Willamette Law Online

(11 summaries)

Lauren Olson

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Coach, Inc. v. 3d Designers InspirationsTrademarks: The Sale of Counterfeit Items Bearing a Highly Distinctive Registered Trademark Constitutes Trademark Infringement. (10-29-2014)
First Fin. Bank, N.A. v. Scott Bauknecht & State Bank of GraymontTrade Secrets: A Defendant May be Liable for the Misappropriation of a Trade Secret if Defendant Acquired the Information Through Improper Means and Disclosed the Information Without Authorization. (10-24-2014)
Conair Corp. v. Le AngeliquePatents: When a patent holder can show that there is likely an irreparable harm sustained by the patent holder by applying the ordinary observer test, then a temporary restraining order may be granted by the Court.(09-15-2014)
Encap v. Scotts Co.Trade Secrets: Trade Secrets Cannot be Public Knowledge and Must Provide a Competitive Advantage. (08-28-2014)
Johnson v. Apple, Inc. Copyright: Plaintiff must show specific code or blueprint in order to sustain copyright infringement claim. (08-14-2014)
Flow Valve LLC v. Forum Energy Technologies Inc.Patents: The pleading standard for a patent infringement case is determined by the facts and circumstances surrounding the action. (07-18-2014)
Logan Developers v. Heritage Bldgs.Copyright: Evidence of common elements and standard features shared by two designs are not enough to prove copyright infringement when the two designs are neither extrinsically nor intrinsically similar.(06-05-2014)
Toys v. Pearl Enters.Trademarks: When the re-sale of a product does not involve the actual “use” of a trademark, the re-sale of the product does not constitute trademark infringement. (05-23-2014)
Medtronic Minimed v. Animas Corp.Patents: When a patent involves mean-plus-function language the terms must be capable of being comprehended by an expert within that field in order to be held invalid for indefiniteness. (05-08-2014)
Ergowerx Int'l v. Maxell Corp. of Am.Trademarks: A distributor who sells trademarked goods that are genuine does not infringe on the trademark and does not violate the Lanham Act.(04-23-2014)
Louisiana Contractors Licensing Service, Inc. v. American Contractors Exam Services, Inc. Copyright: Copyrighted exam questions were reproduced and marketed without permission from the holder of the copyright, but the infringement was de minimis and was therefore not actionable. (04-07-2014)