Articles News & Research

Monday, October 3, 2016

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Tam v. Lee, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

In Baltimore Aircoil Co. v. SPX Cooling Techs. Inc., No. CCB-13-2053, 2016 WL 4426681, *15-*17 (D. Md. Aug. 22, 2016), the Maryland District Court applied Local Rule 804.1(a)(v).  Judge Catherine C.

Thursday, September 15, 2016

A patent owner notified its licensee of the owner’s intent to not renew a patent license under a Private Labeling Agreement (“PLA”) that included an exclusive purchasing obligation.  District Judge Catherine Blake ruled that the patent owner’s caution to the licensee to “take care to avoid any unlicensed activity” did not constitu

Friday, September 2, 2016

One of three inventors listed on two U.S. patents filed action under 35 U.S.C. § 256 against the second named inventor and the assignees seeking a declaration that the remaining inventor, who was not a party to the action, was the sole inventor.  District Court Judge Bredar granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff/coinventor lacked standing.  Being allegedly incorrectly listed as a joint inventor is not a cognizable injury redressable under Section 256.  Pedersen v. Geschwind, 141 F. Supp. 3d 405 (D. Md. 2015).

Monday, August 22, 2016

Judge Paula Xinis granted defendant’s motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action for trademark non-infringement for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the following alleged facts did not establish “sufficient adversity” for the purposes of establishing a case or controversy:  (1) defendant’s TTAB opposition to plaintiff’s USPTO registration application; (2) two prior federal trademark infringement suits that the defendant had pursued against other parties; (3) defendant’s “history of opposing registrations;” (4) settlement discussions in which defendant proposed a licens

Thursday, August 11, 2016

Judge George Hazel denied cross-motions for summary judgment with respect to trademark infringement.  Althought the Court indicated it was unaware of any case in which likelihood of confusion had been found based on similarities with respect to a disclaimed word of a registered mark, summary judgment was denied because genuine issues of material fact existed as to the strength of plaintiff’s registered mark, the similarities in the mark colors (claimed in the registration), goods, facilities, advertisements, and the defendants’ intent.  Cava Grp., Inc. v.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

Corinne Marie Pouliquen of Berenato & White, LLC was elected to the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA), Agricultural Law Section Council as a Member-at-Large, effective July 1, 2016.  The Agricultural Law Section serves the interests of the agricultural and legal community in Maryland by providing a resource to legal professionals and others with regard to to agricultural matters, by monitoring applicable laws and proposed legislation that may impact  agriculture, agribusiness, or aquaculture in Maryland, and

Monday, August 8, 2016

Relying on the Supreme Court’s B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135, S.Ct. 1293, 1299 (2015) decision, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissing a trademark infringement complaint as barred by collateral estoppel on the ground that the defendant had previously prevailed on the issue of priority before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, and thus the plaintiff could not proceed with its complaint.  Ashe v. PNC Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 15-2566, 652 Fed.Appx. 155 (4th Cir.

Monday, August 8, 2016

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1749, 1755-56 (2014), Judge Titus awarded attorneys’ fees because the case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 based on plaintiff’s “continued pursuit of baseless claims that had no chance of success.”  The plaintiff pressed its patent infringement claim against defendant despite actual knowledge that its exclusive remedy for patent infringement was a suit against the United States in the Court of Claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1498.  Astornet Techs, Inc. v.

Monday, July 11, 2016

After holding a Markman claim construction hearing, Judge Marvin Garbis construed the claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,887,910 directed to a “protective cover for an electronic device” to give disputed claim terms their “plain and ordinary meaning.”  Focusing on the explicit language of the claims, the Court declined the defendant’s requests to read several extraneous limitations into the claims.  As claim construction tools, the Court relied on embodiments disclosed in the patent’s specification and the doctrine of claim differentiation.  M-Edge Int’l Corp. v. Lifeworks Tech.

Pages