Westlaw Topical Highlights: Intellectual Property, September 17, 2013

September 17, 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.

Trade Dress: Maker of grease pumps did not engage in trade dress infringement.   Groeneveld Transport Efficiency, Inc. v. Lubecore Intern., Inc., 2013 WL 4838792 (C.A.6 (Ohio)).  An ordinary consumer of grease pumps used in automated lubrication systems (ALS) for commercial trucks was not likely to be confused into thinking that competing pumps were manufactured by the same company or were associated or affiliated with the same company, as required to support a pump seller’s claim for trade dress infringement against its competitor under the Lanham Act. Although the strength of the plaintiff’s trade dress was strong, and although the parties used similar marketing channels for their related products, the plaintiff’s pump was green with a large “G” mark and “GROENEVELD” lettering, while the defendant’s was red with a maple-leaf mark, depicting a “lubecore” logo. Since the pumps were about $2,500 apiece, they were not likely to be purchased without substantial care and research.  2013 WL 4838792.  (The full-text of the rest of the Topical Highlights are available within Westlaw Next, subscription required)

Medical Devices and Procedures: Challenged patent and sibling patent did not maintain consonance.  St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc. 2013 WL 4826148 (C.A.Fed. (Ark).

Reexamination: Patentee in infringement action was not bound by its statements at pending reexamination of vaccine patents.   Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen Idec 2013 WL 4587522 (D.Md.)

Computers and Electronics: Reargument of court’s prior order construing a patent and granting summary judgment to competitor was unwarranted in infringement suit.  MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. 2013 WL 4764037 (D.Del.)

Computers and Electronics: Competitor did not infringe patent regarding method and apparatus for rejecting incoming calls for use in mobile communications devices.  MobileMedia Ideas, LLC v. Apple Inc. 2013 WL 4764199 (D.Del.)

Removal: Trial court could not dismiss state law claims for lack of jurisdiction over copyright infringement cause of action.   Benitez v. Williams 2013 WL 4654516 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.)