Cantor Colburn August / September 2016 IP Newsletter
Read the August September 2016 IP Newsletter in full
Playing with fire
Inequitable conduct results in outsized antitrust award
Bringing a patent infringement lawsuit always comes with financial risks — but such suits rarely conclude with the patent holder being ordered to pay $26 million in antitrust damages. This article provides details on the Federal Circuit case TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co. and shows how the patent holder’s inequitable conduct backfired. A sidebar discusses how the same court found a proper basis for damages.
TransWeb, LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co., No. 14-1646, Feb. 10, 2016(Fed. Cir.)
How to outhustle a hustler
Court modifies the terms of a permanent injunction
In a recent decision, LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc., the Sixth Circuit proved that a court can modify an injunction’s terms in certain circumstances. This article summarizes a case that pitted brother against brother and explains that, while an injunction against a trademark infringer may be permanent, it doesn’t mean its terms are necessarily final.
LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc.,No. 15-3135,Jan. 13, 2016 (6th Cir.)
Copyright law defeats right-of-publicity claims
The right to copyright protection is bestowed by federal law, while the right of publicity from the use of one’s name or likeness is bestowed by state law. So which prevails when these rights come into conflict? This article describes how the Eighth Circuit answered this question in Dryer v. The National Football League and illustrates the limits on individuals to wield their right of publicity to undermine copyright holders’ rights.
Dryer v. The National Football League, No. 14-3428, Feb. 26, 2016(8th Cir.)
At the Federal Circuit
Some patentees might receive preissuance damages
Owners of infringed patents typically are limited to recovering damages that occur after the patent was issued. However, as this article explores, they may also be entitled to damages for infringing conduct that occurs preissuance, but after publication, of the patent application if the accused infringer had “actual notice” of it. The case, Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., was decided by the Federal Circuit.
Rosebud LMS Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc. 2015-1428,Feb. 9, 2016(Fed. Cir.)
