Willamette Law Online

(42 summaries)

Jeffrey Skrysak

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Vil v. PoteauCopyright: Copyright registration is prima facie evidence of ownership, however, without submitting a copy of the copyrighted material to the court, the court cannot conduct a two step analysis required to determine infringement. (03-03-2015)
Money Suite Co. v. 21st Century Ins. & Fin. Servs.Patents: Limitations are not inventive concepts which transform an abstract idea into patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101(01-27-2015)
Orca Communs. Unlimited, LLC v. NoderTrade Secrets: The Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not displace common-law tort claims based on alleged misuse of confidential information and protects protections and remedies for trade secret claims.(11-19-2014)
Scentsy, Inc. v. Harmony Brands, LLCCopyright: Where there is a question about whether there is substantial similarity between two ideas in a copyright infringement case, the case cannot be decided at the summary judgment phase. It must be decided by a jury.(11-04-2014)
M2 Tech., Inc. v. M2 Software, Inc.Trademarks(10-20-2014)
Synopsys, Inc. v. LeePatents: The America Invents Act places exclusive jurisdiction in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when reviewing decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office(10-09-2014)
Cornucopia Prods. v. BedTrade Secrets(09-24-2014)
Timed Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc.Copyright: When applying the federal copyright act, the Courts will employ a two-step test to determine preemption.(09-12-2014)
S.C. v. Nutraceutical Corp.Trademarks: When two parties use a federally registered mark, under common law, ownership of the mark (regardless to whomever registered the mark) will be granted to the first party who actually uses the mark in the market place.(08-29-2014)
In re Index Sys.Patents: When there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.(08-11-2014)
Brickey v. Amazon.com, Inc.Copyright: When the defendant is the rightfully owner of media which is the basis for a copyright infringement claim, not infringement can occur. (07-18-2014)
Flying Pigs LLC v. RRAJ Franchising LLCTrademarks: Reliance on the Lanham Act is not always required to show ownership of a trademark when usage of the mark shows the same.(07-01-2014)
Alice Corp. Pty. LTD v. CLS Bank Int’lPatents: The mere use of a computer is not sufficient to transfer ma claim from a patent-ineligible abstract idea to a patent-eligible invention. (06-19-2014)
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.Patents: The standard to determine definiteness of patent claims requires review by someone skilled in the art.(06-02-2014)
Oracle Am. v. Google Inc.Copyright: When determining whether source code was eligible for copyright protection the court examined the legislative history of 17 U.S.C. §102(a).(05-09-2014)
United Video Props., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.Patents: When considering claim construction courts conduct a de novo review but consider the patents prosecution history. (04-08-2014)
Denimafia Inc. v. New Balance Ath. Shoe, Inc. Trademarks: When determining the likelihood of confusion between trademarks courts apply an eight factor balancing test(03-03-2014)
Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs.Trademarks: Intent to reuse is not evaluated when use is not actually terminated in determining whether a trademark has been abandoned. (03-03-2014)
Kwan Software Eng'g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLCCopyright: Independent development constituted complete defense to copyright infringement and DMCA claims.(02-11-2014)
In re Prairiesmarts LLCTrade Secrets: Trial court orders for production of material containing trade secrets were found to be an abuse of discretion because the party seeking production had not met their burden of proving that nonproduction constituted a real threat of an unjust result. (01-23-2014)
Shammas v. FocarinoTrademarks: When the Patent and Trademark Office's successful motion for summary judgment only cited two cases, twenty-three hours of preparation time was deemed excessive.(01-02-2014)
Malibu Media, LLC v. BrennemanCopyright: When a person shared portions of copyrighted torrent files of eleven movies, damages of $1500 per movie was sufficient.(12-13-2013)
Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLCTrademarks: The famousness test turns on the mark’s fame, not on the owner's fame.(10-31-2013)
DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. SchaltenbrandCopyright: A copyright was not invalidated when the opposing parties did not ask for the Register of Copyrights to be reviewed. (10-07-2013)
Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.Trade Secrets: Misuse of the information contained in a treasure map constituted misappropriation of a trade secret.(09-18-2013)
Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight SupplyTrademarks: The eight-factor Sleekcraft test was used to determine confusion. (08-29-2013)
Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Meliá, Inc.Trademarks: Reverse confusion was considered when determining trademark infringement, despite incontestable registration under section 15 of the Lanham Act.(08-28-2013)
Civic Partners Stockton v. YoussefiCopyright: 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.(08-08-2013)
Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.Copyright: 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. (08-07-2013)
Nat'l Council on Teacher Quality v. Minn. State Colleges & Univs.Copyright: Anticipated future infringement is not sufficient to bar the fair use of copyrighted materials. (08-05-2013)
Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor (Unpublished)Trade Secrets: Conversations about appropriation of intellectual property alone do not constitute a misappropriation under the UTSA.(07-17-2013)
AutoPartSource, LLC v. BrutonTrade Secrets: 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.(07-16-2013)
Sarkissian Mason, Inc. v. Enter. HoldingsTrade Secrets: 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.(07-15-2013)
Mps Entm't v. Abercrombie & Fitch StoresTrademarks: A press release is not an advertisement as a matter of law in a trademark infringement case. (06-28-2013)
Coach, Inc. v. Sexy FashionTrademarks: Willful infringement requires a connection between the defendant's awareness of its competitors and the defendant's actions at those competitors' expense.(06-25-2013)
Broad. Music, Inc. v. YoungCopyright: A copyright infringer is liable for either actual or statutory damages, whichever the copyright owner chooses. (06-06-2013)
Jim Marshall Photography, LLC v. VarvatosCopyright: 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. (06-03-2013)
Krafft v. DowneyTrade Secrets: 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.(05-17-2013)
Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P.Trade Secrets: Punitive damages are appropriate when trade secrets are maliciously appropriated. (05-15-2013)
Anytime Fitness, LLC v. RobertsTrademarks: The likelihood of possible consumer confusion supported an injunction against a spammer from using another company's trademark. (04-24-2013)
ZilYen, Inc. v. Rubber Mfrs. Ass'nCopyright: 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.(04-02-2013)
WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc.Copyright: 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.(04-01-2013)