDaddy.com: No Contributory Liability for Cybersquatting Under the ACPA

December 09 2013

In a case involving the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (the ACPA), the Ninth Circuit Court agreed with a lower court’s decision that the ACPA does not provide a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting. Under the ACPA, cybersquatting is defined as registering, trafficking, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from …

Continue reading “Petronas v. GoDaddy.com: No Contributory Liability for Cybersquatting Under the ACPA”

Doctrine of Tacking Key in Trademark Win for Defendant Hana Bank

December 04 2013

Last week, I wrote an article discussing the disputed Cracker Barrel moniker in use by Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and Cracker Barrel Old Country Store. In it, I noted “if you want to avoid unnecessary and costly legal action, make sure your brand is unmistakably yours.” A court decision released in late November drove home …

Continue reading “Doctrine of Tacking Key in Trademark Win for Defendant Hana Bank”

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.: Permanent Injunction Unlikely

November 27 2013

Back in July of 2012, a jury returned a powerful verdict against Samsung, in a suit filed by Apple (AAPL), claiming Samsung infringed on several patents, and diluted Apple’s trade dress for the iPhone. That jury found that 26 Samsung smartphones and tablets infringed Apple patents and that six Samsung smartphones diluted Apple’s registered iPhone …

Continue reading “Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.: Permanent Injunction Unlikely”

Court Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Food Sales Infringing Trademarked "Cracker Barrel" Name

November 27 2013

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. (KRFT), a company whose mention instantly conjures up images of arguably delicious and unfortunately lactose-filled cheese, recently obtained a preliminary injunction stopping Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (CBRL) from selling food products in grocery stores using the Cracker Barrel moniker. To simplify matters, the court and the relevant parties acronymized Cracker …

Continue reading “Court Affirms Preliminary Injunction Against Food Sales Infringing Trademarked "Cracker Barrel" Name”

Copyright Lawsuit Challenging Google’s Book Digitizing Program Dismissed Under Fair Use Doctrine

November 19 2013

At long last, Google has won. Specifically, Google has won the right to continue providing snippets of over 20 million books digitized from the collections of top public universities and libraries through its Google Books Library Project. Avid readers and researchers, most notably librarians and other scholars, are hailing the decision as an important step …

Continue reading “Copyright Lawsuit Challenging Google’s Book Digitizing Program Dismissed Under Fair Use Doctrine”

Synthes USA LLV v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc.: Broadened Claims Not Supported by Description

November 04 2013

When done correctly, broadening the claims allows a patent owner to broaden the scope of the patent in order to capture design-arounds or perhaps new products, which are not covered by the previous claims. While it is proper to broaden the scope of a patent under certain circumstances and procedures, the broadened claims must be …

Continue reading “Synthes USA LLV v. Spinal Kinetics, Inc.: Broadened Claims Not Supported by Description”

Patent Search- What is A Search and Why it Makes Sense to Perform One

October 28 2013

In the context of obtaining a patent, a “search” is a professional search of various online databases for inventions that are similar to your invention. The name of such searches varies within our industry, but at our office we simply call such searches a “Patent Search,” and is also often called a novelty search. Patent …

Continue reading “Patent Search- What is A Search and Why it Makes Sense to Perform One”

IP Now