Posts Tagged: "eastern district of new york"

BIC Files Complaints at the ITC, EDNY Alleging Trademark Infringement of Pocket Lighters

Although many readers might be more familiar with patent infringement claims asserted in Section 337 actions at the ITC, BIC Vice President and General Counsel Steve Burkhart notes that trademark and trade dress infringement claims in a Section 337 context aren’t terribly different. “We’ve had our three-dimensional trademark registration for decades,” Burkhart said, adding that one of the defendants in the ITC action was familiar with BIC’s trademark because it was cited as a basis for denying their own trademark application filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “Quantitatively, you may see more Section 337 filings on the patent side but there are many examples in the patent and trademark areas where filings encounter denials because of prior art,” Burkhart said.

Steve Brachmann

December 20, 2018

Messy Trademark Case Over ‘The Sloppy Tuna’ Gets Cleaned Up by the Second Circuit

???In Montauk U.S.A. v. 148 South Emerson Associates the Second Circuit vacated-in-part an earlier ruling in a trademark case. In that ruling, the district court denied a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Montauk, which was asserting its trademark rights to marks associated with The Sloppy Tuna restaurant.

Steve Brachmann

May 14, 2018

Pharma Reverse Patent Payments Are Not An Antitrust Violation

The plaintiffs had argued that defendants had in fact violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when they settled their dispute concerning the validity of Bayer’s Cipro patent by agreeing to a reverse exclusionary payment settlement. Bayer agreed to pay the generic challengers, and in exchange the generic firms conceded the validity of the Cipro patent. The Second Circuit panel affirmed the granting of summary judgment, finding themselves confined by the previous Second Circuit ruling in Tamoxifen. The panel did, however, make the extraordinary invitation to petition the Second Circuit for rehearing in banc, citing the exceptional importance of the antitrust implications, the fact that the primary authors of the Hatch-Waxman Act have stated reverse payments were never intended under the legislation and the fact that the Second Circuit in Tamoxifen simply got it wrong when they said that subsequent generic entrants could potentially obtain a 180 exclusive period even after the first would-be generic entrant had settled.

Gene Quinn

April 29, 2010