Plaintiffs alleged defendant infringed their patent for their integrated medical database and emergency medical services management and reporting system, brought suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. (Patent)
Defendant allegedly violated plaintiffs’ trademarks by using a product name confusingly similar to that of plaintiff in order to create the false impression of association between itself and plaintiffs, and plaintiffs brought suit under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 and 17500. (Trademark)
Artist brought suit against defendant for purposefully infringing plaintiff’s copyright through reproducing and selling a deceptively similar copy of plaintiff’s painting and using plaintiff’s name in connection with the sale, both without plaintiff’s consent, action brought under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106A and 501, et seq., 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(a) and 1125(a), Cal. Civ. Code § 3344, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., and other state statutory and common law. (Copyright). Settled.
Defendant sold a product with a part that embodied the design covered by plaintiff’s patent, and did not desist upon notice of infringement, so plaintiff brought suit under 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. (Patent). Settled.
Competitor defendant allegedly used plaintiff’s trademarks without plaintiff’s consent and created the appearance of an affiliation with plaintiff in order to interfere with plaintiff’s licensing agreements with third-parties, and plaintiff brought action under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. (Trademark). Settled.
Defendant allegedly stole plaintiff’s wine labels, sold wine using/bearing plaintiff’s copyrighted brand name and wine label, applied to trademark the brand name, and transferred the brand name and its goodwill to third-parties, all without plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, plaintiff brought action under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Copyright)
Defendant created an advertising service that encompassed services identical to those of plaintiff, and gave their service a similar name so as to create confusion among consumers, so plaintiff brought suit under California common law and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(a), and 1125(c)-(d). (Trademark)
Plaintiff filed suit after defendant company repeatedly obtained, copied, and used plaintiff’s software without permission, and “cracked” the software instead of obtaining a license, in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 501 and 1201. (Copyright)
Plaintiff company, the maker of wireless portable cameras, sued another company for patent infringement (brought under 35 U.S.C. § 271), as two of the defendant company’s products used together creates the equivalent of plaintiff’s product, and therefore infringes on plaintiff’s patents. (Patent)
Defendant company sold wallets under another company’s trademarked name, infringing on plaintiff company’s trademark and profiting from the confusion it created, so plaintiff filed suit under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. (Trademark). Settled.
One scanner company filed suit against another, believing the defendant company’s patent (for a mobile scanner with only minimum components to operate) was too broad, encompassing other scanners as well, and should therefore be invalidated. (Patent)
Well-known food and wine brand sued hair care company for trademark infringement and dilution and unfair competition after the company allegedly began emphasizing the part of its name shared with the brand, in hopes of benefitting from false association with the brand, action brought under 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114 and 1125, and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. (Trademark)
Small gaming company allegedly created games incorporating elements of plaintiff’s copyrighted and trademarked works, so plaintiff filed suit under 17 U.S.C. § 501 and 15 U.S.C.§§ 1052(d), 1114, 1119, and 1125(a). (Copyright and Trademark). Settled.