IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Results for ""
Subscribe to Results for ""'s Posts

Use of Negative Claim Construction is Unsound

by | May 19, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s noninfringement decision that was based on a negative claim construction and remanded with instructions for the district court to determine what affirmative claim construction should be adopted. Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 21-1998 (Fed. Cir. May 11, 2022) (Prost, Mayer, Taranto, JJ.)

Sound View owns a now-expired patent directed to streaming multimedia information over public networks. Sound View asserted the patent against Hulu based on Hulu’s use of a central content server that’s connected to end users through intermediate edge servers. The asserted claim recites downloading streaming content from a buffer in a helper server to an end user while concurrently retrieving more streaming content from a content server. During claim construction, the district court construed the downloading/retrieving limitation to require using the same buffer, as opposed to two different buffers.

With that claim construction in hand, Hulu sought summary judgment that, in the edge servers of its content delivery networks, no single buffer hosts both the video portion downloaded to the client and the retrieved additional portion. In response, Sound View argued that a factual dispute remained about whether “caches” in the edge servers met the concurrency limitation as construed. The district court held, however, that a “cache” cannot be a “buffer,” and on that basis granted summary judgment of noninfringement. The district court also excluded Sound View’s expert testimony on reasonable royalty damages. Sound View appealed.

The Federal Circuit first reviewed construction of the downloading/retrieving limitation, which was reviewed de novo since the district court relied on only the intrinsic evidence. The Court first analyzed the claim, noting that its wording “reasonably suggests allocating a single buffer” and did not suggest additional buffers. When reviewing the specification, the Court found that it was not inconsistent with reading the claims requiring that the same buffer be used for both downloading and retrieving and observed that it disclosed an embodiment with only one buffer. The Court also reviewed the prosecution history, noting that the applicants added the limitation at issue to distinguish prior art and specifically emphasized the “concurrent[]” limitation. Thus, the Court affirmed the district court’s construction of the downloading/receiving limitation.

Turning to the noninfringement finding, the Federal Circuit rejected the district court’s finding that a “cache” was a different, distinct physical component when compared to a “buffer.” In particular, the Court took issue with this interpretation because it was a negative construction, and the district court never provided an affirmative construction to be used in the infringement analysis. The Court also found that the intrinsic evidence did not support determining that “buffers” and “caches” were mutually exclusive. The Court thus reversed and remanded for the district court to determine an affirmative construction of “buffer.”

The Federal Circuit next addressed the district court’s decision to exclude evidence from Sound View’s expert on reasonable royalty damages. First, the Court determined that the expert could not rely on a study performed in Sydney, Australia [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The Halo Effect Won’t Cure Lack of Final Judgment

by | May 19, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal of a disappointed movant seeking prejudgment interest and a new damages trial after concluding that the district court did not enter an appealable final order despite closing the case nearly three years before the appeal was filed. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Bel Fuse Inc., Case No. 2021-1861 (Fed. Cir. May 6, 2022) (per curiam) (nonprecedential).

The Halo v. Bel Fuse litigation has been percolating in the federal courts for over a decade, with multiple significant decisions that continue to reshape patent litigation practice (the most well-known of which restructured the legal framework for willful patent infringement and the recovery of enhanced damages).

Halo first sued Pulse for patent infringement in 2007. The jury found that Pulse willfully infringed Halo’s patents, however, the district court denied Halo’s motion for enhanced damages. On Halo’s appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States articulated a new test for enhanced damages.

While that appeal was pending in 2015, Halo moved the district court for award of prejudgment interest. The district court held that Halo was entitled to prejudgment interest at the state’s statutory rate and directed the parties to either agree to the amount owed or submit briefing that outlined proposed calculations. The parties submitted briefing but before the district court determined what calculation to use, Pulse filed a notice of appeal challenging the district court’s order stating prejudgment interest would be awarded and directing the briefing. The Federal Circuit held that the district court’s prejudgment interest order was not final “because the district court had not determined, or specified the means for determining, the amount of prejudgment interest.”

While Pulse’s appeal was pending in 2017, Halo renewed its motion in the district court for enhanced damages. The district court denied that motion and directed the clerk to enter judgment and close the case, but neither the court’s order nor the ensuing “judgment” addressed prejudgment interest. At the time, Halo did not move for relief from the September 2017 order and judgment.

Then, after nearly three years of inactivity, Halo filed a “Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest Award and Damages Trial” in the district court in July 2020. The district court denied Halo’s motion as untimely under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b), reasoning that “if Halo believed an issue remained unresolved, it should have brought that to the court’s attention then, not three years later,” adding, “the parties are entitled to rely on court judgments and move on with their affairs” and reopening the case “would be unfair to Pulse and contrary to the goal of finality of judgments.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court’s September 2017 judgment was not a final, appealable one because, “with respect to a final judgment for money damages, finality does not exist if the district court does not determine, or specify the means for determining, the amount of the judgment.” Because the district court never resolved the [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Hit the Brakes: Experimental Use, Enhanced Damages Determinations Require Redo

by | May 12, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision regarding experimental use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and the application of enhanced damages based on an allegedly flawed noninfringement and invalidity opinion. Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. U.S. Venture, Inc., Case Nos. 20-1640; -1641. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2022) (Prost, Reyna, Stoll, JJ.)

Sunoco sued Venture for infringement of four patents related to blending butane into gasoline. Venture argued that certain patent claims were invalid because they were subject to the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The district court found that the sale at issue was primarily for experimentation and that the on-sale bar did not apply. Venture also argued that certain claim terms required measuring the actual vapor pressure of the butane and gasoline, but the district court rejected this argument. The district court found infringement and awarded Sunoco $2 million in damages, which it trebled to $6 million after finding that Venture lacked a good faith belief of invalidity or noninfringement because the legal opinion Venture relied upon was flawed. Venture appealed.

On appeal, Venture challenged numerous issues, including the district court’s rejection of its on-sale bar defense, construction of two claim terms and decision to enhance damages.

The Federal Circuit first addressed the district court’s finding that the on-sale bar did not apply to certain claims of two of the asserted patents. Reviewing de novo, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s 2019 Helsinn v. Teva decision, which requires that the on-sale bar applies if the invention was the subject of a commercial sale and  ready for patenting. Analyzing the first prong, the Court looked to the contract language of the sale at issue. The inventor’s company offered to sell and install its butane blending technology at a customer’s fuel terminal more than one year before filing the patent application. The terms of the agreement required that the customer commit to purchasing at least 500,000 barrels of butane as consideration for the installation of the fuel mixing system. The Court noted that this agreement expressly described the transaction as a “sale” and did not reference any experimental purpose.

The Federal Circuit was not swayed by the lower court’s view that the contract did not require the customer to pay for the system directly, finding that a commitment to buy product in the future constituted a sale. The Court also gave little weight to the preinstallation testing terms of the agreement, finding that those tests were not experiments, but rather tests to confirm that the equipment was operating as contractually promised. Additional contract terms further cemented the Court’s view that this transaction was a sale, including language that the technology had already been “developed” and that title to the equipment transferred to the customer. The Court concluded that the sale of the system to the customer was not primarily for experimentation. The Court reversed the district court’s experimental-use determination and vacated its infringement determination, directing [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Ninth Circuit Once Again Preserves Competitor’s Data-Scraping Rights

by | May 12, 2022 |

On remand from the Supreme Court of the United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed its own 2019 opinion that preliminarily enjoined a professional networking platform from denying a data analytics company access to publicly available profiles. HiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 17-16783, (9th Cir., Apr. 18, 2022) (Wallace, Berzon, Berg (sitting by designation) JJ.).

Previously, the Supreme Court had granted certiorari in this case, but subsequently vacated the judgment and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration in view of its  2021 decision in Van Buren v. United States. In Van Buren, the Supreme Court attempted to clarify the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), holding that authorized computer access for arguably improper purposes likely does not constitute a violation of the CFAA. On remand, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Van Buren reinforced its determination that hiQ had raised “serious questions” about whether LinkedIn may invoke the CFAA to preempt hiQ’s claim of tortious interference.

HiQ is a data company that sells “people analytics” focused on predictive employee data. HiQ’s data is largely obtained by scraping public LinkedIn profiles with automated bots. In 2017, LinkedIn sent a demand letter to hiQ asserting that hiQ’s scraping activity was in violation of the CFAA, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the California penal code and common law. HiQ immediately filed suit seeking injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that LinkedIn could not lawfully invoke the asserted claims. Granting hiQ’s motion for the preliminary injunction, the district court ordered LinkedIn to remove, and to refrain from implementing, any technical barriers to hiQ’s access to the LinkedIn public profiles.

The Ninth Circuit stated that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish the following:

  • It is likely to succeed on the merits.
  • It is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent the injunction.
  • The balance of equities tips in its favor.
  • The injunction is in the public interest.

This analysis required the Ninth Circuit to focus only on whether hiQ had raised serious questions on the merits of the factual and legal issues presented. The Ninth Circuit’s re-examination of these factors was nearly identical to its 2019 holding.

Starting with irreparable harm, the Ninth Circuit found that the survival of hiQ’s business was threatened since it depends on being able to access public LinkedIn member profiles. The Court also agreed, once again, with the district court’s determination that the balance of the equities tipped in hiQ’s favor. The Court found that the privacy interests of individuals who have opted to maintain a public LinkedIn profile did not outweigh hiQ’s interests in continuing its business. On this factor, the Court noted that “little evidence” suggested that LinkedIn users who choose to make their profiles public actually maintain an expectation of privacy with respect to publicly posted information. The Court also noted that LinkedIn does not own its users’ data, since users retain [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Robotic Skepticism May Not Trump Motivation to Combine

by | May 12, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a Patent Trial & Appeal Board (Board) decision finding the challenged claims patentable because the Board impermissibly rested its motivation-to-combine analysis on evidence of general skepticism in the field of invention. Auris Health, Inc. v. Intuitive Surgical Operations, Case No. 21-1732 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2022) (Dyk, Prost, JJ.) (Reyna, J., dissenting).

Intuitive owns a patent that describes an improvement over earlier robotic surgery systems that allows surgeons to remotely manipulate surgical tools using a controller. The patent focuses on solving the problem of swapping surgical tools by implementing a pulley system that allows tools to be swapped in and out more quickly. Auris petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent, arguing that a combination of two references disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims. Auris further argued that a skilled artisan would be motivated to combine the references to decrease the number of assistants needed during surgery. While the Board agreed that the combination of the two references disclosed every limitation of the challenged claims, it found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine the references because of general skepticism from surgeons “about performing robotic surgery in the first place.” Auris appealed.

The Federal Circuit began by explaining that the motivation-to-combine inquiry asks whether a skilled artisan “not only could have made but would have been motivated to make the combinations . . . of prior art to arrive at the claimed invention.” The Court also explained that as to the “‘would have’ question, ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.’”

The Federal Circuit concluded that generic industry skepticism about robotic surgery cannot, on its own, preclude a finding of a motivation to combine. The Court explained that although industry skepticism can play a role as a secondary consideration in an obviousness finding, such evidence must be specific to the invention and not simply the field as a whole. The Court concluded that the Board’s motivation-to-combine determination was based almost exclusively on evidence of general skepticism. Thus, the Court vacated the decision and remanded the case, directing the Board to examine the evidence using the correct obviousness criteria.

Judge Reyna issued a dissenting opinion in which he disagreed as to whether  the Federal Circuit should implement a rule that general skepticism cannot  support a finding of no motivation to combine. Judge Reyna expressed concern that the majority opinion could be understood to create an inflexible, rigid rule that the Board cannot consider evidence of skepticism toward the invention , including whether that skepticism would have dissuaded a skilled artisan from making the proposed combination. Judge Reyna also argued that notwithstanding the majority opinion, the Board did not rely solely on general skepticism, but rather provided additional explanation as to why the “no [...]

Continue Reading



read more

The Perils of Falling in Love

by | May 12, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit that sought a declaratory judgment on the basis that a notice of termination of copyright assignment under 17 U.S.C. § 203 did not validly terminate a 1983 grant of rights in the copyright. Valentina M. Peretti Acuti, et al. v. Authentic Brands Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 21-2174 (2d Cir. May 4, 2022) (Livingston, C.J.; Lynch, Lohier, JJ.)

Hugo Peretti co-wrote “Can’t Help Falling in Love,” a ballad popularized by Elvis Presley in 1961, and registered the composition with the US Copyright Office the same year. In 1983, Peretti, his wife and his daughters transferred their contingent rights and interest in the renewal term of the copyright to Julian and Jean Aberbach, predecessors-in-interest to Authentic Brands. Under the Copyright Act of 1976 (1976 Act), the renewal rights would not vest until the original term of the copyright expired in 1989 (28 years after the copyright was registered, under the Copyright Act of 1909, which applied to the initial term of the copyright because of its registration in 1961). Peretti died in 1986, before the renewal rights vested. His family registered the renewal of the copyright in 1989.

In 2014, Peretti’s widow and his daughter Valentina served a notice on Authentic Brands to terminate the 1983 assignment under 17 U.S.C. § 203. Section 203 provides for the right to terminate a grant executed by the author at any time during a five-year period beginning at the end of 35 years from the date of execution of the grant. Authentic Brands contested the effectiveness of the termination, and Valentina filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the termination was properly effectuated. The district court dismissed the claim, holding that Valentina had no right to terminate the assignment because the rights to the renewal term that were transferred were those of Valentina and her mother, which had vested upon expiration of the original copyright term. The district court held that § 203 provides termination rights only to post-1978 grants executed by an author and, therefore, Peretti’s widow and daughter’s rights to the renewal were not subject to termination under that provision. Valentina appealed.

The Second Circuit began with a discussion of § 203 of the Copyright Act, which applies only to grants executed by the author on or after January 1, 1978. The Court noted that the appeal hinged on the meaning of “executed by the author.” The 1976 Act provides that execution of a transfer of a copyright is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed. Thus, as the Second Circuit explained, a grant “executed by the author” is a grant that is documented in writing, is signed by the author and conveys rights owned by the author.

Turning to the Peretti 1983 assignment, the Second Circuit explained that at the time the assignment was executed, ownership of the copyright in the composition [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Over My Dead Body: Defendant Can’t “Wait Until He Dies” to Pay Arbitration Award

by | May 5, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s interpretation of an arbitration award, finding that the defendant could not “wait until he dies” to pay a portion of the damages award. Nano Gas Techs., Inc. v. Roe, Case Nos. 21-1809; -1822 (7th Cir. Apr. 25, 2022) (Rovner, St. Eve, Jackson-Akiwumi, JJ.)

Clifton Roe invented a nozzle that disperses gases into liquids. Roe assigned the invention to Nano Gas as part of a collaboration agreement under which Roe received 20% equity and a board seat. The agreement also provided for a salary that was subject to Nano Gas’s ability to raise capital and Roe’s success in developing the invention at Nano Gas’s facility. The parties’ relationship deteriorated after the collaboration failed to produce the desired results. Roe ultimately took the machine and related intellectual property created by another Nano Gas employee and continued developing the product on his own. Arbitration ensued.

The arbitrator concluded that Roe did not have the right to remove the machine and related intellectual property from Nano Gas’s facility. The arbitrator determined that Roe should pay Nano Gas for the financial harm it suffered but also found that Roe deserved compensation for his work on the technology. In his award, the arbitrator indicated that he had initially considered giving Roe a royalty on future profits but declined to do so because Roe was a shareholder in Nano Gas and could benefit financially from the invention’s future success. The arbitrator offset Nano Gas’s $1.5 million damages award with an award to Roe of $1 million and ordered Roe to pay the $500,000 offset “in such manner as Roe chooses.” Roe was also required to return the related intellectual property or pay Nano Gas $150,000.

Nano Gas sued to enforce the award, and the district court entered judgment for $650,000 ($500,000 for the offset and $150,000 for the intellectual property). Nano Gas then filed a turnover motion for Roe’s Nano Gas stock, valued at $117,000. Roe argued that the arbitration award protected his status as a shareholder and allowed him to pay the damages “in such manner as [he] chooses.” Roe planned to pay the award with dividends from his stock and maintained that he could “wait until he die[s]” to satisfy the debt. The district court denied Nano Gas’s turnover motion, finding that Roe was entitled to remain a shareholder and could pay both awards “in such a manner as Roe chooses.” Nano Gas filed a motion to reconsider, and the court amended its order to require Roe to either turn over the stock or identify other assets to satisfy the $150,000 award. As to the remaining $500,000, the district court found that Roe could still choose how and when to pay that portion of the award. Both parties appealed.

The Seventh Circuit first addressed Roe’s argument that the arbitration award entitled him to remain a shareholder. The Court observed that the award did not stipulate that Roe would remain a shareholder indefinitely [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Golden State of Mind: Witness Convenience Isn’t Based Solely on Travel Distance

by | May 5, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a district court to transfer a patent infringement case from Texas to California because the district court had wrongly assessed facts relating to the convenience of witnesses when it originally denied a motion to transfer venue. In re: Apple Inc., Case No. 22-128 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen, JJ.) (non-precedential).

CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Apple in the Western District of Texas, alleging that Apple’s mobile phones, tablets and computing products equipped with Touch ID, Face ID or Apple Card features infringed three of CPC’s patents relating to biometric security. Apple moved to transfer to the Northern District of California, arguing that its employees responsible for the design, development and engineering of the accused functionality resided either in California or outside of the United States, and that the employees most knowledgeable about the marketing, licensing and financial issues relating to the accused products resided in California. Apple explained that no employees with relevant information worked in Western Texas.

The district court denied Apple’s motion. After acknowledging that the action might have been brought in Northern California, the district court analyzed the private and public interest factors governing transfer determinations. The court determined that the factor concerning the convenience of willing witnesses slightly favored transfer. However, the court determined that the factor accounting for the availability of compulsory process weighed strongly against transfer. The district court also determined that court congestion and practical problems factors weighed against transfer based on its ability to quickly reach trial and the fact that CPC had another pending infringement suit in Western Texas. The district court recognized that Apple had identified seven relevant witnesses in California who would have to travel to Texas but found that inconvenience was counterbalanced by the presence of two Apple employees in Austin who CPC insisted had relevant information, and an Apple witness in Florida who would “find it about twice as inconvenient to travel to [Northern California] than to [Western Texas] because Texas sits halfway from Florida to California.” The district court also relied on its ability to compel the third-party Mac Pro manufacturer in Western Texas to attend trial. Finally, the Court noted that there was local interest in the dispute because Apple employs thousands of workers in Western Texas. Balancing these facts, the district court determined that Apple had failed to meet the burden of proving that Northern California was clearly more convenient that Western Texas, and thus denied the motion. Apple petitioned for mandamus review.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Apple had shown clear entitlement to transfer to the Northern District of California. The Court found that the district court erroneously relied on two Apple employees in Austin whom CPC identified as potential witnesses and concluded that it was far from clear that either employee had relevant or material information. One employee had testified that he worked on authentication technology that was different from that accused by CPC, [...]

Continue Reading



read more

PTO Updates DOCX Filings, Delays Surcharge Fee

by | May 5, 2022 |

The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) recently announced that the surcharge fee for patent applications that are not filed in DOCX format will not go into effect until January 1, 2023. During the period before non-DOCX filings are hit with the surcharge fee, the PTO is encouraging applicants to begin filing patent applications in DOCX format (87 Fed. Reg. 25226). To address concerns some applicants have raised and to allow applicants to get acclimated to the process of filing applications in DOCX format, the PTO is providing applicants with the option to submit an applicant-generated PDF version of their application along with the DOCX file(s) when filing an application in the Patent Center without having to pay additional fees, such as application size fees.

Applicants who choose to submit an applicant-generated PDF with the validated DOCX file(s) will be able to rely on the applicant-generated PDF if a discrepancy occurs during the filing process. Once the non-DOCX filing surcharge fee officially goes into effect, applicants who submit an applicant-generated PDF with the validated DOCX file(s) will need to pay the surcharge fee and any other additional fees as a consequence for filing the applicant-generated PDF. This new document description is called “Auxiliary PDF of application,” and the corresponding document code is AUX.PDF.

The PTO advises:

Applicants are strongly encouraged to review their applications, including the USPTO-generated PDF, shortly after filing the application to identify any errors or discrepancies in the record, as discussed above. The applicant should file any necessary petition to correct the record early in prosecution and promptly after discovering any errors or discrepancies.



read more

Wild and Untamed Trademarks: Madrid Protocol Grants Right of Priority as of Constructive Use Date

by | Apr 28, 2022 |

Addressing for the first time the question of enforceability of a priority of right in a trademark granted pursuant to the Madrid Protocol where the registrant’s actual use in commerce began after the allegedly infringing use, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the Madrid Protocol grants priority as of the constructive use date, but to prevail on an infringement action based on that superior right of priority, the registrant must still establish the requisite likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act. Lodestar Anstalt v. Bacardi & Co., Case No. 19-55864 (9th Cir. Apr. 21, 2022) (Baldock, Berzon, Collins, JJ.)

Under the Madrid Protocol, applicants with trademarks in another country may obtain an “extension of protection” (generally equivalent to trademark registration) in the United States without needing to first use the mark in US commerce. Instead, the grant may be based on an applicant’s declaration of bona fide intent to use its mark in the United States.

In 2000 and 2001, Lichtenstein-based company Lodestar developed a brand of Irish whiskey called “The Wild Geese,” which was marketed in the US as “The Wild Geese Soldiers & Heroes.” Around 2008 and 2009, Lodestar developed the idea for the “Untamed” word marks, and in 2009 the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) accepted for filing two applications on behalf of Lodestar seeking extension of protection under the Madrid Protocol for the internationally registered “Untamed” word marks. The PTO published the marks for opposition, then granted the extensions of protection in 2011. In 2013, Lodestar developed a rum under The Wild Geese Soldiers and Heroes brand that used the Untamed word mark on the label. The rum was shown at the April 2013 Rum Renaissance Trade Show in Florida, where consumers sampled the rum. The rum was also featured in print advertisements associated with the trade show. But by June 2013, Lodestar had “decided to park the USA rum project as [it was] getting better returns in other markets.”

In 2012, Bacardi began developing the ad campaign “Bacardi Untameable.” Before launching the campaign, Bacardi ran a trademark clearance search that turned up Lodestar’s “Untamed” trademarks. From 2013 to 2017, Bacardi ran its “Bacardi Untameable” campaign. In response, Lodestar began promoting a then-nonexistent product “Untamed Revolutionary Rum” in an effort “to complement the Wild Geese Rum and also to combat Bacardi’s attempts to take over our Untamed mark.” In January 2015, the first Untamed Revolutionary Rum was sold to US retailers. In August 2016, Lodestar sued Bacardi for trademark infringement, arguing injury based on reverse confusion, as well as associated claims for unfair competition. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bacardi. Lodestar appealed.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred on the threshold question of whether Lodestar’s Revolutionary Rum should be considered in the analysis of likelihood of confusion. The district court had found that the relevant products were those existing prior to launch of Bacardi’s campaign (excluding the later-created Revolutionary Rum). The Court found [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES