Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
District courts generally have broad discretion in determining what materials may be presented during trial, with evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion. Consistent with this principle, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that district courts’ discretion extends to the admissibility of evidence relating to post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). See, e.g., K-Tec, Inc. v. Vita-Mix Corp., 696 F.3d 1364, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (affirming district court’s decision to allow parties to discuss the extent to which Patent Office had considered a reference as within “the province of the district court”); Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (affirming district court’s exclusion of evidence of non-final reexamination determinations based on risk of jury confusion).
*May exclude premium content
By Sarah Benowich
The Federal Circuit recently clarified — and lowered — the threshold to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out of state declaratory judgment defendant.
By Stan Soocher
Johansson alleges that, in order to generate new subscribers for Disney+, Disney intentionally interfered with her talent agreement with Disney affiliate Marvel Studios for her featured role in Black Widow — and thus allegedly induced Marvel to breach a promise in the Johansson/Marvel agreement for the film to be initially distributed in exclusive “wide theatrical release.” Updated Oct. 1 to reflect a confidential settlement reached in the case.
By Eric Alan Stone and Catherine Nyarady
The likelihood of confusion analysis is often focused on confusion at the time of purchase, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits permit mark holders to allege infringement based on presale, initial-interest confusion. Earlier this year, the Eighth Circuit joined the majority of circuits in permitting recovery for initial-interest confusion in certain circumstances.
By Christopher Jackson and Jessica Smith
the Tenth Circuit held that the Lanham Act can have extraterritorial application, if certain conditions are met. In doing so, the appellate court recognized — and further deepened — an ongoing circuit split.