Trademark Squatting – Is It A Thing?

Details
Published: 12 January 2021 12 January 2021

By Eric M. Gayan, Partner, Standley Law Group LLP

Perhaps “trademark squatting” is not yet a commonly used term in trademark law, as is “cybersquatting” in the realm of domain name registrations. But maybe it should be. Because some trademark applicants have substantially the same unscrupulous goals as a cybersquatter – to obtain a registration solely for the purpose of holding it ransom to others.

This article addresses difficulties that can be created by such activities, various protections of U.S. trademark law that are supposed to guard against such activities, and some related considerations for potential trademark applicants.

Read more ...

The Importance of Reviewing Court Local Rules and Judges' Rules

Details
Published: 30 October 2020 30 October 2020

By DeAnna Barnett, Litigation Paralegal Manager, Standley Law Group LLP, And
F. Michael Speed, Jr., Ph.D., Partner, Standley Law Group LLP

The Court’s local rules and local patent rules are as important to civil litigants as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure themselves because they address particularities that are not addressed in the Federal Rules. Each United States District Court has its own set of local rules. These rules are generally available on a court’s website. One such example is that of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio available at: https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/sites/ohsd/files//Local%20Rules%20Effective%202020-08-01.pdf

Read more ...

Who is an Inventor in the Eyes of the Law? A Recent Case Decision Provides Guidance.

Details
Published: 29 July 2020 29 July 2020

By Ken W. Pung, Associate Attorney, Standley Law Group LLP

Dana-Farber Cancer Inst., Inc., v. Ono Pharm. Co.

2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21704; 2020 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 10775
Opinion by: Circuit Judge Alan Lourie

Patents at Issue

U.S. Patent Nos.: 7,595,048, 8,168,179, 8,728,474, 9,067,999, 9,073,994, and 9,402,899.

Background

The facts of this case concern an inventorship dispute over methods of treating cancer by administering antibodies targeting PD-1 (receptor) and PD-L1 (ligand) interactions on T cells (a type of lymphocyte that develops in the thymus gland). The three scientists involved in this inventorship dispute are: Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Honjo (of Ono Pharm., herein “Ono”), Dr. Wood (of the Genetics Institute, now owned by Pfizer), and Dr. Freeman (of Dana-Farber).

Read more ...

Recent Developments on Disgorgement Damages

Details
Published: 22 May 2020 22 May 2020

By F. Michael Speed, Jr., Ph.D., Partner, Standley Law Group LLP

Disgorgement, a remedy available in some intellectual property cases, was recently highlighted in two cases from the United States Supreme Court, Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S.___, 206 L.Ed. 2d 672 (2020) and from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols., Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., 895 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Those cases affirmed that disgorgement damages are to be decided, not by a jury, but rather the judge. The Romag case further resolved a split in the Circuits that disgorgement in trademark cases may be awarded even in the absence of willful infringement.

This article will address the ramifications of those two decisions and how clients should view cases where disgorgement is a potential remedy.

Read more ...

Romag Fasteners: The Supreme Court Set to Address Important Circuit Split in Trademark Law

Details
Published: 03 April 2020 03 April 2020

By Melissa A. McCurdy, Partner, Standley Law Group LLP

It is often the case that the profits earned by a defendant from selling a product which infringes upon the trademark of another dwarf the plaintiff’s actual damages. You would therefore be hard-pressed to find an issue more important to forum selection in a trademark infringement suit than whether a successful plaintiff must prove willful infringement as a prerequisite to recovering the defendant’s profits. There is presently a six-to-six split amongst the circuits regarding whether willfulness must be shown, but the United States Supreme Court is set to resolve that split in the case of Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, No. 18-1233 (2019).

Read more ...