article thumbnail

False patent marking claims survive even when Dastar bars false advertising claims based on "innovation"

43(B)log

30, 2024) (R&R) Recommendation: Dastar should block Qingdao’s Lanham Act false advertising counterclaims based on Lashify’s claim to be the originator of lash technology, but false patent marking counterclaims should survive. Qingdao Lashbeauty Cosmetic Co., 2024 WL 629985, No. W-22-CV-00776-ADA-DTG, No. W-22-CV-00777-ADA-DTG (W.D.

article thumbnail

Squawking over butter chicken: The mystery of the real master chef

SpicyIP

or false advertising – the defendant claims to be the ‘inventor of Butter Chicken and Dal Makhani’; or is there an actual ‘invention’ in question – owners of both restaurants call themselves ‘inventors’ of the dish? They claim to be the ‘true and first inventors’.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Do Not Pass 'Go': How a Board Game Decision Is Applicable to Idea Theft Disputes in the Advertising Industry - Kattison Avenue | Issue 8 - Spring 2022

JD Supra Law

At first blush, the recent lawsuit filed by a toy inventor against toy and game company, Hasbro, would seem to have little to do with the advertising industry. In fact, however, the decision by the Southern District of New York has everything to do with advertising. By: Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

article thumbnail

Federal Court Rules that Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be an Inventor under the Patent Act

Delaware Intellectual Property Litigation Blog

In Thaler , the Court confronted, analyzed and answered the question of “can an artificial intelligence machine be an ‘inventor’ under the Patent Act?” In reaching its holding, the Court found that “Congress intended to limit the definition of ‘inventor’ to natural persons” which means humans – not artificial intelligence.

article thumbnail

LinkedIn posts weren't commercial advertising or promotion for pediatric orthopedics

43(B)log

I’m only going to discuss the false advertising aspects. There is an ongoing, separate litigation about ownership of the relevant patent; plaintiffs alleged that the two inventors assigned the patent to plaintiff Orthex. Lanham Act claim: Were these alleged statements commercial advertising or promotion?

article thumbnail

VPX Exec Tells Jury 'Super Creatine' Effects Were Not Studied

IP Law 360

and co-inventor of Bang energy drink's super creatine on Wednesday told a California federal jury hearing false advertising claims brought by Monster Energy Co. The top scientist at Vital Pharmaceuticals Inc.

article thumbnail

Dastar bars false marking claims brought under Lanham Act (dubitante)

43(B)log

17, 2023) Super-interesting holding that, while there’s no patent field preemption against bringing false patent marking claims under the Lanham Act, Dastar (as expansively interpreted to cover false advertising claims) does preclude such claims, possibly only because of party argument.