The names of companies and law firms shown above are generated automatically based on the text of the article. We are improving this functionality as we continue to test and develop in beta. We appreciate comments, which you can provide using the comments tab on the right of the page.
(Reuters) – Here are some upcoming events of interest to the intellectual property law community. Unless otherwise specified, all times are local and court appearances are in person.
Tuesday, October 5
9 a.m. – 9th U.S. Court of Appeals to Hear Argument from Calendar Research LLC that a Los Angeles Federal Court improperly ruled in favor of eBay-owned ticket reseller StubHub over allegations that StubHub stole trade secrets related to Calendar’s “Klutch” programming application. U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson ruled for StubHub last year because it didn’t use any Calendar source code, and Calendar didn’t sufficiently identify other protectable trade secrets. Calendar argued on appeal that the case should continue to be judged on the facts regarding the alleged trade secrets.
The case is Calendar Research LLC v. StubHub Inc, 9th United States Court of Appeals, No. 20-55876. For the calendar: Hilary Potashner of Larson LLP. For StubHub: Ellyde Thompson of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
10:00 a.m. – U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn to hold a settlement conference in Manhattan Federal Court over the Phillie Phanatic mascot rights dispute between the MLB Philadelphia Phillies and the original creators of the mascot. Former Muppet designer Bonnie Erickson and her husband Wayde Harrison created the mascot in 1978 and ceded their copyright to the furry green monster to the team in 1984. In 2018, they informed the Phillies that they were ending the grant, and the Phillies sued to keep their rights. The conference follows Netburn’s recommendation in August that the Phillies should be allowed to continue using their modified version of the mascot, even if Erickson and Harrison’s termination was in effect over the original.
The case is The Phillies v. Harrison / Erickson, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1: 19-cv-07239. For the Phillies: David Wolfsohn of Duane Morris. For H / E: Paul Montclare of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp.
Wednesday October 6
9 a.m. – Circuit 9 will hear a call from UK songwriters who have unsuccessfully sued R&B megastar The Weeknd and his Universal Music label for allegedly ripping off their song âI Need to Loveâ with his song âA Lonely Nightâ . Billy Smith, Brian Clover, and Scott McCulloch accused The Weeknd of copying the song, but U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson in Los Angeles ruled that they had not shown access or that the songs were similar enough to support their claims. Clover and McCulloch appealed, arguing that the songs had a “striking similarity” and that a branch of Universal Music previously owned the rights to their song, saying the defendants had access to them.
The case is Clover v. Tesfaye, 9th United States Court of Appeals, No. 20-55861. For songwriters: Thomas Orlando of Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff. For The Weeknd: Peter Anderson by Davis Wright Tremaine.
Thursday October 7
9 a.m. – Circuit 9 will hear an appeal from cloud-based communications firm RingCentral against a San Jose federal court ruling dismissing its preliminary injunction request against video conferencing giant Zoom based on allegations arising of the end of an agreement between them. Zoom sued to prevent RingCentral from continuing to market Zoom’s products to new customers, and U.S. District Judge Edward Davila denied RingCentral’s request to prohibit Zoom from “taking technological action to affect RingCentral’s capacity. to sell Zoom’s products to new customers “. On appeal, RingCentral argued that it would suffer “significant damage to its reputation and the lost trust of customers and partners” without the injunction.
The case is Zoom Video Communications Inc v. RingCentral Inc, 9th United States Court of Appeals, No. 21-15792. For RingCentral: Andrew Silverman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, Walter Brown of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison. For Zoom: Douglas Lumish of Latham & Watkins.
10:00 a.m. – The U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments from Intel and Qualcomm on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s mixed rulings in their patent dispute. Qualcomm appealed a PTAB ruling that parts of one of its mobile transmitter patents were obvious, while Intel appealed PTAB rulings that parts of other Qualcomm patents are obvious. valid. While the parties are currently not involved in a related dispute in district court, Qualcomm previously sued Apple for patent infringement based on Intel products built into its iPhones and iPads, in a case that was settled in 2019.
The business is Qualcomm Inc v. Intel Corp, United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 20-1587, and Intel Corp v. Qualcomm Inc, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Nos. 20-1664 and 20-1828. For Qualcomm: Sasha Mayergoyz of Jones Day. For Intel: Gregory Lantier and Thomas Saunders of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr.
Do you know of an event that could be included in a coming week on intellectual property? Contact Blake Brittain at [email protected]