#utilitypatents — Public Fediverse posts

Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":

http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2047.OPINION.2-16-2024_2271523.pdf

#FederalCircuit #PatentFedi #UtilityPatents #TradeDress

Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":

http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2047.OPINION.2-16-2024_2271523.pdf

#FederalCircuit #PatentFedi #UtilityPatents #TradeDress

Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":

http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2047.OPINION.2-16-2024_2271523.pdf

#FederalCircuit #PatentFedi #UtilityPatents #TradeDress

Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":

http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2047.OPINION.2-16-2024_2271523.pdf

#FederalCircuit #PatentFedi #UtilityPatents #TradeDress

Federal Circuit reverses the grant of a preliminary injunction (based on utility patent and trade dress infringement) in a dispute between indoor "adventure parks":

http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-2047.OPINION.2-16-2024_2271523.pdf

#FederalCircuit #PatentFedi #UtilityPatents #TradeDress

A #ScheduleA defendant files a motion to dissolve the TRO in one of the TOB cases:

https://www.scribd.com/document/691523305/TOB-1-23-cv-01563-Motion-to-Dissolve

(h/t @hewittlaw)

The Missouri-based defendant notes that TOB "accuses 161 different Defendants—and 236 different product listings—of infringing U.S. Patent No. 11,744,256."

They also make a fairly detailed case for noninfringement by their own product.

#UtilityPatents #ScheduleAFightsBack

Defendant files a motion to recover the bond in a #ScheduleA utility patent case: https://www.scribd.com/document/652394655/SoClean-v-Schedule-A-Choice-One-Motion-for-Bond-Damages

According to this defendant, the asserted patent is directed to a machine and the accused product is a "mat and dust cover" (for that kind of machine).

"Given the obvious differences between the SoClean Patented Product and the ChoiceOne product, above, there was no basis for SoClean's lawsuit against ChoiceOne."

#ScheduleAFightsBack #UtilityPatents

While poking around in the dockets yesterday, I was reminded of this #ScheduleA case and learned that some of the defendants are fighting back:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66622314/lead-creation-inc-v-the-partnerships-and-unincorporated-associations/

In this one, the plaintiff alleges infringement of a utility patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,530,706, which is directed to an "LED lighting apparatus with fast changing focus" https://patents.google.com/patent/US7530706B2/en?oq=7530706+(

Full complaint: https://www.scribd.com/document/648156651/Lead-Creation-v-Schedule-A-Complaint

But this one has a twist.

#ScheduleAFightsBack #UtilityPatents

Hyponix has filed its reply in support of its motion for fees in #JiangsuVersusJoes: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309.67.0.pdf

#UtilityPatents #ScheduleA #ScheduleAFightsBack

Oh, one more note on the plaintiff's oppositions to the pending motion for fees in #JiangsuVersusJoes

As far as I can tell, the plaintiff did NOT attempt to justify its #ImproperDisgorgementDemands.

#UtilityPatents #ScheduleAFightsBack

More from #JiangsuVersusJoes: Here's a declaration filed by plaintiff's counsel, Steven R. Fairchild, in opposition to the motions for fees:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309.64.0.pdf

He states that he "personally reviewed the product listings for all named defendants with an eye towards the patent claims."

#ScheduleAFightsBack #UtilityPatents #PatentFedi

And here is the opposition to the second motion for fees in #JiangsuVersusJoes

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309.65.0.pdf

My guess is that this will be substantially identical to the other response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309.62.0.pdf

#UtilityPatents #ScheduleAFightsBack #PatentFedi #LawFedi

The plaintiff has filed its opposition to the first motion for fees in #JiangsuVersusJoes:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309.62.0.pdf

#UtilityPatents #ScheduleAFightsBack #PatentFedi

Yesterday, a second defendant filed a motion for fees in the #ScheduleA case of #JiangsuVersusJoes:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309/gov.uscourts.nysd.596309.55.0.pdf

Note: NinjaSafe is represented by the same counsel as Hyponix, who filed the first motion for fees in this case.

This is the case where the plaintiff submitted a bunch of website photos as "evidence" of utility patent infringement: https://mastodon.social/@design_law/110225260838246143

#UtilityPatents #Litigation #ScheduleAFightsBack

Inspired by @TamarYellin, I want to make sure you all know about this absolute classic:

U.S. Patent No. 6,004,596, directed to a "a sealed crustless sandwich." https://patents.google.com/patent/US6004596A/en?oq=country:US+type:DESIGN+6004596+

#UtilityPatents #Uncrustables