• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

United States Ninth Circuit

Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc. (Decided on 03.11.2010)

Copyright infringement- In Plaintiff's appeal from the district court's denial of Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to oppose defendant's summary judgment motion, the order was reversed where the district court abused its discretion in denying both the request for an extension of time and the motion to accept the late-filed opposition, and erred in granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment and in awarding attorneys' fees to defense counsel, because plaintiff's counsel clearly demonstrated good cause. Appeal arose from the creation of the movie National Lampoon's TV: The Movie, theatrically released in November 2006.In the lawsuit it involved the disputed authorship of a number of these skits. Ahanchian filed a complaint against Sam Maccarone (director and writer of the film), Preston Lacy (writer and actor), Xenon Pictures, Inc. (distributor), and CKrush, Inc. (producer) asserting causes of action for copyright infringement, breach of an implied contract, and unfair competition in violation of the Lanham Act.

Exhibiting the professional courtesy expected of officers of the court, Ahanchian's counsel stipulated to an extension of time-which stipulation the district court then rejected. Ahanchian argued that the district court abused its discretion first in denying his request for a one-week extension of time to file his opposition to defendants' summary judgment motion and then in denying his application to file that opposition late.

Held, The district court abused its discretion in denying Ahanchian's request for a one-week extension to file his opposition and erred in denying Ahanchian's motion to allow a three-day late-filed opposition it construed as a Rule 60(b) motion.9 Accordingly the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

United States Ninth Circuit

Hudson Ins. Co. v. Colony Ins. Co. (Decided on 05.11.2010)

Slogan infringement -NFL Properties sued All Authentic for allegedly selling counterfeit National Football League jerseys. NFL Properties complaint alleged facts showed that All Authentic was potentially liable for slogan infringement, a claim covered by the Colony insurance policy. Plaintiff Hudson sought equitable contribution from Colony for Hudson's costs of defending All Authentic in the NFL Action. The district court correctly granted Hudson's motion for summary judgment. The Defendant Colony Insurance Company, however, argued that its policy did not cover the claims that NFL Properties brought against All Authentic and refused to defend the suit.- Whether summary judgment for plaintiff was potentially liable for slogan infringement where a claim was covered by defendant's insurance policy?

Held, It was affirmed and held that the District court correctly concluded there was a duty to defend based on a potential slogan infringement claim. Because the NFL complaint potentially stated a cause of action for slogan infringement, Colony had a duty to defend All Authentic in the NFL Action, and Hudson is entitled to equitable contribution.

United States Federal Circuit

Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex (Decided on 01.11.2010)

Patent-Launch of a generic version of of a budesonide drug for treating respiratory diseases- District court barred Defendant from launching a generic version of a budesonide drug for treating respiratory diseases, made and distributed under the approval of the United States Food and Drug Administration by Plaintiff and determined the kit claimed in plaintiff's patents as invalid. Whether District court's grant of a preliminary injunction was valid under law?

It was affirmed and held that Defendant had not demonstrated that that any of the district court's findings regarding irreparable harm are clearly erroneous, there was no reason to disturb the district court's determination that plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm and district court correctly determined that the kit claimed were invalid as the claimed instructions were not entitled to patentable weight as the instructions in no way function with the drug was to create a new, unobvious product.

United States Federal Circuit

Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp. (Decided on 04.11.2010)

Patent infringement -Suit involved "proactive scanning" technology for computer security-District court's denied defendants' motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement of plaintiff's system and awarded damages and an entry of permanent injunction against the defendants-Whether district court's award of damages and an entry of permanent injunction was good in law?

It was held that District court's 1) denial of defendants' motion for JMOL or new trial on infringement of plaintiff's system and storage medium claims be affirmed as the jury's infringement verdict on the system and media claims were based on a legally sufficient evidentiary basis and consistent with the weight of the evidence. 2) denial of defendants' motions for JMOL of non infringement of the method claims be reversed as no reasonable jury could have concluded that defendants infringed the method claims 3) denial of defendants' motions for JMOL or new trial on damages be affirmed and 4) the matter be remanded for the district court to assess post-judgment and pre-judgment damages.