Shutts & Bowen, LLP

Shutts & Bowen, LLP Blogs

Blog Authors

Latest from Shutts & Bowen, LLP

No. Erbaviva, LLC, a California LLC, sent a demand letter to Era Organics, a Florida company.  The letter identified a number of Erbaviva federal trademark registrations, and “request[ed]” Era Organics: Request the USPTO expressly abandon certain Era Organics trademark registrations; Permanently refrain from using ERA ORGANICS, or any similar mark, in connection with certain goods; Provide written assurances Era Organics will comply with these “requests” The letter then concluded: Provided we receive Era Organics’ full…
No. Micro Processing Technology, Inc. sent a letter to Plasma-Therm alleging that Plasma-Therm was infringing MPT’s patent.  Plasma-Therm filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that it did not infringe.  Six months into the litigation, MPT served preliminary infringement contentions, which were based “[u]pon the information currently available to MPT and its belief.”  MPT twice amended its infringement contentions.  Plasma-Therm then moved to strike MPT’s infringement contentions, arguing MPT lacked diligence in their preparation. …
If she or he is not a lawyer, no. David Boggs, LLC and Mac Mar, LLC sued Matthew Soltis and his company My Affordable Roof, LLC for trademark infringement concerning the mark “MY AFFORDABLE ROOF.”  Soltis appears to have opted to defend himself.  He has submitted a number of filings to the Court captioned as requests for extension of time, motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and answers.  He has submitted these…
No. The owner of the TEMPUR-PEDIC bedding brand (“Plaintiff”) has sued a number of defendants, including a former retailer as well as the owner of the THERAPEDIC bedding brand.  Through that lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin sales of the THERAPEDIC bedding. To that end, on August 28, 2018, the Tuesday before the labor day holiday, Plaintiff filed suit.   Along with its complaint, Plaintiff also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, as well as…
Nope.  The party seeking fees pursuant to a rejected Rule 68 Offer of Judgment still has the burden of showing a proper offer was made, was served, and was not accepted. After what appears to have been 3+ years of contentious copyright infringement litigation, Plaintiffs were awarded $1,015.20 in damages against Defendants.  Plaintiffs owned copyrights in certain artwork, and Defendants had used this artwork in connection with certain “paint parties.”  After this damage award, the…
Yes. Thursday, LLC and Klhip, Inc. are both retailers that use Amazon to sell nail clippers online.  Klhip filed a number of claims with Amazon about Thursday.  In response, Amazon would take Thursday down and investigate.  Each time, Klhip’s allegations have been found baseless (and Thursday’s Amazon presence has been restored).  Thursday, a Florida corporation located in Clearwater, sued Klhip for unfair competition, tortious interference, and violations of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act…
No. Taser International, Inc. sued Phazzer Electronics, Inc. for patent infringement.  The discovery history appears tortured.  Taser pursued a number of motions to compel discovery responses.  Phazzer produced some documents (and apparently no emails), but the documents conflicted with representations Phazzer had made about its corporate structure and relationships with third parties.  Then came the attempts to schedule depositions of “the handful of critical witnesses associated with Phazzer.”  Apparently these critical witnesses for this closely-held…
Denied.  Ouch. Commodores Entertainment Corporation has sued Thomas McClary, a former Commodores band member, for various trademark claims.  Commodores sought summary judgment.  Procedurally, McClary’s attorney requested a first extension of 8 days for McClary to respond to the dispositive summary judgment motion.  The Commodores did not oppose the request and the Court granted it. During that 8-day period, McClary’s counsel attended a hearing in California state court in San Diego.  During that hearing, the California…
Not so fast.  If the case is moot because all of the claims have been extinguished, you may have foregone your ability to pursue discovery to support your claim for attorneys fees in federal court. MD Security Solutions, LLC sued Protection 1, Inc. for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,864,983 concerning a security alarm system.  Protection 1 asserted the standard counterclaims seeking declarations of invalidity and noninfringement.  A third party (RPX, Corp., a patent…
I wrote an article last year in The Tampa Tribune entitled “The Death of American Innovation?” discussing the impact of the America Invents Act (passed in 2011) on the validity and enforceability of patents in our country.   One of the tools put in place through that Act is the ability to challenge (and eventually kill) patents that are purportedly directed to “Covered Business Methods.” The Act defined “Covered Business Methods” as methods “for performing…