Search for: "Lexmark"
Results 141 - 160
of 688
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Aug 2019, 1:51 pm
The district court dismissed the Lanham Act claim and then dismissed the state law claims for civil conspiracy, defamation, and deceptive trade practices under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act without prejudice.The court of appeals affirmed the finding that Wilson failed to show “commercial advertising or promotion” because of a failure to meet prong four [reminder, post-Lexmark, now prong three!] [read post]
12 Aug 2019, 11:48 am
The court sua sponte found that plaintiffs lacked Lanham Act standing against the RT defendants (which is a step beyond continuing to call it “standing” after Lexmark). [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 1:38 pm
False advertising: defendants argued that its C&D letters weren’t commercial speech or advertising for purposes of the Lanham Act and the allegedly false statements on Defendants’ website didn’t directly disparage Matonis; neither argument succeeded.Under the Gordon & Breach test (which, as a reminder, has a prong requiring “commercial competition” that doesn’t survive Lexmark, though that doesn’t matter here), these particular C&Ds were… [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 2:08 am
In Impression Products Inc v Lexmark international Inc. 137 S. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 2:08 am
In Impression Products Inc v Lexmark international Inc. 137 S. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 12:58 pm
” It’s worth noting that the statutory language doesn’t make this distinction; Lexmark is an interpretation of the overall structure of Lanham Act liability. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 1:24 pm
Ignoring Justice Scalia’s instruction not to call the issue in Lexmark “prudential standing,” the court found that plaintiffs did have standing for purposes of avoiding summary judgment. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 8:34 am
Related Cases: Lexmark v. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 11:01 am
Harmless Free Riding by Wendy Gordon, Boston University School of Law (Additional related drafts from Wendy: Time and Intellectual Property After Coaseand Proximate Cause in the Law of Copyright: Linking Liability to Incentives)Common law imposes penalties on those who harm much more readily than it requires people to avoid benefiting without payment; very few duties to help and lots of duties not to harm. [read post]
30 May 2019, 12:52 pm
We therefore firmly bring ourselvesinto accord with Lexmark and our sister circuits by concluding that whether a party possesses all substantialrights in a patent does not implicate standing or subject matter jurisdiction.6As to Rule 19:Lone Star argues that, because it has standing, even ifit lacks all substantial rights in the patents, it should begiven an opportunity to join AMD as a necessary party before this case is dismissed. [read post]
21 May 2019, 11:57 pm
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the United States has won the first round of litigation against Qualcomm. [read post]
14 May 2019, 11:17 am
As to another client, defendants argued that the claim failed to satisfy Lexmark. [read post]
8 May 2019, 7:14 am
Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2019, 7:55 am
Lexmark didn’t address secondary liability.] [read post]
30 Apr 2019, 7:04 am
There are a couple of pre-Lexmark cases suggesting the contrary, but Savvy Rest satisfied Lexmark’s standing test. [read post]
25 Apr 2019, 1:00 pm
First panel of the day at this yea'r Fordham IP Conference A sunny morning greeted the attendees of the 27th Fordham IP Conference. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 9:48 am
" Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2019, 2:33 pm
Lexmark? [read post]
5 Apr 2019, 2:26 am
., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) and Lexmark International, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 6:32 am
” Lanham Act claims: The court rejected the term “standing” for the Lexmark inquiry, even though there’s no other good shorthand. [read post]
