Willamette Law Online

Intellectual Property

2013

( 7 summaries )

January

Wax v. Amazon Techs., Inc.

Trademarks: Using a mark for a variety of services preserves a priority for the mark's use.

(Filing Date: 01-14-2013)

Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Patents: To demonstrate literal infringement, the plaintiff must show that the defendant infringed every claim limitation.

(Filing Date: 01-16-2013)

Whitaker v. Stanwood Imps.

Copyright: Without further circumstantial evidence, wide dissemination and third party copying is insufficient to show access for copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2013)

Alberts v. Kappos

Patents: If the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art, then the patent is obvious.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2013)

Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos

Patents: Prior art may anticipate a missing feature that must be necessarily present, or inherent, without explicitly disclosing that feature.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2013)

Lead It Corporation v. Tallapalli

Copyright: The Copyright Act requires the copyright holder to register their works before suing for copyright infringement, however statutory damages and attorney's fees will be barred if the infringement of commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2013)

Pfizer, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Patents: Animal tests of multiple animals are not required for enablement purposes of pharmaceutical patents, so long as the claim reflects varied effects on different species.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2013)

( 16 summaries )

February

CleanCut, LLC v. Rug Doctor, Inc.

Patents: Objective willfulness exists where the patentee shows that “the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”

(Filing Date: 02-04-2013)

U.S. v. Howley

Trade Secrets: Taking reasonable steps to protect trade secrets includes a "no photography" policy and guards surrounding the building.

(Filing Date: 02-04-2013)

Bridgetree, Inc. v. Red F Marketing LLC

Trade Secrets: Making employees available for deposition, providing discovery for the alleged trade secret in question, and providing expert testimony are sufficient steps to identify alleged trade secrets.

(Filing Date: 02-05-2013)

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.

Patents: The disclosure of an algorithm for a similar, but different, structure from which a person skilled in the art could derive the undisclosed algorithm is not adequate disclosure, and the limitation containing the undisclosed algorithm is therefore invalid for indefiniteness.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2013)

Skyline Zipline Global, LLC v. Domeck

Patents: A device that is the antithesis of a patented product does not infringe the original patent.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2013)

Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers

Trademarks: Stated intention to license the use of a service mark is too speculative to form the basis of an infringement action.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2013)

Hallford v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.

Copyright: In order to determine substantial similarity between a television show and a screenplay the court compares the stories' plot and sequence, characters, themes, setting and pace, and total concept and feel.

(Filing Date: 02-13-2013)

Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Patents: Enablement can be found when one skilled in the art can practice the invention without “undue experimentation.”

(Filing Date: 02-14-2013)

Engenium Solutions v. Symphonic Techs.

Copyright: In a claim of literal infringement of software a court uses a filtration-comparison analysis rather than the abstraction-filtration-comparison test used in non-literal software copyright claims.

(Filing Date: 02-15-2013)

Multi Time Mach., v. Amazon.com

Trademarks: To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s website uses the plaintiff’s mark confusingly when a consumer searches the defendant’s website.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

Patents: When a patent differs from prior art by only a single limitation, the patent is invalid by anticipation if that limitation is covered by other prior art.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.

Copyright: In the absence of direct evidence of a violation, the circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

Rucker v. Harlequin Enterprises, LTD

Copyright: Copyright violations will not be found when the only similarities between competing romance novels are generic tropes and character traits commonly used in the industry.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co.

Trade Secrets: Compilations of information may qualify for trade secret protection even if the information is publicly available.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

Yellowbook, Inc. v. Brandeberry

Trademarks: If a trademark is owned in both a personal and corporate capacity, sale of the corporate interest in the mark does not mean it can be used in business by the seller.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2013)

PC Puerto Rico LLC. v. El Smaili

Trademarks: Injunctive relief was appropriate when gas stations stopped selling gas but continued to display the Texaco mark.

(Filing Date: 02-28-2013)

( 11 summaries )

March

Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd.

Patents: Liability for indirect patent infringement can occur when claim steps are performed by more than one entity, provided the elements for inducement are met.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2013)

Wilson v. New Palace Casino, LLC

Copyright: Protection of works of art under VARA does not extend vicariously to derivative works.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2013)

Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom International Inc.

Trademarks: A plaintiff must effectively plead that an infringing product is actually in the market to state a claim of trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2013)

Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn, Inc.

Patents: PATENTS; INDUCED INFRINGEMENT: Datasheets and other markings on patented material showed actual knowledge required to prove induced infringement.

(Filing Date: 03-13-2013)

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC

Patents: Because a new claim contained more material than the original claim, the claim was enlarged and the patent was invalid.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Copyright: The 'first sale' doctrine is not constrained by a geographic limitation and applies to any copyrighted work which was lawfully produced in accordance to the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Columbia Pictures Indus. V. Gary Fung

Copyright: Services involved in and promoted for use in a process of reproducing copyrighted material may give rise to contributory infringement even if no product is provided to actual infringers.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2013)

Allied Mach. & Eng'g Corp. v. Competitive Carbide, Inc.

Patents: Where a third party complaint against inventor/patent assignor is based on the defense of invalidity, rather than a cause of action, and the inventor's rights in the patent have been assigned to another party, the third party plaintiff and defendant do not have adverse legal interests sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Anvik Corp. v. Nikon Precision, Inc.

Patents: A reasonable finder of fact could have found that an inventor did not have a preferred method for practicing the invention based on extrinsic evidence, thus the best mode requirement was improperly determined by summary judgment.

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Dawson v. Dawson

Patents: PATENT; CONCEPTION: Inventor must have formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in practice.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC

Copyright: To give adequate notice under the DMCA, a copyright holder must give notice of which copyrights were infringed, who infringed them, and when they were infringed.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

( 19 summaries )

April

WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: Transmission of a recorded program to an individual user, from a single copy of that program, using a dedicated antenna does not constitute a public performance and is therefore not an infringement on the broadcaster’s copyright.

(Filing Date: 04-01-2013)

ZilYen, Inc. v. Rubber Mfrs. Ass'n

Copyright: Affirmative Defense: A copy made by an owner, created as an essential step of utilization of the computer program, which was used in no other manner is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2013)

Hamin Khatib v. Sun-Times Media Group, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: To state a trade secrets misappropriation claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff must claim that the misappropriated information was in fact a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 04-03-2013)

Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

Patents: Claim Interpretation: Means-plus-function descriptions are limited by clearly linked corresponding structure descriptions.

(Filing Date: 04-04-2013)

Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple, Inc.

Patents: Infringement: To demonstrate direct infringement, a plaintiff must show that the accused device practices each claim of the patented method. A showing of indirect infringement is dependent on a showing that the accused device directly infringes the patent.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Johnston v. Rea

Patents: Review After Initial Rejection: In a civil action to receive a patent after initial rejection, the applicant may submit new, objective evidence and if that evidence relates to a disputed question of fact the PTO's findings of fact are reviewed de novo. If no new evidence is offered, the PTO's findings are entitled to deference and will only be set aside if the PTO's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Reg Seneca, LLC v. Harden

Trade Secrets: Noncompete Clause: (When an employee has trouble discerning between general knowledge about his employment and trade secrets, an injunction enforcing a noncompete clause is appropriate to protect trade secrets.)

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC

Trade Secrets: CLIENT LISTS: Without specialized client information, client lists do not constitute trade secrets.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Coach, Inc. v. Island Rayz

Trademarks: Infringement: Counterfeit products create a presumption of likelihood of confusion as to whether the sellers are affiliated with the owner of the senior mark.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Disney Enters. v. Rea

Patents: Obviousness: A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where it merely combines technologies existing at the time of invention.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DK 547, LLC

Copyright: Infringement; Liability: Copyright infringement of a musical work was shown by proving a public performance, originality and authorship of work, a valid copyright under Copyright Act, claimant’s ownership of work at issue, defendant’s public performance of work, and defendant’s failure to obtain claimant’s permission for such a performance. Joint and several liability for copyright infringement for a corporate officer was determined because the officer had the right and ability to supervise the activity and direct financial interest in the infringement.

(Filing Date: 04-15-2013)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Diamond Investment, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: Exclusive rights to a performance are violated when someone owns a valid copyright and the copyrighted content is distributed without the owner's authorization.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Nassau Precision Casting Co., Inc. v. Achushnet Co., Inc. Cobra Golf Co., and Puma N.A., Inc.

Patents: Infringement: Infringement was not proved because golf clubs alleged to be infringing did not meet the specifics of the patent claim language.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Nucal Foods, Inc. v. Kaye

Trademarks: Cybersquatting: Default judgment was appropriate when a cybersquatter registered a domain name that was confusingly similar to a trademark.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Larson v. Warner Brothers Entertainment

Copyright: Revocation and Re-grant: An agreement that revokes copyright interest from one part and re-grants the interest in another party, in order to gain a more lucrative contract for granting of the same rights, will be upheld if it does not constitute an “agreement to the contrary” of the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2013)

UMG Recordings., Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

Copyright: DCMA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not shield Internet file sharing services from common-law copyright infringement suits on pre February 15, 1972 recordings.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2013)

Anytime Fitness, LLC v. Roberts

Trademarks: Infringement : The likelihood of possible consumer confusion supported an injunction against a spammer from using another company's trademark.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2013)

The State ex rel. Lukin v. Corporation for Findlay Market of Cincinnati

Trade Secrets: Lease Agreements: Terms of lease agreements in regards to consideration paid and duration are considered trade secrets and excluded from public records requests.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2013)

Cariou v. Prince

Copyright: Fair Use Defense: Derivative works need not comment on the original work to fall under the fair use defense.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2013)

( 39 summaries )

May

Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc.

Patents: Standing: To have standing, all co-owners of a patent must be joined as parties. Ownership of a patent is determined according state law.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2013)

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC

Patents: To be entitled to pre-complaint damages for patent infringement, the patent-holder must provide the accused infringer with either actual or constructive notice. A contractual requirement that obligates a licensee to mark implementing products with the patent number provides sufficient evidence that the patent-holder made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the marking requirement such that the patent-holder can survive a motion for summary judgment.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

Reservoir, Inc. V. Truesdell

Trademarks: Infringment, Priority of Use: The person first using the trademark was granted ownership despite the fact that the other party had filed the trademark.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.

Patents: Reduction-to-Practice: To show prior actual reduction-to-practice, a party must show that it (1) was first to construct an embodiment that met every element of the challenged claim, and (2) that the embodiment operated for its intended purpose.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Patents: Obviousness: A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where prior art suggests the efficacy of the chemical combination found in the claim and where the prior art provides a motivation to make the combination.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith

Copyright: Transfer of Rights: For a motion for reconsideration to be considered, the motion must be timely and the party must have a vested interest.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Vyong Tran

Copyright: Default Judgment: The moving party must establish a valid claim of copyright infringement and the Court must find that the infringer's conduct could not be attributed to excusable neglect before an entry of default judgment in a copyright matter can be granted.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Mud Buddy, LLC v. Gator Tail, LLC

Patents: Anticipation: A patent claim is invalid by anticipation when each and every limitation of the claim is contained in prior art. The party alleging invalidity has the burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of anticipation, however, to defeat a motion for summary judgement the patent-holder must also produce some evidence showing there is a material issue of fact.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LP

Trade Secrets: Inevitable Disclosure: The inevitable disclosure doctrine is not an independent claim through which a trial court may enjoin an employee from working for a competitor employer.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

Language Line Services, Inc._v._Language Services Associates, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Conversion: The Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts all common law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as the claims of misappropriation and conversion.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

Musket Corporation v. Star Fuel of Oklahoma, LLC

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was not granted because the court found sufficient evidence for the elements of trade secret misappropriation.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

U.S. v. Wen Chyu Liu

Trade Secrets: Conspiracy to steal: The relevant inquiry in a claim for conspiracy to steal trade secret information is whether the defendant conspired to steal information he believed to be a trade secret, rather than whether the information at issue was in fact a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

Bryan C. McIntire v. Sunrise Specialty Co.

Patents: Infringement: A design patent is infringed if “the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof,” is applied to “any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale.”

(Filing Date: 05-07-2013)

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.

Copyright: DCMA: An agent must be registered with the US Copyright Office in order to comply with Section 512(c).

(Filing Date: 05-07-2013)

B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision was overturned because it was not an Article III court and used different factors in determining whether there was trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2013)

Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: A party can only sue for copyright infringement if it has an exclusive license or ownership interest. Such an interest can be evidenced by a writing that shows a parties' intent to transfer the copyright to the moving party.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2013)

In re Bashas’ Inc.

Copyright: Discovery: To prove copyright infringement, claims must rise above the level of speculation.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2013)

Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn

Copyright: Standing: Under the SAA, the temporary assignee of a copyright does not have standing to sue for infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-09-2013)

Bowman v. Monsanto, Co.

Patents: Patent Exhaustion: Remanufacturing or copying an article is not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

(Filing Date: 05-13-2013)

Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P.

Trade Secrets: Damages: Punitive damages are appropriate when trade secrets are maliciously appropriated.

(Filing Date: 05-15-2013)

Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros., Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: Trademark use in a fictional context does not constitute infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-16-2013)

Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom International

Trademarks: License Infringement: Having a licensing agreement with a 3rd party infringer is not alone sufficient to expose a trademark owner to claims of vicarious and contributory infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2013)

Krafft v. Downey

Trade Secrets: Bad Faith: For purposes of the two-prong test for a bad faith attorney's fee award under a trade secrets claim, objective speciousness exists where the action superficially appears to have merit but there is a complete lack of evidence to support the claim.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2013)

Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. v. Warrick

Copyright: Infringement: Organizational diagrams may be eligible for copyright protection if the idea is separable from the expression.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Gen. Motors, LLC v. Rapp Chevrolet, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: In trademark infringement cases under the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction, ‘likelihood of confusion’ need not be shown exclusively through incidents of ‘actual confusion’ by consumers.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Hart v. Elec. Arts

Trademarks: Transformative Use Test: An artist depicting a celebrity must contribute something more than a 'merely trivial' variation, [but must create] something recognizably 'his own,' in order to qualify for legal protection.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Kuvedina, LLC v. Cognizant Technology Solutions

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation of trade secrets require (1) existence of a trade secret; (2)acquisition of the trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; (3) unauthorized use of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Allegheny Techs., Inc.

Patents: To show that a patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, the alleged infringer must show that the patentee intentionally withheld, or misrepresented, material information from the patent examiner. The intent and materiality elements must be shown independently, and each must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

Cuidado Casero Home Health of El Paso v. Ayuda Home Health Care Services LLC

Trade Secrets: Damages: When making a claim of lost profits the plaintiff must show that the lost profits are non-speculative and corroborated.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

H&R Block Eastern Enters. v. Intuit, Inc.,

Trademarks: Confusion: The "confusion" element in determining infringement of a registered trademark only includes “confusion as to source, origin, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a good or service.”

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

Ophthalmic Research Associates, Inc v. Sarcode Corporation

Trade Secrets: Choice of Law: "Predictability, the protection of justified expectations, and ease of adjudication" should be considered when determining which state law applies in a trade secret dispute.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc.

Patents: Infringement: Infringement of design patents is analyzed under the ordinary observer test, which considers whether the ordinary observer, giving the usual attention of a purchaser, would be deceived into purchasing the accused design believing it to be the patented design.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2013)

General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Patents: Inequitable Conduct: Patent applicants have an “uncompromising” duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the PTO, which includes the duty of disclosing all known material prior art.

(Filing Date: 05-28-2013)

Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc.

Copyright: Wilfulness: The Copyright Act provides an additional damage remedy if a plaintiff can show that the infringement was wilfull.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2013)

NexTUNE, Inc. v. McKinney

Trade Secrets: Intentional acquisition: A competitor merely reviewing documents lawfully acquired containing trade secret information is insufficient to prove that the trade secrets were intentionally acquired.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2013)

Nexstar Broad., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: In television broadcasting, copyright infringement was unlikely to succeed when an operator of a television station did not notify a broadcaster that the operator was exercising its non-duplication rights.

(Filing Date: 05-30-2013)

Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow

Trademarks: Contributory Infringement: Flea market operator may be contributorily liable for trademark infringement of vendors if the operator knew or had reason to know of the infringement yet continues to facilitate the infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2013)

Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey

Trademarks: Infringement: Use "as a mark" is not a threshold requirement for a Lanham Act claim.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2013)

Muromura v. Rubin Postaer & Assocs.

Copyright: Infringement: In order for infringement to be found, works need to have extrinsic substantial similarity.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2013)

( 21 summaries )

June

Jim Marshall Photography, LLC v. Varvatos

Copyright: Infringement: Circumstances under which a work was created must be documented to clearly show whether an artist or a magazine owns the copyright to a work.

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

Lube-Tech Liquid Recycling, Inc. v. Lee's Oil Service, LLC

Trademarks: Infringement: A descriptive mark (conveying an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods) was protectable only if the mark was shown to have acquired a secondary meaning.

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper

Trademarks: Preemption: The Lanham Act preempted North Carolina's gasoline blending statute, allowing producers to require in-line blending of gasoline to protect the quality of their marked products.

(Filing Date: 06-06-2013)

Broad. Music, Inc. v. Young

Copyright: Infringement: A copyright infringer is liable for either actual or statutory damages, whichever the copyright owner chooses.

(Filing Date: 06-06-2013)

Organic Seed Farmers & Trade Assn. v. Monsanto Co.

Patents: Infringement: There is no judicable case or controversy where a patent holder makes binding assurances that it will not sued a party for patent infringement and that party fails to allege circumstances that place it beyond the scope of those assurances.

(Filing Date: 06-10-2013)

Bean v. Pearson Educ., Inc.

Copyright: Implied License: A structured process of requesting to use copyrighted material does not create an implied license to use those same materials without permission.

(Filing Date: 06-11-2013)

Axiom Worldwide, Inc. v. HTRD Group H.K., Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Acquisition of trade secrets by mistake, misunderstanding, or negligence do not constitute misappropriation by improper means.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2013)

Promega Corp. v. Applied Biosystems, LLC

Patents: Invalidation: An earlier patent application can serve as potentially invalidating prior art if both patents were not completely owned by the same person or organization at the time of invention.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2013)

Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.

Patents: Indirect Infringement: The lawsuit filed against an alleged indirect infringer can be used to demonstrate knowledge of the subject patent's existence, however, when the lawsuit is the basis of the accused infringer's knowledge the patentee is limited to recovering post-filing damages.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2013)

Assn. For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Patents: Products of Nature: Isolated sections of naturally occurring DNA, without more, are products of nature and are not eligible for patent protection.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2013)

Magna Mirrors of Am. v. 3M Co.

Patents: Estoppel: The defense of equitable estoppel provides a complete defense for alleged patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2013)

Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.

Patents: Infringement: Where an accused infringer presents reasonable defenses for its alleged infringement, it will defeat a claim of willful infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2013)

Kate Spade LLC v. Saturday Surf LLC

Trademarks: Infringement: A declaratory judgment that a new clothing brand did not infringe a existing brand was not necessary.

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Overhead Door Corp. v. Burger

Trademarks: Infringement, False Designation: Default judgment for both trademark infringement and false designation was appropriate when a license to use a trademark was validly terminated.

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

WFTV, Inc. v. Maverik Production Ltd. Liability Co.

Trademarks: Infringement: Statutory damages were found appropriate in a default judgment.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2013)

Harris v. Mattel, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: Although the ideas found in two works were similar, substantial similarity was not found because the ordinary observer would not regard the works' aesthetic appeal as the same.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2013)

ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and Ultramercial, LLC, v. HULU, LLC, and Wildtangent, Inc.

Patents: Limits on Abstraction: A patent can embrace an abstract idea so long as it meaningfully limits the idea by restricting the patent to a concrete application of the idea.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2013)

Coach, Inc. v. Sexy Fashion

Trademarks: Infringement: Willful infringement requires a connection between the defendant's awareness of its competitors and the defendant's actions at those competitors' expense.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum

Copyright: Infringement: A damage award of $22,500 per illegally downloaded or distributed song is not so large as to unconstitutionally violate infringer's rights to due process.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Thale v. Apple Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: To recover "indirect profits" for copyright infringement claims in the Ninth Circuit, one must proffer some evidence linking the profits generated by the infringer to the actual act of infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2013)

Mps Entm't v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

Trademarks: Infringement: A press release is not an advertisement as a matter of law in a trademark infringement case.

(Filing Date: 06-28-2013)

( 27 summaries )

July

Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Accuray, Inc

Patents: Doctrine of Equvalents: The Local Patent Rules for the Western District of Pennsylvania require a patentee to promptly specify whether it is seeking relief for literal infringement or whether the accused device infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. If the latter theory is used, there must be sufficient detail, beyond the wording of the patent itself, to provide the accused infringer with notice of infringement.

(Filing Date: 07-01-2013)

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Trade secrets willingly given to another company without proper protection will not be protected by the courts.

(Filing Date: 07-01-2013)

MDS (Can.), Inc. v. RAD Source Techs., Inc.

Patents: Licensing: Error was not found when a district court found that a contract relinquishing rights to use a patent was not breached when the relinquishing party developed and used similar new technology.

(Filing Date: 07-01-2013)

Broad. Music, Inc. v. Northside Rivarly's LLC

Copyright: Infringement: Copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 for public performance of musical compositions, can be proven by proof of copyright registration and an investigator's affidavit that the work was publicly performed.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.

Patents: Finality: In order for a final court decision to be sufficiently final that PTO claim cancellation will not remove the patentee's ability to maintain its lawsuit, there must be nothing left for the court to do but execute its judgment. Where damages are on appeal, the decision is not sufficiently final.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. & Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., Inc.

Patents: Assignment: When a patent is assigned, the assignee takes the patent subject to all prior license agreements whether it has notice of the agreement or not.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.

Patents: Laches: A presumption of laches arises when the delay between actual or constructive notice of potential infringement and the filing of a lawsuit exceeds six years.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

Purepecha Enters., Inc. v. El Matador Spices & Dry Chiles

Trademarks: Damages: When the registrant of a trademark offers evidence of infringing sales and the infringer fails to prove its statutory burden to offer evidence of deductions, the registrant’s entitlement to profits under the Lanham Act is equal to the infringer’s gross sales.

(Filing Date: 07-08-2013)

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes (U.S.A.)

Patents: Obviousness; Prior Art: New designs borne from combining prior art can only be patented if the new combination is not so obvious as to be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.

(Filing Date: 07-09-2013)

Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand

Trade Secrets: Theft: Returning materials containing trade secrets is sufficient to avoid statutory theft of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 07-10-2013)

Newsboys & Wesley Campbell v. Warner Bros. Records

Trademarks: Standing: Only the registrant of a trademark or that registrant’s legal representatives has legal standing to sue for trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 07-11-2013)

Sarkissian Mason, Inc. v. Enter. Holdings

Trade Secrets: Misappropriations: Widely known components of a system limit the value of the concept as a whole making the system ineligible for consideration as a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 07-15-2013)

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: Purchasing keywords for "sponsored" links on internet search engines which contain registered marks of competitors does not alone amount to trademark infringement under the Lanham act.

(Filing Date: 07-16-2013)

AutoPartSource, LLC v. Bruton

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Misappropriation is defined as acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means.

(Filing Date: 07-16-2013)

Action Ink, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Trademarks: Ownership: Trademark ownership is established by use, not by registration and aggressive policing of the mark alone.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Hobbs v. John

Copyright: Infringement: Peters v. West precluded a "unique combination" theory, in which elements which were not entitled to protection individually became a unique expression when placed in a certain combination with each other.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor (Unpublished)

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Conversations about appropriation of intellectual property alone do not constitute a misappropriation under the UTSA.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Metropolitan Regional Information System, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.

Copyright: If the owner of a copyrighted database also owns the copyright to the individual components of that database they are not required to list each individual copyright as previous work when filing for an updated copyright to the database.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Cephalon, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

Patents: Infringement: Indirect infringement can be shown by demonstrating that an accused infringer knew or should have known that its actions would induce infringement of a patent.

(Filing Date: 07-22-2013)

McKee v. James (Unreported)

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Password protection on a computer alone does not constitute reasonable efforts toward maintaining the secrecy of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 07-24-2013)

Robert Bosch LLC v. Trico Prods. Corp.

Patents: Joinder: A party may be joined as a defendant in a challenge of inventorship action where it retains an interest in the subject patents.

(Filing Date: 07-24-2013)

E-LYNXX Corp. v. InnerWorkings, Inc.

Patents: Doctrine of Equivalents: When a patentee intentionally choses narrower language in order to overcome unpatentability issues, it will be estopped from later arguing for the a broader interpretation under the doctrine of equivalents.

(Filing Date: 07-25-2013)

Calabrese, Racek & Markos, Inc. v. Racek

Trademarks: Infringement: Intention to use a mark in commerce was not sufficient to prove infringement.

(Filing Date: 07-26-2013)

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC

Patents: The doctrine of ensnarement will prevent a party from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents when the broader coverage used to show infringement would bring prior art within the coverage of the patent.

(Filing Date: 07-26-2013)

Broad. Music, Inc. v. Meadowlake, Ltd.

Copyright: Infringement: Injunctive relief was appropriate when there was a strong possibility that copyright infringement would occur in the future, due to infringer's high level of disregard shown to copyright owner's work in the past.

(Filing Date: 07-29-2013)

Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (UNPUBLISHED)

Trade Secrets: Announcing new employment to a former employer's customers is not an impermissible solicitation in violation of the UTSA unless the former employee asks for the customer's business.

(Filing Date: 07-30-2013)

United States v. Agrawal

Trade Secrets: Electronic Espionage Act Nexus Provision: The nexus provisions of the EEA must read to indicate that, for purposes of determining theft, a trade secret may relate to a product placed in interstate commerce without being included in that product.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2013)

( 11 summaries )

August

Nat'l Council on Teacher Quality v. Minn. State Colleges & Univs.

Copyright: Infringment: Anticipated future infringement is not sufficient to bar the fair use of copyrighted materials.

(Filing Date: 08-05-2013)

Core Labs LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs.

Trade Secrets: Selection of Laws: When selecting applicable law following a transfer of proceedings, the law applied is the law of the original venue. In Texas, threatened disclosure of trade secrets is irreparable injury as a matter of law.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2013)

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement; Fair Use: Fair use of an image was found because the use was transformative, allowed the creator to control the first public appearance of the work, only the amount needed was used and the use did not detract from the value of the work.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2013)

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

Trademarks: Copyright : Use of a mark in advertisements for an art gallery show did not qualify the mark for protection under the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2013)

Civic Partners Stockton v. Youssefi

Copyright: Infringement: The fact that one may not successfully sue for copyright infringement because he or she is not the copyright holder does not mean he or she is not preempted from attempting to sue on a claim that amounts to copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2013)

Leo Pharm. Prods. Ltd. v. Rea

Patents: Obviousness: The Patent and Trademark Office should construe patent terms in the broadest sense that remains consistent with the patent specifications.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2013)

Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: In attempting to determine trademark infringement, the court used a non-exhaustive six-factor test to evaluate the competing marks.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2013)

All Am. Semiconductor v. Apx Tech. Corp. (Unpublished)

Trade Secrets: Ownership of Technology: A plaintiff must establish ownership of a trade secret in a design by identifying a specific secret that meets the elements to be protected by law.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods.

Patents: Infringement: A patent is invalid due to the on-sale bar if, prior to its critical date, an embodiment of the patented subject matter is the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and the invent was ready for patenting.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co.

Patents: Exhaustion: The defense of patent exhaustion requires that the patented product be sold in a licensed product that sufficiently embodies the patent. The defense prevents the patentee from pursuing infringement claims against the users of that product.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC

Copyright: Fair Use: Fair use was found despite commercial gain largely because the commercial gain was "paltry" and the work was a parody.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

( 23 summaries )

September

Gaines v. District of Columbia

Copyright: Ideas: Under the idea/expression dichotomy of copyright protection, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression but does not give anyone exclusive rights to ideas.

(Filing Date: 08-21-2013)

Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft

Trademarks: Infringement: Infringement was not found in part due to sophistication of producers of commercial products.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2013)

SKINMEDICA, INC. v. HISTOGEN INC.

Patents: Claim Construction: During claim construction, terms are not always afforded their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of a term can be disclaimed and redefined through repeated and definitive remarks in the patents written description.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2013)

Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co.

Trademarks: Infringement: A likelihood of confusion was found when goods were of the same type and similar channels were used.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2013)

Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett

Copyright: Infringement: Emailing members of a exam study service the copyrighted questions found on previously administered exam constituted copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2013)

UCB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tris Pharma, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Contracts : Trade secret protection cannot be claimed when information is available in the public domain or through an employee's general knowledge or experience.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2013)

Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Meliá, Inc.

Trademarks: infringement: Reverse confusion was considered when determining trademark infringement, despite incontestable registration under section 15 of the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 08-28-2013)

Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight Supply

Trademarks: Infringement: The eight-factor Sleekcraft test was used to determine confusion.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2013)

Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

Patents: Claims: Where a system claim only limits the environment where the method step are implemented, it does not offer a meaningful limitation.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2013)

Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC

Copyright: Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act: Even if each consumer has an individual antenna, transmission of live TV by a commercial company violates the Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2013)

Wawrzynski v H.J. Heinz Co.

Patents: Jurisdiction: The America Invents Act gives the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over civil actions where a party asserts a compulsory counterclaim related to patents when the civil action began after the effective date of the act.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2013)

Excell Consumer Prods. v. Smart Candle LLC

Trademarks: Assignment: To satisfy the real continuity with the past test, the assignee of a trademark must maintain the quality of the goods in a manner that consumers have come to associate with the mark.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2013)

TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond

Copyright: CLAIM ACCRUAL UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 507(b): The injury rule is the appropriate rubric to determine when a claim accrues under the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2013)

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. v. ACCESS CLOSURE, INC.

Patents: Safe Harbor : Consonance was not maintained in divisional applications because it contained two or more separately patentable inventions.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2013)

Bishop v. Miller

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: A compilation of readily accessible information could constitute a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2013)

New India USA, LLC v. Vibrant Media Group, LLC

Trademarks: Civil Procedure: Operating a website which is directed toward a cultural subgroup within the United States cannot alone form the basis for personal jurisdiction in Trademark suits in any state which contains a significant number of that cultural subgroup.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2013)

Pandora Media, Inc. v. Am. Soc'y of Composers, Authors, and Publrs.

Copyright: statutory construction: American Society of Composers was not allowed to deny a blanket license to compositions in their repertory despite third party copyright holders withdrawing rights.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2013)

Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Misuse of the information contained in a treasure map constituted misappropriation of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-18-2013)

SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC.

Patents: Infringment : In determining whether manufacturing processes are similar enough to support an infringement claim, expert analysis can be used.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2013)

Churchill Downs, Inc. v. Commemorative Derby Promotions

Trademarks: Lanham Act : Having a prior, expired licensing agreement contributed to the finding of a likelihood of confusion in determining trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2013)

Dash v. Mayweather

Copyright: Infringement: When a musician has never sold or licensed a copyright holding, relying on established artist's damages for similar misuse was too speculative.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2013)

Sunovion Pharms. v. Teva Pharms.

Patents: INFRINGEMENT: When a generic manufacturer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application falls within the scope of a valid patent claim, the generic manufacturer infringes that claim. A certification by the generic manufacturer that it will not, despite the terms of its ANDA, manufacture an infringing product is insufficient to avoid a holding that the ANDA infringes the patent as a matter of law.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2013)

United States V. Hanjuan Jin

Trade Secrets: Economic Espionage Act : Under the EEA, a company does not have to actually lose money from the theft of a trade secret for a person to be found guilty of stealing a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2013)

( 15 summaries )

October

Ross v. Olsen Fine Home Bldg.

Copyright: Infringement, Access: Although designs for houses can be copyrighted, a copyright holder failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact when a couple who had toured a copyrighted single family house contracted with a different custom home designer to design a house that the copyright holder alleged to be substantially similar.

(Filing Date: 09-30-2013)

In re City of Houston

Trademarks: Government: A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia

(Filing Date: 10-01-2013)

MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Patents: Infringement: Patent infringement and the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent must both be shown to establish a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2013)

TNS Media Research v. TRA Global, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Protectable Trade Secrets: A client list may be a trade secret but one created through widespread canvassing of an obvious and highly competitive market is insufficient to warrant trade secret protection.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2013)

DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand

Copyright: Invalidation: A copyright was not invalidated when the opposing parties did not ask for the Register of Copyrights to be reviewed.

(Filing Date: 10-07-2013)

Intellect Wireless, Inc. V HTC Corp.

Patents: Inequitable Conduct: Applicant must inform PTO of the precise claim location of a misstatement when correcting a misstatement during prosecution.

(Filing Date: 10-09-2013)

Reservoir, Inc. v. Truesdell

Trademarks: Laches: Because the Lanham Act does not have a limitations period for filing claims of trademark infringement, the court used the statute of limitations for fraud because that was the "most analogous" Texas statute of limitations.

(Filing Date: 10-09-2013)

Indus. Control Repair v. McBroom Elec. Co.

Trade Secrets: Infringement: Customer information is not protected under the Michigan trade secrets act.

(Filing Date: 10-10-2013)

Avery Dennison Corp. v. Transact Techs., Inc.

Trade Secrets: Injunctive Relief: An injunction was not granted when the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof that the defendant used trade secrets in developing a machine.

(Filing Date: 10-15-2013)

L-3 Communs. Corp. v. Sony Corp.

Patents: Infringement: A physical embodiment of the invention was required to show actual reduction to practice.

(Filing Date: 10-16-2013)

Banxcorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Copyright: Infringement: Interest rates were not protectable under copyright law because, as mathematical averages, they were uncopyrightable facts and because they are too short to be copyrighted.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2013)

Unitrac LLC v. U.S.

Patents: Infringement: A cause of action for a patent taking arose when the allegedly infringing instrument was first available for use.

(Filing Date: 10-18-2013)

Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Pedre Watch Co.

Copyright: Permanent Injunction: A permanent injunction was not granted when the plaintiff was unable to prove (i) it has suffered irreparable injury; (ii) remedies available at law are inadequate; (iii) a remedy in equity is warranted; and (iv) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

(Filing Date: 10-21-2013)

IBORMEITH IP, LLC v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Patents: Definiteness: Patents containing “computational means” limitations require the disclosure of structures with specific steps for performing the claimed functions.

(Filing Date: 10-22-2013)

Ashland Inc. v. Randolph

Trademarks: Injunction: A permanent injunction was granted to Valvoline when an automobile repair shop displayed Valvoline trademarks but used other products.

(Filing Date: 10-25-2013)

( 14 summaries )

November

Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC

Trademarks: Dilution: The famousness test turns on the mark’s fame, not on the owner's fame.

(Filing Date: 10-31-2013)

Raymond G. Schreiber Revocable Trust v. Estate of Knievel

Copyright: Transfer: When there was no "clear, signed, written transfer of ownership," there was no transfer of copyrights.

(Filing Date: 11-01-2013)

Coach, Inc v. Pure MLK Last Stop, Inc.

Trademarks: Damages: $500,000 and a permanent injunction was found to be an appropriate remedy when counterfeiters did not respond to summons.

(Filing Date: 11-04-2013)

Seven Arts Filmed Entm't, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC

Copyright: Statute of Limitations: Where a copyright ownership claim was time-barred, and ownership was the deciding issue, the related infringement claims failed.

(Filing Date: 11-06-2013)

Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. Intel Corp.

Patents: Concretness: A patent is invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter where the patent claims an abstract idea and then requires the use of conventional post-solution actives that are not varied by the output of the abstract idea.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2013)

Piggy Pushers, LLC v. Skidders Footwear, Inc.

Patents: Claim Construction: Whether a claim’s preamble limits the claim’s scope is determined on a case by case basis, considering the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent. Where the preamble’s terms state a fundamental characteristic of the invention, the preamble limits the claims.

(Filing Date: 11-08-2013)

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Copyright: Fair Use: Fair use was found when Google digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, allowed library project partners to download copies of books, and made snippets of the digital reproductions available to computer searches.

(Filing Date: 11-14-2013)

Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC.

Patents: Obviousness: Unremarkable secondary indicia of non-obviousness was inadequate to rebut a strong prima facie case of obviousness.

(Filing Date: 11-15-2013)

Apple, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patents: Remedies: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the causal nexus required for injunction on a patent-by-patent basis.

(Filing Date: 11-18-2013)

Livingston v. Earle

Copyright: Infringement; Bankruptcy; Fair Use: Plaintiff did not have standing in infringement suit because she failed to list the cause of action as an asset in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy; use of copyrighted works in a judicial proceeding was fair use.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2013)

Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank

Trademarks: Infringement; Priority; Tacking: The doctrine of tacking to establish trademark priority is applicable to only an "exceedingly narrow" set of circumstances. This, however, is one of them.

(Filing Date: 11-22-2013)

Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. ShoeScandal.com LLC

Patents: Damages: When determining the amount of damages that was appropriate for patent infringement where the infringing party failed to respond to the proceeding, the court used the median average industry profits to determine pre-interest damages.

(Filing Date: 11-25-2013)

Wolf Run Hollow, LLC v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.

Patents: Infringement: The allegation that State Farm Bank operated a secure online portal did not provide a reasonable inference of patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 11-26-2013)

Kenney v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.

Trademarks: Trademark promotion: The plaintiff must show that defendant has copied elements of his copyrighted work and that the copying is actionable by proving that the copying of the copyrighted material was so extensive that it rendered the infringing and copyrighted works substantially material.

(Filing Date: 11-29-2013)

( 14 summaries )

December

Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc.

Trademarks: Injunctive Relief: Likelihood of irreparable harm had to be established, rather than presumed, by the plaintiff seeking injunctive relief.

(Filing Date: 12-02-2013)

Am. Inst. of Physics v. Winstead PC

Copyright: Fair use : Because the defendant made transformative, non-commercial use of a copyrighted work in a way that promotes the public interest, the court allowed the fair use defense.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2013)

Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Trade secret misappropriation was found when plaintiffs alleged misappropriation with sufficient particularity and defendants could not provide evidence of properly acquiring the information.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2013)

AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC v. UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC.

Patents: Equivalents: The doctrine of equivalents protects patentees from copyists using unforeseeable equivalents that perform the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as a patent claim.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2013)

Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. Godaddy.com, Inc.

Trademarks: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2013)

Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp.

Trade Secrets: Patents: Publication by the Patent Office destroys any trade secret protections for the information contained in the patent application.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v Tolmar, Inc.

Patents: Obviousness: When the result was a matter of degree and was not different in kind, obviousness was found.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: An employee's duty to protect the trade secrets of his/her employer extends beyond the resignation of the employee, even when the trade secret was emailed to the employee after the effective date of resignation.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

Malibu Media, LLC v. Brenneman

Copyright: Damages: When a person shared portions of copyrighted torrent files of eleven movies, damages of $1500 per movie was sufficient.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2013)

Wang v. Mayorkas

Trademarks: Criminal, Immigration : Trademark counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a) is an aggravated felony under § 1101(1)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2013)

Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. P'ship

Copyright: Fair Use: Fair use was found when a copyrighted logo was used in a limited manner in a movie about football's history.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2013)

Modus LLC v. Encore Legal Solutions, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation : The court did not grant a declaratory judgment in favor of a new employer when employees from another company brought trade secrets to the new company.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2013)

Timex Group USA, Inc. v. Focarino

Trademarks: Protection: When the descriptive terms "Intelligent" and "Quartz" were combined, they formed a mark that was eligible for protection.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2013)

CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife, Inc.

Patents: Validity: Where a patent's description amounts only to a wish or plan to achieve the claimed invention the description does not meet the written description requirement and the patent is invalid.

(Filing Date: 12-18-2013)