Posts Tagged: "U.S. District Court for the Central District of California"

Fandango Accused by IP Licensing Company of Infringing Media Streaming Patents

Helios Streaming, LLC and IdeaHub, Inc. have filed a complaint against the popular online movie ticket sale and media streaming platform, Fandango Media, LLC, for patent infringement involving four patents, alleging that Fandango infringed its media streaming-related patents. IdeaHub is the assignee and owner of the patents-in-suit and Helios—an “Intellectual Property Research and Licensing Service Company” characterized by Unified Patents as a non-practicing entity—holds the exclusive license and rights to assert them. The patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 10,270,830 (the ’830 patent); 10,313,414 (the ’414 patent); 10,356,145 (the ’145 patent); and 10,362,130 (the ’130 patent), (the “Asserted Patents”) all of which claim “technologies for providing adaptive HTTP streaming services using metadata of media content.”

District Court Finds Katy Perry’s ‘Dark Horse’ Not Substantially Similar to ‘Joyful Noise’ Ostinato

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Monday granted Katy Perry’s motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) and vacated the jury’s verdicts regarding liability and damages. In particular, the court found that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the extrinsic test, whereby the court determined whether any elements of plaintiffs’ eight-note ostinato (defined as “a continually repeated musical phrase or rhythm”) from the song “Joyful Noise” were protected and objectively similar to the allegedly infringing eight-note ostinato from Perry’s song “Dark Horse.”

Patagonia Case Cautions Against Rule 12 Motions to Dismiss Dilution Claims

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California recently issued a decision in the closely watched Patagonia, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 19-CV-02702 case. Here, the clothing company Patagonia sued the beer company Anheuser-Busch for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution of a famous mark, and cancellation of Anheuser-Busch’s various PATAGONIA trademark registrations. Anheuser-Busch moved to dismiss certain claims, including the dilution claim, for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The court issued a decision finding that Patagonia had adequately pled its dilution claim. The case provides trademark practitioners with insight into early case strategies when asserting and defending against a trademark dilution claim.