“Prejudgment interest serves to compensate for the loss of use of money due as damages from the time the claim accrues until judgment is entered, thereby achieving full compensation for the injury those damages are intended to redress.” West Virginia v. United States, 479 U.S. 305, 310 n.2 (1987); see also City of Milwaukee v. […]
A party that “intentionally induces another to infringe a trademark” or who “continues to supply its product to one whom it knows or has reason to know is engaging in trademark infringement” is “contributorially responsible for any harm done as a result of the deceit.” Inwood Lab’ys, Inc. v. Ives Lab’ys, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, […]
Use of a trademark in advertising is not enough to qualify as a specimen of trademark use. In re Siny Corp., 920 F.3d 1331, 2019 USPQ2d 127099 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Mere advertising is not enough . . .”); Avakoff v. S. Pac. Co., 765 F.2d 1097, 226 USPQ 435, 436 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Anpath Grp., […]
Duracell has a sound mark consisting of three musical notes for its batteries. “A mark is deemed in use in commerce on goods when, among other things, ‘it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto.’” In […]
In United Therapeutics Corp. v. Liquidia Technologies, Inc., No. 2022-2217, 2023-1021, — F.4th — (Fed. Cir. July 24, 2023), United Therapeutics sued Liquidia for infringing two patents. One covering the treatment of pulmonary hypertension using the drug treprostinil (US Pat. 10716793) and the other patent covering the composition of a purified form of the drug […]