District of Massachusetts IP Blog

Claim Typo Corrected During Markman

In a fairly straightforward Markman decision, Senior Judge Harrington construed claims in Patent No. 6,256,663 directed to remotely conducting focus groups over a computer network.  Of note, Judge Harrington corrected the claim term “client display” to read “moderator display” ruling that inclusion of the word “client” was “an obvious typographical error.”  Plaintiff requested the correction, which defendant opposed.  The decision notes that the defendant appeared to recognize the error as typographical in its request for reexamination filed with the USPTO. 

Interactive Tracking Systems, Inc. v. Artafact LLC, 08-10101-EFH (D. Mass. June 1, 2011)

No Settlement In Class of 3000 Case

Following a remand from the First Circuit, a case between an artist and the Cartoon Network over the animated series “Class of 3000” was reassigned to Judge Saris.  Judge Harrington had originally granted a motion by the Cartoon Network to enforce a settlement agreement but the First Circuit reversed and sent it back for factual determinations regarding whether the plaintiff could be bound by the actions of his attorney during negotiations.

Judge Saris ruled no, and declined to order enforcement of the settlement.  In particular, Judge Saris found that a voicemail and emails between the artist and his lawyer were sufficiently ambiguous as to whether the artist intended to give the Cartoon Network a general release as part of the settlement.  The ambiguous written communications combined with the artist’s “emotional testimony” convinced the court that there was insufficient evidence evincing an intent to settle. 

So the beat goes on. 

McGee v. Cartoon Network, Inc., 08-11818-PBS (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2011)

Order Enforcing Settlement Terms Reversed

The First Circuit reversed Senior Judge Harrington’s decision to enforce an agreement settling a copyright dispute over material in the animated television series “Class of 3000.” 

 

At a hearing Judge Harrington had determined that settlement had been reached, relying on an email sent from plaintiff’s counsel to defendant’s counsel agreeing on three main terms.  (Interestingly, neither plaintiff nor plaintiff’s counsel, who had withdrawn several weeks earlier, was at this hearing.)  The plaintiff, appearing pro se before the First Circuit, disputed that a settlement was reached and highlighted a number of terms (such as continuing rights) that were not resolved.

 

The First Circuit held that because there were disputed questions of fact, the District Court erred in not holding an evidentiary hearing regarding the plaintiff attorney’s authority to bind the client to the settlement.

 

Case remanded.

 

McGee v. Cartoon Network, Inc., 10-1070 (1st Cir. July 8, 2010)