IP

Subscribe to IP via RSS

In 10x Genomics, Inc. v. Celsee, Inc., 1-19-cv-00862 (DDE 2020-12-04, Order) (Colm F. Connolly), the District Court ordered the defendant to produce documents and give testimony about communications between defendant and its new corporate owner concerning the litigation and the provisions in the acquisition agreement that concern the litigation.

Specifically, during the pendency of the litigation, nonparty Bio-Rad Laboratories had acquired 100 percent of Defendant Celsee, Inc.’s stock pursuant to an acquisition agreement. The acquisition agreement had disclosures and provisions related to the litigation. At two depositions, Celsee refused to let witnesses answer questions about documents Celsee disclosed to BioRad and communications it had with Bio-Rad during the negotiations that resulted in the acquisition agreement. The disclosures and communications occurred after Celsee and Bio-Rad had signed a non-binding letter of intent to engage in the acquisition negotiations. Celsee cited the common interest privilege and the attorney work product doctrine as the bases for its refusal to allow the witnesses to answer the questions posed to them.
Continue Reading District Court Finds Communications and Documents Concerning Defendant’s Post-Filing Acquisition Are Not Protected by the Common Interest Privilege

In the past few years there has been a number of libel claims based on an unfavorable portrayal of a real person in either a television program or motion picture that is based on real life events.  To name a few, there is the currently pending Mossack Fonseca & Co., S.A. et al v. Netflix Inc., which is based on the streamer’s portrayal of Panamanian lawyers in the feature The Laundromat which was about the “Panama Papers” leaked documents scandal, and there is also the currently pending  Fairstein v. Netflix, Ava Duvernay and Attica Lock involving a defamation claim over the portrayal of Linda Fairstein, a former NYC prosecutor, in the Netflix series, When They See Us which was about the trial of the Central Park Five.  There was also the now resolved Green v. Paramount Pictures that was discussed in a previous article, and there was the false light claim made in Olivia De Havilland v. FX Networks LLC over De Havilland’s portrayal in the FX docudrama Feud: Bette and Joan.

These cases are primarily based on a claim of defamation, usually liable which is a written defamation.  In California, libel is defined by Civil Code Section 45 as “a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation.”  In most states, libel is defined similarly.  In order to establish libel, a plaintiff will have to establish: that the statements were defamatory; that the statements were published to third parties; that the statements were false; and that it was reasonably understood by the third parties that the statements were about the plaintiff.
Continue Reading “Inspired By” Characters in Movies and TV – Defamation Lawsuit As a Spinoff

With live events cancelled during the pandemic, content creators are increasingly dependent on merchandise sales.  Creators from podcasters to YouTubers to musicians are reliant on merch to bolster their revenue and their brands.  Subscribers stuck at home are watching more video and listening to more podcasts and music.  Apart from advertising and sponsorships, merch is the only way for creators to monetize their increased profile during the pandemic.

However, 2020 has seen an explosion of counterfeit products including branded merchandise by content creators.  An analysis from the New York Times in February 2020 found that the sale of counterfeit items represents more than 3 percent of global trade, corresponding to $1.4 billion in value in the U.S. alone.  Reviews on Amazon containing words like “fake” and “counterfeit” have doubled since 2015.
Continue Reading Trademark Protection for Your Brand Merchandise in the Age of Copycats, Counterfeits, and Fakes

One way to challenge the validity of a patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is through a petition for inter partes review (“IPR”).  The USPTO Director has delegated responsibility to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) to evaluate such petitions to determine whether to institute review of the challenged patent.  The PTAB will only institute review of petitions that show a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.  However, even if the petition meets that threshold for review, the PTAB may still deny institution.  In fact, the PTAB did just that when denying Cisco Systems Inc.’s (“Cisco”) petitions for IPR challenging the validity of two U.S. Patents owned by Ramot at Tel Aviv University (“Ramot”).  Cisco appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In June 2019, Ramot sued Cisco in the Eastern District of Texas for allegedly infringing its patents.  The case is set to go to trial in December 2020.  Cisco filed petitions for IPR of the asserted patents in November 2019.
Continue Reading No Right to Appeal Even When IPR Institution Denied on Non-Substantive Grounds

One of the first elements that a plaintiff must prove to succeed on a trade secret claim is that it is the owner of a valid trade secret.  To do so, the law generally imposes a burden on plaintiffs to identify its trade secrets with sufficient particularity in order to succeed.  As the Ninth Circuit recently recognized, this burden allows courts and litigants to navigate “the line between the protection of unique, innovative technologies and vigorous competition.”  In InteliClear, LLC v. ETC Global Holdings, Inc. (decided October 15, 2020), the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of whether a plaintiff had satisfied the “sufficient particularity” burden and whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to a defendant when its motion was filed after just one day of discovery.

In the early 2000s, InteliClear created an electronic system for managing various stock broker and securities services called “InteliClear Systems,”  which used a structured query language relational database to process millions of trades a day.  In 2008, ETC Global Holdings (through its predecessor and later a subsidiary) licensed the InteliClear System and signed a Software License Agreement.  Within the terms of that agreement was an acknowledgment that the InteliClear information that was being provided “was confidential, proprietary and copyrighted” and that ETC agreed to maintain that confidentiality.
Continue Reading Trade Secrets and the Duty to Identify Them with Sufficient Particularity