Intellectual Property

2015

January 11 summaries

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Entertainment Theatre Group

A prior decision barring a claim to copyright ownership precludes a defendant in a later case from making a claim of ownership as an affirmative defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

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

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Grewal

If a franchisee continues to use a franchisor’s trademarks for the benefit of his business after justified termination for breach of agreement, then the franchisor has the right to enjoin the unauthorized use of its trademark pursuant to the Lanham Act.

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

Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Intern. B.V.

Under Russian law, a unitary enterprise may not claim ownership of intellectual property assigned to it by the owner.

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

Getty Images Us v. Microsoft Corp.

Copyright infringement claims do not extend to copyrighted material if the material is not stated in the complaint, the material is impossible to identify, and the claim being brought for the copyrighted material lacks originality.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Clare v. Chrysler Group LLC

Defendant is not liable for patent infringement unless the product is literally equivalent to the patented product or fulfills the doctrine of equivalents.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Derma Pen, LLC v. 4EverYoung Ltd.

The court of appeals for the 10th Circuit will issue a grant for a preliminary injuction when a party can show that they established a likelihood of success on the merits.

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

Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Slomin's, Inc.

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

Kober Hanssen Mitchell Architects v. Wilson Care Home Kailua

An affirmative defense is only granted in a copyright infringement case if the defense appears on the face of the pleading and the defense is complete.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Servs.

Limitations are not inventive concepts which transform an abstract idea into patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Tomaydo-Tomahhdo, LLC v. Vozary

Recipes are functional directions for achieving a result and are excluded from copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. 102(b).

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

February 4 summaries

Frank Gaylord v. United States

Where a court is determining damages in a copyright case they may use a tool from patent law without applying the tool in its entirety.

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

In re Cuozzo Speed Techs.

Under 35 U.S.C. §314(d), higher courts are precluded from reviewing a PTO decision to institute inter partes review. When the PTO considers claims under inter partes review, the broadest reasonable interpretation standard should be used to construe the claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG

Under the Lanham Act, the owner of a foreign mark that is not registered in the United States and has never been used in United States commerce may not assert priority rights over a mark that is registered and used in the United States.

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

Addiction & Detoxification Inst. v. George

In order for a Plaintiff to properly file a complaint regarding patent infringement, the Defendant must have actual knowledge of the infringement before the complaint is filed.

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

March 2 summaries

Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. v. Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc.

Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a prior judgment of trademark infringement does not bar a subsequent claim for subsequent trademark infringement.

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

Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Kipp Flores Architects, L.L.C.

Houses built based on infringing designs constitute an “advertisement” as defined in commercial insurance policies.

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