Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp.

These consolidated appeals arise from a district court action filed by Raytheon Company (Raytheon) against Indigo Systems Corporation and FLIR Systems (FLIR) (collectively, Indigo) for trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement. The patent infringement claims were settled by the parties and dismissed. After a threeweek trial, a jury found that Indigo did not misappropriate Raytheon’s trade secrets relating to the production of infrared cameras. The district court then entered final judgment in favor of Indigo. Raytheon appeals from the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for new trial regarding two of the alleged trade secrets. Indigo cross-appeals from the district court’s decision denying its motion for attorney fees.

For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of no liability in favor of Indigo. We also affirm the district court’s denial of attorney fees.

Download Raytheon Co. v. Indigo Systems Corp.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Allen v. Cooper

Frederick Allen, a videographer, and Nautilus Productions, LLC, Allen’s video production company, commenced this action, which, at its core, alleges that North Carolina, its agencies, and its officials (collectively, “North Carolina”) violated Allen’s copyrights by publishing video footage and a still photograph that Allen took of the 18thcentury wreck of a pirate ship that sank off the North Carolina coast. Allen and Nautilus obtained the rights to create the footage and photograph through a permit issued by North Carolina to the ship’s salvors, and Allen subsequently registered his work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Allen and Nautilus also seek to declare unconstitutional a 2015 state law — N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-25(b) (providing that photographs and video recordings of shipwrecks in the custody of North Carolina are public records) — which Allen and Nautilus claim was enacted in bad faith to provide the State with a defense to their federal copyright infringement action.

North Carolina filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, qualified immunity, and legislative immunity. North Carolina’s claim of sovereign immunity prompted Allen and Nautilus to argue (1) that in a 2013 Settlement Agreement, North Carolina waived sovereign immunity; (2) that in any event the federal Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 had abrogated the State’s sovereign immunity; and (3) that as to their claims for injunctive relief, Ex parte Young provided an exception to sovereign immunity for ongoing violations of federal law. The district court rejected North Carolina’s claims of immunity, and North Carolina filed this interlocutory appeal. Allen and Nautilus filed a cross-appeal. For the reasons that follow, we reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss with prejudice the claims against the state officials in their individual capacities and to dismiss without prejudice the remaining claims.

Download Allen v. Cooper

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Co.

Campbell Company (“Campbell”) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California entering judgment in favor of Polara Engineering Inc. (“Polara”) on its claim for infringement of claims 1–4 (“the asserted claims”) of U.S. Patent 7,145,476 (“the ’476 patent”) and its decision, following a jury trial, denying Campbell’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity and no willfulness, and granting Polara’s motion to enhance the damages award. See Polara Eng’g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., 237 F. Supp. 3d 956 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (“Post-trial Motions Opinion”); Judgment, Polara Eng’g, Inc. v. Campbell Co., No. SACV-13-00007 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2017), ECF No. 499 (J.A. 83–84). For the following reasons, we affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

Download Polara Engineering Inc. v. Campbell Co.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Close v. Sotheby's, Inc.

The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal of claims for resale royalties under the California Resale Royalties Act, which grants artists an unwaivable right to 5% of the proceeds on any resale of their artwork under specified circumstances.

Affirming the dismissal in part, the panel held that plaintiffs’ CRRA claims concerning sales that postdated the 1976 Copyright Act’s effective date of January 1, 1978, and thus were covered by the 1976 Act, were expressly preempted by 17 U.S.C. § 301(a).

Reversing in part, the panel held that CRRA claims concerning sales that occurred between the CRRA’s effective date of January 1, 1977, and the 1976 Act’s effective date of January 1, 1978, were not expressly preempted, nor were they preempted by conflict preemption. The panel remanded those claims to the district court for further proceedings.

Download Close v. Sotheby's Inc.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Apple and Google v. ContentGuard v. Iancu

Apple Inc. and Google LLC appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to grant ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.’s motion to amend in a covered business method review of U.S. Patent 7,774,280. Because the Board applied the wrong legal standard to determine whether the ’280 patent qualified as a covered business method, we vacate and remand for further proceedings.

Download Apple and Google v. ContentGuard v. Iancu

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.