Brian Neuharth

Intellectual Property (12 summaries)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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