In a May 24, 2018 ruling, Judge Nathan S. Roman dismissed the plaintiffs’ patent infringement action for improper venue. The defendant conceded that it had committed acts of alleged infringement in the District, but argued that it was incorporated in Ohio and did not have “a regular and established place of business” in the
S.D.N.Y. Intellectual Property Law
Blog Authors
Latest from S.D.N.Y. Intellectual Property Law
Court Denies Waiver of Plaintiffs' Right to Seek Actual Copyright Damages
In a February 6, 2017 ruling, Judge Richard J. Sullivan rejected the defendant’s claim that the plaintiffs waived their right to actual copyright infringement damages by failing to request them in their initial disclosures. The Court wrote:Although Plaintiffs “corrected” this disclosure a mere five days later . . . , Defendant argues that this purported…
Court Finds Personal Jurisdiction Based on Sales Through Amazon.com
In a July 8, 2016 ruling, Judge Lorna G. Schofield upheld personal jurisdiction at the motion to dismiss stage based in part on allegations that the defendants, who were based in Michigan, sold their allegedly infringing goods in New York through the Amazon.com Marketplace. Construing New York’s long-arm statute, CPLR § 302, Judge Schofield…
Court Dismisses Copyright Infringement Claim Based on Choice of Law Provision in Contract
In a June 21, 2016 ruling, Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the plaintiff’s copyright claim because of a choice of law provision in the parties’ contract calling for the application of English law. The plaintiff publishes a website with copyrighted content. Subscribers are licensed to use it by being provided with a user name and…
Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in Trademark Infringement Action
In a June 17, 2016 ruling, Judge Coleen McMahon denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction against trademark infringement, and ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the entire action should not be dismissed. Despite two registration’s for the plaintiff’s mark with the PTO, the Court found that the mark was essentially a…
Court Finds Registration of Domain Name Not Use in Commerce of a Trademark
In an April 12, 2016 ruling, Judge John G. Koetl ruled that a party’s registration of a domain name was not considered the use of a trademark in commerce, and so the party that actually first used the mark in commerce in connection with the offering and sale of goods was the legal owner…
Court Upholds Sufficiency of Patent Infringement Complaint Under Iqbal
In a March 16, 2016 ruling, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint alleging willful direct, induced and contributory infringement. Applying the Iqbal standard for all three types of infringement, Judge Scheindlin found the allegations of direct infringement adequate, writing:Allegations that plead that “a specific product [] allegedly infringes…
Court Denies Stay Pending PTAB's Consideration of Petition to Institute IPR
In a March 3, 2016 ruling, Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied the defendant’s motion for a stay of the plaintiff’s patent infringement claims pending the PTAB’s decision on whether to institute an IPR. The deciding factor in the Court’s ruling was the parties’ relationship as competitors, leading the Court to conclude that “in spite…
Court Refuses to Remand Complaint Finding Likelihood of Copyright Preemption
In a February 16, 2017 ruling, Judge Katherine B. Forrest declined to remand a complaint alleging claims for unjust enrichment, conversion and restitution, and an accounting arising from the defendant’s exploitation of a taped ice skating performance by the plaintiff, finding that the Copyright Act likely preempted the claims. First, the Court found that…
Court Finds Computer Program to Be a Work-for-Hire
In a February 3, 2016 ruling, Judge Colleen McMahon declined to dismiss the plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, finding that the defendant’s computing programming services under a written agreement constituted a “work-for-hire” under the Copyright Act. Judge McMahon found that the defendant’s work was specially commissioned pursuant to a written agreement designating the work as…