2014

January 16 summaries

Diversey v. Schmidly

A copyright infringement claim was barred when it was brought more than three years after the date on which the plaintiff should have become aware of an act of infringement, despite plaintiff's arguing a "continuing wrong" exception.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , ACCRUAL OF CLAIM

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

KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. SIDENSE CORPORATION

The court may award reasonable attorney fees in patent infringement cases with exceptional circumstances; a clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the inquiry of whether fees will be awarded.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Attorney's fees

Institut Pasteur v. Focarino

The board must give full consideration to resources which teach away from claimed inventions outcome.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Biological Patents

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision did not apply when the alleged infringer was aware of facts from which infringing activity was apparent. If awareness was derived from viewing an infringing work, the infringement must be "objectively obvious."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Infringment

Shammas v. Focarino

When the Patent and Trademark Office's successful motion for summary judgment only cited two cases, twenty-three hours of preparation time was deemed excessive.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Attorney's fees

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Welch

A reseller may be liable for trademark infringement if the reseller uses the trademark in a way that is likely to cause the general public to think the reseller is working in conjunction with the trademark owner.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Infringement

Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco

The design of a useful article is copyrightable only to the extent that it incorporates sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of utilitarian aspects of the container.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Useful article

Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy

Where a party objects to the disclosure of information on the grounds that it is a trade secret, the trial court must determine if the information is in fact a trade secret, and secondly, if the information is protected the requesting party must show a reasonable necessity for the information.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Harel v. K.K. Int'l Trading Corp.

The visual distinctions between the drawing in the design patent application and the allegedly infringing lighter design demonstrated that, as a matter of law, the challenged lighter design was non-infringing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Infrigement

Motorola Mobility LLC, v. Int’l. Trade Com’n

Apple’s method of communicating changes in its devices’ registry of applications capable of receiving push notifications to a network did not infringe Motorola’s patent covering a method of communicating changes in the registry of installed applications to a network.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Infringement

Nazomi Communs., Inc. v. Nokia Corp.

Because Western Digital’s MyBook hard drives and Sling Media’s Slingbox did not ship with the software required to enable native processing of Java programs, they did not infringe Nazomi’s patents directed toward a hardware-software combination capable of directly running Java programs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Medtronic Corevalve, L.L.C. v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Priority was not established when an applicant did not list all previous amended and foreign applications on every intervening application.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Invalidity

Smith v. Casey

Standing was found when a musician held legal rights to his work in exchange for royalties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Standing

Top Tobacco, L.P. v. Midwestern Cash & Carry, LLC

Uncontroverted sale of counterfeit trademarked articles alone established infringement against corporate defendants but, without proof of willfulness on the part of individuals, did not establish infringement against individually named defendants.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Infringement; Dilution

In re Prairiesmarts LLC

Trial court orders for production of material containing trade secrets were found to be an abuse of discretion because the party seeking production had not met their burden of proving that nonproduction constituted a real threat of an unjust result.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Production

February 10 summaries

Van Praagh v. Gratton

Although personal names used as trademarks are generally regarded as descriptive terms, the court found that they are protected if, through usage, they acquire distinctiveness and a secondary meaning. Because a name was found to be protected, the onus was on the second person trying to use it to avoid mistake.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Trademarks on Personal Names

Brownstein v. Lindsay

A plaintiff’s joint authorship claim began to accrue when the plaintiff-author discovered her authorship had been expressly repudiated by a co-author.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

N5 Techs. LLC v. Capital One Bank, N.A.

Literal infringement was not found when the accused method did not practice each limitation in the asserted claim. Further a statement by an expert pertaining to patent validity was insufficiently probative of the issue of infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Infringement

Videoshare, LLC v. YouTube, LLC

VideoShare’s covenant not to sue YouTube for infringement of its patent divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction over YouTube’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Infringement

165 Park Row, Inc. v. JHR Dev., LLC

"The Inn at Brunswick Station" was found to cause consumer confusion and thus infringe the trademark belonging to "The Brunswick Inn," even though "The Brunswick Inn" is a strongly descriptive mark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Likelihood of Confusion

PFIZER INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

Claims are construed under the term’s plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person or ordinary skill in the art unless: 1) patentee defines and acts as own lexicographer, or 2) patentee disavows the full scope of a claim in specification or prosecution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Claim Construction

Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.

The definition in Butamax’s patent specification stating that the KARI polypeptide used a specific an electron donor did not mean that Butamax was acting as its own lexicographer and intending to limit the term to only cover use of the specific donor when both it and an alternate donor were within the ordinary meaning of the term at the time the patent was issued and where both the preferred embodiment and Enzyme Commission number listed in the patent permitted either electron donor to be used.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Infringement

Commonwealth v. Eiseman

To the extent capitation rates constitute trade secrets, that information may be redacted in accordance with the Trade Secrets Act which protects against misappropriation of trade secrets, including disclosure without consent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Disclosure

Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.

An image advertisement congratulating Michael Jordan was commercial speech and not subject to constitutional protections.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , First Amendment

Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.

Lighting Ballast's argument that the assessment of expert testimony and other factual questions, which are often raised during claim construction, justified a more deferential standard of appellate review did not provide a compelling justification for abandoning the current de novo standard applied to claim construction appeals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Standard of Review

March 19 summaries

Integral Dev. Corp. v. Tolat

Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff seeking relief for misappropriation of a trade secret must show the existence of the trade secrets with sufficient and reasonable particularity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Misappropriation

Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Non-infringement was found when two figures were submitted in a claim and were ambiguous because they didn't rise to the level of clear intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim term.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Claim Construction

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

Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. v. Handi-Foil Corp.

Tacking is a question of law; the party seeking to tack bears the burden of proving that the current trademark and the registered trademark create a continuing commercial impression.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Abandonment

Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt.

TRADEMARKS: Federal Jurisdiction: [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] A trademark cancellation claim standing alone does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Federal Jurisdiction

Denimafia Inc. v. New Balance Ath. Shoe, Inc.

When determining the likelihood of confusion between trademarks courts apply an eight factor balancing test

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs.

Intent to reuse is not evaluated when use is not actually terminated in determining whether a trademark has been abandoned.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Alicea v. Machete Music

There is a circuit split as to what actions meet the "preregistration" requirements found in the copyright act. However, under either test, a copyright holder must show some evidence that they have either registered or commenced registration procedures before they may bring a suit for copyright infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Washington Consulting Group, Inc. v. Raytheon Technology Services Company, LLC et al.

Misappropriation was not found when movant could not provide causal link between the alleged misappropriation and the damage suffered.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Misappropriation

StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby

Even though Mr. Kirby did not personally profit from disclosure of a trade secret, under Utah trade secret law, damages for the use or disclosure of trade secret may be measured by the defendant’s unjust enrichment, actual loss suffered by the plaintiff, or a reasonable royalty based on the price that the parties would have agreed upon for a license.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Istar Skin Care Prods., LLC

To overcome the strong presumption of validity that Lovely Skin's registered trademark had not acquired distinctiveness at the time of registration required Ishtar to show more than evidence of third parties with similar business names and marks.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

When Worlds, Inc. submitted its patent applications, it did not contain the required reference to its earlier filed provisional application and was not entitled to the priority date of the provisional application. Without that earlier priority date, Worlds invention was in public use more than one year before the priority date of its patent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Alcon Research Ltd. V. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

When Barr challenged Alcon's patent, it did not show with clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not practice the claim without undue experimentation, which is required to prove lack of enablement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Patent Infringement

Teller v. Dogge

In order to prove a claim of copyright infringement, plaintiff must have a valid copyright and sufficiently show the defendant’s copying of original components of the work. Further, to demonstrate copying, plaintiff must show that the infringer had access to the copyrighted work and that the works at issue are substantially similar.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Claim Elements

Jackson v. Odenat

In order to prevail on a defense of implied license the Defendant bears the burden of proving apparent authority to bind the Plaintiff.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

U.S. v. Reichert

A sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 was proper because defendant had skills in the area of circumvention technology that “[m]ost persons of average ability” with “a minimum of difficulty” could not replicate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , DCMA

Bulldog N.Y. LLC v. Pepsico, Inc.

When one company markets its sole product to another company in the hopes of exposing the product to the public, the marketing company will lose its protection as a trade secret.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd.

Although the facts used by the jury to conclude that Marvell willfully infringed Carnegie's patents also satisfied many of the Reed factors the size of the jury’s damage award in relation to Marvell’s market capitalization and cash reserves justified limiting the enhanced damages multiplier to 1.23.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Damages

Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Copyright infringement claims accrue upon actual or constructive discovery of the harm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

March 9 summaries

Dardenne v. MoveOn.org Civil Action

When a private group used a State's registered service mark to criticize the Governor of the State, the Court determined that the use of the mark would not confuse viewers as to the owner of the mark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Trademark Infringement

Louisiana Contractors Licensing Service, Inc. v. American Contractors Exam Services, Inc.

Copyrighted exam questions were reproduced and marketed without permission from the holder of the copyright, but the infringement was de minimis and was therefore not actionable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Copyright Infringement

United Video Props., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

When considering claim construction courts conduct a de novo review but consider the patents prosecution history.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

Patentability and Indefiniteness: A method that manipulates or reorganizes data is merely an abstract idea that is not subject to patentability. In applying an idea to a specific machine, the term "interactive interface" requires some standard to avoid being too indefinite and losing patent protection.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Patentability and Indefiniteness

Stutts v. Texas Saltwater Fishing Magazine, Inc.

When two works are substantially similar the court may grant summary judgment if when viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party they can draw inferences from the evidence presented that reasonable jurors could not find a substantially similar idea or expression.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Infringement

Cohen v. Versatile Studios, Inc.

Cases that hinge on whether a copyrighted work was created as a ‘work made for hire’ or as independent are ownership disputes that arise under the Copyright Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Jurisdiction

Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Patent Infringement: The obviousness-type double patenting doctrine prohibits a patent owner from extending their exclusive use right through a later-expiring patent that is not patentably distinct from the earlier-expiring patent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Ergowerx Int'l v. Maxell Corp. of Am.

A distributor who sells trademarked goods that are genuine does not infringe on the trademark and does not violate the Lanham Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , 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

May 4 summaries

Title Trading Services. USA, Inc. v. Kundu

When evaluating whether to grant a temporary restraining order the court considers four elements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Preliminary Injunction

Medtronic Minimed v. Animas Corp.

When a patent involves mean-plus-function language the terms must be capable of being comprehended by an expert within that field in order to be held invalid for indefiniteness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Patent Infringement

Whipps, Inc. v. Ross Valve Mfg. Co.

Trade Secrets: Preliminary Injunction: An idea may still be held to be a trade secret, despite not being written down or having written design plans, if a sufficiently detailed description of the design is provided to others.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Preliminary Injunction

Oracle Am. v. Google Inc.

When determining whether source code was eligible for copyright protection the court examined the legislative history of 17 U.S.C. §102(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

June 10 summaries

Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche

In patent infringement cases, the award of attorneys' fees is reserved for “exceptional cases”; if the infringement is premised on operations that are outside of the United States, the claim cannot be successful and is likely subject to an award of attorneys’ fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Patent Infringement attorneys' fees

Toys v. Pearl Enters.

When the re-sale of a product does not involve the actual “use” of a trademark, the re-sale of the product does not constitute trademark infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Aspen Technology, Inc. v M3 Technology, Inc

To satisfy the element of "use" of a trade secret, actual use may be inferred when a former employee quickly develops software for a competing company; the code does not have to be found in the competing software, as it can still be used as a roadmap for development.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Renna v. County of Union

When a mark cannot be registered because it is not a suitable, protected mark a claim for trademark infringement cannot be brought under Section 43 of the Lanham Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Infringement

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

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

The standard to determine definiteness of patent claims requires review by someone skilled in the art.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Logan Developers v. Heritage Bldgs.

Evidence of common elements and standard features shared by two designs are not enough to prove copyright infringement when the two designs are neither extrinsically nor intrinsically similar.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Mister Softee, Inc. v. Tsirkos

In a trademark infringement case, courts look to an eight-part test that determines whether customer confusion will occur due to the infringement that will damage business for the senior user.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Trademark Infringement

Authors Guild v. Hathi Trust

When an association serving people with disabilities creates an online database of copyrighted works they are protected under the Fair Use Doctrine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Fair Use

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

A drug's unexpected properties alone are insufficient to establish non-obviousness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Invalidity

July 5 summaries

Lambert Corp. v. LBJC Inc.

To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Section 43(a), a plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid trademark; (2) use of the mark without its consent; and (3) that such use is likely to cause confusion. Even without a valid trademark registration, a trademark infringement plaintiff may still demonstrate superior rights to a trademark by establishing that it was the first user of the mark in commerce, however, such prior use must be “continuous,” and not merely “transitory.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Trademark Infringement

Alice Corp. Pty. LTD v. CLS Bank Int’l

The mere use of a computer is not sufficient to transfer ma claim from a patent-ineligible abstract idea to a patent-eligible invention.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

OBAN US, LLC v. Nautilus, Inc.

When a company licenses the use of its brand to another they do not have a duty to monitor the licensee’s infringement of a third party mark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

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

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

PATENTS: PERMANENT INJUNCTION: The detrimental effect of restricting innovation combined with the public’s general interest in protecting inventive technology property outweighs any public interest in purchasing cheaper products from an infringing party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

August 13 summaries

Flying Pigs LLC v. RRAJ Franchising LLC

Reliance on the Lanham Act is not always required to show ownership of a trademark when usage of the mark shows the same.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLC

Copyright: An affiliate of a third party website is not liable for copyright infringement when it neither copied the image, stored the image, had general or specific knowledge of the infringement, nor exerted control over the infringing party.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Ajuba Int'l v. Saharia

In a Misappropriation of Trade Secrets claim, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the specific nature of the trade secrets. Trade secret law does not protect an idea which is well known or easily ascertainable; the secret information must afford the owner a competitive advantage by having value to the owner and potential competitors; and the plaintiff must identify the trade secrets with specificity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Brickey v. Amazon.com, Inc.

When the defendant is the rightfully owner of media which is the basis for a copyright infringement claim, not infringement can occur.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Flow Valve LLC v. Forum Energy Technologies Inc.

The pleading standard for a patent infringement case is determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding the action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

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

Brian Lichtenberg, LLC v. Alex & Chloe, Inc.

A preliminary injunction forbidding the use of customer and manufacturer lists is appropriate when, among other factors, the plaintiff can show it is likely to succeed on the merits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets
  • , Preliminary injunctions

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

In re Index Sys.

When there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Johnson v. Apple, Inc.

Plaintiff must show specific code or blueprint in order to sustain copyright infringement claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Copyright Protection Extends to the Expression of Ideas not the Ideas Themselves.

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Grenade Bev. LLC

To succeed in a trademark infringement claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, a plaintiff must meet three basic elements: (1) distinctiveness; (2) nonfunctionality; and (3) likelihood of confusion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Trademark Infringement

Abbvie Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst.

If a patent is distinguishable as a narrower species of a dominate patent, the patent holder must demonstrate an unexpected result.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Encap v. Scotts Co.

Trade Secrets Cannot be Public Knowledge and Must Provide a Competitive Advantage.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

September 7 summaries

S.C. v. Nutraceutical Corp.

When two parties use a federally registered mark, under common law, ownership of the mark (regardless to whomever registered the mark) will be granted to the first party who actually uses the mark in the market place.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Trademark Infringement

Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc.

When comparing two architectural works for substantial similarity, the two prong extrinsic/intrinsic test applies.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Lavatec Laundry Tech. v. Lavatec, Inc.

When two related companies claim to be the first user of a trademark there is a rebuttable presumption that the manufacturer owns the trademark.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Intertek United States v. Amspec

Under the Illinois Trade Secrets Act, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the information at issue was a trade secret, that it was misappropriated and that it was used in the defendant’s business.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

Timed Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc.

When applying the federal copyright act, the Courts will employ a two-step test to determine preemption.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Preemption

Conair Corp. v. Le Angelique

When a patent holder can show that there is likely an irreparable harm sustained by the patent holder by applying the ordinary observer test, then a temporary restraining order may be granted by the Court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents
  • , Temporary Restraining Orders for Patent Infringement

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

October 0 summaries

November 11 summaries

Cornucopia Prods. v. Bed

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

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

Synopsys, Inc. v. Lee

The America Invents Act places exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when reviewing decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Nane Jan, LLC v. Seasalt and Pepper, LLC

A preliminary injunction may be granted if the movant demonstrates (1) a likelihood of success of the underlying case; (2) irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) the injunction will not impose greater harm on the nonmovant; and (4) the injunction is not adverse to the public interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks
  • , Preliminary Injunctions

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

M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Chi. Bldg. Design, P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.

“The Copyright Act’s statute of limitations establishes a ‘separate accrual rule’ so that ‘each infringing act starts a new limitations period.’”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Copyright Infringement

First Fin. Bank, N.A. v. Scott Bauknecht & State Bank of Graymont

A Defendant May be Liable for the Misappropriation of a Trade Secret if Defendant Acquired the Information Through Improper Means and Disclosed the Information Without Authorization.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

Coach, Inc. v. 3d Designers Inspirations

The Sale of Counterfeit Items Bearing a Highly Distinctive Registered Trademark Constitutes Trademark Infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLC

Where there is a question about whether there is substantial similarity between two ideas in a copyright infringement case, the case cannot be decided at the summary judgment phase. It must be decided by a jury.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright
  • , Copyright Infringement

Orca Communs. Unlimited, LLC v. Noder

The Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not displace common-law tort claims based on alleged misuse of confidential information and protects protections and remedies for trade secret claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

December 0 summaries