Decided - The FindLaw Noteworthy Decisions and Settlements Blog

Recently in Intellectual Property Law Category

Broad Institute Wins CRISPR-Cas9 Patent Lawsuit Appeal

The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's assertion that Harvard-affiliated Broad Institute can keep its patents on CRISPR, Clustered Regularly Inspected Short Palindromic Repeats. The court found that Broad's applications do not overlap with those of the University of California, Berkeley's, and that the two are patently distinct. Not only are billions of dollars at stake, but also scientific reputations, and the lives of generations to come.

Do you know all the people connecting to the internet using your IP address? It's possible, if you live alone and you're tech-savvy enough to password-protect your internet connection. But what if a family all uses the same connection? Or you own an adult foster care facility that houses many people, all with access to the internet connection under your name? And one of those people uses your IP address to illegally download a crappy Adam Sandler movie? Are you on the hook for copyright infringement?

Not according to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled last week that "the bare allegation that the defendant was the registered subscriber of an Internet Protocol address associated with infringing activity was insufficient to state a claim for direct or contributory infringement."

For lovers of old, analog tunes, the wave of digital remastering has presented an audiophile conundrum. Sure, some of the tracks sound better, especially since they're mostly being broadcasted and played in a digital format, but the original is the original -- should we really be messing around with these songs without the artists or producers around?

For broadcasters, however, digital remastering presented an opportunity to skirt copyright protections for older tunes. That was until the Ninth Circuit shut that door pretty firmly this week, ruling that remastered versions of pre-1972 songs are not independently copyrightable.

Apple and Kendall Jenner Settle 'Pizza Boys' Radio Suit

I'm sorry ... was that Pizza Boys or Pizzaboyzzz with five "z's"? Evidently that is important, according to Robert Karageuzian (with one "z"), an online merchant of art collective merchandise, many of which have pizza as the art's subject matter. He sued Kendall Jenner, Apple Inc., and Daniel Chetri over trademark infringement for their Pizza Boys talkshow that aired on Apple's Beats 1 in April 2018.

It's finally over. After more than fifty lawsuits in ten countries, four trials, seven years, jury verdicts that stretched into the billions, and one Supreme Court decision, Apple and Samsung have settled their patent dispute. The undisclosed settlement comes just weeks after Apple won a $539 award after a jury found that Samsung infringed on its design patents.

While it is unclear how much Samsung will ultimately pay out for its patent infringement -- or how much each company racked up in legal fees -- it appears that the pitched battle Steve Jobs once referred to as "thermonuclear war" has now come to an end.

Surprise $245M Settlement Between Uber and Waymo

A majority of civil cases result in settlements, which usually occurs before they go to trial. But, there are times when a settlement can occur after the trial has started. That's what happened in the lawsuit between Uber and Waymo. Days after the jury trial began in federal court, the two companies announced that they had reached a $245 million settlement.

Atari Settles Suit With Nestle Over Kit Kat Ad

The Kit Kat chocolate video game lawsuit is over. Nestle SA, the Swiss food company, has settled a lawsuit brought against it by video game maker Atrari Interactive. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order Wednesday dismissing the case following the parties' resolution.

Why wait until you're 15 to understand what it's like to hitchhike from coast to coast? You don't need to be in middle school to feel the yearning and aspirations of 1940s New York City cafe society, right? Surely a tale about two fishermen of varying ages wouldn't be lost on a nine-year-old.

All are semi-compelling arguments for translating canonical books for a younger audience. Unfortunately for the publishers of those kid-friendly classics, none of those is a legal defense to copyright infringement. "The mere removal of adult themes," a federal judge said, ruling that KinderGuides children's versions were unlawful copies of the original works, "does not meaningfully recast the work any more than an airline's editing of R-rated films so that they can be shown to children on a flight absolves the airline from paying a royalty."

A ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court this week may make generic pharmaceuticals available just a little bit sooner. The decision centered around a dispute between two drug manufacturers, Sandoz and Amgen, where the former was attempting to market and sell a generic version of the latter's drug.

SCOTUS ruled that Sandoz did not violate the six-month notice period designed to give Amgen time to object to the approval of a similar drug on patent or other legal grounds. Specifically, the Court found that the notice period could begin before the FDA license was approved, despite the fact that notice after licensure appeared to be the industry custom. Basically, this ruling means that generic biologics may be able to hit the market six months earlier than before.

The class action case against the AARP for unfair business practices related to selling its members Medigap insurance has been revived by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Jerald Friedman sued the AARP and United Health on behalf of all consumers for basically misleading the public into believing the AARP was providing the insurance, and specifically in California where the AARP is not licensed to do so.

The case had previously been dismissed by a federal court for not having specific enough allegations that showed an entitlement to court ordered relief. The Ninth Circuit, however, thought differently, and reversed the decision, allowing the case to continue.