automobile.jpgIPNews® – The European Commission has opened an investigation against Honeywell and Dupont as to whether they were forthcoming in disclosing patents while developing automobile refrigerant.  Honeywell has been accused of not disclosing patents to the Society of Automobile Engineers and failing to grant licenses on fair and reasonable terms.

It is alleged that Honeywell committed a patent ambush which occurs when a company withholds relevant information to a standard-setting organization creating a standard in favor of the withholding company.  To continue reading, click here: Europe Patent Ambush.

traffic.jpgIPNews® – On December 13, 2011 Google was granted U.S. Patent Number 8,078,349 which provides for a transition from a human driver to an autonomous, self-driving car.  Google believes that the self-driving car will reduce traffic accidents by half, while also increasing fuel efficiency.  In other words, the cars will drive themselves better and more safely than the humans can.

To maximize safety, Google has employed redundant systems to prevent the self-driving car from being reliant on just one component to avoid accidents.  To continue reading, click Google Working on Self-Driving Cars.

 

concert.jpgOrange County – Two original members of R&B band Blackstreet have sued two former members for trademark and copyright infringement for using Blackstreet songs without authorization and for confusing consumers into believing that the entire band would be performing at concerts. 

The band’s most famous song, “No Diggity”, became a number one hit in 1996.  The original members claim that the former members used a complete set of Blackstreet songs on a European tour and also used old group photos to promote and sell tickets to concerts, all without authorization.  The action is pending in Virginia federal court.  To continue reading, click here: Blackstreet Band Sues Former Members.

cow.jpgOrange County – Bo Muller-Moore, a Vermont entrepreneur, is being sued for trademark infringement by Chick- Fil-A due to his use of the slogan “Eat More Kale”. The fast food chain is claiming that the slogan is too similar to its “Eat mor chikin” trademarked phrase and that it  also dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-Fil-A’s trademark.

In its most recent cease and desist letter to Muller-Moore, Chick-Fil-A lists dozens of examples of other entities abandoning the “eat more” phrase after Chick-Fil-A told them to stop.  However, Muller-Moore is not showing any signs of abandoning the slogan.  To continue reading, click here: Eat Mor Chikin Trademark Infringement

headphones2.jpgCalifornia – Skullcandy, primarily a headphone manufacturer, recently filed an action for trademark infringement against Skelanimals which is a music apparel and accessory brand.  The action alleges that the Skelanimals logo is confusingly similar to the Skullcandy logo.

The Skullcandy logo is a black and white skull face surrounded by a black circle, while the Skelanimals logos at issue are skeletal animal designs such as cartoon birds, spiders and dogs.  to continue reading, click here: Skullcandy Skelanimals Trademark Battle.

toucan.jpgSan Diego – Kellogg’s, maker of Fruit Loops, has decided to drop its trademark infringement lawsuit against the Maya Archaeology Initiative (MAI), which is a non-profit organization.  In the lawsuit, Kellogg’s had claimed that the toucan in MAI’s logo infringed its own Toucan Sam trademark.

Kellogg and the MAI issued a joint statement saying that Kellogg has decided to make a $100,000 contribution to one of MAI’s projects.  In addition to making the generous contribution, Kellogg’s will also be featuring Mayan history and a link to the MAI website next year on its Froot Loops cereal boxes.  To continue reading, click here: Toucan Sam Not Infringed.

supreme_court.jpgLos Angeles – In the case Global Tech Appliances v. SEB S.A. 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court recently set the standard of proof required to prevail in an action for indirect patent infringement.  To be liable, it had been unclear whether an inducing party must have also intended that the infringing act actually infringe the patent at issue.

In this recent ruling, the Supreme Court held that to be liable for inducing patent infringement, the inducer must have knowledge that the infringing act it induced constituted patent infringement.  The case involved a patent on a deep fryer.  To continue reading, click here: Supremes Clarify Patent Infringement Standard of Proof

wall-street.jpgLos Angeles – As the Occupy Wall Street Movement shows surprising staying power, opportunists continue lining up to profit from the publicity.  Trademarks such as “Occupy,” “We are the 99 percent,” “Occupy DC 2012,”  and “Occupy Wall St.” have recently been filed.

Not to be left out, a coalition of Occupy Wall Street protestors have also filed for “Occupy Wall Street.”  Wylie Stecklow, an attorney for the protestors, claims that the trademark was filed as a defensive measure to prevent corporations from profiting from the phrase.  For more information, click here: Occupy Wall Street Trademark Battles.

dna-strand.jpgSan Diego – Human Genome Sciences recently received a favorable ruling in a patent dispute with Eli Lilly concerning the validity of a patent for a gene sequence for use in developing treatments for people with immune diseases.

Eli Lilly originally contested the European patent owned by Human Genome on the grounds that the patent was too vague in describing its potential uses.  Eli Lilly also alleged that, if upheld, the patent would stifle gene sequencing research.  Human Genome Sciences uses human DNA sequences to develop protein and antibody drugs.

The protein at issue is known as a Tumor Necrosis Factor protein, which is involved in facilitating an increase or decrease in plasma concentration in reaction to inflammation.  Human Genome plans to use the patented gene sequence to develop its Lupus drug Benlysta.  For more information on the case, click here: Human Genome Wins Against Eli Lilly.

diabetes_check.jpgLos Angeles – It was recently held that a method of scientific research can be patented for a field of research.   In the case at issue, Classen Immunotherapies was issued a patent for the method of testing an immunization schedule.  The patent explains that the schedule of immunization can have a significant impact on disorders such as diabetes.  The patent is a method of determining which immunization schedule minimizes the risk of development of chronic disorders. 

The Federal Circuit noted that because the methods were directed toward a specific useful goal and included physical steps such as immunizing on a certain schedule, the processes were eligible for patentability.  For more information, click here: Research Methods Can Be Patented.