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
Held: Whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a question for the jury. Pp. 3–8. (a) Lower courts have held that two marks may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents,” i.e.,... Continue reading
Posted Jan 21, 2015 at Creative Protection
Held: Whether two trademarks may be tacked for purposes of determining priority is a question for the jury. Pp. 3–8. (a) Lower courts have held that two marks may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents,” i.e.,... Continue reading
Held: When reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review. Pp. 4–16. (a)... Continue reading
The Newbridge Cutlery Company (the “applicant”) appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) affirming the Trademark Examiner’s refusal to register applicant’s NEWBRIDGE HOME mark as being primarily geographically descriptive. See In re The Newbridge... Continue reading
Posted Jan 19, 2015 at Creative Protection
The question before this court is whether a California state court malpractice case involving patent law representation was properly removed to a federal court. Under the principles of Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013), it was not. Plaintiff-appellant... Continue reading
W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (“Gore”) appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona of willfulness in the infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,436,135 (“’135 patent”). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.... Continue reading
This appeal involves a challenge to the validity of two plant patents for varieties of table grapes developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and licensed to the California Table Grape Commission. The plaintiffs filed suit against the USDA... Continue reading
The Newbridge Cutlery Company (the “applicant”) appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) affirming the Trademark Examiner’s refusal to register applicant’s NEWBRIDGE HOME mark as being primarily geographically descriptive. See In re The Newbridge... Continue reading
The panel reversed the district court’s order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Pom Wonderful, owner of... Continue reading
The panel reversed the district court’s order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement action under the Lanham Act. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Pom Wonderful, owner of... Continue reading
Posted Jan 2, 2015 at Creative Protection
The district court in this case refused to disturb a jury verdict concerning two reissue patents. The jury found for the patentee on infringement and validity as to most of the asserted claims, but it invalidated five claims. The patentee,... Continue reading
Content Extraction and Transmission LLC and its principals (collectively, CET) appeal from the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), in which the United States District Court for the District... Continue reading
Aqua Shield sued Inter Pool Cover Team, Alukov Hz spol. s.r.o., Alukov spol. s.r.o., and Pool & Spa Enclosures (collectively, IPC) for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,637,160. Aqua Shield won summary judgment that IPC infringed and that no claim... Continue reading
Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer Surgical, Inc., and Zimmer Orthopaedic Surgical Products (collectively “Zimmer”) appeal from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,022,329 (“’329 patent”), 6,179,807 (“’807 patent”), and... Continue reading
In 2013, the Judges of the Copyright Royalty Board issued a determination setting royalty rates and defining terms for statutorily defined satellite digital audio radio services (SDARS) and preexisting subscription services (PSS). SoundExchange, an organization that collects and distributes royalties... Continue reading
The popular song Whoomp! (There It Is) was released in 1993. For more than half of the song’s existence—since 2002—the parties to this action have been litigating the question of who owns the composition copyright to the song. After an... Continue reading
Over the course of the last three-quarters of a century, Marvel Enterprises created a comic universe of unparalleled proportions. With comic-book legend Stan Lee at the helm as editor-in-chief of its comic-book division, Marvel constructed a fictional landscape of imaginative... Continue reading
Over the course of the last three-quarters of a century, Marvel Enterprises created a comic universe of unparalleled proportions. With comic-book legend Stan Lee at the helm as editor-in-chief of its comic-book division, Marvel constructed a fictional landscape of imaginative... Continue reading
Posted Dec 26, 2014 at Creative Protection
The popular song Whoomp! (There It Is) was released in 1993. For more than half of the song’s existence—since 2002—the parties to this action have been litigating the question of who owns the composition copyright to the song. After an... Continue reading
Posted Dec 26, 2014 at Creative Protection
In 2013, the Judges of the Copyright Royalty Board issued a determination setting royalty rates and defining terms for statutorily defined satellite digital audio radio services (SDARS) and preexisting subscription services (PSS). SoundExchange, an organization that collects and distributes royalties... Continue reading
Posted Dec 26, 2014 at Creative Protection
St. Helena Hospital (“St. Helena”) appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in In re St. Helena Hosp., Serial No. 85/416,343, 2013 WL 5407267 (T.T.A.B., June 25, 2013). The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection... Continue reading
Plaintiffs are the University of Utah Research Foundation, The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, HSC Research and Development Limited Partnership, Endorecherche, Inc., and Myriad Genetics, Inc. (collectively “Myriad”). Myriad owns U.S. Patent No. 5,753,441 (“the ’441 patent”), U.S. Patent... Continue reading
In this action, ABB Turbo Systems AG and ABB Inc. (collectively ABB) allege, among other things, state-law torts of misappropriation of trade secrets and conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Before discovery was conducted or an answer filed on those allegations,... Continue reading
Life Technologies, Applied Biosystems, LLC, and Invitrogen IP Holdings, Inc. (collectively, LifeTech) appeal from the district court’s grant of a motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims of United States Patent Nos. 5,843,660 (’660 patent), 6,221,598 (’598 patent), 6,479,235... Continue reading
St. Helena Hospital (“St. Helena”) appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) in In re St. Helena Hosp., Serial No. 85/416,343, 2013 WL 5407267 (T.T.A.B., June 25, 2013). The Board affirmed the examiner’s rejection... Continue reading
Posted Dec 26, 2014 at Creative Protection