Blehm v. Jacobs
When determining whether works are substantially similar, courts will analyse the protected expression of underlying concepts and themes – not the themes sought to be expressed.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
C. W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos
A patent claim's preamble is a limitation if it is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
In re Fenofibrate Patent Litigation
When a patent claim calls for a quantity “between” two numbers, it should be construed to cover only that specific range and it should not be read to cover “a range between two values which are themselves ranges.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC
To relitigate a previous judicial determination of genericness, a purported trademark holder would need to show a drastic change in consumer perception.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation
An unsuccessful filing of an ANDA is a statutory act of infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
National Football Scouting, Inc. v. Rang
A numerical expression representing an opinion of a player’s likelihood of succeeding in the NFL is copyrightable.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega
Delay in registering trademark resulted in unfair prejudice.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Yamazaki
Once a patent has issued subject to the terms of a terminal disclaimer, the Patent and Trademark Office is foreclosed from later reissuing the patent with a term greater than that for which the patent was originally issued.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Pregis Corp. v. Kappos
Because the Patent Act provides sufficient administrative and judicial relief for third parties injured by wrongly issued patents, the APA cannot be used to provide competitors in a patent dispute with an alternative means to obtain relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Brandywine Commun. Tech, LLC v. Casio Computer Co. Ltd.
To state a valid claim for contributory infringement, a plaintiff must plead facts suggesting the defendant both knew of the existence of the relevant patent at the time of the infringement, and that the product has no substantial non-infringing uses.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Metso Minerals Indus., Inc. v. Johnson Crushers Intl., Inc.
When the difference between subject matter patented and prior art is such that the solution patented would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, the patent is invalid for obviousness.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents