District of Massachusetts IP Blog

Another False Marking Case Moved to Massachusetts

Back in November San Francisco Technology, Inc. (San Jose, CA) brought a false marking suit against Franklin Sports, Inc. (Stoughton, MA).  That case was transferred to D. Mass. and assigned to Judge Stearns. 

San Francisco Technology, Inc. v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 11-10522-RGS (filed Nov. 17, 2010, transferred to D. Mass. Mar. 25, 2011)

Another False Marking Case Moved to Defendant’s Home Court

Patent Management Foundation, LLC (San Jose, CA) originally sued Analog Devices, Inc. (Norwood, MA) in the Northern District of California (as case no. 10-03630-MEJ, filed Aug. 17, 2010) for twenty eight counts of false marking covering dozens of patents and products.

The case was recently transferred to D. Mass. following a motion filed by Analog. 

Patent Management Foundation, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., 11-10182-DPW (D. Mass. Feb. 3, 2011)

False Marking Case Moved to Defendant’s Home Court

Jennifer Brinkmeier (Philadelphia, PA) originally sued Exergen Corp. (Watertown, MA) in the District of Delaware (as case no. 10-00176-SLR, filed Mar. 3, 2010) for false marking related to its thermometer products.  The patents in dispute have either all expired or been invalidated by the Federal Circuit. 

The case was recently transferred to D. Mass. following a motion to transfer filed by the defendant. 

Brinkmeier v. Exergen Corp., 11-10119-DPW (D. Mass. Jan. 21, 2011)

Lightspeed Oregon Complaint Transferred to Mass.

In the latest occurrence in the ongoing Lightspeed v. Bose disputes, an Oregon case brought by Lightspeed against Bose in March for false marking has been transferred to Massachusetts.  The case relates to certain Bose QuietComfort and Aviation Series headphones. 

The original case number was 10-239-BR (D. Or.)  The new case number is below. 

Lightspeed Aviation, Inc. v. Bose Corp., 10-11739-RGS (D. Mass. March 3, 2010)

Birth Control Provider Shocked By False Marking Accusation

Hologic, Inc. (Bedford, MA) has sued Conceptus, Inc. (Mountain View, CA) for false patent marking.  These cases have been all the rage in other districts, but haven’t really caught on in D. Mass.

 

The complaint alleges that Conceptus marks its Essure® Permanent Birth Control System with Patent Nos. 6,679,266 and 6,145,505 directed to applying energy / electrical current as part of a sterilization method for females.  The complaint also alleges that the Essure® system doesn’t use energy / electrical current and asserts that Conceptus has been known to take different positions on that question, in particular when trying to differentiate its product from Hologic’s competing product.  Hologic accuses Conceptus of falsely marked its products knowingly and with an intent to deceive.

 

Hologic, Inc. v. Conceptus, Inc., 10-11355-PBS (D. Mass. Aug. 10, 2010)

New DJ Case On Design Patent and Copyrights on Ball Cap Bills

This is a fun case.

 

As part of Coca-Cola’s 2008 rewards program it gave away (and featured on its website) caps that Sporting Innovations (the "other" SI) felt infringed its copyrights and rights in Design Patent No. D507,923, Fig. 1 below: 

SI sent a cease and desist letter to Coke and its vendor (owned by Staples) alleging infringement and copying by the vendor.  During the subsequent correspondence Coke said it had stopped distributing the caps and SI maintained that the infringement was willful.

The parties couldn’t come to an agreement so Staples and Coke filed a declaratory judgment action asserting non-infringement and invalidity of the design patent, non-infringement of SI’s copyrights and, just to mix things up a bit, false marking by SI based on its own caps.

The case is pending before Judge Woodlock.

Staples Commercial & Contract, Inc. and Coca-Cola Co. v. Sporting Innovations, LLC, 09-cv-12009-DPW (D. Mass. Nov. 24, 2009)