Virginia IP Law : Virginia Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Troutman Sanders Law Firm : Technology & Patent Litigation

Your baby is priceless. Her formula’s advertising just cost $13.5 million in damages.

Yesterday, after a multi-day trial before Chief Judge James R. Spencer, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in PBM Products, LLC v. Mead Johnson Nutrition Company, et al., no. 3:09-cv-269 (E.D. Va., Richmond Div.).

The defendant, Mead Johnson, is the maker of one of the two Goliaths of baby formula brands – Enfamil. PBM makes store-brand formulas. This case was the third legal tangle between PBM and Mead Johnson over claims made in advertising for Enfamil, in an effort to entice parents to choose it over store brands.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Bilski v. Kappos (SCotUS case no. 08-964, on appeal from In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

The Supreme Court’s website has the oral argument transcript. The Washington Post report shows a recognition of the high stakes and illustrations of skepticism in the justices’ hypotheticals. The New York Times also describes discomfort with the patent at issue and notes the unusual level of attention the case has received, with one GW professor labeling it “the case of the century for patent law.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post continues a roundup of recent Eastern District of Virginia decisions in IP cases, covering a patent summary judgment opinion and a Markman opinion.

In Rutherford Controls Int’l Corp. v. Alarm Controls Corp., Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-369, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98762 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2009), District Judge Henry E. Hudson issued an opinion rendering a decision on several summary judgment motions pending before the Court in a patent infringement action consisting of several consolidated cases. Rutherford filed a complaint for infringement against defendants Vanguard Security Engineering Corporation Ltd. and Harco Enterprise, and Vanguard and Harco filed counterclaims against Rutherford seeking declaratory judgment.

In a parallel action, Rutherford filed suit against Security Door Controls, Inc. seeking both damages for infringement and declaratory judgment. Security Door filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory judgment and damages for infringement. At issue were three patents regarding electronic door locking and unlocking mechanisms, often used to control access to buildings or closed areas. Two of the patent belonged to Rutherford and one was assigned to Security Door.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

This post continues a roundup of recent Eastern District of Virginia decisions in IP cases, covering an opinion dealing with fees and costs in a copyright infringement case.

In Quantum Sys. Integrators, Inc. v. Sprint Nextel Corp., case no. 1:07-cv-491, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98742 (E.D. Va. Oct. 16, 2009), District Judge Liam O’Grady issued an opinion regarding a prior attorney’s fees and costs award that had been remanded in an unpublished opinion by the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration in accordance with Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994) and Rosciszewski v. Arete Assocs., Inc., 1 F.3d 225, 234 (4th Cir. 1993) (endorsing and requiring, respectively, the consideration in making fees and costs awards of the following non-exclusive factors: (1) “the motivation of the parties”; (2) “the objective reasonableness of the legal and factual positions advanced”; and (3) “the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence”). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks