Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
IT’S JUST NOT DONE TO COPY SOMEONE ELSE’S DRESS Federated Department Stores Inc. and Sephora USA L.L.C. have settled a trade dress infringement suit over claims that Federated’s Macy’s West unit copied the look of Sephora’s European-style cosmetics and fragrance stores. French company Sephora filed the trade dress suit last August in federal court in San Francisco. It alleged that when Macy’s turned its cosmetic departments into the Souson-brand line of stores within the store, it made them virtually identical to Sephora outlets, with the same interior design, displays and merchandising arrangements. Sephora officials said on June 15 that they had agreed to drop their suit for an undisclosed financial settlement. Sephora USA L.L.C. v. Macy’s West Inc., Case No. C-99-3809 (N.D. Calif.). USING SNEAKY TACTICS LOSES APTIX ITS INFRINGEMENT CASE U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup has thrown out a patent infringement lawsuit filed by computer-design systems maker Aptix Corp. against rival Quickturn Design Systems Inc. after finding that an Aptix executive had falsified entries in engineering notebooks and had destroyed evidence in the case. Aptix originally sued Quickturn in federal court in San Francisco in 1998, contending that Quickturn was infringing on a patented Aptix technology that helps in the design of integrated circuits used in computers. It was seeking at least $25 million in lost royalties. In his 49-page order, Judge Alsup noted that the Aptix executive’s actions amounted to “utter bad faith” and, in addition to dismissing the suit, ordered the San Jose, Calif.-based company to pay all of Quickturn’s legal fees. Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Systems Inc., Case No. C-98-00762 (N.D. Calif.). VISTIONARY SYSTEM PROVES LESS THAN VISIONARY PPT Vision has agreed to pay $1 million to National Instruments Corp. to settle a patent infringement lawsuit over technology involved in producing systems that allow manufacturers to oversee the quality of goods being produced. PPT Vision has also agreed to change its machine-vision systems so that they don’t infringe on National Instruments’ system. The systems allow manufacturers to take pictures of mechanical parts being produced or finished products as a quality control measure. National Instruments originally sued PPT in federal court in San Antonio in March 1999, alleging that its Vision Program Manager incorporated features that infringed on its patented technology used in vision systems. National Instruments Corp. v. PPT Vision Inc., Case No. 99-CV-00187 (W.D. Texas). MIDLIFE CRISIS SETTLED FOR DANISH DRUG COMPANY Danish Drugmaker Novo Nordisk A.S. has settled an infringement suit against American Home Products Corp. over hormone replacement therapy products. Under the agreement, Novo and Pharmacia Corp. will get licensing rights to American Home’s patented Activella, a drug used by women during menopause. Novo has licensed drugs such as Activella to Pharmacia for marketing in the United States. Novo Nordisk originally filed suit against Madison, N.J.-based American Home in federal court in Newark, N.J., in 1999. The Copenhagen, Denmark-based pharmaceutical company argued that Activella infringed on its synthetic hormone product. Novo Nordisk A/s v. American Home Products Inc., Case No. 99-3162-GEB (D.N.J.). THREE-YEAR MORATORIUM FOR BATTLING TECH MANUFACTURERS Ezenia! Inc., a maker of multimedia conference software, has agreed to settle a patent infringement lawsuit filed by its predecessor company against rival Accord Networks Inc. for $6.5 million. As part of the agreement, Ezenia! and Accord officials also agreed not to sue each other for three years over rights to the technology behind software that allows Internet users to get voice and video communications over the World Wide Web. The predecessor of Ezenia!, Videoserver Inc., originally sued Atlanta-based Accord Networks and one of its units in federal court in Boston in 1998 for infringing on patents covering technology for transcoding video signals. The settlement was announced on June 19 . Videoserver Inc. v. Accord Video Telecom Corp., Case No. 98-CV-12381 (D. Mass).

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.