We bring you the latest installment in our continuing coverage of the ongoing Facebook litigation marathon (see our previous blog entries No Laughing Matter, A Question Of Judgment, and Victory For Goliath Predicted). (Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com, LLC)
Apparently hewing to the old adage that the best defense is a good offense, Righthaven is vigorously arguing in support of a motion it has filed seeking leave to amend the complaint in one of the many copyright infringement suits it has pending before the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. Righthaven LLC v. Pahrump Life et al.
Well folks, it seems that another plaintiff-preferred damages model has bit the dust. First it was the time-honored 25% Rule (see our previous blog The Latest Thing in Damages Models). Now it’s the even more elderly, albeit less well known, Nash Bargaining Solution. Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Google, of course, needs no introduction. Oracle America is the renamed Sun Microsystems, Inc. which was acquired by Oracle Corporation in January 2010.
We have written many times about Righthaven, the über troll of the copyright world. In our last blog we noted that the tide had seemingly turned. Rather than merely settling with Righthaven, defendants were arguing that Righthaven lacked standing to sue and were seeking to recover their attorney’s fees and costs.
As any regular reader of our blogs has probably discerned, in patent cases our sympathies, in general, lie with the patentee. Occasionally, however, we encounter a case where the patentee deserves no sympathy, having seemingly done everything possible to bring disaster upon itself. Precision Links Incorporated v. USA Products Group, Inc. and Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.
“There are two alternative categories of infringement compensation: the patentee’s lost profits and the reasonable royalty the patentee would have received through arms-length bargaining.”
As any student of military history can attest, the element of surprise is, to a greater or lesser extent, the key to success in battle. So too with respect to litigation. Therefore, one can only wonder at the motivation of an attorney who chooses to publish his trial strategy for all to see. That being said, it clearly behooves all who may, in the future, cross swords with this attorney to study his writing and pay due heed.
When we consider the likely outcome of a trial, we generally focus on the decision of a jury or an appellate court. Well, sometimes the opinion of the trial judge is all that really matters. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc.
Some time ago we made mention of a lawsuit brought by Facebook against the folks at Teachbook. Well, in checking back on this matter, we found that the teachers have filed a motion to dismiss Facebook’s complaint. Facebook, naturally, has opposed this motion. While the matter remains undecided, the briefs merit some comment. Facebook Inc. v. Teachbook.com LLC.
The Bible tells us that the meek shall inherit the Earth. One religious group, however, has chosen to vigorously assert its trademark rights while awaiting its inheritance. (The General Council of the Assemblies of God v. The Ranger Supply Store Inc. et al.)
The Bible speaks of the sins of the father being visited on the son. We write of the father seeking to capitalize on the sins of the son. (MPS Entertainment LLC v. Fletcher et al.)
Some people use Facebook’s Friend Finder service to renew contact with old friends or to maintain contact with present friends. It’s an annoying and pathetic form of social interaction; but it’s legal. However, a newly discovered aspect of the service may not be so benign, or so say Robyn Cohen et al. v. Facebook, Inc.
In three previous blog posts (see: Of Special Interests, Mosely Fights On, and The Fat Lady Has Sung), we wrote of Victoria’s Secret, which took its uplifting arguments all the way to the United States Supreme Court in its efforts to protect and enforce its trademark rights.
As we previously wrote (see: No Laughing Matter), the folks at Facebook lack a sense of humor. Now, it appears that they also lack good business judgment. (Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc. et al.)
We have twice written about the unfortunate – or, depending on your viewpoint, nefarious – Mr. Timothy S. Vernor, who was found guilty of copyright infringement when he purchased and resold a number of used copies of Autodesk computer software (see A Bargain and We’re Number One Again). Well, Tim is now petitioning to have the case heard by the United States Supreme Court.
It is not unknown for a losing party to refuse to pay its attorneys’ bills. Shocking, but not unknown. What is unknown – until now – is the winning party refusing to pay its attorneys’ bills.
As in the past we have so eloquently noted (see The Last Word), the Supreme Court held in its famous Bilski decision that the C.A.F.C.’s “machine-or-transformation test” (affectionately known as MORT by us patent professionals), although “a useful and important clue,” is NOT the sole test for determining the patentability of process claims.
Recently, we wrote of the copyright litigation involving the newly-released movie "The Hangover Part II" (see our blog post Interesting Wrinkles). In the movie, a principal character drunkenly has his face tattooed with a duplicate of the tattoo on boxer Mike Tyson’s face (Yes, that is the movie’s plot.). S. Victor Whitmill, the “tattoo artist” who applied the original tattoo to Mike’s face, sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement and sought a preliminary injunction barring the release of the movie.
The sober reader may remember from our recent blog post (see: No Little Matter) that Jim Beam Co. (the bourbon people) is locked in trademark combat with Tequila Cuervo La Rojena SA de CV (the tequila folks).
As famously said by Kenny Rogers, “ya gotta know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em, know when to walk away…”. (Righthaven, LLC. V. Buzzfeed Inc. et al.)