January 7 summaries
Wax v. Amazon Techs., Inc.
Using a mark for a variety of services preserves a priority for the mark's use.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
To demonstrate literal infringement, the plaintiff must show that the defendant infringed every claim limitation.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Whitaker v. Stanwood Imps.
Without further circumstantial evidence, wide dissemination and third party copying is insufficient to show access for copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Alberts v. Kappos
If the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art, then the patent is obvious.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos
Prior art may anticipate a missing feature that must be necessarily present, or inherent, without explicitly disclosing that feature.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Lead It Corporation v. Tallapalli
The Copyright Act requires the copyright holder to register their works before suing for copyright infringement, however statutory damages and attorney's fees will be barred if the infringement of commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Pfizer, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Animal tests of multiple animals are not required for enablement purposes of pharmaceutical patents, so long as the claim reflects varied effects on different species.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
February 16 summaries
CleanCut, LLC v. Rug Doctor, Inc.
Objective willfulness exists where the patentee shows that “the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
U.S. v. Howley
Taking reasonable steps to protect trade secrets includes a "no photography" policy and guards surrounding the building.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Bridgetree, Inc. v. Red F Marketing LLC
Making employees available for deposition, providing discovery for the alleged trade secret in question, and providing expert testimony are sufficient steps to identify alleged trade secrets.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
The disclosure of an algorithm for a similar, but different, structure from which a person skilled in the art could derive the undisclosed algorithm is not adequate disclosure, and the limitation containing the undisclosed algorithm is therefore invalid for indefiniteness.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Skyline Zipline Global, LLC v. Domeck
A device that is the antithesis of a patented product does not infringe the original patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers
Stated intention to license the use of a service mark is too speculative to form the basis of an infringement action.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Hallford v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.
In order to determine substantial similarity between a television show and a screenplay the court compares the stories' plot and sequence, characters, themes, setting and pace, and total concept and feel.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Enablement can be found when one skilled in the art can practice the invention without “undue experimentation.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Engenium Solutions v. Symphonic Techs.
In a claim of literal infringement of software a court uses a filtration-comparison analysis rather than the abstraction-filtration-comparison test used in non-literal software copyright claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Multi Time Mach., v. Amazon.com
To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s website uses the plaintiff’s mark confusingly when a consumer searches the defendant’s website.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.
When a patent differs from prior art by only a single limitation, the patent is invalid by anticipation if that limitation is covered by other prior art.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.
In the absence of direct evidence of a violation, the circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Rucker v. Harlequin Enterprises, LTD
Copyright violations will not be found when the only similarities between competing romance novels are generic tropes and character traits commonly used in the industry.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co.
Compilations of information may qualify for trade secret protection even if the information is publicly available.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Yellowbook, Inc. v. Brandeberry
If a trademark is owned in both a personal and corporate capacity, sale of the corporate interest in the mark does not mean it can be used in business by the seller.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
PC Puerto Rico LLC. v. El Smaili
Injunctive relief was appropriate when gas stations stopped selling gas but continued to display the Texaco mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
March 12 summaries
Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd.
Liability for indirect patent infringement can occur when claim steps are performed by more than one entity, provided the elements for inducement are met.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Wilson v. New Palace Casino, LLC
Protection of works of art under VARA does not extend vicariously to derivative works.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom International Inc.
A plaintiff must effectively plead that an infringing product is actually in the market to state a claim of trademark infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn, Inc.
PATENTS; INDUCED INFRINGEMENT: Datasheets and other markings on patented material showed actual knowledge required to prove induced infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
Because a new claim contained more material than the original claim, the claim was enlarged and the patent was invalid.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The 'first sale' doctrine is not constrained by a geographic limitation and applies to any copyrighted work which was lawfully produced in accordance to the Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Columbia Pictures Indus. V. Gary Fung
Services involved in and promoted for use in a process of reproducing copyrighted material may give rise to contributory infringement even if no product is provided to actual infringers.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Allied Mach. & Eng'g Corp. v. Competitive Carbide, Inc.
Where a third party complaint against inventor/patent assignor is based on the defense of invalidity, rather than a cause of action, and the inventor's rights in the patent have been assigned to another party, the third party plaintiff and defendant do not have adverse legal interests sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Anvik Corp. v. Nikon Precision, Inc.
A reasonable finder of fact could have found that an inventor did not have a preferred method for practicing the invention based on extrinsic evidence, thus the best mode requirement was improperly determined by summary judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Dawson v. Dawson
PATENT; CONCEPTION: Inventor must have formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in practice.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC
To give adequate notice under the DMCA, a copyright holder must give notice of which copyrights were infringed, who infringed them, and when they were infringed.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Aang vs. Zuko
Zuko claims that Aan stole his firebending martial arts style.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
April 19 summaries
WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc.
Transmission of a recorded program to an individual user, from a single copy of that program, using a dedicated antenna does not constitute a public performance and is therefore not an infringement on the broadcaster’s copyright.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
ZilYen, Inc. v. Rubber Mfrs. Ass'n
A copy made by an owner, created as an essential step of utilization of the computer program, which was used in no other manner is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Affirmative Defense
Hamin Khatib v. Sun-Times Media Group, Inc.
To state a trade secrets misappropriation claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff must claim that the misappropriated information was in fact a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson
Means-plus-function descriptions are limited by clearly linked corresponding structure descriptions.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claim Interpretation
Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple, Inc.
To demonstrate direct infringement, a plaintiff must show that the accused device practices each claim of the patented method. A showing of indirect infringement is dependent on a showing that the accused device directly infringes the patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Johnston v. Rea
In a civil action to receive a patent after initial rejection, the applicant may submit new, objective evidence and if that evidence relates to a disputed question of fact the PTO's findings of fact are reviewed de novo. If no new evidence is offered, the PTO's findings are entitled to deference and will only be set aside if the PTO's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Review After Initial Rejection
Reg Seneca, LLC v. Harden
(When an employee has trouble discerning between general knowledge about his employment and trade secrets, an injunction enforcing a noncompete clause is appropriate to protect trade secrets.)
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Noncompete Clause
Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC
Without specialized client information, client lists do not constitute trade secrets.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , CLIENT LISTS
Coach, Inc. v. Island Rayz
Counterfeit products create a presumption of likelihood of confusion as to whether the sellers are affiliated with the owner of the senior mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Disney Enters. v. Rea
A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where it merely combines technologies existing at the time of invention.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DK 547, LLC
Copyright infringement of a musical work was shown by proving a public performance, originality and authorship of work, a valid copyright under Copyright Act, claimant’s ownership of work at issue, defendant’s public performance of work, and defendant’s failure to obtain claimant’s permission for such a performance. Joint and several liability for copyright infringement for a corporate officer was determined because the officer had the right and ability to supervise the activity and direct financial interest in the infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement; Liability
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Diamond Investment, Inc.
Exclusive rights to a performance are violated when someone owns a valid copyright and the copyrighted content is distributed without the owner's authorization.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Nassau Precision Casting Co., Inc. v. Achushnet Co., Inc. Cobra Golf Co., and Puma N.A., Inc.
Infringement was not proved because golf clubs alleged to be infringing did not meet the specifics of the patent claim language.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Nucal Foods, Inc. v. Kaye
Default judgment was appropriate when a cybersquatter registered a domain name that was confusingly similar to a trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Cybersquatting
Larson v. Warner Brothers Entertainment
An agreement that revokes copyright interest from one part and re-grants the interest in another party, in order to gain a more lucrative contract for granting of the same rights, will be upheld if it does not constitute an “agreement to the contrary” of the Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Revocation and Re-grant
UMG Recordings., Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not shield Internet file sharing services from common-law copyright infringement suits on pre February 15, 1972 recordings.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , DCMA
Anytime Fitness, LLC v. Roberts
The likelihood of possible consumer confusion supported an injunction against a spammer from using another company's trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
The State ex rel. Lukin v. Corporation for Findlay Market of Cincinnati
Terms of lease agreements in regards to consideration paid and duration are considered trade secrets and excluded from public records requests.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Lease Agreements
Cariou v. Prince
Derivative works need not comment on the original work to fall under the fair use defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use Defense
May 39 summaries
Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc.
To have standing, all co-owners of a patent must be joined as parties. Ownership of a patent is determined according state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Standing
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC
To be entitled to pre-complaint damages for patent infringement, the patent-holder must provide the accused infringer with either actual or constructive notice. A contractual requirement that obligates a licensee to mark implementing products with the patent number provides sufficient evidence that the patent-holder made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the marking requirement such that the patent-holder can survive a motion for summary judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Reservoir, Inc. V. Truesdell
The person first using the trademark was granted ownership despite the fact that the other party had filed the trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringment, Priority of Use
Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.
To show prior actual reduction-to-practice, a party must show that it (1) was first to construct an embodiment that met every element of the challenged claim, and (2) that the embodiment operated for its intended purpose.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Reduction-to-Practice
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where prior art suggests the efficacy of the chemical combination found in the claim and where the prior art provides a motivation to make the combination.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith
For a motion for reconsideration to be considered, the motion must be timely and the party must have a vested interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Transfer of Rights
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Vyong Tran
The moving party must establish a valid claim of copyright infringement and the Court must find that the infringer's conduct could not be attributed to excusable neglect before an entry of default judgment in a copyright matter can be granted.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Default Judgment
Mud Buddy, LLC v. Gator Tail, LLC
A patent claim is invalid by anticipation when each and every limitation of the claim is contained in prior art. The party alleging invalidity has the burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of anticipation, however, to defeat a motion for summary judgement the patent-holder must also produce some evidence showing there is a material issue of fact.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Anticipation
Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LP
The inevitable disclosure doctrine is not an independent claim through which a trial court may enjoin an employee from working for a competitor employer.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Inevitable Disclosure
Language Line Services, Inc._v._Language Services Associates, Inc.
The Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts all common law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as the claims of misappropriation and conversion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Conversion
Musket Corporation v. Star Fuel of Oklahoma, LLC
A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was not granted because the court found sufficient evidence for the elements of trade secret misappropriation.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
U.S. v. Wen Chyu Liu
The relevant inquiry in a claim for conspiracy to steal trade secret information is whether the defendant conspired to steal information he believed to be a trade secret, rather than whether the information at issue was in fact a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Conspiracy to steal
Bryan C. McIntire v. Sunrise Specialty Co.
A design patent is infringed if “the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof,” is applied to “any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.
An agent must be registered with the US Copyright Office in order to comply with Section 512(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , DCMA
B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision was overturned because it was not an Article III court and used different factors in determining whether there was trademark infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc.
A party can only sue for copyright infringement if it has an exclusive license or ownership interest. Such an interest can be evidenced by a writing that shows a parties' intent to transfer the copyright to the moving party.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
In re Bashas’ Inc.
To prove copyright infringement, claims must rise above the level of speculation.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Discovery
Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn
Under the SAA, the temporary assignee of a copyright does not have standing to sue for infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Standing
Bowman v. Monsanto, Co.
Remanufacturing or copying an article is not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Patent Exhaustion
Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P.
Punitive damages are appropriate when trade secrets are maliciously appropriated.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Damages
Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros., Inc.
Trademark use in a fictional context does not constitute infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom International
Having a licensing agreement with a 3rd party infringer is not alone sufficient to expose a trademark owner to claims of vicarious and contributory infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , License Infringement
Krafft v. Downey
For purposes of the two-prong test for a bad faith attorney's fee award under a trade secrets claim, objective speciousness exists where the action superficially appears to have merit but there is a complete lack of evidence to support the claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Bad Faith
Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. v. Warrick
Organizational diagrams may be eligible for copyright protection if the idea is separable from the expression.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Gen. Motors, LLC v. Rapp Chevrolet, Inc.
In trademark infringement cases under the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction, ‘likelihood of confusion’ need not be shown exclusively through incidents of ‘actual confusion’ by consumers.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Hart v. Elec. Arts
An artist depicting a celebrity must contribute something more than a 'merely trivial' variation, [but must create] something recognizably 'his own,' in order to qualify for legal protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Transformative Use Test
Kuvedina, LLC v. Cognizant Technology Solutions
Misappropriation of trade secrets require (1) existence of a trade secret; (2)acquisition of the trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; (3) unauthorized use of a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Allegheny Techs., Inc.
To show that a patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, the alleged infringer must show that the patentee intentionally withheld, or misrepresented, material information from the patent examiner. The intent and materiality elements must be shown independently, and each must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Cuidado Casero Home Health of El Paso v. Ayuda Home Health Care Services LLC
When making a claim of lost profits the plaintiff must show that the lost profits are non-speculative and corroborated.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Damages
H&R Block Eastern Enters. v. Intuit, Inc.,
The "confusion" element in determining infringement of a registered trademark only includes “confusion as to source, origin, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a good or service.”
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Confusion
Ophthalmic Research Associates, Inc v. Sarcode Corporation
"Predictability, the protection of justified expectations, and ease of adjudication" should be considered when determining which state law applies in a trade secret dispute.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Choice of Law
Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc.
Infringement of design patents is analyzed under the ordinary observer test, which considers whether the ordinary observer, giving the usual attention of a purchaser, would be deceived into purchasing the accused design believing it to be the patented design.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.
Patent applicants have an “uncompromising” duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the PTO, which includes the duty of disclosing all known material prior art.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Inequitable Conduct
Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc.
The Copyright Act provides an additional damage remedy if a plaintiff can show that the infringement was wilfull.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Wilfulness
NexTUNE, Inc. v. McKinney
A competitor merely reviewing documents lawfully acquired containing trade secret information is insufficient to prove that the trade secrets were intentionally acquired.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Intentional acquisition
Nexstar Broad., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.
In television broadcasting, copyright infringement was unlikely to succeed when an operator of a television station did not notify a broadcaster that the operator was exercising its non-duplication rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow
Flea market operator may be contributorily liable for trademark infringement of vendors if the operator knew or had reason to know of the infringement yet continues to facilitate the infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Contributory Infringement
Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey
Use "as a mark" is not a threshold requirement for a Lanham Act claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Muromura v. Rubin Postaer & Assocs.
In order for infringement to be found, works need to have extrinsic substantial similarity.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
June 21 summaries
Jim Marshall Photography, LLC v. Varvatos
Circumstances under which a work was created must be documented to clearly show whether an artist or a magazine owns the copyright to a work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Lube-Tech Liquid Recycling, Inc. v. Lee's Oil Service, LLC
A descriptive mark (conveying an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods) was protectable only if the mark was shown to have acquired a secondary meaning.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper
The Lanham Act preempted North Carolina's gasoline blending statute, allowing producers to require in-line blending of gasoline to protect the quality of their marked products.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Preemption
Broad. Music, Inc. v. Young
A copyright infringer is liable for either actual or statutory damages, whichever the copyright owner chooses.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Organic Seed Farmers & Trade Assn. v. Monsanto Co.
There is no judicable case or controversy where a patent holder makes binding assurances that it will not sued a party for patent infringement and that party fails to allege circumstances that place it beyond the scope of those assurances.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Bean v. Pearson Educ., Inc.
A structured process of requesting to use copyrighted material does not create an implied license to use those same materials without permission.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Implied License
Axiom Worldwide, Inc. v. HTRD Group H.K., Ltd.
Acquisition of trade secrets by mistake, misunderstanding, or negligence do not constitute misappropriation by improper means.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Promega Corp. v. Applied Biosystems, LLC
An earlier patent application can serve as potentially invalidating prior art if both patents were not completely owned by the same person or organization at the time of invention.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Invalidation
Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.
The lawsuit filed against an alleged indirect infringer can be used to demonstrate knowledge of the subject patent's existence, however, when the lawsuit is the basis of the accused infringer's knowledge the patentee is limited to recovering post-filing damages.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Indirect Infringement
Assn. For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Isolated sections of naturally occurring DNA, without more, are products of nature and are not eligible for patent protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Products of Nature
Magna Mirrors of Am. v. 3M Co.
The defense of equitable estoppel provides a complete defense for alleged patent infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Estoppel
Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.
Where an accused infringer presents reasonable defenses for its alleged infringement, it will defeat a claim of willful infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Kate Spade LLC v. Saturday Surf LLC
A declaratory judgment that a new clothing brand did not infringe a existing brand was not necessary.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Overhead Door Corp. v. Burger
Default judgment for both trademark infringement and false designation was appropriate when a license to use a trademark was validly terminated.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement, False Designation
WFTV, Inc. v. Maverik Production Ltd. Liability Co.
Statutory damages were found appropriate in a default judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Harris v. Mattel, Inc.
Although the ideas found in two works were similar, substantial similarity was not found because the ordinary observer would not regard the works' aesthetic appeal as the same.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and Ultramercial, LLC, v. HULU, LLC, and Wildtangent, Inc.
A patent can embrace an abstract idea so long as it meaningfully limits the idea by restricting the patent to a concrete application of the idea.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Limits on Abstraction
Coach, Inc. v. Sexy Fashion
Willful infringement requires a connection between the defendant's awareness of its competitors and the defendant's actions at those competitors' expense.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum
A damage award of $22,500 per illegally downloaded or distributed song is not so large as to unconstitutionally violate infringer's rights to due process.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Thale v. Apple Inc.
To recover "indirect profits" for copyright infringement claims in the Ninth Circuit, one must proffer some evidence linking the profits generated by the infringer to the actual act of infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Mps Entm't v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores
A press release is not an advertisement as a matter of law in a trademark infringement case.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
July 27 summaries
Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Accuray, Inc
The Local Patent Rules for the Western District of Pennsylvania require a patentee to promptly specify whether it is seeking relief for literal infringement or whether the accused device infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. If the latter theory is used, there must be sufficient detail, beyond the wording of the patent itself, to provide the accused infringer with notice of infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Doctrine of Equvalents
Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.
Trade secrets willingly given to another company without proper protection will not be protected by the courts.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
MDS (Can.), Inc. v. RAD Source Techs., Inc.
Error was not found when a district court found that a contract relinquishing rights to use a patent was not breached when the relinquishing party developed and used similar new technology.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Licensing
Broad. Music, Inc. v. Northside Rivarly's LLC
Copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 for public performance of musical compositions, can be proven by proof of copyright registration and an investigator's affidavit that the work was publicly performed.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.
In order for a final court decision to be sufficiently final that PTO claim cancellation will not remove the patentee's ability to maintain its lawsuit, there must be nothing left for the court to do but execute its judgment. Where damages are on appeal, the decision is not sufficiently final.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Finality
Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. & Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., Inc.
When a patent is assigned, the assignee takes the patent subject to all prior license agreements whether it has notice of the agreement or not.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Assignment
St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.
A presumption of laches arises when the delay between actual or constructive notice of potential infringement and the filing of a lawsuit exceeds six years.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Laches
Purepecha Enters., Inc. v. El Matador Spices & Dry Chiles
When the registrant of a trademark offers evidence of infringing sales and the infringer fails to prove its statutory burden to offer evidence of deductions, the registrant’s entitlement to profits under the Lanham Act is equal to the infringer’s gross sales.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Damages
Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes (U.S.A.)
New designs borne from combining prior art can only be patented if the new combination is not so obvious as to be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness; Prior Art
Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand
Returning materials containing trade secrets is sufficient to avoid statutory theft of a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Theft
Newsboys & Wesley Campbell v. Warner Bros. Records
Only the registrant of a trademark or that registrant’s legal representatives has legal standing to sue for trademark infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Standing
Sarkissian Mason, Inc. v. Enter. Holdings
Widely known components of a system limit the value of the concept as a whole making the system ineligible for consideration as a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriations
1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.
Purchasing keywords for "sponsored" links on internet search engines which contain registered marks of competitors does not alone amount to trademark infringement under the Lanham act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
AutoPartSource, LLC v. Bruton
Misappropriation is defined as acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Action Ink, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.
Trademark ownership is established by use, not by registration and aggressive policing of the mark alone.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Ownership
Hobbs v. John
Peters v. West precluded a "unique combination" theory, in which elements which were not entitled to protection individually became a unique expression when placed in a certain combination with each other.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor (Unpublished)
Conversations about appropriation of intellectual property alone do not constitute a misappropriation under the UTSA.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Metropolitan Regional Information System, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.
If the owner of a copyrighted database also owns the copyright to the individual components of that database they are not required to list each individual copyright as previous work when filing for an updated copyright to the database.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Cephalon, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.
Indirect infringement can be shown by demonstrating that an accused infringer knew or should have known that its actions would induce infringement of a patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
McKee v. James (Unreported)
Password protection on a computer alone does not constitute reasonable efforts toward maintaining the secrecy of a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Robert Bosch LLC v. Trico Prods. Corp.
A party may be joined as a defendant in a challenge of inventorship action where it retains an interest in the subject patents.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Joinder
E-LYNXX Corp. v. InnerWorkings, Inc.
When a patentee intentionally choses narrower language in order to overcome unpatentability issues, it will be estopped from later arguing for the a broader interpretation under the doctrine of equivalents.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Doctrine of Equivalents
Calabrese, Racek & Markos, Inc. v. Racek
Intention to use a mark in commerce was not sufficient to prove infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC
The doctrine of ensnarement will prevent a party from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents when the broader coverage used to show infringement would bring prior art within the coverage of the patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Broad. Music, Inc. v. Meadowlake, Ltd.
Injunctive relief was appropriate when there was a strong possibility that copyright infringement would occur in the future, due to infringer's high level of disregard shown to copyright owner's work in the past.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (UNPUBLISHED)
Announcing new employment to a former employer's customers is not an impermissible solicitation in violation of the UTSA unless the former employee asks for the customer's business.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
United States v. Agrawal
The nexus provisions of the EEA must read to indicate that, for purposes of determining theft, a trade secret may relate to a product placed in interstate commerce without being included in that product.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Electronic Espionage Act Nexus Provision
August 11 summaries
Nat'l Council on Teacher Quality v. Minn. State Colleges & Univs.
Anticipated future infringement is not sufficient to bar the fair use of copyrighted materials.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringment
Core Labs LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs.
When selecting applicable law following a transfer of proceedings, the law applied is the law of the original venue. In Texas, threatened disclosure of trade secrets is irreparable injury as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Selection of Laws
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.
Fair use of an image was found because the use was transformative, allowed the creator to control the first public appearance of the work, only the amount needed was used and the use did not detract from the value of the work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement; Fair Use
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.
Use of a mark in advertisements for an art gallery show did not qualify the mark for protection under the Lanham Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Copyright
Civic Partners Stockton v. Youssefi
The fact that one may not successfully sue for copyright infringement because he or she is not the copyright holder does not mean he or she is not preempted from attempting to sue on a claim that amounts to copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Leo Pharm. Prods. Ltd. v. Rea
The Patent and Trademark Office should construe patent terms in the broadest sense that remains consistent with the patent specifications.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc.
In attempting to determine trademark infringement, the court used a non-exhaustive six-factor test to evaluate the competing marks.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
All Am. Semiconductor v. Apx Tech. Corp. (Unpublished)
A plaintiff must establish ownership of a trade secret in a design by identifying a specific secret that meets the elements to be protected by law.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Ownership of Technology
Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods.
A patent is invalid due to the on-sale bar if, prior to its critical date, an embodiment of the patented subject matter is the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and the invent was ready for patenting.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co.
The defense of patent exhaustion requires that the patented product be sold in a licensed product that sufficiently embodies the patent. The defense prevents the patentee from pursuing infringement claims against the users of that product.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Exhaustion
Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC
Fair use was found despite commercial gain largely because the commercial gain was "paltry" and the work was a parody.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use
September 23 summaries
Gaines v. District of Columbia
Under the idea/expression dichotomy of copyright protection, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression but does not give anyone exclusive rights to ideas.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Ideas
Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft
Infringement was not found in part due to sophistication of producers of commercial products.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
SKINMEDICA, INC. v. HISTOGEN INC.
During claim construction, terms are not always afforded their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of a term can be disclaimed and redefined through repeated and definitive remarks in the patents written description.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claim Construction
Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co.
A likelihood of confusion was found when goods were of the same type and similar channels were used.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett
Emailing members of a exam study service the copyrighted questions found on previously administered exam constituted copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
UCB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tris Pharma, Inc.
Trade secret protection cannot be claimed when information is available in the public domain or through an employee's general knowledge or experience.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Contracts
Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Meliá, Inc.
Reverse confusion was considered when determining trademark infringement, despite incontestable registration under section 15 of the Lanham Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , infringement
Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight Supply
The eight-factor Sleekcraft test was used to determine confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement
Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.
Where a system claim only limits the environment where the method step are implemented, it does not offer a meaningful limitation.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claims
Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC
Even if each consumer has an individual antenna, transmission of live TV by a commercial company violates the Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act
Wawrzynski v H.J. Heinz Co.
The America Invents Act gives the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over civil actions where a party asserts a compulsory counterclaim related to patents when the civil action began after the effective date of the act.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Jurisdiction
Excell Consumer Prods. v. Smart Candle LLC
To satisfy the real continuity with the past test, the assignee of a trademark must maintain the quality of the goods in a manner that consumers have come to associate with the mark.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Assignment
TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond
The injury rule is the appropriate rubric to determine when a claim accrues under the Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , CLAIM ACCRUAL UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 507(b)
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. v. ACCESS CLOSURE, INC.
Consonance was not maintained in divisional applications because it contained two or more separately patentable inventions.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Safe Harbor
Bishop v. Miller
A compilation of readily accessible information could constitute a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
New India USA, LLC v. Vibrant Media Group, LLC
Operating a website which is directed toward a cultural subgroup within the United States cannot alone form the basis for personal jurisdiction in Trademark suits in any state which contains a significant number of that cultural subgroup.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Civil Procedure
Pandora Media, Inc. v. Am. Soc'y of Composers, Authors, and Publrs.
American Society of Composers was not allowed to deny a blanket license to compositions in their repertory despite third party copyright holders withdrawing rights.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , statutory construction
Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.
Misuse of the information contained in a treasure map constituted misappropriation of a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC.
In determining whether manufacturing processes are similar enough to support an infringement claim, expert analysis can be used.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringment
Churchill Downs, Inc. v. Commemorative Derby Promotions
Having a prior, expired licensing agreement contributed to the finding of a likelihood of confusion in determining trademark infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Lanham Act
Dash v. Mayweather
When a musician has never sold or licensed a copyright holding, relying on established artist's damages for similar misuse was too speculative.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Sunovion Pharms. v. Teva Pharms.
When a generic manufacturer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application falls within the scope of a valid patent claim, the generic manufacturer infringes that claim. A certification by the generic manufacturer that it will not, despite the terms of its ANDA, manufacture an infringing product is insufficient to avoid a holding that the ANDA infringes the patent as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , INFRINGEMENT
United States V. Hanjuan Jin
Under the EEA, a company does not have to actually lose money from the theft of a trade secret for a person to be found guilty of stealing a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Economic Espionage Act
October 16 summaries
Ross v. Olsen Fine Home Bldg.
Although designs for houses can be copyrighted, a copyright holder failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact when a couple who had toured a copyrighted single family house contracted with a different custom home designer to design a house that the copyright holder alleged to be substantially similar.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement, Access
In re City of Houston
A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Government
MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Patent infringement and the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent must both be shown to establish a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
TNS Media Research v. TRA Global, Inc.
A client list may be a trade secret but one created through widespread canvassing of an obvious and highly competitive market is insufficient to warrant trade secret protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Protectable Trade Secrets
DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand
A copyright was not invalidated when the opposing parties did not ask for the Register of Copyrights to be reviewed.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Invalidation
Intellect Wireless, Inc. V HTC Corp.
Applicant must inform PTO of the precise claim location of a misstatement when correcting a misstatement during prosecution.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Inequitable Conduct
Reservoir, Inc. v. Truesdell
Because the Lanham Act does not have a limitations period for filing claims of trademark infringement, the court used the statute of limitations for fraud because that was the "most analogous" Texas statute of limitations.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Laches
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs Operations
Illinois choice of law for trade secret cases selects the law of the place of misappropriation.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Choice of Law
Indus. Control Repair v. McBroom Elec. Co.
Customer information is not protected under the Michigan trade secrets act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Infringement
Avery Dennison Corp. v. Transact Techs., Inc.
An injunction was not granted when the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof that the defendant used trade secrets in developing a machine.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Injunctive Relief
L-3 Communs. Corp. v. Sony Corp.
A physical embodiment of the invention was required to show actual reduction to practice.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Banxcorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Interest rates were not protectable under copyright law because, as mathematical averages, they were uncopyrightable facts and because they are too short to be copyrighted.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement
Unitrac LLC v. U.S.
A cause of action for a patent taking arose when the allegedly infringing instrument was first available for use.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Pedre Watch Co.
A permanent injunction was not granted when the plaintiff was unable to prove (i) it has suffered irreparable injury; (ii) remedies available at law are inadequate; (iii) a remedy in equity is warranted; and (iv) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Permanent Injunction
IBORMEITH IP, LLC v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC
Patents containing “computational means” limitations require the disclosure of structures with specific steps for performing the claimed functions.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Definiteness
Ashland Inc. v. Randolph
A permanent injunction was granted to Valvoline when an automobile repair shop displayed Valvoline trademarks but used other products.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Injunction
November 14 summaries
Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC
The famousness test turns on the mark’s fame, not on the owner's fame.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Dilution
Raymond G. Schreiber Revocable Trust v. Estate of Knievel
When there was no "clear, signed, written transfer of ownership," there was no transfer of copyrights.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Transfer
Coach, Inc v. Pure MLK Last Stop, Inc.
$500,000 and a permanent injunction was found to be an appropriate remedy when counterfeiters did not respond to summons.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Damages
Seven Arts Filmed Entm't, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC
Where a copyright ownership claim was time-barred, and ownership was the deciding issue, the related infringement claims failed.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Statute of Limitations
Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. Intel Corp.
A patent is invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter where the patent claims an abstract idea and then requires the use of conventional post-solution actives that are not varied by the output of the abstract idea.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Concretness
Piggy Pushers, LLC v. Skidders Footwear, Inc.
Whether a claim’s preamble limits the claim’s scope is determined on a case by case basis, considering the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent. Where the preamble’s terms state a fundamental characteristic of the invention, the preamble limits the claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Claim Construction
Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Fair use was found when Google digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, allowed library project partners to download copies of books, and made snippets of the digital reproductions available to computer searches.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use
Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC.
Unremarkable secondary indicia of non-obviousness was inadequate to rebut a strong prima facie case of obviousness.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Apple, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the causal nexus required for injunction on a patent-by-patent basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Remedies
Livingston v. Earle
Plaintiff did not have standing in infringement suit because she failed to list the cause of action as an asset in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy; use of copyrighted works in a judicial proceeding was fair use.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Infringement; Bankruptcy; Fair Use
Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank
The doctrine of tacking to establish trademark priority is applicable to only an "exceedingly narrow" set of circumstances. This, however, is one of them.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringement; Priority; Tacking
Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. ShoeScandal.com LLC
When determining the amount of damages that was appropriate for patent infringement where the infringing party failed to respond to the proceeding, the court used the median average industry profits to determine pre-interest damages.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Damages
Wolf Run Hollow, LLC v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.
The allegation that State Farm Bank operated a secure online portal did not provide a reasonable inference of patent infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Infringement
Kenney v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.
The plaintiff must show that defendant has copied elements of his copyrighted work and that the copying is actionable by proving that the copying of the copyrighted material was so extensive that it rendered the infringing and copyrighted works substantially material.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Trademark promotion
December 14 summaries
Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc.
Likelihood of irreparable harm had to be established, rather than presumed, by the plaintiff seeking injunctive relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Injunctive Relief
Am. Inst. of Physics v. Winstead PC
Because the defendant made transformative, non-commercial use of a copyrighted work in a way that promotes the public interest, the court allowed the fair use defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair use
Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad
Trade secret misappropriation was found when plaintiffs alleged misappropriation with sufficient particularity and defendants could not provide evidence of properly acquiring the information.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC v. UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC.
The doctrine of equivalents protects patentees from copyists using unforeseeable equivalents that perform the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as a patent claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Equivalents
Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. Godaddy.com, Inc.
The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp.
Publication by the Patent Office destroys any trade secret protections for the information contained in the patent application.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Patents
Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v Tolmar, Inc.
When the result was a matter of degree and was not different in kind, obviousness was found.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Obviousness
Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.
An employee's duty to protect the trade secrets of his/her employer extends beyond the resignation of the employee, even when the trade secret was emailed to the employee after the effective date of resignation.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Malibu Media, LLC v. Brenneman
When a person shared portions of copyrighted torrent files of eleven movies, damages of $1500 per movie was sufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Damages
Wang v. Mayorkas
Trademark counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a) is an aggravated felony under § 1101(1)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Criminal, Immigration
Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. P'ship
Fair use was found when a copyrighted logo was used in a limited manner in a movie about football's history.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use
Modus LLC v. Encore Legal Solutions, Inc.
The court did not grant a declaratory judgment in favor of a new employer when employees from another company brought trade secrets to the new company.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
Timex Group USA, Inc. v. Focarino
When the descriptive terms "Intelligent" and "Quartz" were combined, they formed a mark that was eligible for protection.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Protection
CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife, Inc.
Where a patent's description amounts only to a wish or plan to achieve the claimed invention the description does not meet the written description requirement and the patent is invalid.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Validity