Blog: The IP Law Blog

In WAG Acquisition LLC v. Flying Crocodile Inc et al, 2-19-cv-01278 (WDWA Dec. 28, 2021), the Court granted defendants’ motion to stay pending ex parte reexamination even though the case had already previously been stayed pending inter partes review.

Read More

In November 2021, fast-food chain Jack in the Box sued FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange launched in 2019, over an allegedly infringing mascot named Lunar, referred to as “Moon Man”.  FTX featured its Moon Man character in commercials running during MLB games.  Jack in the Box is not happy.

In its complaint filed in Federal court in California, Jack in the Box references various tweets regarding the FTX Moon Man – “Oh look, it’s Walmart Jack in the Box!”, “Is it a dirty jack in the box thing?”, and “Jack in the Box’s drugged up cousin”.  One Twitter® user even tweeted a public post directly to FTX stating, “Hey, @FTX_Official, your mascot doesn’t look like the moon. He looks like Jack-In-The-Box with skin cancer.”

Read More

The IP Law Blog has been tracking the progress of the copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Taylor Swift by Sean Hall and Nathan Butler, the writers of “Playas Gon’ Play” by the girl group 3LW (released in 2001).  (See “Taylor Swift Keeps Fighting the ‘Players’ and the ‘Haters’” and “Hall v. Swift: Nothing Original About a Player Hater”.) Hall and Butler allege that Swift’s lyrics in “Shake It Off” (“Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play / And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate”) infringe on their song (“Playa, they gonna play / And haters, they gonna hate”).

Read More

Since the Alice v. CLS Bank and Mayo v. Prometheus decisions, district courts and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has struggled to determine and navigate the boundary between what is and what is not patent-eligible subject matter. The result has been a tangle of intertwined decisions that create an extremely wide and fuzzy boundary. Attorneys are often left to throw up their hands when asked whether a new invention is patentable or whether an existing patent will likely withstand a patent eligibility challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101.  Some would argue that Federal Circuit decisions are currently dependent on which panel of judges hear the case because the present law is so ambiguous and subject to different interpretations.   Therefore, the legal community, inventors, investors, corporations, and the public would greatly benefit from the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance on this issue.

Read More