This is James B. Gehrke's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following James B. Gehrke's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
James B. Gehrke
Wisconsin Advanced Technology Advocates, Inc.
Recent Activity
In this constitutional challenge, Mark Stadnyk and MadStad Engineering, Inc. (collectively, “MadStad”) filed suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), its then director, David Kappos, in his official capacity, and the United States of America (collectively, “the... Continue reading
AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG, AbbVie Bioresearch Center, Inc., and AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. (formerly Abbott, collectively “AbbVie”) appeal from the final judgments of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a patent infringement action and... Continue reading
Hill-Rom Services, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Manufacturing, Inc. (collectively, Hill-Rom) appeal from the district court’s grant of summary judgment that Stryker Corporation and Stryker Sales Corporation (collectively, Stryker) do not infringe asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,699,038... Continue reading
CEATS, Inc. (“CEATS”) brought this patent infringement suit against Continental Airlines, Inc.; Alaska Airlines, Inc.; Horizon Air Industries, Inc.; Delta Airlines, Inc.; Jetblue Airways Corp.; United Airlines, Inc.; Virgin America, Inc.; US Airways, Inc.; Ticketmaster, LLC.; Ticketsnow.com, Inc.; Live Nation... Continue reading
Held: Aereo performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Pp. 4–18. (a) Aereo “perform[s].” It does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so. Pp. 4–10. (1) One of Congress’ primary purposes in amending... Continue reading
Posted Jun 25, 2014 at Creative Protection
Held: Aereo performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Pp. 4–18. (a) Aereo “perform[s].” It does not merely supply equipment that allows others to do so. Pp. 4–10. (1) One of Congress’ primary purposes in amending... Continue reading
This case is on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Appellant Nordic Naturals, Inc. (“Nordic”) sought to register CHILDREN’S DHA, in standard characters, for “nutritional supplements containing DHA.” “DHA”... Continue reading
This case is on appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Appellant Nordic Naturals, Inc. (“Nordic”) sought to register CHILDREN’S DHA, in standard characters, for “nutritional supplements containing DHA.” “DHA”... Continue reading
Posted Jun 24, 2014 at Creative Protection
With the net effect on creativity of extending the copy-right protection of literary characters to the extraordinary lengths urged by the estate so uncertain, and no legal grounds suggested for extending copyright protection be-yond the limits fixed by Congress, the... Continue reading
Posted Jun 20, 2014 at Creative Protection
Gemalto S.A. (“Gemalto”) is the owner of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,308,317 (“the ’317 patent”), 7,117,485 (“the ’485 patent”), and 7,818,727 (“the ’727 patent”). Gemalto sued HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., Exedea, Inc., Google, Inc., Motorola Mobility, LLC, Samsung Electronics Co.,... Continue reading
Triton Tech of Texas, LLC (“Triton”) appeals from the district court’s judgment that the means-plus-function term “integrator means” renders the asserted claims of Triton’s U.S. Patent No. 5,181,181 invalid for indefiniteness. We affirm. Download Triton Tech of TX, LLC v.... Continue reading
With the net effect on creativity of extending the copy-right protection of literary characters to the extraordinary lengths urged by the estate so uncertain, and no legal grounds suggested for extending copyright protection be-yond the limits fixed by Congress, the... Continue reading
Held: Because the claims are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, they are not patent eligible under §101. Pp. 5–17. (a) The Court has long held that §101, which defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection, contains an implicit... Continue reading
Q.I. Press Controls, B.V. (“Q.I. Press”) appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the Board”) reversing both the examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–17 and 19–60 and written... Continue reading
Mark Dinsmore and David Caruso (“applicants”), who are the inventors named in U.S. Patent No. 7,236,568, applied to reissue the ’568 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 251. During the patent’s prosecution, they had recorded a terminal disclaimer in response to... Continue reading
Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp., Sandoz, Inc., Hit-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., and Watson Pharma, Inc. (collectively “appellants”) appeal from a final judgment of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina finding that... Continue reading
This patent infringement case concerns a drug for the treatment of hepatitis B. After a four-day bench trial, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 5,206,244 (’244 patent) invalid as... Continue reading
The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico dismissed STC.UNM’s (STC) suit against Intel Corp. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,042,998 (’998 patent) for lack of standing. The district court held that STC could not maintain... Continue reading
A restaurant played live and recorded music without permission of the copyright holders. At stake is whether the Copyright Act imposes vicarious liability on the owners of the restaurant for the infringement. . . . It makes no difference that,... Continue reading
Plaintiff‐appellant authors and authors’ associations appeal a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Harold Baer, Jr., Judge) granting summary judgment to defendants‐appellees and dismissing claims of copyright infringement. In addition, the court... Continue reading
Source Vagabond Systems, Ltd., Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer LLP, Guy Yonay, and Clyde Shuman (collectively, “Source” or “Appellants”) appeal the decision of the district court sanctioning Source under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 (“Rule 11”) for bringing a frivolous... Continue reading
Appeal from orders and judgments of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Sharpe, Judge). Plaintiff alleged copyright infringement and violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against numerous Defendants involved in the construction and... Continue reading
Empresa Cubana Del Tabaco (d/b/a Cubatabaco) challenges the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s grant of summary judgment to General Cigar Co., Inc. on the basis that Cubatabaco—a Cuban company—lacks standing to seek cancellation of General Cigar’s two registrations for the... Continue reading
This case involves a suit for declaratory judgment seeking to establish ownership rights in a dental implant system. Plaintiff Jack T. Krauser appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in... Continue reading
This is an appeal from an inter partes reexamination of claims 26 and 28 of U.S. Patent No. 6,426,916 (“the ’916 patent”). The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) found that... Continue reading