Intellectual Property (29 summaries)
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu
A patent claim that is directed to an abstract idea does not move into §101 eligibility territory by merely requiring generic computer implementation.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Murphy v. Lazarev
A copyright owner who grants an exclusive or nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Coach, Inc. v. 3D Designers Inspirations
To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must show that (1) its marks are distinctive enough to be worthy of protection and (2) the defendant’s use of those marks is likely to cause consumers to be confused as to the source of the product.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Macdermid Printing Solutions
Determination of a claim of infringement involves a two-step inquiry. First, the patent claim is construed—a question of law in which the scope of the asserted claim is defined. Second, the claim is compared to the allegedly infringing product to determine whether the product contains every limitation contained in the claim or the substantial equivalent of any limitation not literally present.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium v. Sec. Univ.
When a company uses a certification mark of another company in order to advertise training of the service registered under that mark, the Court applies a two-prong test to determine if there is trademark infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Trademark Infringement
Lugus IP, LLC v. Volvo Car Corp.
When a patent claim is narrowed during prosecution, prosecution history estoppel may limit the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the exclusive right to “perform the copyrighted work publicly.”
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
EveryScape, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.
Patent infringement analysis involves two steps: (1) the threshold construction of the meaning and scope of the asserted claim, followed by (2) a determination of whether the accused product infringes the properly construed claim. If no reasonable jury could possibly find that an accused product satisfies every claim limitation of the asserted claims, either literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents, then summary judgment of noninfringement must be granted.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
- , Patent Infringement
Karlson v. Red Door Homes, LLC
A nonexclusive license may be granted orally or implied from conduct. An implied license is created when (1) a licensee requests creation of a work; (2) the licensor makes that work and delivers it to the licensee; and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee copy and distribute the work.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Neri v. Monroe
When a photograph of a work of art was transformative, despite it being a creative work, fair use was found.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Fair Use
Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc.
When a trademark holder alleged that a competitor wrongly imported and marketed mushrooms under its marks, the competitor's importation of its mushrooms was likely to confuse consumers under the Lanham Act despite no evidence of actual confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , Infringment
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
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
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
Bishop v. Miller
A compilation of readily accessible information could constitute a trade secret.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
- , Misappropriation
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
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
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
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
WFTV, Inc. v. Maverik Production Ltd. Liability Co.
Statutory damages were found appropriate in a default judgment.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
- , 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
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
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
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
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
In re Bashas’ Inc.
To prove copyright infringement, claims must rise above the level of speculation.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
- , Discovery
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
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