Jonathan Pink's Way Too Intelligent Intellectual Property Report Rotating Header Image

Patent Infringement Denied Based on Obviousness — Play Ball!

You know, I’m so b-a-d (oh, uh, that spells “bad” for those not yet awake) about getting new posts up here. (Oh please, it’s not like anyone’s paying me for this stuff, so lay off!) But I’ve been meaning to write about this one for a while, so – although it may be a little stale – here it is anyway.

This is the story of a patent suit. (The patents-in-suit are Numbers 5,803,501 and 6,142,532.) And the story involves entrepreneurs who sought protection for attaching sports memorabilia to baseball cards. Sort of like, buy the card, get the ball – or a shred of the player’s jersey. (What ever happened to buy the cards get the cardboard gum? I loved that stuff. It was filled with mystery – like the meat Jack-in-the-Box puts in its tacos. Anyway, I always liked the gum more than the cards, or the game for that matter, but then that’s me.)

So back our story. You know what they say, Federal Judges are the speed bumps on the road to commercial success. (“They” in that last sentence is “me” as in this blog, but go with it.) Specifically, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit voted earlier this month to affirm summary judgment that Media Technologies Licensing LLC’s patents were obvious based on pre-existing cards that featured entertainment memorabilia including, among others, the Fab Four, James Dean and Marilyn Monroe. Given this, the court stated that anyone with skill in the card/memorabilia area could have come up with the idea of attaching sports memorabilia to sports cards.

Easy come, easy go. The original patent-in-suit covered sports trading cards with a piece of that player’s uniform or other noteworthy item attached. (Maybe they should have attached steroid prescriptions and urine samples. Now that would have been interesting. Sports nuts – I just don’t get ‘em.) In any event, the Upper Deck Co. started selling something similar, Media Tech sued, claiming patent infringement. The district court granted summary judgment on the grounds that the patents were obvious, and now the Court of Appeals has agreed.

The net result? Upper Deck makes it home, safe from an infringement claim. Now if only these card makers would try something new, like inserting little strips of cardboard-like chewing gum in with the cards. Now there’s an idea!

Jonathan Pink is an intellectual property and commercial litigation attorney resident in the Irvine (Orange County) and Los Angeles offices of Bryan Cave, LLP. He specializes in handling high states copyright, trademark, patent and business disputes, and can be reached at 949-223-7173 or jonathan.pink@bryancave.com.

Jonathan Pink is a business lawyer with a specialty in copyright, patent and trademark litigation. His clients include many of the biggest names in the automotive and motorcycle aftermarket parts industries, and one of world's largest media companies. He has extensive experience in a wide range of intellectual property and commercial disputes including breach of contract, fraud, and the misappropriation of trade secrets. He can be reached at 949.223.7173, or at jonathan.pink@bryancave.com, and his full profile can be viewed at www.bryancave.com.

3 Comments on “Patent Infringement Denied Based on Obviousness — Play Ball!”

  1. #1 Антон Павлович
    on Mar 19th, 2010 at 7:52 am

    You know, I’m so b-a-d (oh, uh, that spells “bad” for those not yet awake) about getting new posts up here…..

    та ну его,так посмотрю…

  2. #2 BOB
    on Jul 5th, 2010 at 6:42 am


    Pillspot.org. Canadian Health&Care.Best quality drugs.Special Internet Prices.No prescription online pharmacy. High quality pills. Buy pills online

    Buy:Lasix.Wellbutrin SR.Acomplia.Amoxicillin.Prozac.Advair.Zocor.Zetia.Seroquel.Lipothin.Benicar.Aricept.Lipitor.Female Pink Viagra.SleepWell.Buspar.Cozaar.Female Cialis.Nymphomax.Ventolin….

  3. #3 Hotpoint
    on Aug 29th, 2010 at 8:17 pm

Leave a Comment