Blog

One would think that Facebook, the great facilitator of social interaction, could take a joke. Well, apparently not. (Lamebook LLC v. Facebook Inc.)

Some families fight at the Thanksgiving table; others take their fight to court. (L.F.P. IP, LLC and L.F.P. Inc. and Larry C. Flynt vs. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc. and Jimmy R. Flynt)

This is the latest chapter in the continuing saga of The Travails Of Kiwi Camara and his unending efforts to defeat the forces of the record industry and make recorded music available to all, at no cost – record companies and recording artists be damned.

Recently we wrote of a case (see A Lack of Control) wherein the method claims of the patent-in-suit were found to be not infringed because, in the Court’s analysis, “the claims require multiple actors … and … there is no dispute that the parties involved do not control or direct each other’s actions …” Well, now we have another case, from a different court, decided only 13 days later, which seemingly comes to the opposite result. (Kenexa BrassRing Inc. v. Taleo Corporation et al.)

All too often, patent cases are dry, tedious and just plain BORING. Occasionally, however, we encounter a case which provides “excitement” and “stimulation” and, ultimately, “satisfaction” – or at least the patented invention does such. (Hassex, Inc. and New Frontier Technologies Corporation v. Internet Services, LLC, Inc. and WMM Holdings, LLC.)

You may dream the impossible dream, but you can’t patent the impossible invention. (Mformation Technologies, Inc. v. Research In Motion Limited, et al.)

Mformation sued R.I.M., alleging infringement of a patent directed to “the remote management of wireless devices, such as smartphones.” In its defense, R.I.M. filed a blizzard (lawyerly hyperbole meaning “four”) of summary judgment motions, two of which are highly technical and fact-specific – and boring. The other two are more widely applicable and, hence, are the subject of this blog.

Some time ago, we wrote of Jammie Thomas (now Jammie Thomas-Rasset) and her attorney, Kiwi Camara (still Kiwi Camara), who are locked in apparently unending combat with Capitol Records, Inc. et al. As the reader may remember, in October 2007 Ms. Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of illegally – and willfully – downloading 24 songs (see previous blogs, The Cost Of Free Music and Damned If They Do, Damned If They Don’t).

By now the reader should be aware that a method claim of a patent is only infringed when ALL of the steps are performed by a single party – known in the trade as the “scum-sucker.” If different claim steps are performed by different parties, infringement occurs only when the actions of ALL of the parties are controlled or directed by a single entity – known in the law as the “mastermind.” Fine; so what constitutes the necessary “control or direction,” especially in the context of methods practiced on the internet? (Zamora Radio, LLC v. Last.FM, Ltd., et al.)

There has been a long-standing practice that a suit filed in the Eastern District of Texas stayed in the Eastern District of Texas. Well, no longer. There are limits, although they are apparently only recognized by the appellate court. (In Re Microsoft Corp.)

We have written several blogs about legal malpractice cases – cases wherein clients sue their former attorneys, alleging negligence and malpractice. Of late, such cases have become so common as to no longer merit comment. A recent case, however, has caught our attention because, as far as we can determine, the only negligence and malpractice in this sorry affair was committed by the plaintiffs’ new attorneys when they drafted the complaint alleging negligence and malpractice on the part of the plaintiffs’ former attorneys.

Some time ago, we wrote (see Of Special Interests) about Victor Moseley, the owner of a store – formerly known as “Victor’s Little Secret” – which sells what have been described by one officious intermeddler as “cheap, tawdry, salacious and unwholesome” goods, namely “sexy lingerie, crotchless panties and other related items.”

Some time ago, we recounted the sad history of a trademark dispute between Maker’s Mark Distillery – producers of fine bourbon – and Diageo North America Inc. – purveyors of outrageously overpriced tequila. Briefly stated, Maker’s Mark had sued Diageo, alleging infringement and dilution of the assertedly famous Maker’s Mark trademark, namely the “red dripping wax seal” on the tops of the Maker’s Mark bottles.

It is a “century-old axiom of patent law … that a product which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier.” Some patentees overlook this axiom – to their everlasting regret. (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al.)

It looks like someone may finally stop that annoying Energizer bunny. (Turek v. Energizer Holdings, Inc.)

Occasionally, having read a legal brief and agreed therewith, we subsequently read the Court’s decision in the matter and find that our initial view was entirely wrong. Sometimes this change of position is due to the Court’s clear legal analysis. Sometimes it is the result of critical facts cited by the Court but somehow omitted from the brief. Sometimes both. (Lawrence B. Lockwood et al. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, LLP et al.)

Last year the Court of Appeals For The Federal Circuit (the “C.A.F.C.”) handed down its Exergen decision which increased the level of detail required when pleading inequitable conduct. Now the pleading must set forth “the specific who, what, when, where, and how of the material misrepresentation or omission committed before the PTO.” This heightened requirement has, on at least one occasion, led a patentee to file what can most diplomatically be described as “ill advised” motions to dismiss inequitable conduct affirmative defenses and counterclaims. (Mediostream, Inc. v.

As a general rule, a plaintiff in a civil action has a duty to “mitigate” (lawyerspeak for “minimize or alleviate”) damages. If the defendant can show that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages, the plaintiff’s recovery may be reduced. Note the use of the qualifying phrase, “[a]s a general rule.” Recently a plaintiff argued that the duty to mitigate damages did not apply in cases of patent infringement. (IMX, Inc. v. E-Loan, Inc. et al.)

We have said it often, but it bears repetition, “don’t get greedy.” Although it may be difficult for the layperson to believe, even attorneys sometimes forget this advice. Fortunately for the attorneys, when they do forget, it is often not they who suffer – the clients do. (Goodman Ball, Inc. et al. v. Mach II Aviation, Inc. et al.)

If a federally registered trademark has been in continuous and substantially exclusive use for five years – and if the trademark owner files the appropriate “Declaration” in the Trademark Office – the mark becomes “incontestable” and, henceforth, is immune from attack on most grounds. Note the use of the word “most” in the preceding sentence. “Incontestable” is NOT synonymous with “invincible,” a fact that three trademark owners have recently learned, much to their chagrin.

There is a vast gulf between expanding your practice and undertaking matters in areas where you lack qualification. There is, however, a clear line between what is acceptable practice and what is unethical. Unfortunately, some attorneys do not recognize the former and, as a result, wind up on the wrong side of the latter. (The Florida Bar v. Adorno)