Willamette Law Online

Intellectual Property

( 8 summaries )

Opinions Filed in September 2012

Molinelli-Freytes v. University of Puerto Rico

Copyright: An original manuscript created by employees while performing duties that are within the scope of their employment may be used by the employer without violating the 1976 Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 09-30-2012)

Granger v. Acme Abstract Co.

Copyright: In order to determine if a computer program is copyrightable and has been infringed, one must delineate between the copyrightable expression and the unprotected elements of the program.

(Filing Date: 09-27-2012)

Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc.

Patents: To render a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, both the materiality of a nondisclosure or misrepresentation and intent to deceive the USPTO must be proven.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2012)

Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. v. GP Consulting, LLC

Trade Secrets: A list of confidential information, which fails to explain which items are trade secrets or how that information was misappropriated, is insufficient to support a claim of misappropriation of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2012)

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset

Copyright: Record companies are not entitled to clarification of the Copyright Act without a Art. III case or controversy; Copyright infringement includes making media available to be distributed as well as actual distribution.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

Libya v. Miski

Trademarks: To establish a protected right in a descriptive mark, a party must demonstrate, with survey data or other evidence, that the mark has obtained secondary meaning in the marketplace.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2012)

Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Patents: For “means-plus-function” claims using algorithms, one must disclose it so as to show how its structure, material, or act supports the patent claim.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2012)

Suntree Tech., Inc. v. Ecosense Intl., Inc.

Trademarks: A plaintiff must establish that the defendant not only used its protected mark, or one confusingly similar to it, but also that it was likely to confuse consumers as to source of the product or service.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2012)