[02/11] LISLE CORP. v. A.J. MFG. CO.
In a patent infringement suit concerning an automobile steering system, summary judgment of infringement in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over defendant’s challenge to the district court’s construction of the term “retainer.”

[02/09] PALM BAY IMPORTS, INC. v. VEUVE CLICQUOT PONSARDIN
In a trademark dispute, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office properly concluded that a likelihood of confusion exists between plaintiff’s “VEUVE ROYALE” mark and defendant’s marks “VEUVE CLICQUOT” and “VEUVE CLICQUOT.”

[02/08] JUNKER v. EDDINGS
In a design patent infringement case, a jury verdict finding plaintiff’s patent valid and willfully infringed is affirmed; however, the award of attorney fees is reversed to determine whether the award was reasonable.

[01/28] SILICON IMAGE, INC. v. GENESIS MICROCHIP INC.
In a patent infringement dispute concerning specifications for digital interface, no final judgment was issued since conditions precedent to a settlement agreement were never satisfied, and, as a result, defendant’s appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[01/24] WYETH v. NATURAL BIOLOGICS, INC.
District court did not err in finding defendant misappropriated plaintiff’s trade secret for producing bulk natural conjugated estrogens used in the development of Premarin.

[01/19]  TRINTEC INDUS. v. PEDRE PROMO. PROD. INC.
In a patent infringement suit, dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is vacated where plaintiff made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction in the district court.

[01/14/05]  FUJI PHOTO FILM CO. v. JAZZ PHOTO CORP.
In a patent dispute concerning disposable cameras, the district court did not err in finding defendant liable for direct and induced infringement and in awarding damages based upon the jury’s reasonable royalty rate.

[01/14] BEETHOVEN.COM v. LIBRARIAN OF CONGRESS
In a challenge to the copyright license rates for webcasters, 1) plaintiffs’ attempt to intervene in the case is denied where they lack standing and seek to intervene only to impermissibly raise new issues, and 2) the Librarian’s royalty rates are affirmed.

[01/13] TUMBLEBUS INC. v. CRANMER
A preliminary injunction issued against defendant, restricting her use of a mark’s trade dress during the pendency of an underlying infringement action, is reversed where the district court failed to make any findings on the record as to why plaintiff’s mark was distinctive.

[01/11] BRUNO INDEP. LIVING AIDS, INC. v. ACORN MOBILITY SERV.
In a patent dispute concerning stairlifts, an award of attorney fees to defendant is affirmed where the district court did not err in its determination of an exceptional case based on its determination that plaintiff committed inequitable conduct.

[01/11/05] RITCHIE v. WILLIAMS
In a dispute over music contracts, the district court properly held that plaintiff’s state court action, arising from the contracts, is preempted by the Copyright Act and removable to the federal court since it presents federal copyright issues.

[01/07]  TEAM TIRES PLUS, LTD. v. TIRES PLUS, INC.
In a trademark infringement suit concerning the name of a tire store, dismissal of plaintiff’s claims are reversed where the district court erred in finding that trademarks protect only against directly competing uses of a mark.

[01/07]  LAMLE v. MATTEL, INC.
In a breach of contract dispute concerning a board game, summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated where a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the parties agreed to a contract.

[01/06]  BUSINESS OBJECTS v. MICROSTRATEGY, INC.
In a patent dispute concerning improvements to searching relational databases, the district court erred in its finding of non-infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

[01/05]  ELEC. FOR IMAGING, INC. v. COYLE
In a patent dispute concerning computer printing technology, the district court abused its discretion by dismissing plaintiff’s lawsuit under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

[01/04] EVEREST FUNDS MGMT. v. EVEREST CAPITAL
In a trademark dispute concerning a business name, evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that defendant’s use of the disputed mark was not a Lanham Act violation.

[01/04]  IN RE: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. section 512(h), does not permit copyright owners and their representatives to obtain and serve subpoenas on internet service providers (ISP) to obtain personal information about an ISP’s subscribers who are alleged to be transmitting copyrighted works via the internet through file sharing programs.

[01/04]  BROOKS FURNITURE MFR. v. DUTAILIER INT’L INC.
In a patent dispute, the award of attorney fees to plaintiff is vacated where there is not clear and convincing evidence of bad faith by defendant in bringing its infringement claim.

[01/03]  STAR FRUITS S.N.C. v. US
The United States Patent and Trademark Office did not act unlawfully when it deemed plaintiff’s patent application abandoned for failing to respond to a Requirement for Information under 37 C.F.R. section 1.105.

[12/29]  STEPHENS v. TECH INT’L INC.
In a suit for patent infringement, the grant of defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees is reversed where the district court erred in finding the case exceptional.

[12/23]  DONCHEZ v. COORS BREWING CO.
Plaintiff’s claim, alleging defendant misappropriated a beer-vending character named “beerman” in violation of the Lanham Act, is dismissed where plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find he has a protectable interest in the mark “beerman.”