Willamette Law Online

(16 summaries)

Lauren Olson

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Addiction & Detoxification Inst. v. GeorgePatents: In order for a Plaintiff to properly file a complaint regarding patent infringement, the Defendant must have actual knowledge of the infringement before the complaint is filed. (02-13-2015)
Kober Hanssen Mitchell Architects v. Wilson Care Home KailuaCopyright: An affirmative defense is only granted in a copyright infringement case if the defense appears on the face of the pleading and the defense is complete. (01-16-2015)
Joao Control & Monitoring Sys., LLC v. Slomin's, Inc.Patents(01-06-2015)
Clare v. Chrysler Group LLCPatents:  Defendant is not liable for patent infringement unless the product is literally equivalent to the patented product or fulfills the doctrine of equivalents. (12-04-2014)
Getty Images Us v. Microsoft Corp.Copyright: Copyright infringement claims do not extend to copyrighted material if the material is not stated in the complaint, the material is impossible to identify, and the claim being brought for the copyrighted material lacks originality. (11-24-2014)
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)