Shutts & Bowen, LLP

Website: https://shutts.com/
Follow:

Shutts & Bowen, LLP Blogs

Florida IP

Blog Authors

Emily MacLoud
Woodrow Pollack

Latest from Shutts & Bowen, LLP

Yes, with some reluctance. 3M, the well-known manufacturer of n95 masks, has filed a number of lawsuits throughout the country asserting trademark claims against defendants who are offering to sell to the government and others “3M” masks at extremely elevated prices.  3M asserts claims for trademark infringement, false advertising, dilution, among others.  Part of the harm 3M argues is that, aside from the defendants not being authorized to sell 3M products, 3M does not want…
For many patent and trademark filing deadlines that would have been due between March 27, 2020 and May 31, 2020, the USPTO will consider them timely filed so long as: (1) they are filed on or before June 1, 2020; and (2) they are accompanied by a statement that the delay in filing was due to the COVID19 outbreak. Patent Deadlines Further Extended The USPTO exercised authority granted to it under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief,…
No. Blue Water Dynamics, LLC has sued Anthony Kalil for copyright infringement, but Blue Water is having difficulty serving Kalil.  According to Plaintiff, its process server made 3 attempts to serve Kalil in March, 2020, and Defendant either was not home or refused to answer the door.  Plaintiff seeks permission to serve Defendant via U.S. Mail and FedEx. Plaintiff argues that the 19th Judicial District, presumably where Defendant may be found, has issued an Administrative …
No. Plaintiff in a patent infringement matter concerning Plaintiff’s ceiling fan patents asked the court to delay all deadlines 90-days in light of the COVID19 crisis.  Plaintiff noted that the parties and attorneys are all located in states that imposed social distancing guidelines and other stay at home restrictions.  Due to this, the parties “are doubtful that any in person depositions may be taken at least for another sixty (60) days.” While sympathetic to the…
https-www-e-one-com-wp-content-uploads-2015-04-athensclarke-metro-100-ladder-png
Yes. Pierce Manufacturing secured a preliminary injunction prohibiting E-One from selling its Metro 100 single rear axle quint.  That preliminary injunction prohibits E-One from selling the Metro 100 during the pendency of the patent infringement litigation Pierce Manufacturing is pursuing against E-One.  Pierce Manufacturing accuses E-One of infringing 2 of its quint configuration patents: U.S. Patent 9,597,536 and 9,814,915.  (It appears from later pleadings that Pierce has dropped claims related to the ‘915 Patent). …
Patent, Trademark, and Copyright deadlines extended due to the COVID19 crisis. The United States Patent and Trademark Office today extended certain deadlines in connection with patent and trademark related matters due to the COVID19 crisis.  Similarly, the United States Copyright Office has announced modifications to deadlines in light of the crisis. Patent Deadlines Extended The USPTO exercised authority granted to it under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) to extend certain…
Not necessarily. Advanced Screenworks, LLC sued Gold Star Ventures and its owner for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent 8,146,647 for “Screen Clipping System and Clips Therefor.”   Advanced alleges that Gold Star infringes the ‘647 Patent by: making, using, offering to sell, and selling products, methods, and apparatuses for the screening of windows, doors, pool cages, and patios, including [Defendant’s] “Screening Buddy Dual Purpose Screen Retainer System” … which comes within the scope of the [‘647…
Yes. RooR International Bv and Sream, Inc (collectively “RooR”) have filed dozens (more? – a recent search suggests over 100 such cases) of suits throughout Florida asserting trademark rights for purported counterfeit sales of its water pipes.  Recently, RooR asserted such claims against Nipa Enterprise, Inc. and and Ashmaul Hosna for such alleged counterfeit sales at their store in 2016.  But Nipa and Hosna did not own the store in 2016.  Indeed, Nipa Enterprise, Inc.…
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. …