Westlaw Topical Highlights: Intellectual Property, July 30, 2013

July 30, 2013

 REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

Westlaw Topical Highlights for Intellectual Property provides summaries of significant federal court decisions and legislative and administrative activities affecting Intellectual Property law. A Westlaw subscription is required to access the documents linked from this page.

Injunction: Broadcast network did not show likelihood of success for copyright claim concerning commercial-skipping set-top box.  Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dish Network L.L.C. 2013 WL 3814917 (C.A.9 (Cal.))  A district court’s determination that Fox Broadcasting Company, a network broadcaster that owned copyrighted television programs, had not established a likelihood of success on the merits, as an element for a preliminary injunction, on its claim for direct copyright infringement by reproduction, was not an abuse of discretion, in Fox’s action against DISH Network, a satellite-television multichannel video programming distributor (MVPD), relating to DISH’s set-top box with digital video recorder (DVR) and commercial-skipping capabilities. DISH would be liable only if it caused the copying. While DISH exercised a degree of discretion over the copying process, it created a copy only in response to a customer’s command. Fox Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Dish Network L.L.C. 2013 WL 3814917 (The full-texts of the rest of the Topical Highlights are available within Westlaw Next, subscription required)

Biotechnology: There was sufficient evidence to support jury’s finding that university did not waive its rights to professors’ invention.  Alzheimer’s Institute of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals 2013 WL 3305738 (E.D.Pa.)

Pleading: University was not entitled to leave to amend its pleadings to assert counterclaim against inventor’s assignee.  Alzheimer’s Institute of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals 2013 WL 3305743 (E.D.Pa.)

Consumer Goods: Recreational products manufacturer’s state law claims against competitor were preempted by federal patent law.  Island Group, Inc. v. Swimways Corp. 2013 WL 3205974 (D.Hawai’i)

Public Use Bar: Professor’s experiments on patented variety of table grape constituted experimental uses that did not trigger public use bar.  Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com’n 2013 WL 1222036 (E.D.Cal.)

Agriculture: Claim for “acriflavine-free” formulation did not satisfy written description requirement.  In re Bimeda Research & Development Ltd. 2013 WL 3821557 (C.A.Fed.)

Drugs: ‘Approximately 6:2:5:1” limitation in patents was literally infringed by competitors’ proposed generic versions of drug.  Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. 2013 WL 3836240 (C.A.Fed. (N.Y.))

Jurisdiction: Non-resident patentee’s contacts were insufficient to confer specific personal jurisdiction in declaratory judgment action.  Athletic Training Innovations, LLC v. eTagz, Inc. 2013 WL 3305552 (E.D.La.)

Venue: Denying transfer of infringement action from Texas to New York federal district court was not clear abuse of discretion.  In re Broadcom Corp. 2013 WL 1736487 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.))

Judgment: Patentee lacked sufficient notice that decision on motion for summary judgment of noninfringement would include prototypes.  Charles Mach. Works, Inc. v. Vermeer Mfg. Co. 2013 WL 3836245 (C.A.Fed. (Iowa))

Damages: Copyright law entitled photojournalist to receive, at most, one award of statutory damages per work infringed.  Agence France Presse v. Morel 2013 WL 2253965 (S.D.N.Y.)