Publication

I.  Ritz Camera v. SanDisk and Its Impact on Potential Litigants in Walker Process Claims

By Justin Aida

Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), defendants in a patent infringement lawsuit had the ability to assert an antitrust liability claim against the plaintiff for monopolization if the plaintiff intentionally and fraudulently procured its patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Thus, Walker Process claims were primarily asserted by those already embroiled in patent litigation.

To read the complete article, click here.

By Gregory Bennett

It is well known that the sword of trademark protection extends beyond those goods and services with which the mark is in use or registered.  Likelihood of confusion can be found between similar marks where the goods/services are identical or competitive, but also where they are merely related.  Determining whether a trademark owner’s goods/services are “related” to those associated with a similar mark can be critical when counseling on whether to enter a particular market, when assessing likelihood of success in an infringement action (either as plaintiff or defendant), or even when deciding whether a potential mark qualifies for federal registration.

To read the complete article, click here.

By Hazel Mae Pangan

In Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods, Inc., Nos. 11-35166 and 11-35206, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25667, at *1 (9th Cir. Dec. 17, 2012), the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a copyright infringement action for lack of personal jurisdiction.  In its decision, the Ninth Circuit clarified the application of  “purposeful direction” and “effects” test outlined by the Supreme Court in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984), in determining personal jurisdiction over copyright infringement defendants.  The Ninth Circuit held that the defendant-appellee, an Arkansas-based shoe retailer, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington based on the retailer’s knowledge and alleged infringement of a copyright held by the plaintiff-appellant, a Washington-based shoe manufacturer. 

To read the complete article, click here.

The IP Group assists clients in identifying, securing, asserting and defending all aspects of IP rights at home and abroad. Our attorneys can also conduct IP audits and provide advice and counseling for strategies to maximize IP assets. In addition to the traditional IP components of patents, trademark and trade dress, and copyright, Gordon & Rees's Intellectual Property Group is expert in trade secrets, Internet-related issues, rights of privacy, and issues of unfair competition and antitrust as well as regulatory compliance. Our attorneys are also highly experienced at negotiating and drafting development agreements, licenses, distribution, joint venture, strategic alliance, and vendor services agreements, and have extensive experience crafting and implementing cost-efficient enforcement programs to protect IP rights including seizures, injunctions, anti-counterfeiting and gray market enforcement. Meet our lawyers.

Back to Top