Volume 22, Issue 2 Surveys

Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
693 Fed. Appx. 879 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

By Jo-ie Atchison-Dangerfield

Appellant Milo & Gaby, LLC (“Milo and Gaby”) designs and sells “Cozy Companion” pillowcases: a line containing animal-shaped pillowcases designed to turn children’s pillowcases into stuffed animals.  They own five U.S. design patents for the pillowcases, as well as copyrights for: the pillowcases, the website, and the marketing material that included pictures of the founders’ children using the pillowcases.

View PDF – Atchison_Milo & Gabby, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc

Dan Farr Prods. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 874
F.3d 590 (9th Cir. 2017)

By Javkhlan Enkhbayar

Appellee-plaintiffs are San Diego Comic Convention (“SDCC”), a not-for-profit corporation, with the purpose of appreciating comics and other popular arts through various events, such as its “Comic-Con convention” in San Diego. Petitioner-defendants are Dan Farr Productions, Daniel Farr, and Bryan Brandenburg (“Petitioners”) who also produce a convention for comics and the popular arts in Salt Lake City, Utah, entitle “Salt Lake Comic Con.”

View PDF – Enkhbayar_Dan Farr Prods. v. U.S. Dist. Court

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharma.
USA, Inc., 855 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2017)

By Betelhem Gedlu

Plaintiff Helsinn Healthcare S.A. (“Helsinn”) owned for patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,724 (“724 patent”), 7,946,725 (“725 patent”), 7,960,424 (“424 patent”), and 8.598,219 (“219 patent”) (collectively, “the patents-in-suit”) covering intravenous solutions for treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (“CINV”) using palonsetron. The effective application date for all four of the patents-in-suit was January 30, 2003, which was the date Helsinn filed a provisional patent application and claimed it as a priority date for the patents-in-suit.

View PDF – Gedlu_Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharma

Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.,
853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017)

By Selome Getachew

On February 10, 2014,1 Unicolors, Inc. sued Urban Outfitters and Century 21 Department Stores, LLC for copyright infringement. According to Unicolors, Urban and Century sold a women’s dress with a design similar to a copyrighted design owned by Unicolors. Foundational to their claim, Unicolors argued that Urban and Century did not own the design printed on the dresses.

View PDF – Getachew_Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters

SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First
Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017)

By Aaron Shaw

The Petitioners, SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag and SCA Personal Care, Inc. (referred to as SCA), produce adult incontinence products. In October 2003, SCA notified respondents (referred to as First Quality), that First Quality was producing and selling products that infringed on one of SCA’s patents. First Quality’s response asserted that its own patent for the products in question was created prior SCA’s patent, thus First Quality’s patent was valid. In July 2004, SCA requested the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to reexamine the validity of its patent, which in March 2007, the PTO confirmed as valid. Under the Patent Act, SCA could file a suit and recover for infringement in the past six years – a backwards running statute of limitations. SCA filed a suit in August 2010; it was therefore brought almost three years after the PTO confirmed SCA”s patent as valid, but over six years after the infringement was discovered.

View PDF – Shaw_SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First