This morning the Federal Circuit issued one precedential opinion in a patent case, one nonprecedential opinion in a trademark case, one nonprecedential opinion in a Court of Federal Claims case, and six nonprecedential Rule 36 judgements. Here are the introductions to the opinions and a list of the Rule 36 judgments.
Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. (“Columbia”) appeals from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California’s judgment after a jury trial that claims 2 and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,453,270 (“the ’270 patent”) are invalid as anticipated and obvious. See Judgment, Columbia Sportswear N. Am. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-01781 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2017), ECF No. 403. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. (“Seirus”) cross-appeals from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon’s grant of summary judgment that it infringes U.S. Patent D657,093 (“the ’093 patent”) and from its entry of the jury’s damages award. Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, 202 F. Supp. 3d 1186 (D. Or. 2016) (“Summary Judgment Decision”). Because we conclude that the court did not err in holding claims 2 and 23 of the ’270 patent invalid but that it did err in granting summary judgment of infringement for the ’093 patent, we affirm-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand for further proceedings.
Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.R.L. (Nonprecedential)
Galperti, Inc. (“Appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dismissing its petition to cancel Galperti S.r.l.’s (“Appellee”) Registration No. 3411812 for the mark GALPERTI. Galperti, Inc. v. Galperti S.r.l., Cancellation No. 92057016, 2018 WL 4237616 (T.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018) (“Board Op.”). We affirm the Board’s conclusions that Appellant failed to demonstrate priority in the GALPERTI mark and that it did not try the issue of trade name usage by implied consent. However, we vacate the portion of the Board’s decision concluding that Appellee did not obtain its registration through fraud and thus remand for a proper legal analysis of that issue.
Drake v. United States (Nonprecedential)
Eric Drake appeals two decisions by the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing two separate cases, primarily based on the same facts and the same causes of action. The first order dismissed Mr. Drake’s first complaint as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, and the second order dismissed Mr. Drake’s second complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Drake v. United States, No. 17- 581, 2018 WL 1613869 (Fed. Cl. Apr. 3, 2018) (“Drake I”); Vondrake v. United States, No. 18-1806, 141 Fed. Cl. 599 (Fed. Cl. 2019) (“Drake II”). Because we conclude that the Court of Federal Claims lacks subject matter jurisdiction for both complaints, we affirm.