Posts Tagged: "Northern District of Georgia"

???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.

On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), the Supreme Court held that patent venue is controlled exclusively by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which restricts venue in patent cases to (1) where the Defendant resides, or (2) where the Defendant commits an act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The decision was immediately hailed by commentators as a significant break with past precedent… Despite the common perception of practitioners that the TC Heartland decision changed the law of venue in patent cases, the majority of district courts to address this issue have come to the opposite conclusion, finding that the decision merely reaffirmed existing law and could not excuse the failure to raise the defense earlier. The reasoning of these decisions is questionable, as is the refusal of these courts to recognize how dramatically TC Heartland changed the landscape for patent litigation.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party waives its right to assert a defense of improper venue when it fails to raise the defense in a pleading or with other Rule 12 motions.  Importantly, however, that waiver only takes effect if the defense was “available” to the party at the time of filing either the pleading or motion.  Many circuits, including the Federal Circuit, interpret that requirement by recognizing an intervening law exception to the waiver of a defense, whereby an intervening change in law makes available a defense that had not previously been available.  Does the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland constitute a change in the law?  Was the defense of improper venue unavailable until May 22, 2017?

Once the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta declined to take a license, Bozeman informed them that he believed they were infringing on his two patents… The complaint sets forth two claims for relief: one for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 6,754,640 patent, and the other for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the 8,768,840. The complaint alleges that the Federal Reserve Banks do not infringe multiple elements of independent claims set forth in both patents and seeks a judicial declaration indicating as much, along with costs, expenses, and attorney’s fees.

Although the studio construction itself seems to be carrying on apace, Valhalla Studios has gotten itself into legal trouble over its chosen name. On October 19th, the studio was named as a defendant in a trademark infringement suit filed by Valhalla Motion Pictures, a California video production company, which is best known for developing and producing the hit television show The Walking Dead. The trademark infringement suit is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (N.D. Ga.).

Despite being grossly unfair to small inventors, the courts are routinely transferring cases to a venue containing the headquarters of the infringing multinational corporation, as happened in this case. Often cases are moved thousands of miles requiring outside counsel, travel, additional motions and legal work and other costs. Often the new venue is not experienced in patent cases and may take years longer to conclude the litigation. Part of the strategy for defendants is to fight a costly war of attrition against independent inventors and small businesses. Eventually they will be forced to give up. That is why patent reform that impacts venue matters so much, it is about raising costs, tipping the scales of justice and beating innovators into submission using procedural rules.