Willamette Law Online

(29 summaries)

Robert Sobotka

Intellectual Property

TitleExcerptFilling Date
Ultramercial, Inc. v. HuluPatents: A patent claim that is directed to an abstract idea does not move into §101 eligibility territory by merely requiring generic computer implementation.(11-14-2014)
Murphy v. LazarevCopyright: A copyright owner who grants an exclusive or nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement. (10-17-2014)
Coach, Inc. v. 3D Designers InspirationsTrademarks: To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must show that (1) its marks are distinctive enough to be worthy of protection and (2) the defendant’s use of those marks is likely to cause consumers to be confused as to the source of the product. (09-29-2014)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Macdermid Printing SolutionsPatents: Determination of a claim of infringement involves a two-step inquiry. First, the patent claim is construed—a question of law in which the scope of the asserted claim is defined. Second, the claim is compared to the allegedly infringing product to determine whether the product contains every limitation contained in the claim or the substantial equivalent of any limitation not literally present. (09-17-2014)
Int'l Info. Sys. Sec. Certification Consortium v. Sec. Univ.Trademarks: When a company uses a certification mark of another company in order to advertise training of the service registered under that mark, the Court applies a two-prong test to determine if there is trademark infringement.(08-07-2014)
Lugus IP, LLC v. Volvo Car Corp.Patents: When a patent claim is narrowed during prosecution, prosecution history estoppel may limit the application of the doctrine of equivalents.(07-23-2014)
ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.Copyright: The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the exclusive right to “perform the copyrighted work publicly.”(06-25-2014)
EveryScape, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.Patents: Patent infringement analysis involves two steps: (1) the threshold construction of the meaning and scope of the asserted claim, followed by (2) a determination of whether the accused product infringes the properly construed claim. If no reasonable jury could possibly find that an accused product satisfies every claim limitation of the asserted claims, either literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents, then summary judgment of noninfringement must be granted.(05-30-2014)
Karlson v. Red Door Homes, LLCCopyright: A nonexclusive license may be granted orally or implied from conduct. An implied license is created when (1) a licensee requests creation of a work; (2) the licensor makes that work and delivers it to the licensee; and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee copy and distribute the work. (04-30-2014)
Neri v. MonroeCopyright: When a photograph of a work of art was transformative, despite it being a creative work, fair use was found.(02-26-2014)
Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc.Trademarks: When a trademark holder alleged that a competitor wrongly imported and marketed mushrooms under its marks, the competitor's importation of its mushrooms was likely to confuse consumers under the Lanham Act despite no evidence of actual confusion. (12-24-2013)
Am. Inst. of Physics v. Winstead PCCopyright: 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. (12-03-2013)
Ashland Inc. v. RandolphTrademarks: A permanent injunction was granted to Valvoline when an automobile repair shop displayed Valvoline trademarks but used other products.(10-25-2013)
Ross v. Olsen Fine Home Bldg.Copyright: 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. (09-30-2013)
Bishop v. MillerTrade Secrets: A compilation of readily accessible information could constitute a trade secret.(09-12-2013)
Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp. v. Bayer AktiengesellschaftTrademarks: Infringement was not found in part due to sophistication of producers of commercial products. (08-23-2013)
Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co.Trademarks: A likelihood of confusion was found when goods were of the same type and similar channels were used.(08-23-2013)
Broad. Music, Inc. v. Meadowlake, Ltd.Copyright: 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. (07-29-2013)
Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-HelfandTrade Secrets: Returning materials containing trade secrets is sufficient to avoid statutory theft of a trade secret. (07-10-2013)
WFTV, Inc. v. Maverik Production Ltd. Liability Co.Trademarks: Statutory damages were found appropriate in a default judgment. (06-18-2013)
Kate Spade LLC v. Saturday Surf LLCTrademarks: A declaratory judgment that a new clothing brand did not infringe a existing brand was not necessary.(06-17-2013)
Overhead Door Corp. v. BurgerTrademarks: Default judgment for both trademark infringement and false designation was appropriate when a license to use a trademark was validly terminated. (06-17-2013)
Muromura v. Rubin Postaer & Assocs.Copyright: In order for infringement to be found, works need to have extrinsic substantial similarity. (05-31-2013)
Nexstar Broad., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.Copyright: 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. (05-30-2013)
Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc.Copyright: The Copyright Act provides an additional damage remedy if a plaintiff can show that the infringement was wilfull. (05-29-2013)
Righthaven LLC v. HoehnCopyright: Under the SAA, the temporary assignee of a copyright does not have standing to sue for infringement. (05-09-2013)
In re Bashas’ Inc.Copyright: To prove copyright infringement, claims must rise above the level of speculation.(05-08-2013)
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.Copyright: An agent must be registered with the US Copyright Office in order to comply with Section 512(c).(05-07-2013)
Nucal Foods, Inc. v. KayeTrademarks: Default judgment was appropriate when a cybersquatter registered a domain name that was confusingly similar to a trademark. (04-17-2013)