Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category

In a contract case arising from parties' efforts to resolve a dispute over the use of similar trademarks in their respective clothing lines, a magistrate judge's rulings are affirmed in part where both parties intended an informal document to be a binding contract and no reasonable jury could decide otherwise, and the terms of such document were sufficiently definite to warrant enforcement.  However, the case is remanded as the terms agreed to by the parties with respect to certain clauses were not sufficiently unambiguous to permit judicial interpretation of the contract. 

Read Am. Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd., No. 08-4807

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (No. 06-cv-00607)
District Judge: Honorable A,y Reynolds Hay

Opinion Filed September 11, 2009

Judges

Before:  Fuentes, Jordan, and Nygaard, Circuit Judges 
Opinion by: Fuentes, Circuit Judge 

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant:  Emily J. Barnhart, Dennis P. McCooe, Timothy D. Pescsenye, Laurence S. Shtasel, James T. Smith, Marc E. Weitzman, Susan B. Flohr, Charles R. Wolfe, Robert L. Byer, Susan G. Schwochau,  

Counsel for Appellee: Clay P. Hughes, Cynthia E. Kernick, Walter T. McGough, Jr., Kirsten R. Rydstrom, Richard T. Ting, Colin E. Wrabley, Theodore R. Remaklus. 

In a licensing agreement dispute involving restriction of Styrofoam-type sales to certain Asian countries, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-licensee is affirmed where the "fully paid-up" license clearly expired along with defendant's intellectual property rights in the process, and as such, because defendant does not have continuing intellectual property rights in the process, the License Agreement has no continuing force.   

Read Nova Chem., Inc. v. Sekisui Plastics Co. LTD., No. 08-4090

Appellate Information

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 06-cv-00478)
District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

Argued May 20,  2009
Opinion Filed August 28, 2009

Judges
Before:  Fuentes, Jordan and Nygaard, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Circuit Judge Fuentes

Counsel

Counsel for Appellant: Walter H. Flamm, Jr., Michael J. McCaney, Jr.

Counsel for Appellee:  John M. McIntyre, David J.Bird

In an action related to a trademark dispute involving the singing group "The Drifters," district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part where: 1) the court did not err in issuing contempt findings against the plaintiffs as they reassembled plaintiff's business under different names in order to evade the injunction issued by the district court judge; 2) the court erred in holding co-plaintiff Revels in contempt, as defendant never actually moved for him to be held in contempt, and he thus never obtained notice and a separate hearing; and 3) the court properly awarded defendant attorney's fees, but abused its discretion in refusing to impose any remedy other than attorney's fees, as plaintiff continued to evade the injunction and infringe the trademark. The matter is remanded for an order of accounting of plaintiff's profits. 

Read Marshak v. Treadwell, No. 08-1771

Appellate Information
Appeal from the Order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
Argued: March 10, 2009
Filed: July 2, 2009

Judges
Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES, and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Counsel
For Appellant: John A. DeMaro, Ruskin Moscou Faltischek, P.C.
For Appellee: Cindy D. Salvo, The Salvo Law Firm, P.C.