Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustionYar Chaikovsky
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss Recent Decisions in Patent Exhaustion:
Bowman, Kirtsaeng and other developments impacting the exhaustion doctrine
Outline
1) First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Law
– Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013)
2) Overview of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine
– Quanta v. LG (2008)
3) Patent Exhaustion – “Territoriality Requirement”
– Jazz Photo line of cases
– Recent cases finding exhaustion with foreign sales
– Ninestar v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. denied (2013)
4) Self-Replicating Technology
– Bowman v. Monsanto (2013)
5) Notable Decision
– Keurig v. Sturm Foods (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Yar Chaikovsky is well regarded in the California market and peers and clients alike recognize his IP litigation practice. His fields of experience include semiconductor, communications, network and computer technologies. He achieved a stunning win for Yahoo! in a jury trial against Bedrock Computer in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, a patent litigation hotspot which many regard as plaintiff friendly. It was the first defense verdict in a patent infringement matter in this division since 2007. He recently represented HTC in ITC and district court patent infringement cases.
Keith Slenkovich is an experienced trial lawyer, who represents technology companies in intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation. As lead trial counsel, Mr. Slenkovich has taken more than 20 cases to verdict in state and federal courtrooms throughout the country. His intellectual property experience includes numerous patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark cases, including disputes alleging infringement or misappropriation in the clean tech, telecommunications, semiconductor, software, and manufacturing fields.
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsTerry81
Brayshaw V. Annette Garrett, Federal Lawsuit Against Her Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals on the internet against the First Amendment and Constitutional Rights of Rob Brayshaw. Brayshaw has a Federal Court order against this crooked and dirty cop in which he has the right to criticize and publish her public and personal information regarding her various fraud and corruption working as a dirty police officer.
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss patent exhaustionYar Chaikovsky
Yar Chaikovsky and Keith Slenkovich discuss Recent Decisions in Patent Exhaustion:
Bowman, Kirtsaeng and other developments impacting the exhaustion doctrine
Outline
1) First Sale Doctrine in Copyright Law
– Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013)
2) Overview of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine
– Quanta v. LG (2008)
3) Patent Exhaustion – “Territoriality Requirement”
– Jazz Photo line of cases
– Recent cases finding exhaustion with foreign sales
– Ninestar v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. denied (2013)
4) Self-Replicating Technology
– Bowman v. Monsanto (2013)
5) Notable Decision
– Keurig v. Sturm Foods (Fed. Cir. 2013)
Yar Chaikovsky is well regarded in the California market and peers and clients alike recognize his IP litigation practice. His fields of experience include semiconductor, communications, network and computer technologies. He achieved a stunning win for Yahoo! in a jury trial against Bedrock Computer in the Tyler Division of the Eastern District of Texas, a patent litigation hotspot which many regard as plaintiff friendly. It was the first defense verdict in a patent infringement matter in this division since 2007. He recently represented HTC in ITC and district court patent infringement cases.
Keith Slenkovich is an experienced trial lawyer, who represents technology companies in intellectual property disputes and complex commercial litigation. As lead trial counsel, Mr. Slenkovich has taken more than 20 cases to verdict in state and federal courtrooms throughout the country. His intellectual property experience includes numerous patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark cases, including disputes alleging infringement or misappropriation in the clean tech, telecommunications, semiconductor, software, and manufacturing fields.
Brayshaw v. Annette Garrett, Unconstitutional Internet Posting RemovalsTerry81
Brayshaw V. Annette Garrett, Federal Lawsuit Against Her Unconstitutional Internet Posting Removals on the internet against the First Amendment and Constitutional Rights of Rob Brayshaw. Brayshaw has a Federal Court order against this crooked and dirty cop in which he has the right to criticize and publish her public and personal information regarding her various fraud and corruption working as a dirty police officer.
In a recent trade dress dispute, In-N-Out Burgers and Doll n' Burgers fielded and submitted loads of consumer survey evidence for the court to consider. There are a number of issues and take-aways that are worthy of discussion and further consideration. Join me for this three-part series that takes a deep dive into the court's consumer survey analysis. Sign up for "Lanham Act Surveys for Lawyers" to keep current on all survey developments. https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7023348822592425985/
Several members of the Indianapolis City-County Council, as well as the city-county council clerk who was fired last week by Council President Stephen Clay, are taking him to court.
The EUIPO decision (September 2020) about the registration of the "Flower Thrower" by Bansky as a trademark [Full Colour Black Ltd vs. Pest Control Office Ltd]
2 of 2 DOCUMENTSJ. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO, Plaintiff-Appel.docxeugeniadean34240
2 of 2 DOCUMENTS
J. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- BANK OF AMERICA
CORP., MERRILL LYNCH, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 10-292-cv (L), 10-1307-cv (Con)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
448 Fed. Appx. 95; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21648
October 26, 2011, Decided
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion denied by Yung v. Bank of Am. Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1878, 182 L. Ed. 2d 641, 2012
U.S. LEXIS 2657 (U.S., 2012)
Related proceeding at Web-Adviso v. Trump, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28174 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2013)
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denny Chin,
Judge).
Webadviso v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13206 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2010)
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff internet businessman appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York an order granting summary judgment to defendant bank and investment company on plaintiff's
petition for a declaratory judgment and on defendants' counter-claim for violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(d).
OVERVIEW: The district court granted summary judgment sua sponte. After entering an order to show cause, the
district court granted plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to be heard. By plaintiff's own admission, he sought to acquire
high value domain names and park them with domain parking service providers to generate pay-per-click revenue. By
doing so, plaintiff ran afoul of the ACPA, for whether or not he had any intention of selling the domain names to
appellees, he clearly had the intention to profit from the goodwill associated with the trademarks that comprised the
domain names. Plaintiff's own self-description made clear that he registered the domain names in bad faith and thereby
violated the ACPA. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact prevented the district court from granting summary
judgment to defendants on their ACPA counter-claim.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
CORE TERMS: domain, registrant's, trademark, summary judgment, bad faith, site, registration, sua sponte,
distinctive, registered, consumers, material fact, fair use, bona fide, accessible, goodwill, tarnish, genuine issue, fair
opportunity, prior conduct, safe harbor, cybersquatting, counter-claim, pay-per-click, confusingly, sponsorship,
affiliation, endorsement, disparage, offering
Page 1
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Appellate Review > Standards of Review
[HN1] An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to grant summary judgment sua sponte to the movants de
novo.
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Appropriateness
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Genuine Disputes
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Sta.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
More Related Content
Similar to Bernier Et Al. v. Barstool Sports, Inc.
In a recent trade dress dispute, In-N-Out Burgers and Doll n' Burgers fielded and submitted loads of consumer survey evidence for the court to consider. There are a number of issues and take-aways that are worthy of discussion and further consideration. Join me for this three-part series that takes a deep dive into the court's consumer survey analysis. Sign up for "Lanham Act Surveys for Lawyers" to keep current on all survey developments. https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/7023348822592425985/
Several members of the Indianapolis City-County Council, as well as the city-county council clerk who was fired last week by Council President Stephen Clay, are taking him to court.
The EUIPO decision (September 2020) about the registration of the "Flower Thrower" by Bansky as a trademark [Full Colour Black Ltd vs. Pest Control Office Ltd]
2 of 2 DOCUMENTSJ. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO, Plaintiff-Appel.docxeugeniadean34240
2 of 2 DOCUMENTS
J. TAIKWOK YUNG WEBADVISO, Plaintiff-Appellant, -v.- BANK OF AMERICA
CORP., MERRILL LYNCH, Defendants-Appellees.
Nos. 10-292-cv (L), 10-1307-cv (Con)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
448 Fed. Appx. 95; 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21648
October 26, 2011, Decided
NOTICE: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE
CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion denied by Yung v. Bank of Am. Corp., 132 S. Ct. 1878, 182 L. Ed. 2d 641, 2012
U.S. LEXIS 2657 (U.S., 2012)
Related proceeding at Web-Adviso v. Trump, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28174 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2013)
PRIOR HISTORY: [**1]
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Denny Chin,
Judge).
Webadviso v. Bank of Am. Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13206 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 16, 2010)
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff internet businessman appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York an order granting summary judgment to defendant bank and investment company on plaintiff's
petition for a declaratory judgment and on defendants' counter-claim for violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer
Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C.S. § 1125(d).
OVERVIEW: The district court granted summary judgment sua sponte. After entering an order to show cause, the
district court granted plaintiff a full and fair opportunity to be heard. By plaintiff's own admission, he sought to acquire
high value domain names and park them with domain parking service providers to generate pay-per-click revenue. By
doing so, plaintiff ran afoul of the ACPA, for whether or not he had any intention of selling the domain names to
appellees, he clearly had the intention to profit from the goodwill associated with the trademarks that comprised the
domain names. Plaintiff's own self-description made clear that he registered the domain names in bad faith and thereby
violated the ACPA. Thus, no genuine issue of material fact prevented the district court from granting summary
judgment to defendants on their ACPA counter-claim.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
CORE TERMS: domain, registrant's, trademark, summary judgment, bad faith, site, registration, sua sponte,
distinctive, registered, consumers, material fact, fair use, bona fide, accessible, goodwill, tarnish, genuine issue, fair
opportunity, prior conduct, safe harbor, cybersquatting, counter-claim, pay-per-click, confusingly, sponsorship,
affiliation, endorsement, disparage, offering
Page 1
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Appellate Review > Standards of Review
[HN1] An appellate court reviews a district court's decision to grant summary judgment sua sponte to the movants de
novo.
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Appropriateness
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Standards > Genuine Disputes
Civil Procedure > Summary Judgment > Sta.
Sample Bail Bond Related Criminal Law MotionsSamuel Partida
A list of common motions filed in a criminal case related to the bail bond are provided. Six sample motions are provided that a prosecutor may typically file. Seven sample motions are provided that a defense attorney may typically file over the span of a typical criminal case.
Similar to Bernier Et Al. v. Barstool Sports, Inc. (20)
Car Accident Injury Do I Have a Case....Knowyourright
Every year, thousands of Minnesotans are injured in car accidents. These injuries can be severe – even life-changing. Under Minnesota law, you can pursue compensation through a personal injury lawsuit.
Synopsis On Annual General Meeting/Extra Ordinary General Meeting With Ordinary And Special Businesses And Ordinary And Special Resolutions with Companies (Postal Ballot) Regulations, 2018
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
Defending Weapons Offence Charges: Role of Mississauga Criminal Defence LawyersHarpreetSaini48
Discover how Mississauga criminal defence lawyers defend clients facing weapon offence charges with expert legal guidance and courtroom representation.
To know more visit: https://www.saini-law.com/
Matthew Professional CV experienced Government LiaisonMattGardner52
As an experienced Government Liaison, I have demonstrated expertise in Corporate Governance. My skill set includes senior-level management in Contract Management, Legal Support, and Diplomatic Relations. I have also gained proficiency as a Corporate Liaison, utilizing my strong background in accounting, finance, and legal, with a Bachelor's degree (B.A.) from California State University. My Administrative Skills further strengthen my ability to contribute to the growth and success of any organization.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentationseri bangash
"Lifting the Corporate Veil" is a legal concept that refers to the judicial act of disregarding the separate legal personality of a corporation or limited liability company (LLC). Normally, a corporation is considered a legal entity separate from its shareholders or members, meaning that the personal assets of shareholders or members are protected from the liabilities of the corporation. However, there are certain situations where courts may decide to "pierce" or "lift" the corporate veil, holding shareholders or members personally liable for the debts or actions of the corporation.
Here are some common scenarios in which courts might lift the corporate veil:
Fraud or Illegality: If shareholders or members use the corporate structure to perpetrate fraud, evade legal obligations, or engage in illegal activities, courts may disregard the corporate entity and hold those individuals personally liable.
Undercapitalization: If a corporation is formed with insufficient capital to conduct its intended business and meet its foreseeable liabilities, and this lack of capitalization results in harm to creditors or other parties, courts may lift the corporate veil to hold shareholders or members liable.
Failure to Observe Corporate Formalities: Corporations and LLCs are required to observe certain formalities, such as holding regular meetings, maintaining separate financial records, and avoiding commingling of personal and corporate assets. If these formalities are not observed and the corporate structure is used as a mere façade, courts may disregard the corporate entity.
Alter Ego: If there is such a unity of interest and ownership between the corporation and its shareholders or members that the separate personalities of the corporation and the individuals no longer exist, courts may treat the corporation as the alter ego of its owners and hold them personally liable.
Group Enterprises: In some cases, where multiple corporations are closely related or form part of a single economic unit, courts may pierce the corporate veil to achieve equity, particularly if one corporation's actions harm creditors or other stakeholders and the corporate structure is being used to shield culpable parties from liability.
Lifting the Corporate Veil. Power Point Presentation
Bernier Et Al. v. Barstool Sports, Inc.
1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAKE BERNIER, KENNETH LEMARIER and JOSEPH
BERNIER
Plaintiffs,
- against -
BARSTOOL SPORTS, INC.
Defendant.
Docket No. 1:19-cv-6319
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Jake Bernier (“Bernier”), Kenneth Lemarier (“Lemarier”), and Joseph Bernier
(“JBernier”) and all together (“Plaintiffs”) by and through their undersigned counsel, as and for
their Complaint against Defendant Barstool Sports, Inc. (“Barstool Sports” or “Defendant”)
hereby alleges as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action for copyright infringement under Section 501 of the Copyright
Act. This action arises out of Defendant’s unauthorized reproduction and public display of a
copyrighted design called Sad Roger, owned and registered by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
seeks monetary relief under the Copyright Act of the United States, as amended, 17 U.S.C. § 101
et seq.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This claim arises under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., and this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
Case 1:19-cv-06319-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 1 of 5
2. 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant resides in
and/or transacts business in New York.
4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
PARTIES
5. Bernier has a usual place of business at 10 Sargent Drive, Hooksett, NH 03106.
6. Lemarier has a usual place of business at 9 Windsor Drive, Auburn, NH 03032.
7. JBernier has a usual place of business at 1 Elm Street, Byfield, MA 01922.
8. Upon information and belief, Barstool Sports is a foreign business corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with a place of business at
15 West 27th
Street, 3rd
Floor, New York, New York 10001. Upon information and belief
Barstool Sports is registered with the New York Department of State Division of Corporations to
do business in the State of New York.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Background and Plaintiffs’ Ownership of the Design
9. Plaintiffs created a design called Sad Roger (the “Design”). A true and correct
copy of the Design is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
10. Plaintiffs are the authors of the Design and has at all times been the sole owner of
all right, title and interest in and to the Design, including the copyright thereto.
11. The Design was registered with the United States Copyright Office and was given
registration number VA 2-116-015.
B. Defendant’s Infringing Activities
12. Barstool Sports licensed the Design for a one-time use in 2015.
Case 1:19-cv-06319-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 2 of 5
3. 13. Without a license, Barstool Sports continued using the Design beyond the scope
of the 2015 one-time usage license.
14. Barstool Sports used the Design on clothing, posters, towels, t-shirts, hoodies,
coffee mugs, cooler packs, bathing suits, golf covers and billboards. See Exhibit B.
15. Barstool Sports then created derivative designs from the Design.
16. Upon information and belief, Barstool Sports partnered with retail companies like
Olympia Sports to sell the merchandise with the Design in stores around the country.
17. Plaintiffs did not give permission to Barstool Sports to partner with any third
parties to sell merchandise with their Design.
18. Barstool Sports did not license the Design from Plaintiffs for its continued use,
nor did Barstool Sports have Plaintiffs permission or consent to publish the Design on anything
beyond the initial license.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT)
(17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501)
19. Plaintiffs incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in
Paragraphs 1-18 above.
20. Barstool Sports infringed Plaintiffs copyright in the Design by reproducing and
publicly displaying the Design. Barstool Sports is not, and has never been, licensed or otherwise
authorized to reproduce, publicly display, distribute and/or use the Design.
21. The acts of Defendant complained of herein constitute infringement of Plaintiffs
copyright and exclusive rights under copyright in violation of Sections 106 and 501 of the
Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501.
Case 1:19-cv-06319-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 3 of 5
4. 22. Upon information and belief, the foregoing acts of infringement by Defendant
have been willful, intentional, and purposeful, in disregard of and indifference to Plaintiffs
rights.
23. As a direct and proximate cause of the infringement by the Defendant of Plaintiffs
copyright and exclusive rights under copyright, Plaintiffs is entitled to damages and Defendant’s
profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b) for the infringement.
24. Alternatively, Plaintiffs is entitled to statutory damages up to $150,000 per work
infringed for Defendant’s willful infringement of the Design, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
25. Plaintiffs further is entitled to their attorney’s fees and full costs pursuant to
17 U.S.C. § 505.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests judgment as follows:
1. That Defendant Barstool Sports be adjudged to have infringed upon Plaintiffs
copyrights in the Design in violation of 17 U.S.C §§ 106 and 501;
2. That Plaintiffs be awarded either: a) Plaintiffs actual damages and Defendant’s
profits, gains or advantages of any kind attributable to Defendant’s infringement
of Plaintiffs Design; or b) alternatively, statutory damages of up to $150,000 per
copyrighted work infringed pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504;
3. That Defendant be required to account for all profits, income, receipts, or other
benefits derived by Defendant as a result of its unlawful conduct;
4. That Plaintiffs be awarded their costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees pursuant to
17 U.S.C. § 505;
5. That Plaintiffs be awarded pre-judgment interest; and
Case 1:19-cv-06319-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 4 of 5
5. 6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).
Dated: Valley Stream, New York
July 8, 2019
LIEBOWITZ LAW FIRM, PLLC
/s/Richard Liebowitz
Richard Liebowitz
11 Sunrise Plaza, Suite 305
Valley Stream, New York 11580
516-233-1660
RL@LiebowitzLawFirm.com
Attorneys for all Plaintiffs
Case 1:19-cv-06319-DLC Document 1 Filed 07/08/19 Page 5 of 5