Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
COPYRIGHT; MISUSE (It is not misuse when a copyright holder limits the right to use their work.)
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific
Patent infringement analysis is a two-step inquiry: first, the court determines the scope and meaning of the patent claims asserted, and then the properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon Inc.
PATENTS; INTERVENING RIGHTS (Doctrine of equitable intervening rights protects an accused infringer's ability to make, sell, offer to sell, or use particular items that are covered by a reexamined patent, provided that the items are of the same type that the accused infringer had made, purchased, or used before the reexamination.)
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc.
A general jury verdict of invalidity will be upheld when there is sufficient evidence to support alternative theories of invalidity.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Vernon Hugh Bowman
When dealing with self-replicating technology, the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not bar an infringement action.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Ditocco v. Riordan
Defendant's novels and movie adaptation about a teen demigod descended from Poseidon were not substantially similar to the Plaintiffs novels about a teenage boy descended from Perseus as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Remark, LLC v. Adell Broadcasting Company
Trademark infringement can only occur when the goods themselves confuse the public as to their origins, not when the copyrighted material therein is incorporated into a good.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Phyllis Leithem, Charles A. Kremers, W. Paul Harrell, Stephen Lewis, Karl D. Sears, Quan He, and Peter R. Abitz
Applicants must have an opportunity to respond to the thrust of a patentability rejection.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Ultramercial, LLC and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC and WildTangent, Inc.
With the exceptions of laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, the court should determine patentability of subject matter based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 rather than 35 U.S.C. § 101; The application of an abstract idea may be patentable subject matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Markem-Imaje Corporation v. Zipher LTD. and Videojet Technologies, Inc.
Patent claims need not recite every component necessary to enable operation of a working device, though a device will only operate if certain elements are included, that is not grounds to incorporate those elements into the construction.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Habersham Plantation Corporation v. Art & Frame Direct, Inc.
Court granted summary judgment because plaintiff failed to provide proof of actual confusion.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Eliyahou Harari, Robert D. Norman, and Sanjay Mehrotra v. Roger Lee and Fernando Gonzalez, and Andrei Mihnea, Jeffrey Kessenich, and Chun Chen
Unequivocal language may be used to incorporate the disclosure of a previous patent application.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents