Other Barks & Bites for Wednesday, January 25th, 2017

By Steve Brachmann
January 25, 2017

I'll only give you the paper if you promise not to let the news upset you.Wednesday morning is upon us once more and we’re here to celebrate the start of this week’s midpoint with the latest installment of Other Barks & Bites! As always, we hope you’re able to glean some useful information on developments affecting the world of intellectual property from Washington D.C., Wall Street and beyond.

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision, a six-figure damages verdict goes in favor of former USPTO Deputy Director Russell Slifer, a TTAB petition is filed to challenge the trademark application for an NFL franchise currently in the relocation process, an announcement by a Japanese academic-industry research project that claims to have doubled the effectiveness of solar cell panel conversion rates, the FTC takes action against a pharmaceutical company and much more. 

If you have news you’d like to see in next week’s Other Barks & Bites,  CLICK HERE.

  • Fed. Cir. Vacates Ruling of Noninfringement of Patent Covering CoQ10 Supplements – On Monday, January 23rd, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.) issued a ruling vacating and remanding a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (S.D. Tex.) in which the district court ruled that Chinese drugmaker Zhejiang Medicine (SHA:600216) did not infringe upon a patent held by Japanese chemical firm Kaneka Health (TYO:4118). An S.D. Tex. judge held that Zhejiang manufacturing processes did not infringe a patent covering an industrial process for producing oxidized coenzyme Q10, an antioxidant used in health supplements. Fed. Cir.’s decision focused largely on how the term “oxidizing” was construed from the patent’s claims and the judicial panel concluded that there was a dispute of material fact regarding whether Zheijiang’s processes meet the “oxidizing” limitations in those claims. (Link to U.S. Patent No. 7910340, titled Processes for Producing Coenzyme Q10) (Link to Fed. Cir.’s decision in Zhejiang Medicine v. Kaneka Corporation appeal)
  • 9th Cir. Affirms C.D. Cal. Ruling in Copyright Case Involving Illegally Distributed Adult Photos – On Monday, January 23rd, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (9th Cir.) filed a ruling in Perfect 10 v. Giganews which upheld an earlier ruling in the case from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (C.D. Cal). 9th Cir. affirmed C.D. Cal.’s ruling that Perfect 10, exclusive owner to the copyright for thousands adult images, could not charge Giganews, a maintainer of Usenet servers available for fee-based access, as liable for infringement because Perfect 10 failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether Giganews materially contributed to or induced infringement of Perfect 10’s copyrights. The 9th Cir. judicial panel found that evidence brought forth by Perfect 10 did not meet the “volitional conduct” requirement to prove copyright infringement as Perfect 10 could only prove that Giganews passively stored material on Usenet servers to make that material available to others upon request. (Link to 9th Cir.’s decision in Perfect 10 v. Giganews)

Do you have news that you think should go in next week’s Other Barks & Bites? CLICK HERE to send us your news or press release.

The Author

Steve Brachmann

Steve Brachmann is a writer located in Buffalo, New York. He has worked professionally as a freelancer for more than a decade. He has become a regular contributor to IPWatchdog.com, writing about technology, innovation and is the primary author of the Companies We Follow series. His work has been published by The Buffalo News, The Hamburg Sun, USAToday.com, Chron.com, Motley Fool and OpenLettersMonthly.com. Steve also provides website copy and documents for various business clients.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 1 Comment comments.

  1. Scumpo LaFlunge January 25, 2017 10:13 am

    Ruh-ro. That Slifer patent looks like the kind that PTAB likes to kill