DISH Network, L.L.C. v. Sonicview USA, Inc.
Creating boxes designed to circumvent satellite encryption illegally is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Copyright covers only the specific writing of program code, not program function, or presentation.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.
The Merge Doctrine does not prevent authors from creating copyrightable expressions of rules or concepts.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Moore v. Commercial Aircraft Interiors, LLC
Where there is no suspicion of disclosure of trade secrets, an employer may still prohibit employment with a competitor for fear of unconscious disclosure of trade secrets.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking Company
In testing for genericness, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gauge whether ”the public perceives the term primarily as the designation of the article."
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Weco Supply co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.
A “supplier/jobber" relationship does not create a duty of confidentiality.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Beerntsen Candies, Inc. v. Beerntsen’s Confectionary, Inc.
Surname rule applies even after the name no longer gives information about the owner of the business.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Hyon
Obviousness is a question of fact that the Court of Appeals reviews for substantial evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.
TRADEMARK; POST-SALE CONFUSION (Post-sale confusion does not result in a “misdirected purchase” but a “purchase intended to confuse.")
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
WNET v. Aereo, Inc.
The Copyright Act is preempted by state law when the material is privately broadcasted if it is not already protected and is different from a copyright claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
In re Baxter Intl., Inc.
Because of the lower standard of proof used in PTO reexaminations, the PTO is not bound by validity decisions of the courts on the same patent claims, especially when the PTO considers evidence not presented to the court when it reached its decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp.
To demonstrate willful infringement, a patentee must show the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood it was infringing a valid patent and that the infringer either knew, or the risk was so obvious that it should have known, of the risk it was infringing a valid patent.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Wag’n Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations
Unfounded and purely speculative concerns over confusion do not evince actual confusion by consumers.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
In re Youman
The Patent and Trademark Office must determine whether the narrowing language related to surrendered subject matter.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.
In discerning obviousness, the court looks to whether one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable motivation to modify the earlier claimed compound to make the compound of the asserted claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis
A partial owner could terminate his or her right, so long as it was only for his or her part.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10
Trade secret infringement is possible even when materials are widely distributed if the methods for compiling those materials are not.
Area(s) of Law:- Trade Secrets
Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10
Copyright registration obtained more than five years after publication does not constitute prima facie evidence of valid copyright ownership. Transfer of rights must be accompanied by a written conveyance or a later written confirmation of transference.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
OSI Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.
To invalidate a patent on grounds of anticipation or obviousness, an alleged infringer must demonstrate that the patent is invalid with clear and convincing evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents