Can a test for COVID-19 be subject to patent infringement?

By Patent and Trademark No Comments

            Labrador Diagnostics has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against BioFire Diagnostics, a company that makes medical testing equipment and most recently, developed a test for the new coronavirus. The lawsuit alleges patent infringement of two of Labrador’s patents related to testing the presence of substances in bodily fluids. Labrador purchased these, and other, original Theranos’ patents after the failed blood-testing startup sold its patent portfolio to Fortress Investment Group in 2018.             One of the Theranos patents, United States Patent No. 8,283,155, teaches point-of-care fluidic systems and uses thereof. The…

Read More

Is Quibi liable for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation of its turnstyle technology?

By Blog No Comments

            Eko, an interactive video company, accused Quibi of infringing one of its patents as well as misappropriating its trade secrets. In response, Quibi preemptively filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Central District of California seeking a declaratory judgment of non-inringement of Eko’s patent and no misappropriation of trade secrets. The following day, Eko filed a complaint for patent infringement in the same court.             In Quibi’s original complaint, the mobile-video company seeks relief from Eko’s attempts to tarnish Quibi’s brand and interfere with the highly anticipated launch of its platform. Quibi argues Eko’s allegations…

Read More

Is “Panda Libre,” an Arizona-based restaurant offering Mexican and Asian fusion, likely to be confused with Panda Express?

By Blog No Comments

            In August 2019, Panda Express sent a cease and desist letter to a Gilbert, Arizona-based restaurant, Panda Libre, which offers “Mexican and Asian Fusion” cuisine. In this correspondence, the fast food giant advised Panda Libre of its trademark rights and demanded that it cease using the mark, PANDA LIBRE. The proprietors of Panda Libre failed to respond to this letter in writing. However, attorneys on behalf of Panda Libre advised Panda Express’ counsel that it is unwilling to change its name and intends to continue use of the same.             Panda Express was originally founded in 1973 as “Panda…

Read More

Is a San Francisco-based artist entitled to compensation or other remedies for Disney and Pixar’s alleged theft of her “vanicorn” copyright?

By Blog No Comments

            A San Francisco-based tattoo artist, known as Sweet Cicely Daniher, is suing the Walt Disney Motion Pictures Group, Pixar Animation Studios and Kori Rae, producer of the movie Onward, for creating an animated version of her unicorn van without her permission. Moreover, Daniher alleges that her “vanicorn” was copied under “wickedly misleading pretenses.” As such, the plaintiff demands compensatory damages, statutory damages, and an injunction, such as to restrain the defendants from promoting, selling, or marketing the allegedly infringing motion picture, which is set to release in March.             Daniher is an artist, photographer and tattooist based in San…

Read More

Can San Francisco 49ers’ linebacker Kwon Alexander defeat Dallas Cowboys’ defender DeMarcus Lawrence’s allegations of trademark infringement?

By Blog No Comments

            In this weekend’s Super Bowl LIV, the San Francisco 49ers face the Kansas City Chiefs. Meanwhile, off the field, the Dallas Cowboys are prepared to take on the 49ers in a court of law. In the 49ers’ long march to the Super Bowl, linebacker Kwon Alexander filed two trademark applications for “HOT BOYZZ” and “HOT BOYZZ UNIVERSITY.” Cowboys’ defenders and, namely, DeMarcus Lawrence claim they have been using the moniker since 2018 and that the 49ers copied it one year later.             In October 2018, Tankland Ventures, LLC, an entity owned by DeMarcus Lawrence, filed a trademark application for…

Read More

Does laCalifornienne’s colorful customization of authentic Rolex timepieces constitute fair use?

By Blog No Comments

            Late in 2019, Rolex filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging that California-based laCalifornienne has been marketing and offering for sale counterfeit timepieces bearing Rolex’s trademarks. Rolex has been offering for sale its iconic timepieces for more than 114 years, including one of its most popular designs, the Rolex Oyster Perpetual. Rolex possesses trademark rights in and to ROLEX, OYSTER, and OYSTER PERPETUAL, in addition to trade dress in the designs of its timepieces. The lawsuit lists causes of action for trademark infringement, counterfeiting, and false designation of origin.            …

Read More

Can Google escape consequences for allegedly infringing Sonos’ patented technology?

By Blog No Comments

            Last week, Sonos filed two separate lawsuits against Google alleging the search engine giant knowingly infringed upon its patented technology in the development of Google’s own smart speaker systems. One lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California, seeking damages and an injunction, and the other with the International Trade Commission, seeking a ban on Google’s infringing devices. In particular, Sonos complains of the Google Home series as infringing multiple of its issued patents.             Patent owners possess the exclusive legal right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or offering for sale the invention described in the…

Read More

When can trademark infringers be forced to forfeit their ill-begotten profits?

By Blog No Comments

            In 2010, Romag Fasteners, a company that produces and sells magnetic snaps, fasteners and closures, brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against Fossil Inc., as well as Macy’s, alleging patent and trademark infringement. According to the lawsuit, Fossil had been a licensee of Romag’s patent-protected magnetic closures but had switched to an unapproved supplier, which Romag alleges sold counterfeit Romag magnetic snaps. Thus, certain Fossil handbags sold in the United States were found to contain said counterfeit snaps. In this manner, not only did Fossil run afoul of Romag’s patents for the…

Read More

Can mere adjustments in packaging style and prominence of a trademarked name resolve trademark and trade dress infringement litigation?

By Blog No Comments

            In April, Nespresso filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Jones Brothers claiming that its prominent use of the phrase “Nespresso-compatible” to promote its coffee capsules infringed its trademark. In addition, Nespresso claimed the capsules themselves infringed the coffee giant’s trade dress. Overall, Nespresso alleges Jones Brothers “built an entire business by unlawfully trading off Nespresso’s valuable assets and goodwill.”             Jones Brothers was founded in 2013 offering “Nespresso Compatible” capsules for use with Nespresso® machines and other brewers. Starting in the latter-half of 2018, Nespresso issued multiple letters…

Read More

Can an advertising agency’s copyright infringement claim regarding a Super Bowl commercial survive Pepsi’s motion for summary judgment?

By Blog No Comments

 In 2016, Betty, a boutique advertising agency, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against Pepsi for copyright infringement, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and unfair competition. Betty claimed that Pepsi’s 2016 Super Bowl halftime commercial was stolen from their idea. A few months ago, Pepsi filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court recently granted. Starting in 2012, Pepsi has been the title sponsor of the Super Bowl halftime show and will continue to do so it until at least 2022. The halftime show is usually elaborate, featuring recurring themes and celebrity performances and appearances….

Read More
Call Us: 855.433.2226