Entries categorized as ‘Litigation’
A California company and a Nevada limited liability company filed suit in the Western District Court against Pittsburgh company QuestMark LLC for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition.
The Amended Complaint filed February 11, 2010 alleges the following claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act:
1. Defendants’ use of the mark CREATING AN ACCOUNTABLE CULTURE constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered CREATING A CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY;
2. Defendants’ use of the mark ACCOUNTABLE CULTURE constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY;
3. Defendants’ use of the mark KEYS TO ACCOUNTABILITY constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered STEPS TO ACCOUNTABILITY; and
4. Defendants’ use of the mark ACCOUNTABILITY WORKSHOP constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered ACCOUNTABILITY TRAINING.
The Amended Complaint also alleges copyright infringement of a customer proposal brochure and a document that lists training modules used by the California company in its leadership-training and management-consulting services. The document also outlines the key “take away” points from the various modules.
An Answer has not yet been filed.
Categories: Copyright · Copyright Law · False Advertising · Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Trade Secret · Trade Secret Law · Trademark · Trademark Law · Unfair Competition
Tagged: Pittsburgh Copyright Litigation, Pittsburgh Trademark Litigation
Max Co. Ltd., a manufacturer of industrial and office products, located in Japan, filed suit against Penntech Industrial Tools, Inc. in the U.S. Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on December 9, 2009 for patent infringement.
Max Co. designed a “battery-operated reinforcing bar tying machine designed to replace the manual process of tying rebar.” Max Co. claims that Penntech infringed Max Co.’s U.S. Design Pat. No. 527,041 titled “Wire Bobbin of the Binding Machine” and U.S. Pat. No. 6,000,443 titled “Brake Mechanism of Wire Reel for Reinforcing Bar Binding Machine.”
Penntech Industrial Tools is “a leading supplier of productive cost saving metal fabricating and metal stamping machinery, accessories and related tooling products.”
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Patent · Patent Law
Tagged: Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Patent Litigation, Pennsylvania Patent Lawsuit
On December 31, 2009, Eat’n Park, a restaurant group with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, filed suit against Crumb Corps, a Texas corporation, for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.
The complaint alleges that Crumb Corps sells “Smiley Faces” cookies which have a design that is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of Eat’n Park and are directly competitive products to the Eat’n Park SMILEY face cookies. Crumb Corps’s cookies are available via retail stores, catalogs, and online. Eat’n Park alleges that Crumb Corp’s sale of cookies using its smiling face design and the SMILEY word mark constitutes unfair competition.
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Trademark · Trademark Law · Unfair Competition
Tagged: Pittsburgh Trademark Lawsuit, Pittsburgh Trademark Litigation, Trademark Law
Spring Design Inc. filed suit against Barnesandnoble.com, LLC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging three causes of action: (1) breach of written non-disclosure agreement, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, and (3) common law unfair competition. Plaintiff “delivers innovative e-reader solutions and products to the e-book market.”
The factual allegations are as follows:
February 12, 2009 – Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a non-disclosure agreement. February 17, 2009 – Plaintiff presented its design for a dual-screen navigation electronic reader to an e-reader product consultant hired by Defendant.
May 13, 2009 – Plaintiff gave a presentation to a group of Defendant’s executives including a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of its design for an Android-based eReader named “Alex.” The PowerPoint slides indicated that they were confidential and subject to the NDA.
July 23, 2009 – Defendant emailed Plaintiff requesting a summary of Plaintiff’s product development. Plaintiff provided Defendant with an update, including a PowerPoint slide explaining how specific features of Alex represented a unique departure from Amazon’s Kindle 2, the main competitor of Defendant’s planned e-reader.
October 20, 2009 – Defendant announced the release of nook, its Android-based interactive dual-screen electronic reader that included features of Alex.
On November 30, 2009, the Court held a hearing and denied Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Trade Secret · Trade Secret Law
Tagged: Barnes & Noble nook case, Non-disclosure agreement, Trade secret litigation, Unfair competition litigation
Ren Junkins is an independent inventor from Kilbuck Township, a suburb of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He owns more than 70 patents in the window covering field.
Mr. Junkins filed suit against HT Window Fashions in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on February 27, 2007 for patent infringement based on U.S. Patent No. 7,182,120 for “Tabbed Multi-Cellular Shade Material.” The cellular shade product has pleats on the front and tabs on the back.
On November 18, 2009, a judgment was entered in favor of Mr. Junkins in the amount of $154,776 as a result of a jury verdict. The jury decided that HT Window Fashions infringed Pat. ‘120 by selling its Polaris double cell window shades.
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Patent · Patent Law
Tagged: Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Patent Litigation, Pittsburgh Patent Litigation
The defendants in the Burt Hill, Inc. v. Hassan et al (Case No. 2:2009cv01285) unfair competition, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets case (in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania) filed a countersuit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
The complaint alleges the following:
1. Breach of contract;
2. Violation of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law;
3. Wrongful termination;
4. Defamation;
5. Abuse of process;
6. Intentional infliction of emotional distress;
7. Breach of fiduciary duty of a director and officer.
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Trade Secret · Trademark
Tagged: Pittsburgh company intellectual property lawsuit, Pittsburgh Trade Secret Litigation, Pittsburgh Trademark Litigation, Pittsburgh Unfair Competition Litigation
On November 3, 2009, AT&T filed suit against Verizon seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and damages over “disseminating misleading coverage maps in television and print advertisements” about AT&T’s voice and data network. (AT&T Mobility LLC v. Cellco Partnership, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.) The cause of action is based on alleged misleading comparative advertising by Verizon in violation of the Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and related Georgia laws.
In October 2009, Verizon began a new advertising campaign promoting its “3G” network coverage area using radio, print, and television advertisements. In one television advertisement and at least one radio advertisement, Verizon claimed that “AT&T customers were ‘out of touch’ where AT&T ‘3G’ coverage is not available.” In television and print advertisements, Verizon showed a “3G” coverage map attributed to AT&T with large white areas showing no cell phone coverage.
On October 7, 2009 AT&T contacted Verizon requesting that the advertisements be withdrawn or modified to be accurate. In response, Verizon removed the words “out of touch” and superimposed the phrase “Voice & data services available outside 3G coverage areas” at the end of the television advertisements.
AT&T claims that Verizon misleads consumers by implying that AT&T customers who are not in the “3G” coverage areas have no coverage at all. AT&T explains that AT&T also covers the United States with a “2.5G” wireless network coverage area that exceeds the “3G” network. Although slower than the “3G” network, the “2.5G” network still provides customers with the ability to browse the internet, send electronic emails, and send text messages.
Categories: False Advertising · Intellectual Property Law · Litigation
Tagged: AT&T and Verizon, False Advertising, False Advertising Litigation, Lanham Act 43(a)
An Israeli corporation filed suit against Google Inc. for patent infringement relating to Google’s new browser, Google Chrome, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on October 26, 2009. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 6,546,552, entitled “Difference Extraction Between Two Versions of Data-Tables Containing Intra-References” is owned by Red Bend Ltd. Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee within the United States of the ‘552 Patent. (“Red Bend Ltd.” and “Red Bend Software” will be collectively referred to as “Red Bend.”)
Red Bend alleges that Google has “manufactured products and provided instructions regarding the use of those products that constitute or effect contributory and/or induced infringement of the ‘552 Patent.”
Red Bend provided two examples of Google’s alleged infringement:
1. Google’s implementation of its differential compression algorithm for making Google Chrome updates significantly smaller, used by Google and others under the direction and control of Google, infringes one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent; and
2. Google’s publication and distribution of the source code for the algorithm induces others’ infringement of one or more claims of the ‘552 Patent.
Red Bend has requested compensation including a reasonable royalty, lost profits and lost future profits, plus interest. Google has not yet filed an Answer.
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Patent · Patent Law
Tagged: Google Chrome, Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Patent Law, Patent Litigation
The University of Pittsburgh has been in a patent litigation suit with Varian Medical Systems, Inc. since the University of Pittsburgh filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 13, 2007. The University of Pittsburgh owns two patents pertaining to image-guided radiation therapy technology: U.S. Patent No. 5,727,554 entitled “Apparatus responsive to movement of a patient during treatment/diagnosis” and U.S. Patent No. 5,784,431 entitled “Apparatus for matching X-ray images with reference images.”
On September 1, 2009, the Court entered a judgment in favor of the Defendant.
The University of Pittsburgh filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on October 28, 2009.
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Patent · Patent Law
Tagged: Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Patent Law, Patent Litigation, University of Pittsburgh litigation, University of Pittsburgh patent litigation
API Technologies, LLC owns U.S. Patent No. 6,859,699 entitled “Network-Based Method and System for Distributing Data.” On May 12, 2009, API Technologies filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas alleging patent infringement against Facebook, Inc.; Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon Web Services LLC; AOL LLC; Mapquest, Inc.; Bebo, Inc.; Truveo, Inc.; Best Buy Co. Inc.; CBS Corporation; CBS Interactive Inc.; CBS Interactive Media Inc.; CNET Investments, Inc.; CNET Networks, 2 Inc.; Last.FM Limited; The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation; Hoover’s, Inc.; Google Inc.; Android, Inc.; Thomson Reuters Corporation; Thomson Reuters PLC; Thomson Reuters U.S. Inc.; Thomson Reuters U.S.A. Inc.; Reuters America, LLC; and Yahoo! Inc.
API claimed that defendants infringed the ‘699 Patent “by, among other things, making, using, selling and/or offering for sale systems and/or methods for providing data using a data transmission network covered by one or more claims of the ‘699 Patent.”
API provided the example that:
Facebook provides users with systems or methods, including Application Programming Interfaces, for providing user interfaces for soliciting selections of desired data. Facebook then uses the data transmission network to receive an input signal representing a selection of desired data, and retrieves and transmits that data. Facebook then generates license codes with embedded information that is related to a valid product code associated with a specific device or system. Facebook requires the use of such license codes to access the desired data.
Several defendants filed answers to the complaint. On October 13, 2009, an order granted a motion to dismiss the case subject to the terms of a confidential settlement agreement dated September 22, 2009.
According to BusinessWeek, API Technologies, LLC provides software solutions to the gaming, law enforcement and security industries.
- Katie Cooper
Categories: Intellectual Property Law · Litigation · Patent · Patent Law
Tagged: API Technologies lawsuit, Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Patent Law, Patent Litigation
A California company and a Nevada limited liability company filed suit in the Western District Court against Pittsburgh company QuestMark LLC for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition.
