all - Opinion Summaries

DEPRENYL ANIMAL HEALTH, INC. v. THE UNIV. OF TORONTO INNOVATIONS FOUND.

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Patent
Licensing the practice of an invention claimed in a U.S. patent constitutes purposeful availment of the benefits of U.S. patent law, thus...

MATTELL, INC. v. MCA RECORDS, INC.

Intellectual Property, Trademark
Use of a doll's name in a song does not amount to trademark infringement where the song does not mislead as to association or the source of the work,...

ISLAND INSTEEL SYS., INC. v. WATERS

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Trademark, International Law
A trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act is analogous to a cause of action for deceptive trade practices under Virgin Islands law, for...

GRAY v. MEIJER, INC.

Intellectual Property, Trademark, Trade Dress
A claim of trade dress infringement under the Lanham Act is not actionable where, under examination of eight relevant factors, a purportedly...

ENZO BIOCHEM, INC. v. GEN-PROBE INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
In an appeal from a finding that claims on a patent, directed to nucleic acid probes, were invalid, reference in a patent specification to a deposit...

MANNING v. PARADIS

Intellectual Property, Patent
A Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences decision, that there was no reduction to practice before a senior party's filing date, is supported by...

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC v. INVERIZON INT'L, INC.

Civil Procedure, Intellectual Property, Trademark
The district court erred in staying a declaratory judgment action for use of a trademark, pending outcome of a state action, where federal law...

PEOPLE v. FARELL

Criminal Law & Procedure, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets
Penal Code section 1203.044, requiring the imposition of a minimum county jail sentence as a condition of probation upon conviction of certain theft...

CARDIAC PACEMAKERS, INC. v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC.

Health Law, Intellectual Property, Patent
A patent for implantable defibrillators is invalid for indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. section 112, where specification of the patent fails to disclose...

TIE TECH, INC. v. KINEDYNE CORP.

Intellectual Property, Trademark
A wheelchair securement system product design is not fanciful, but is wholly functional, and is therefore not protectible as a trademark.