In Fred Beverages, Inc. v. Fred's Capital Mgmt. Co., No. 10-1007, the Federal Circuit dealt with the the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) denying a motion to leave amend a pending petition in plaintiff's action seeking to cancel a trademark in International Class 32 on the ground of abandonment. The decision of the TTAB is reversed as its denial of the motion for leave on the grounds that the filing fee did not accompany the motion was arbitrary and capricious.
Taltech Ltd. v. Esquel Enter. Ltd., No. 09-1344, concerned a supplemental judgment of the district court reinstating its previous judgment, awarding attorney fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. section 285 and post-judgment interest at the rate allowable at the time of the earlier judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the plaintiff's suit against its competitor seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of a patent, which is drawn to seams including thermal adhesive to reduce pucker in garments.
First, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding inequitable conduct as there is no clear error in the materiality or deceptive intent analysis of defendant's failure to disclose the URS. Next, the court concluded that the district court did not err in finding misrepresentation with respect to the double top-stitch seam. Lastly, the court concluded that the trial court had ample reasons for concluding that defendant's litigation tactics were abusive. However, with respect to the post-judgment interest rate, the judgment is reversed as the previous judgment was legally insufficient and the April 10, 2009 judgment and its .58% interest rate applies.