LJN Newsletters

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

In Marine Polymer Tech., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., No. 2010-1549, 2012 WL 858700 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2012), a majority found that intervening rights only arise as a result of re-examination when a claim has been amended or added during the re-examination, even though the issue was not considered below.

In March 2012, the Ninth Circuit in Skydive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi, et al. upheld a $6.6 million judgment for trademark infringement, false advertising, and cybersquatting, while overturning the district court's doubling of actual damages. The opinion succinctly outlines appellate review standards while offering insights into how to prove a Lanham Act and cybersquatting case.

At the time of the Therasense decision there was some question as to just how stringently the Federal Circuit would adhere to the nominal standards for common law fraud. Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc. appears to answer that question for both patent prosecutors and litigators.

Highlights of the latest insurance cases from around the country.

In the absence of a definition, courts have divided over whether the phrase "in your care" is ambiguous and should be read in favor of the insured and coverage, or according to its plain meaning as applied to the specific facts at issue.

On April 2, 2012, Johnson Controls and certain of its excess insurers filed simultaneous motions for summary judgment on the duty to defend issue in the Milwaukee County circuit court. The outcome of these motions will be of great interest to insurers since Johnson Controls is seeking to fundamentally change the role and function of excess insurance.

Can a firm be saved when it is facing multiple critical threats to its existence? The answer is yes ' if the firm acts quickly and decisively.