January 11 summaries
Marctec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation
A litigation position which is unsupported by the intrinsic record, because it ignores both the specification and prosecution history, may be found frivolous and support a finding of vexatious litigation misconduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.
Defendant largely acted in accordance with DMCA when it provided plaintiff with a means to contact concerning removal of infringing images.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Celsis In Vitro Inc, v. Cellzdirect, Inc.
The court analyzes four factors when considering a preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm, 3) balance of hardships, and 4) public interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Golan v. Holder
Congress did not exceed its authority under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution by removing works from the public domain previously unprotected by U.S. copyright laws.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber
"Disclosure of multiple examples [of embodiments] does not necessarily mean that such list is exhaustive." "Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible."
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Bohnsack v. Varco
If the plaintiff filed for a patent on the defendant’s invention, this is enough to constitute use of the defendant’s trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed
"A putative inventor who envisions the structure of a novel genus of chemical compounds and contributes the method of making that genus contributes to the conception of that genus."
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation
In a reverse trademark infringement case, the senior trademark owner still must demonstrate that he or she still has a distinct mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Jacob Krippelz, Sr. v. Ford Motor Company
Conclusory expert testimony is not a substitute for actual prior art disclosure in an anticipation analysis.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
HTC Corporation v. IP-COM GMBH & CO.
To determine whether a means plus function limitation is definite, a court looks to: 1) the particular claimed function, and 2) the specification and corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform that function.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Charles L. Sims v. Viacom, Inc.
To file a claim for copyright infringement, one must first register a copyright.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
February 14 summaries
Craig Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
The words of a patent claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Adair, Athwal, and Emtage v. Carter and Presta
"To overcome a [35 U.S.C.] § 135(b)(1) bar for a post-critical date claim, an applicant must show that such claim is not materially different from a pre-critical date claim present in the application… to obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Seacalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Mach. Co
Plaintiff's contention that exterior design of commercial hoist qualified for trade dress protection unavailable under Lanham Act due to a finding of functionality.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC
In determining the construction of a means-plus function claim “[a] court must look to the specification to determine the structures that correspond to the claimed function."
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
United States v. Jin
Under the Economic Espionage Act, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an economic spy intends to supply a trade secret to a benefitting nation.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Astrazeneca Pharmacuticals LP v. Apotex Corp.
Charging a §271(e)(2) patent infringement claim confers subject matter jurisdiction upon federal courts. In order to state a claim under §271(e)(2) for pharmaceutical use, the Abbreviated New Drug Application of the defendant must claim a use that was already patented.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
Long contested patent with application filed on October 24, 1974 and patent finally granted on August 20, 2002. The challenge involves issues of inventorship, anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description and of willful infringement, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an ongoing royalty.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC v. Market Masters-Legal
As a general rule, copyright law does not protect scenes a faire, that are incidents, characters, or settings which, as a practical matter are indispensable or standard in the treatment of a given topic, and though an “ordinary” phrase may be quoted without fear of infringement, a copier may not quote or paraphrase the sequence of creative expression that includes such a phrase.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church
A licensing agreement does not entitle the licensee to perpetual use of the composition for post expiration productions. Also, to show that vicarious liability or infringement exists in copyright claims, the individual in question must supervise or at least have the ability to supervise the infringing activity, and the individual must have a financial interest in the allegedly infringing activity.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC
If an assignee becomes a registered owner of the copyright and renewal rights in a song while the author is alive and before the rights have vested, then the author cannot will those rights to someone else upon his death.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC
Simply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC
The definition of a term claimed in one applicant's original prosecution was treated as intrinsic evidence when construing the claim of the same term in another applicant's application.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claim Construction
Kwan Software Eng'g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC
Independent development constituted complete defense to copyright infringement and DMCA claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement, DCMA
Loftness Specialized Farm Equip., Inc. v. Twiestmeyer
A breach of a non-disclosure agreement alone formed the basis of an action even though the information protected by the non-disclosure agreement would not otherwise be entitled to trade secret protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Nondisclosure agreements
March 19 summaries
Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC
Simply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Beane v. Mii Technologies, LLC
An assertion that all information ever created amounts to a trade secret does not satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Trade Secret Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
In re Erik P. Staats and Robin D. Lash
The two-year limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 251 relating to broadening of claims on reissue application only applies to the first broadening reissue application; any further broadening reissue applications, whether or not related to the first broadening reissue application, may be filed outside of the two-year limit.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
In re Viterra Inc.
Concerning identical marks, the “degree of similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines.”
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Own Your Power Communications, Inc. v. Oprah Winfrey
A trademark phrase can be used by Plaintiff in a non-trademark descriptive sense and thus will not infringe on Defendant's trademark phrase.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Digital-Vending Services International, LLC v. The University of Phoenix, Inc.
“The context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive” to its claim construction. A limitation should not be read into a claim “based on statements made during prosecution absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Bedford Auto Dealers Assoc. v. Mercedes Benz of North Olmsted
Even though Plaintiff may have registered term as a trademark, if the court finds that the term is generic then the term will not be worthy of the protection of a trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.
Laches may bar relief, but not automatically; a showing of “plus” factors must be presented for laches to bar relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Haibo, Inc.
When assessing the amount of statutory damages warranted for infringement, the Court has wide discretion.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
OgoSport, LLC v. Maranda Enterprises, LLC
Even if a plaintiff established a protectable trade dress and a likelihood of confusion, it cannot prevail if defendant shows that trade dress is merely functional.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Erickson v. Blake
If there is primarily only one way to express an idea, the expression cannot be copyrighted under the merger doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon Inc.
Intervening rights with respect to reissued patents do not accrue where the accused product or activity infringes a claim that existed in the original patent and remains without substantive change after reissue.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.
Patents based on natural law must contain other inventive elements to ensure the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent of the natural law itself.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
McGee v. André
Copyright infringement can only occur when probative and substantial similarity are proven; copyright does not protect unoriginal work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc.
Under Utah precedent, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts claims based on the unauthorized use of information, regardless of whether that information met the statutory definition of a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Ergo Licensing, LLC v CareFusion 303, Inc.
Means-plus-function terms are required to point out the particular structure used to perform the function, lest it be deemed “indefinite.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Merit Homes, LLC v. Joseph Carl Homes, LLC
A nonexclusive license can be granted without a written conveyance.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Poindexter v. EMI Record Group, Inc.
Only the owner of the copyright has standing to assert a claim for its infringement, and assignment of the right to sue to a non-owner is insufficient to confer standing.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Fail-Safe, LLC v. A.O. Smith Corp.
By volunteering information without broaching the topic of confidentiality, it is unreasonable to expect a confidential relationship.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
April 11 summaries
Advanced Fiber Technologies Trust v. J&L Fiber Services, Inc.
Unclear patent terms can be probative of a lack of willfulness on the part of an alleged patent infringer.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.
Intentionally withholding prior art material to the patent's subject matter from the Patent and Trademark Office will render a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.
Failure to disclose all of the algorithms necessary for the claimed functions will be treated as if no algorithm was disclosed at all.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
U.S. v. Nosal
The phrase “exceeds authorized” in the CFAA is limited to access restrictions, and does not extend to use restrictions.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Steak Umm v. Steak ‘Em Up
Injunctions for trademark infringement cannot be granted if the trademarks are not likely to cause customer confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
U.S. v. Lam
The jury is granted broad discretion to discern whether allegedly infringed goods and marks are indistinguishable from the legitimate mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
Undisclosed prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Trident Products & Services, LLC v. Canadian Soiless Wholesale, Ltd.
Without expert testimony, a reasonable juror could not determine whether a trade secret was "not known or readily ascertainable by proper means."
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Reverse payment settlements do not violate antitrust laws in patent cases, because patent holders have been granted a lawful right to exclude for the duration of their patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Harley v. Nesby
Circumstantial evidence of access plus substantial similarities can show actual copying
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ir., Ltd. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
Patent infringement cannot be shown where the alleged infringers do not directly apply, and accepted testing method do not show the presence of, the patented substance.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
May 19 summaries
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10
Trade secret infringement is possible even when materials are widely distributed if the methods for compiling those materials are not.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10
Copyright registration obtained more than five years after publication does not constitute prima facie evidence of valid copyright ownership. Transfer of rights must be accompanied by a written conveyance or a later written confirmation of transference.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
OSI Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.
To invalidate a patent on grounds of anticipation or obviousness, an alleged infringer must demonstrate that the patent is invalid with clear and convincing evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.
In discerning obviousness, the court looks to whether one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable motivation to modify the earlier claimed compound to make the compound of the asserted claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis
A partial owner could terminate his or her right, so long as it was only for his or her part.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
In re Youman
The Patent and Trademark Office must determine whether the narrowing language related to surrendered subject matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Wag’n Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations
Unfounded and purely speculative concerns over confusion do not evince actual confusion by consumers.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp.
To demonstrate willful infringement, a patentee must show the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood it was infringing a valid patent and that the infringer either knew, or the risk was so obvious that it should have known, of the risk it was infringing a valid patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
In re Baxter Intl., Inc.
Because of the lower standard of proof used in PTO reexaminations, the PTO is not bound by validity decisions of the courts on the same patent claims, especially when the PTO considers evidence not presented to the court when it reached its decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.
TRADEMARK; POST-SALE CONFUSION (Post-sale confusion does not result in a “misdirected purchase” but a “purchase intended to confuse.")
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
WNET v. Aereo, Inc.
The Copyright Act is preempted by state law when the material is privately broadcasted if it is not already protected and is different from a copyright claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Beerntsen Candies, Inc. v. Beerntsen’s Confectionary, Inc.
Surname rule applies even after the name no longer gives information about the owner of the business.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Hyon
Obviousness is a question of fact that the Court of Appeals reviews for substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking Company
In testing for genericness, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gauge whether ”the public perceives the term primarily as the designation of the article."
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Weco Supply co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
A “supplier/jobber" relationship does not create a duty of confidentiality.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Moore v. Commercial Aircraft Interiors, LLC
Where there is no suspicion of disclosure of trade secrets, an employer may still prohibit employment with a competitor for fear of unconscious disclosure of trade secrets.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.
The Merge Doctrine does not prevent authors from creating copyrightable expressions of rules or concepts.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
DISH Network, L.L.C. v. Sonicview USA, Inc.
Creating boxes designed to circumvent satellite encryption illegally is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Copyright covers only the specific writing of program code, not program function, or presentation.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
June 12 summaries
Formfactor, Inc. v. Micro Probe, Inc.
A trade secret does not exist upon failure to describe the "subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge."
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Hollmer v. Harari
When inquiring into the continuity of multiple patent applications, the adequacy of an incorporation by reference is determined by the reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation
A complaint that meets the requirements of a relevant sample form in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be dismissed for failing to meet the requirements established under the Twombly line of cases.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc.
Rights to a trademark were not upheld when there was an ambiguous agreement and First Amendment rights did not outweigh public interest in free expression.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
L.A. Printex Industries v. Aeropostale Inc.
A certificate of registration containing inaccurate information is sufficient to sustain an infringement claim, so long as the applicant was unaware of the inaccuracy, and the inaccuracy would not have caused the copyright office to reject the application.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Obodai v. Demand Media, Inc.
Conforming to the DMCA's safe harbor provision protects a service provider from committing contributory copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
Trademark dilution was not found when consumers were unlikely to be confused under the Lantham Act standard.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform
The courts look to transformative use, the amount of copyrighted material used, and the market in which the copyrighted material is used when determining whether a work is protected under “fair use.”
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
When plaintiff claiming patent infringement fails to establish any basis for an award of relief, the defendant is entitled to a judgment dismissing the case.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Drew Estate Holding Co., LLC v. Fantasia Distribution, Inc.
Under the "natural expansion" doctrine, a trademark owner enjoys protection over related goods that lie within the realm of the natural expansion of its business.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Mouttet
When a patent claims a structure already known, differing only in the substitution of one known element for another, it must do more than yield the predictable result of that substitution to avoid rejection for obviousness.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.
An infringing system is made at the place where it is assembled for use, while it is used at the place where it is put into operation.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
July 10 summaries
Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. Paul
When parties are not in direct competition, evidence linking a loss in profits to the trademark infringement is required.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
General Electric Co. v. ITC
Tariff Act of 1930, § 337, protects domestic industry by prohibiting imports that infringe on U.S. patents.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.
Evidence of fame that postdates an intent-to-use application is relevant to a showing of a likelihood of confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC
A trustee’s rejection of a contract does not abrogate a trademark license.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Loughlin v. Ling
If a patent application is entitled to receive the benefit of an earlier effective date under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the earlier date is that application’s filing date for determining whether any of that application's claims offend the one year time restraint in 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
deVere Group GMBH v. Opinion Corp.
Use of company name and description in web address for an internet consumer review site does not show plausible confusion required for a trademark violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Granger v. One Call Lender Services
The award of statutory damages is appropriate in the default judgment context, but a single infringer of a single work is only liable for a single amount regardless of the number of infringement acts.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
In re Antor Media Corporation
Unclaimed disclosures in patents carry a presumption of enablement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Dish Network, L.L.C. v. Alejandri
To demonstrate circumvention of access controls, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant distributed the technology, and (2) that the technology was designed to circumvent access control systems and has only limited alternative uses.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Chicago Bldg. Design P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.
A claim for copyright infringement must be brought within 3 years of a party receiving notice (actual or inquiry) of a completed claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
August 12 summaries
InterDigital Communications, LLC. v. International Trade Commission
The differentiation doctrine presumption is particularly strong in cases where a limitation is the sole differentiation between claims and one party is asserting a dependent claim on an independent claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Chicago Bldg. Design P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.
Although the courts should be reluctant to resolve religious property disputes, they may do so if the dispute can be resolved without consideration of doctrinal or other religious matters.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Lopez v. Gap, Inc.
TRADEMARK; UNFAIR COMPETITION (Trademark infringement was not found when marks are not sufficiently distinctive and use primarily geographic terms.)
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Beineke
An accidental seedlings discovery is not the product of the human inventive faculty.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Hearthware, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons
Similarities in infomercials do not constitute copyright infringement when the similarities are standard components of infomercials.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Hearthware Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc.
If an allegedly infringing product owner does not make a literal lie in advertising the product, then there must be a showing of a likelihood of confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Perfect Pearl Co. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc.
Prior use of a mark in commerce is sufficient to earn trademark rights and trumps those rights in the marks that were later obtained by another by registering the marks.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v emsCharts, Inc.
Clear and convincing evidence cannot be established upon successful claim reexamination when material is not deemed "but-for" material.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Peters v. West
A strong evidentiary showing of the opportunity to copy a work does not lessen the plaintiff's burden to show a significant similarity between the copyrighted and offending works.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC
A patentee may enlarge the scope of his original claim only if by error he claimed less than he had a right to claim in the original patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.
A JMOL for patent non-infringement must be supported with substantial evidence. Permanent injunctions on patent infringement cannot be upheld where losses are quantifiable based on lost license fees and damages are not irreparable harm.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
In re Applied Materials, Inc.
Simple determination of optimum ranges for operation, and development of more comprehensive explanations of variable relationship based on broad ranges of prior art, does not qualify as non-obvious.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
September 8 summaries
Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
For “means-plus-function” claims using algorithms, one must disclose it so as to show how its structure, material, or act supports the patent claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Suntree Tech., Inc. v. Ecosense Intl., Inc.
A plaintiff must establish that the defendant not only used its protected mark, or one confusingly similar to it, but also that it was likely to confuse consumers as to source of the product or service.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Libya v. Miski
To establish a protected right in a descriptive mark, a party must demonstrate, with survey data or other evidence, that the mark has obtained secondary meaning in the marketplace.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset
Record companies are not entitled to clarification of the Copyright Act without a Art. III case or controversy; Copyright infringement includes making media available to be distributed as well as actual distribution.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. v. GP Consulting, LLC
A list of confidential information, which fails to explain which items are trade secrets or how that information was misappropriated, is insufficient to support a claim of misappropriation of a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc.
To render a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, both the materiality of a nondisclosure or misrepresentation and intent to deceive the USPTO must be proven.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Granger v. Acme Abstract Co.
In order to determine if a computer program is copyrightable and has been infringed, one must delineate between the copyrightable expression and the unprotected elements of the program.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Molinelli-Freytes v. University of Puerto Rico
An original manuscript created by employees while performing duties that are within the scope of their employment may be used by the employer without violating the 1976 Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
October 10 summaries
Belkin Intl., Inc. v. Kappos
The Director's determination that prior art does not raise substantial new questions of patentability is final and nonappealable.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
The Authors Guild v. Hathitrust
Digitizing a book and putting it into a format possible for a print-disabled person to access it is sufficiently transformative for a fair-use defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S
Prosecution history estoppel bars the assertion of the doctrine of equivalents when the presumption that a key claim phrase was narrowed to secure the patent in question is not overcome.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Technology Patents, LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd.
Doctrine of Equivalents will not broaden claims beyond their explicit terms.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Sempris, LLC v. Watson
Noncompete agreements signed by employees of a company that are later acquired remain valid.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos
To rebut the presumption that a limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation, the patentee must show that the limitation is essentially “devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Brandywine Commun. Tech., Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Where knowledge is an essential element of a patent infringement claim, the defendant must have been aware of the patent's existence before litigation was instigated in order for that element to be satisfied.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Winchester Mystery House, LLC v. Global Asylum, Inc.
A trademark claim could be made when an allegedly infringing movie title bares no relation to the film or there was an intent to mislead.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Hobbs v. John
Concepts and feelings are not copyrightable when they belong to the general scène à faire of the genre.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Wilden Pump and Engineering LLC v. JDA Global LLC
Part numbers are not source identifiers when a prefix is used to differentiate between makers of similar parts
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
November 6 summaries
Hor v. Chu
The time period for asserting the defense of laches against an inventorship claim is measured from the date the patent was issued, not from the date the patent application was filed.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Norgren, Inc. v. ITC
The possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not mean an administrative agency's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Vault Brands, Inc.
Claims for trademark infringement are not proper if the term has only been used as a descriptor, not a trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.
When a court determines that a patent presents a prima facie case of obviousness, a presumption of invalidity for obviousness is raised. That presumption, however, can be rebutted by strong, objective evidence showing that the patent is nonobvious.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation
Parties that purchase patented goods have standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim against the patentee, alleging the patent was obtained by fraud on the PTO.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
General Electric Co. v. Wilkins
The Clear and Convincing evidentiary standard required to rebut the presumption of patent validity will not be met when the key corroborative witness testimony is predicated on the challenging party’s own sequence of events.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
December 11 summaries
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
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
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
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
In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation
An unsuccessful filing of an ANDA is a statutory act of infringement.
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
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