Willamette Law Online

(13 summaries)

Brian Neuharth

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Moddha Interactive, Inc. v. Philips Electronic North America Corp.Trade Secrets(03-10-2015)
Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Kipp Flores Architects, L.L.C.Copyright: Houses built based on infringing designs constitute an “advertisement” as defined in commercial insurance policies.(02-26-2015)
Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AGTrademarks: 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.(02-06-2015)
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics CorporationPatents: Patent-ineligible abstract ideas lacking an inventive concept fail to transform into a patent-eligible invention.(01-20-2015)
Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Intern. B.V.Trademarks: Under Russian law, a unitary enterprise may not claim ownership of intellectual property assigned to it by the owner.(11-24-2014)
Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Entertainment Theatre GroupCopyright: 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.(10-30-2014)
Nane Jan, LLC v. Seasalt and Pepper, LLCTrademarks: 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.(10-14-2014)
Humphreys & Partners Architects, L.P. v. Lessard Design, Inc.Copyright: When comparing two architectural works for substantial similarity, the two prong extrinsic/intrinsic test applies.(09-02-2014)
Brian Lichtenberg, LLC v. Alex & Chloe, Inc.Trade Secrets: 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.(07-25-2014)
Leveyfilm, Inc. v. Fox Sports Interactive Media, LLCCopyright: 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.(07-08-2014)
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.Patents: A drug's unexpected properties alone are insufficient to establish non-obviousness.(06-12-2014)
Aspen Technology, Inc. v M3 Technology, IncTrade Secrets: 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.(05-29-2014)
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.Patents: 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.(04-16-2014)