Willamette Law Online

( 490 summaries )

Intellectual Property Updates

Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc.

Patents: PATENTS: PERMANENT INJUNCTION: The detrimental effect of restricting innovation combined with the public’s general interest in protecting inventive technology property outweighs any public interest in purchasing cheaper products from an infringing party.

(Filing Date: 06-30-2014)

ABC, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Copyright: The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the exclusive right to “perform the copyrighted work publicly.”

(Filing Date: 06-25-2014)

OBAN US, LLC v. Nautilus, Inc.

Copyright: When a company licenses the use of its brand to another they do not have a duty to monitor the licensee’s infringement of a third party mark.

(Filing Date: 06-23-2014)

Alice Corp. Pty. LTD v. CLS Bank Int’l

Patents: The mere use of a computer is not sufficient to transfer ma claim from a patent-ineligible abstract idea to a patent-eligible invention.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2014)

Lambert Corp. v. LBJC Inc.

Trademarks: Trademark Infringement: To prevail on a claim for trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, Section 43(a), a plaintiff must prove: (1) ownership of a valid trademark; (2) use of the mark without its consent; and (3) that such use is likely to cause confusion. Even without a valid trademark registration, a trademark infringement plaintiff may still demonstrate superior rights to a trademark by establishing that it was the first user of the mark in commerce, however, such prior use must be “continuous,” and not merely “transitory.”

(Filing Date: 06-16-2014)

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Patents: Invalidity: A drug's unexpected properties alone are insufficient to establish non-obviousness.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2014)

Authors Guild v. Hathi Trust

Copyright: Fair Use: When an association serving people with disabilities creates an online database of copyrighted works they are protected under the Fair Use Doctrine.

(Filing Date: 06-10-2014)

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.

(Filing Date: 06-05-2014)

Mister Softee, Inc. v. Tsirkos

Trademarks: Trademark Infringement: In a trademark infringement case, courts look to an eight-part test that determines whether customer confusion will occur due to the infringement that will damage business for the senior user.

(Filing Date: 06-05-2014)

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Patents: The standard to determine definiteness of patent claims requires review by someone skilled in the art.

(Filing Date: 06-02-2014)

EveryScape, Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc.

Patents: Patent Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 05-30-2014)

Aspen Technology, Inc. v M3 Technology, Inc

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation of Trade 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.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2014)

Renna v. County of Union

Trademarks: Infringement: When a mark cannot be registered because it is not a suitable, protected mark a claim for trademark infringement cannot be brought under Section 43 of the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2014)

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.

(Filing Date: 05-23-2014)

Home Gambling Network, Inc. v. Piche

Patents: Patent Infringement attorneys' fees: In patent infringement cases, the award of attorneys' fees is reserved for “exceptional cases”; if the infringement is premised on operations that are outside of the United States, the claim cannot be successful and is likely subject to an award of attorneys’ fees.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2014)

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).

(Filing Date: 05-09-2014)

Medtronic Minimed v. Animas Corp.

Patents: Patent Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2014)

Whipps, Inc. v. Ross Valve Mfg. Co.

Trade Secrets: Preliminary Injunction: Trade Secrets: Preliminary Injunction: An idea may still be held to be a trade secret, despite not being written down or having written design plans, if a sufficiently detailed description of the design is provided to others.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2014)

Title Trading Services. USA, Inc. v. Kundu

Trade Secrets: Preliminary Injunction: When evaluating whether to grant a temporary restraining order the court considers four elements.

(Filing Date: 05-02-2014)

Karlson v. Red Door Homes, LLC

Copyright: 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.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2014)

Ergowerx Int'l v. Maxell Corp. of Am.

Trademarks: Infringement: A distributor who sells trademarked goods that are genuine does not infringe on the trademark and does not violate the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2014)

Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd.

Patents: Patent Infringement: The obviousness-type double patenting doctrine prohibits a patent owner from extending their exclusive use right through a later-expiring patent that is not patentably distinct from the earlier-expiring patent.

(Filing Date: 04-22-2014)

Cohen v. Versatile Studios, Inc.

Copyright: Jurisdiction: Cases that hinge on whether a copyrighted work was created as a ‘work made for hire’ or as independent are ownership disputes that arise under the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 04-21-2014)

Stutts v. Texas Saltwater Fishing Magazine, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement : When two works are substantially similar the court may grant summary judgment if when viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party they can draw inferences from the evidence presented that reasonable jurors could not find a substantially similar idea or expression.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2014)

Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.

Patents: Patentability and Indefiniteness: 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.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2014)

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.

(Filing Date: 04-08-2014)

Dardenne v. MoveOn.org Civil Action

Trademarks: Trademark Infringement: When a private group used a State's registered service mark to criticize the Governor of the State, the Court determined that the use of the mark would not confuse viewers as to the owner of the mark.

(Filing Date: 04-07-2014)

Louisiana Contractors Licensing Service, Inc. v. American Contractors Exam Services, Inc.

Copyright: Copyright Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 04-07-2014)

Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Copyright: Copyright infringement claims accrue upon actual or constructive discovery of the harm.

(Filing Date: 04-04-2014)

Bulldog N.Y. LLC v. Pepsico, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: When one company markets its sole product to another company in the hopes of exposing the product to the public, the marketing company will lose its protection as a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 03-31-2014)

Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Marvell Tech. Group, Ltd.

Patents: Damages: Although the facts used by the jury to conclude that Marvell willfully infringed Carnegie's patents also satisfied many of the Reed factors the size of the jury’s damage award in relation to Marvell’s market capitalization and cash reserves justified limiting the enhanced damages multiplier to 1.23.

(Filing Date: 03-31-2014)

U.S. v. Reichert

Copyright: DCMA: A sentencing enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 was proper because defendant had skills in the area of circumvention technology that “[m]ost persons of average ability” with “a minimum of difficulty” could not replicate.

(Filing Date: 03-28-2014)

Jackson v. Odenat

Trademarks: In order to prevail on a defense of implied license the Defendant bears the burden of proving apparent authority to bind the Plaintiff.

(Filing Date: 03-24-2014)

Teller v. Dogge

Copyright: Claim Elements: In order to prove a claim of copyright infringement, plaintiff must have a valid copyright and sufficiently show the defendant’s copying of original components of the work. Further, to demonstrate copying, plaintiff must show that the infringer had access to the copyrighted work and that the works at issue are substantially similar.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2014)

Alcon Research Ltd. V. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Patents: Patent Infringement: When Barr challenged Alcon's patent, it did not show with clear and convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not practice the claim without undue experimentation, which is required to prove lack of enablement.

(Filing Date: 03-18-2014)

Lovely Skin, Inc. v. Istar Skin Care Prods., LLC

Trademarks: To overcome the strong presumption of validity that Lovely Skin's registered trademark had not acquired distinctiveness at the time of registration required Ishtar to show more than evidence of third parties with similar business names and marks.

(Filing Date: 03-13-2014)

Worlds, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

Patents: When Worlds, Inc. submitted its patent applications, it did not contain the required reference to its earlier filed provisional application and was not entitled to the priority date of the provisional application. Without that earlier priority date, Worlds invention was in public use more than one year before the priority date of its patent.

(Filing Date: 03-13-2014)

StorageCraft Tech. Corp. v. Kirby

Trade Secrets: Even though Mr. Kirby did not personally profit from disclosure of a trade secret, under Utah trade secret law, damages for the use or disclosure of trade secret may be measured by the defendant’s unjust enrichment, actual loss suffered by the plaintiff, or a reasonable royalty based on the price that the parties would have agreed upon for a license.

(Filing Date: 03-11-2014)

Alicea v. Machete Music

Copyright: There is a circuit split as to what actions meet the "preregistration" requirements found in the copyright act. However, under either test, a copyright holder must show some evidence that they have either registered or commenced registration procedures before they may bring a suit for copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2014)

Washington Consulting Group, Inc. v. Raytheon Technology Services Company, LLC et al.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Misappropriation was not found when movant could not provide causal link between the alleged misappropriation and the damage suffered.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2014)

Denimafia Inc. v. New Balance Ath. Shoe, Inc.

Trademarks: When determining the likelihood of confusion between trademarks courts apply an eight factor balancing test

(Filing Date: 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.

(Filing Date: 03-03-2014)

Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt.

Trademarks: Federal Jurisdiction: TRADEMARKS: Federal Jurisdiction: [9th Circuit Court of Appeals] A trademark cancellation claim standing alone does not provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

(Filing Date: 02-28-2014)

Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. v. Handi-Foil Corp.

Trademarks: Abandonment: Tacking is a question of law; the party seeking to tack bears the burden of proving that the current trademark and the registered trademark create a continuing commercial impression.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2014)

Neri v. Monroe

Copyright: Fair Use: When a photograph of a work of art was transformative, despite it being a creative work, fair use was found.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Integral Dev. Corp. v. Tolat

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Under the CUTSA, a plaintiff seeking relief for misappropriation of a trade secret must show the existence of the trade secrets with sufficient and reasonable particularity.

(Filing Date: 02-24-2014)

Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility LLC

Patents: Claim Construction: Non-infringement was found when two figures were submitted in a claim and were ambiguous because they didn't rise to the level of clear intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim term.

(Filing Date: 02-24-2014)

Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.

Patents: Standard of Review: Lighting Ballast's argument that the assessment of expert testimony and other factual questions, which are often raised during claim construction, justified a more deferential standard of appellate review did not provide a compelling justification for abandoning the current de novo standard applied to claim construction appeals.

(Filing Date: 02-21-2014)

Commonwealth v. Eiseman

Trade Secrets: Disclosure: To the extent capitation rates constitute trade secrets, that information may be redacted in accordance with the Trade Secrets Act which protects against misappropriation of trade secrets, including disclosure without consent.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2014)

Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc.

Trademarks: First Amendment: An image advertisement congratulating Michael Jordan was commercial speech and not subject to constitutional protections.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2014)

Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc.

Patents: Infringement: The definition in Butamax’s patent specification stating that the KARI polypeptide used a specific an electron donor did not mean that Butamax was acting as its own lexicographer and intending to limit the term to only cover use of the specific donor when both it and an alternate donor were within the ordinary meaning of the term at the time the patent was issued and where both the preferred embodiment and Enzyme Commission number listed in the patent permitted either electron donor to be used.

(Filing Date: 02-18-2014)

Kwan Software Eng'g, Inc. v. Foray Techs., LLC

Copyright: Infringement, DCMA: Independent development constituted complete defense to copyright infringement and DMCA claims.

(Filing Date: 02-11-2014)

Loftness Specialized Farm Equip., Inc. v. Twiestmeyer

Trade Secrets: Nondisclosure agreements : A breach of a non-disclosure agreement alone formed the basis of an action even though the information protected by the non-disclosure agreement would not otherwise be entitled to trade secret protection.

(Filing Date: 02-11-2014)

Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC

Patents: Claim Construction: The definition of a term claimed in one applicant's original prosecution was treated as intrinsic evidence when construing the claim of the same term in another applicant's application.

(Filing Date: 02-10-2014)

PFIZER INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.

Patents: Claim Construction: Claims are construed under the term’s plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a person or ordinary skill in the art unless: 1) patentee defines and acts as own lexicographer, or 2) patentee disavows the full scope of a claim in specification or prosecution.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2014)

165 Park Row, Inc. v. JHR Dev., LLC

Trademarks: Likelihood of Confusion: "The Inn at Brunswick Station" was found to cause consumer confusion and thus infringe the trademark belonging to "The Brunswick Inn," even though "The Brunswick Inn" is a strongly descriptive mark.

(Filing Date: 02-04-2014)

Videoshare, LLC v. YouTube, LLC

Patents: Infringement: VideoShare’s covenant not to sue YouTube for infringement of its patent divested the court of subject matter jurisdiction over YouTube’s counterclaim for a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity.

(Filing Date: 02-01-2014)

N5 Techs. LLC v. Capital One Bank, N.A.

Patents: Infringement: Literal infringement was not found when the accused method did not practice each limitation in the asserted claim. Further a statement by an expert pertaining to patent validity was insufficiently probative of the issue of infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2014)

Brownstein v. Lindsay

Copyright: A plaintiff’s joint authorship claim began to accrue when the plaintiff-author discovered her authorship had been expressly repudiated by a co-author.

(Filing Date: 01-29-2014)

Van Praagh v. Gratton

Trademarks: Trademarks on Personal Names: Although personal names used as trademarks are generally regarded as descriptive terms, the court found that they are protected if, through usage, they acquire distinctiveness and a secondary meaning. Because a name was found to be protected, the onus was on the second person trying to use it to avoid mistake.

(Filing Date: 01-28-2014)

In re Prairiesmarts LLC

Trade Secrets: Production: 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.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2014)

Medtronic Corevalve, L.L.C. v Edwards Lifesciences Corporation

Patents: Invalidity : Priority was not established when an applicant did not list all previous amended and foreign applications on every intervening application.

(Filing Date: 01-22-2014)

Smith v. Casey

Copyright: Standing: Standing was found when a musician held legal rights to his work in exchange for royalties.

(Filing Date: 01-22-2014)

Top Tobacco, L.P. v. Midwestern Cash & Carry, LLC

Trademarks: Infringement; Dilution: Uncontroverted sale of counterfeit trademarked articles alone established infringement against corporate defendants but, without proof of willfulness on the part of individuals, did not establish infringement against individually named defendants.

(Filing Date: 01-22-2014)

Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy

Trade Secrets: Petition for Writ of Certiorari: Where a party objects to the disclosure of information on the grounds that it is a trade secret, the trial court must determine if the information is in fact a trade secret, and secondly, if the information is protected the requesting party must show a reasonable necessity for the information.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2014)

Harel v. K.K. Int'l Trading Corp.

Patents: Infrigement: The visual distinctions between the drawing in the design patent application and the allegedly infringing lighter design demonstrated that, as a matter of law, the challenged lighter design was non-infringing.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2014)

Motorola Mobility LLC, v. Int’l. Trade Com’n

Patents: Infringement: Apple’s method of communicating changes in its devices’ registry of applications capable of receiving push notifications to a network did not infringe Motorola’s patent covering a method of communicating changes in the registry of installed applications to a network.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2014)

Nazomi Communs., Inc. v. Nokia Corp.

Patents: Because Western Digital’s MyBook hard drives and Sling Media’s Slingbox did not ship with the software required to enable native processing of Java programs, they did not infringe Nazomi’s patents directed toward a hardware-software combination capable of directly running Java programs.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2014)

Inhale, Inc. v. Starbuzz Tobacco

Copyright: Useful article: The design of a useful article is copyrightable only to the extent that it incorporates sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of utilitarian aspects of the container.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2014)

Sprint Nextel Corp. v. Welch

Trademarks: Infringement: A reseller may be liable for trademark infringement if the reseller uses the trademark in a way that is likely to cause the general public to think the reseller is working in conjunction with the trademark owner.

(Filing Date: 01-08-2014)

Shammas v. Focarino

Trademarks: Attorney's fees : 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.

(Filing Date: 01-02-2014)

Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLC

Copyright: Infringment: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbor" provision did not apply when the alleged infringer was aware of facts from which infringing activity was apparent. If awareness was derived from viewing an infringing work, the infringement must be "objectively obvious."

(Filing Date: 12-31-2013)

Institut Pasteur v. Focarino

Patents: Biological Patents: The board must give full consideration to resources which teach away from claimed inventions outcome.

(Filing Date: 12-30-2013)

KILOPASS TECHNOLOGY, INC. v. SIDENSE CORPORATION

Patents: Attorney's fees : The court may award reasonable attorney fees in patent infringement cases with exceptional circumstances; a clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the inquiry of whether fees will be awarded.

(Filing Date: 12-26-2013)

Hokto Kinoko Co. v. Concord Farms, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringment: 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.

(Filing Date: 12-24-2013)

Diversey v. Schmidly

Copyright: ACCRUAL OF CLAIM: A copyright infringement claim was barred when it was brought more than three years after the date on which the plaintiff should have become aware of an act of infringement, despite plaintiff's arguing a "continuing wrong" exception.

(Filing Date: 12-23-2013)

CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife, Inc.

Patents: Validity: Where a patent's description amounts only to a wish or plan to achieve the claimed invention the description does not meet the written description requirement and the patent is invalid.

(Filing Date: 12-18-2013)

Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. P'ship

Copyright: Fair Use: Fair use was found when a copyrighted logo was used in a limited manner in a movie about football's history.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2013)

Modus LLC v. Encore Legal Solutions, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation : The court did not grant a declaratory judgment in favor of a new employer when employees from another company brought trade secrets to the new company.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2013)

Timex Group USA, Inc. v. Focarino

Trademarks: Protection: When the descriptive terms "Intelligent" and "Quartz" were combined, they formed a mark that was eligible for protection.

(Filing Date: 12-17-2013)

Malibu Media, LLC v. Brenneman

Copyright: Damages: When a person shared portions of copyrighted torrent files of eleven movies, damages of $1500 per movie was sufficient.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2013)

Wang v. Mayorkas

Trademarks: Criminal, Immigration : Trademark counterfeiting under 18 U.S.C. § 2320(a) is an aggravated felony under § 1101(1)(43)(M)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2013)

Foster v. Pitney Bowes Corp.

Trade Secrets: Patents: Publication by the Patent Office destroys any trade secret protections for the information contained in the patent application.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v Tolmar, Inc.

Patents: Obviousness: When the result was a matter of degree and was not different in kind, obviousness was found.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: An employee's duty to protect the trade secrets of his/her employer extends beyond the resignation of the employee, even when the trade secret was emailed to the employee after the effective date of resignation.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

AUXILIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC v. UPSHER-SMITH LABORATORIES, INC.

Patents: Equivalents: The doctrine of equivalents protects patentees from copyists using unforeseeable equivalents that perform the same function in substantially the same way to obtain substantially the same result as a patent claim.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2013)

Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. Godaddy.com, Inc.

Trademarks: Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act: The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act does not include a cause of action for contributory cybersquatting.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2013)

Am. Inst. of Physics v. Winstead PC

Copyright: Fair use : 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.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2013)

Ge Betz, Inc. v. Conrad

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Trade secret misappropriation was found when plaintiffs alleged misappropriation with sufficient particularity and defendants could not provide evidence of properly acquiring the information.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2013)

Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc.

Trademarks: Injunctive Relief: Likelihood of irreparable harm had to be established, rather than presumed, by the plaintiff seeking injunctive relief.

(Filing Date: 12-02-2013)

Kenney v. Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc.

Trademarks: Trademark promotion: The plaintiff must show that defendant has copied elements of his copyrighted work and that the copying is actionable by proving that the copying of the copyrighted material was so extensive that it rendered the infringing and copyrighted works substantially material.

(Filing Date: 11-29-2013)

Wolf Run Hollow, LLC v. State Farm Bank, F.S.B.

Patents: Infringement: The allegation that State Farm Bank operated a secure online portal did not provide a reasonable inference of patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 11-26-2013)

Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. ShoeScandal.com LLC

Patents: Damages: When determining the amount of damages that was appropriate for patent infringement where the infringing party failed to respond to the proceeding, the court used the median average industry profits to determine pre-interest damages.

(Filing Date: 11-25-2013)

Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank

Trademarks: Infringement; Priority; Tacking: The doctrine of tacking to establish trademark priority is applicable to only an "exceedingly narrow" set of circumstances. This, however, is one of them.

(Filing Date: 11-22-2013)

Livingston v. Earle

Copyright: Infringement; Bankruptcy; Fair Use: Plaintiff did not have standing in infringement suit because she failed to list the cause of action as an asset in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy; use of copyrighted works in a judicial proceeding was fair use.

(Filing Date: 11-21-2013)

Apple, Inc. v Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patents: Remedies: The district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered the causal nexus required for injunction on a patent-by-patent basis.

(Filing Date: 11-18-2013)

Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC.

Patents: Obviousness: Unremarkable secondary indicia of non-obviousness was inadequate to rebut a strong prima facie case of obviousness.

(Filing Date: 11-15-2013)

Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Copyright: Fair Use: Fair use was found when Google digitally reproduced millions of copyrighted books, allowed library project partners to download copies of books, and made snippets of the digital reproductions available to computer searches.

(Filing Date: 11-14-2013)

Piggy Pushers, LLC v. Skidders Footwear, Inc.

Patents: Claim Construction: Whether a claim’s preamble limits the claim’s scope is determined on a case by case basis, considering the claim as a whole and the invention described in the patent. Where the preamble’s terms state a fundamental characteristic of the invention, the preamble limits the claims.

(Filing Date: 11-08-2013)

Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. Intel Corp.

Patents: Concretness: A patent is invalid for claiming ineligible subject matter where the patent claims an abstract idea and then requires the use of conventional post-solution actives that are not varied by the output of the abstract idea.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2013)

Seven Arts Filmed Entm't, Ltd. v. Content Media Corp. PLC

Copyright: Statute of Limitations: Where a copyright ownership claim was time-barred, and ownership was the deciding issue, the related infringement claims failed.

(Filing Date: 11-06-2013)

Coach, Inc v. Pure MLK Last Stop, Inc.

Trademarks: Damages: $500,000 and a permanent injunction was found to be an appropriate remedy when counterfeiters did not respond to summons.

(Filing Date: 11-04-2013)

Raymond G. Schreiber Revocable Trust v. Estate of Knievel

Copyright: Transfer: When there was no "clear, signed, written transfer of ownership," there was no transfer of copyrights.

(Filing Date: 11-01-2013)

Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC

Trademarks: Dilution: The famousness test turns on the mark’s fame, not on the owner's fame.

(Filing Date: 10-31-2013)

Ashland Inc. v. Randolph

Trademarks: Injunction: A permanent injunction was granted to Valvoline when an automobile repair shop displayed Valvoline trademarks but used other products.

(Filing Date: 10-25-2013)

IBORMEITH IP, LLC v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Patents: Definiteness: Patents containing “computational means” limitations require the disclosure of structures with specific steps for performing the claimed functions.

(Filing Date: 10-22-2013)

Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. Pedre Watch Co.

Copyright: Permanent Injunction: A permanent injunction was not granted when the plaintiff was unable to prove (i) it has suffered irreparable injury; (ii) remedies available at law are inadequate; (iii) a remedy in equity is warranted; and (iv) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.

(Filing Date: 10-21-2013)

Unitrac LLC v. U.S.

Patents: Infringement: A cause of action for a patent taking arose when the allegedly infringing instrument was first available for use.

(Filing Date: 10-18-2013)

Banxcorp v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Copyright: Infringement: Interest rates were not protectable under copyright law because, as mathematical averages, they were uncopyrightable facts and because they are too short to be copyrighted.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2013)

L-3 Communs. Corp. v. Sony Corp.

Patents: Infringement: A physical embodiment of the invention was required to show actual reduction to practice.

(Filing Date: 10-16-2013)

Avery Dennison Corp. v. Transact Techs., Inc.

Trade Secrets: Injunctive Relief: An injunction was not granted when the plaintiff failed to carry the burden of proof that the defendant used trade secrets in developing a machine.

(Filing Date: 10-15-2013)

Indus. Control Repair v. McBroom Elec. Co.

Trade Secrets: Infringement: Customer information is not protected under the Michigan trade secrets act.

(Filing Date: 10-10-2013)

Intellect Wireless, Inc. V HTC Corp.

Patents: Inequitable Conduct: Applicant must inform PTO of the precise claim location of a misstatement when correcting a misstatement during prosecution.

(Filing Date: 10-09-2013)

Reservoir, Inc. v. Truesdell

Trademarks: Laches: Because the Lanham Act does not have a limitations period for filing claims of trademark infringement, the court used the statute of limitations for fraud because that was the "most analogous" Texas statute of limitations.

(Filing Date: 10-09-2013)

DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand

Copyright: Invalidation: A copyright was not invalidated when the opposing parties did not ask for the Register of Copyrights to be reviewed.

(Filing Date: 10-07-2013)

MICROSOFT CORPORATION v. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Patents: Infringement: Patent infringement and the existence of a domestic industry relating to the articles protected by the patent must both be shown to establish a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2013)

TNS Media Research v. TRA Global, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Protectable Trade Secrets: A client list may be a trade secret but one created through widespread canvassing of an obvious and highly competitive market is insufficient to warrant trade secret protection.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2013)

In re City of Houston

Trademarks: Government: A local government entity may not obtain a federal trademark registration for the entity’s official insignia

(Filing Date: 10-01-2013)

Ross v. Olsen Fine Home Bldg.

Copyright: Infringement, Access: 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.

(Filing Date: 09-30-2013)

United States V. Hanjuan Jin

Trade Secrets: Economic Espionage Act : Under the EEA, a company does not have to actually lose money from the theft of a trade secret for a person to be found guilty of stealing a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2013)

Sunovion Pharms. v. Teva Pharms.

Patents: INFRINGEMENT: When a generic manufacturer’s Abbreviated New Drug Application falls within the scope of a valid patent claim, the generic manufacturer infringes that claim. A certification by the generic manufacturer that it will not, despite the terms of its ANDA, manufacture an infringing product is insufficient to avoid a holding that the ANDA infringes the patent as a matter of law.

(Filing Date: 09-26-2013)

Churchill Downs, Inc. v. Commemorative Derby Promotions

Trademarks: Lanham Act : Having a prior, expired licensing agreement contributed to the finding of a likelihood of confusion in determining trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2013)

Dash v. Mayweather

Copyright: Infringement: When a musician has never sold or licensed a copyright holding, relying on established artist's damages for similar misuse was too speculative.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2013)

SOUTHCO, INC. v. FIVETECH TECHNOLOGY INC.

Patents: Infringment : In determining whether manufacturing processes are similar enough to support an infringement claim, expert analysis can be used.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2013)

Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno, Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Misuse of the information contained in a treasure map constituted misappropriation of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-18-2013)

New India USA, LLC v. Vibrant Media Group, LLC

Trademarks: Civil Procedure: Operating a website which is directed toward a cultural subgroup within the United States cannot alone form the basis for personal jurisdiction in Trademark suits in any state which contains a significant number of that cultural subgroup.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2013)

Pandora Media, Inc. v. Am. Soc'y of Composers, Authors, and Publrs.

Copyright: statutory construction: American Society of Composers was not allowed to deny a blanket license to compositions in their repertory despite third party copyright holders withdrawing rights.

(Filing Date: 09-17-2013)

Bishop v. Miller

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: A compilation of readily accessible information could constitute a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-12-2013)

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. v. ACCESS CLOSURE, INC.

Patents: Safe Harbor : Consonance was not maintained in divisional applications because it contained two or more separately patentable inventions.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2013)

Excell Consumer Prods. v. Smart Candle LLC

Trademarks: Assignment: To satisfy the real continuity with the past test, the assignee of a trademark must maintain the quality of the goods in a manner that consumers have come to associate with the mark.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2013)

TufAmerica, Inc. v. Diamond

Copyright: CLAIM ACCRUAL UNDER 17 U.S.C. § 507(b): The injury rule is the appropriate rubric to determine when a claim accrues under the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 09-10-2013)

Wawrzynski v H.J. Heinz Co.

Patents: Jurisdiction: The America Invents Act gives the Federal Circuit jurisdiction over civil actions where a party asserts a compulsory counterclaim related to patents when the civil action began after the effective date of the act.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2013)

Accenture Global Servs., GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.

Patents: Claims: Where a system claim only limits the environment where the method step are implemented, it does not offer a meaningful limitation.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2013)

Fox TV Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X LLC

Copyright: Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act: Even if each consumer has an individual antenna, transmission of live TV by a commercial company violates the Transmit Clause of the Copyright Act of 1976.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2013)

Titaness Light Shop v. Sunlight Supply

Trademarks: Infringement: The eight-factor Sleekcraft test was used to determine confusion.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2013)

Dorpan, S.L. v. Hotel Meliá, Inc.

Trademarks: infringement: Reverse confusion was considered when determining trademark infringement, despite incontestable registration under section 15 of the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 08-28-2013)

UCB Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tris Pharma, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Contracts : Trade secret protection cannot be claimed when information is available in the public domain or through an employee's general knowledge or experience.

(Filing Date: 08-27-2013)

Am. Registry of Radiologic Technologists v. Bennett

Copyright: Infringement: Emailing members of a exam study service the copyrighted questions found on previously administered exam constituted copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2013)

Aceto Agric. Chems. Corp. v. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft

Trademarks: Infringement: Infringement was not found in part due to sophistication of producers of commercial products.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2013)

SKINMEDICA, INC. v. HISTOGEN INC.

Patents: Claim Construction: During claim construction, terms are not always afforded their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning of a term can be disclaimed and redefined through repeated and definitive remarks in the patents written description.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2013)

Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power Co.

Trademarks: Infringement: A likelihood of confusion was found when goods were of the same type and similar channels were used.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2013)

Gaines v. District of Columbia

Copyright: Ideas: Under the idea/expression dichotomy of copyright protection, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression but does not give anyone exclusive rights to ideas.

(Filing Date: 08-21-2013)

All Am. Semiconductor v. Apx Tech. Corp. (Unpublished)

Trade Secrets: Ownership of Technology: A plaintiff must establish ownership of a trade secret in a design by identifying a specific secret that meets the elements to be protected by law.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods.

Patents: Infringement: A patent is invalid due to the on-sale bar if, prior to its critical date, an embodiment of the patented subject matter is the subject of a commercial offer for sale, and the invent was ready for patenting.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times Co.

Patents: Exhaustion: The defense of patent exhaustion requires that the patented product be sold in a licensed product that sufficiently embodies the patent. The defense prevents the patentee from pursuing infringement claims against the users of that product.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC

Copyright: Fair Use: Fair use was found despite commercial gain largely because the commercial gain was "paltry" and the work was a parody.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2013)

Leo Pharm. Prods. Ltd. v. Rea

Patents: Obviousness: The Patent and Trademark Office should construe patent terms in the broadest sense that remains consistent with the patent specifications.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2013)

Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: In attempting to determine trademark infringement, the court used a non-exhaustive six-factor test to evaluate the competing marks.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2013)

Civic Partners Stockton v. Youssefi

Copyright: Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 08-08-2013)

Core Labs LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs.

Trade Secrets: Selection of Laws: When selecting applicable law following a transfer of proceedings, the law applied is the law of the original venue. In Texas, threatened disclosure of trade secrets is irreparable injury as a matter of law.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2013)

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement; Fair Use: 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.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2013)

Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

Trademarks: Copyright : Use of a mark in advertisements for an art gallery show did not qualify the mark for protection under the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 08-07-2013)

Nat'l Council on Teacher Quality v. Minn. State Colleges & Univs.

Copyright: Infringment: Anticipated future infringement is not sufficient to bar the fair use of copyrighted materials.

(Filing Date: 08-05-2013)

United States v. Agrawal

Trade Secrets: Electronic Espionage Act Nexus Provision: The nexus provisions of the EEA must read to indicate that, for purposes of determining theft, a trade secret may relate to a product placed in interstate commerce without being included in that product.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2013)

Aerotek, Inc. v. Johnson Group Staffing Company, Inc. (UNPUBLISHED)

Trade Secrets: Announcing new employment to a former employer's customers is not an impermissible solicitation in violation of the UTSA unless the former employee asks for the customer's business.

(Filing Date: 07-30-2013)

Broad. Music, Inc. v. Meadowlake, Ltd.

Copyright: Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 07-29-2013)

Calabrese, Racek & Markos, Inc. v. Racek

Trademarks: Infringement: Intention to use a mark in commerce was not sufficient to prove infringement.

(Filing Date: 07-26-2013)

Gevo, Inc. v. Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC

Patents: The doctrine of ensnarement will prevent a party from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents when the broader coverage used to show infringement would bring prior art within the coverage of the patent.

(Filing Date: 07-26-2013)

E-LYNXX Corp. v. InnerWorkings, Inc.

Patents: Doctrine of Equivalents: When a patentee intentionally choses narrower language in order to overcome unpatentability issues, it will be estopped from later arguing for the a broader interpretation under the doctrine of equivalents.

(Filing Date: 07-25-2013)

McKee v. James (Unreported)

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Password protection on a computer alone does not constitute reasonable efforts toward maintaining the secrecy of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 07-24-2013)

Robert Bosch LLC v. Trico Prods. Corp.

Patents: Joinder: A party may be joined as a defendant in a challenge of inventorship action where it retains an interest in the subject patents.

(Filing Date: 07-24-2013)

Cephalon, Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.

Patents: Infringement: Indirect infringement can be shown by demonstrating that an accused infringer knew or should have known that its actions would induce infringement of a patent.

(Filing Date: 07-22-2013)

Action Ink, Inc. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

Trademarks: Ownership: Trademark ownership is established by use, not by registration and aggressive policing of the mark alone.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Hobbs v. John

Copyright: Infringement: Peters v. West precluded a "unique combination" theory, in which elements which were not entitled to protection individually became a unique expression when placed in a certain combination with each other.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Jasmine Networks v. Marvell Semiconductor (Unpublished)

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Conversations about appropriation of intellectual property alone do not constitute a misappropriation under the UTSA.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

Metropolitan Regional Information System, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc.

Copyright: If the owner of a copyrighted database also owns the copyright to the individual components of that database they are not required to list each individual copyright as previous work when filing for an updated copyright to the database.

(Filing Date: 07-17-2013)

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: Purchasing keywords for "sponsored" links on internet search engines which contain registered marks of competitors does not alone amount to trademark infringement under the Lanham act.

(Filing Date: 07-16-2013)

AutoPartSource, LLC v. Bruton

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: 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.

(Filing Date: 07-16-2013)

Sarkissian Mason, Inc. v. Enter. Holdings

Trade Secrets: Misappropriations: 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.

(Filing Date: 07-15-2013)

Newsboys & Wesley Campbell v. Warner Bros. Records

Trademarks: Standing: Only the registrant of a trademark or that registrant’s legal representatives has legal standing to sue for trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 07-11-2013)

Southwestern Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand

Trade Secrets: Theft: Returning materials containing trade secrets is sufficient to avoid statutory theft of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 07-10-2013)

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Synthes (U.S.A.)

Patents: Obviousness; Prior Art: New designs borne from combining prior art can only be patented if the new combination is not so obvious as to be a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.

(Filing Date: 07-09-2013)

Purepecha Enters., Inc. v. El Matador Spices & Dry Chiles

Trademarks: Damages: When the registrant of a trademark offers evidence of infringing sales and the infringer fails to prove its statutory burden to offer evidence of deductions, the registrant’s entitlement to profits under the Lanham Act is equal to the infringer’s gross sales.

(Filing Date: 07-08-2013)

Broad. Music, Inc. v. Northside Rivarly's LLC

Copyright: Infringement: Copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 101 for public performance of musical compositions, can be proven by proof of copyright registration and an investigator's affidavit that the work was publicly performed.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l, Inc.

Patents: Finality: In order for a final court decision to be sufficiently final that PTO claim cancellation will not remove the patentee's ability to maintain its lawsuit, there must be nothing left for the court to do but execute its judgment. Where damages are on appeal, the decision is not sufficiently final.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

Innovus Prime, LLC v. Panasonic Corp. & Panasonic Corp. of N. Am., Inc.

Patents: Assignment: When a patent is assigned, the assignee takes the patent subject to all prior license agreements whether it has notice of the agreement or not.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.

Patents: Laches: A presumption of laches arises when the delay between actual or constructive notice of potential infringement and the filing of a lawsuit exceeds six years.

(Filing Date: 07-02-2013)

Best Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Accuray, Inc

Patents: Doctrine of Equvalents: The Local Patent Rules for the Western District of Pennsylvania require a patentee to promptly specify whether it is seeking relief for literal infringement or whether the accused device infringes under the doctrine of equivalents. If the latter theory is used, there must be sufficient detail, beyond the wording of the patent itself, to provide the accused infringer with notice of infringement.

(Filing Date: 07-01-2013)

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Trade secrets willingly given to another company without proper protection will not be protected by the courts.

(Filing Date: 07-01-2013)

MDS (Can.), Inc. v. RAD Source Techs., Inc.

Patents: Licensing: Error was not found when a district court found that a contract relinquishing rights to use a patent was not breached when the relinquishing party developed and used similar new technology.

(Filing Date: 07-01-2013)

Mps Entm't v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

Trademarks: Infringement: A press release is not an advertisement as a matter of law in a trademark infringement case.

(Filing Date: 06-28-2013)

Thale v. Apple Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: To recover "indirect profits" for copyright infringement claims in the Ninth Circuit, one must proffer some evidence linking the profits generated by the infringer to the actual act of infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2013)

Coach, Inc. v. Sexy Fashion

Trademarks: Infringement: Willful infringement requires a connection between the defendant's awareness of its competitors and the defendant's actions at those competitors' expense.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Sony BMG Music Entm't v. Tenenbaum

Copyright: Infringement: A damage award of $22,500 per illegally downloaded or distributed song is not so large as to unconstitutionally violate infringer's rights to due process.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Harris v. Mattel, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: Although the ideas found in two works were similar, substantial similarity was not found because the ordinary observer would not regard the works' aesthetic appeal as the same.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2013)

ULTRAMERCIAL, INC., and Ultramercial, LLC, v. HULU, LLC, and Wildtangent, Inc.

Patents: Limits on Abstraction: A patent can embrace an abstract idea so long as it meaningfully limits the idea by restricting the patent to a concrete application of the idea.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2013)

WFTV, Inc. v. Maverik Production Ltd. Liability Co.

Trademarks: Infringement: Statutory damages were found appropriate in a default judgment.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2013)

Kate Spade LLC v. Saturday Surf LLC

Trademarks: Infringement: A declaratory judgment that a new clothing brand did not infringe a existing brand was not necessary.

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Overhead Door Corp. v. Burger

Trademarks: Infringement, False Designation: Default judgment for both trademark infringement and false designation was appropriate when a license to use a trademark was validly terminated.

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Magna Mirrors of Am. v. 3M Co.

Patents: Estoppel: The defense of equitable estoppel provides a complete defense for alleged patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2013)

Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp.

Patents: Infringement: Where an accused infringer presents reasonable defenses for its alleged infringement, it will defeat a claim of willful infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-14-2013)

Assn. For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Patents: Products of Nature: Isolated sections of naturally occurring DNA, without more, are products of nature and are not eligible for patent protection.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2013)

Axiom Worldwide, Inc. v. HTRD Group H.K., Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: Acquisition of trade secrets by mistake, misunderstanding, or negligence do not constitute misappropriation by improper means.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2013)

Promega Corp. v. Applied Biosystems, LLC

Patents: Invalidation: An earlier patent application can serve as potentially invalidating prior art if both patents were not completely owned by the same person or organization at the time of invention.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2013)

Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc.

Patents: Indirect Infringement: The lawsuit filed against an alleged indirect infringer can be used to demonstrate knowledge of the subject patent's existence, however, when the lawsuit is the basis of the accused infringer's knowledge the patentee is limited to recovering post-filing damages.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2013)

Bean v. Pearson Educ., Inc.

Copyright: Implied License: A structured process of requesting to use copyrighted material does not create an implied license to use those same materials without permission.

(Filing Date: 06-11-2013)

Organic Seed Farmers & Trade Assn. v. Monsanto Co.

Patents: Infringement: There is no judicable case or controversy where a patent holder makes binding assurances that it will not sued a party for patent infringement and that party fails to allege circumstances that place it beyond the scope of those assurances.

(Filing Date: 06-10-2013)

American Petroleum Institute v. Cooper

Trademarks: Preemption: The Lanham Act preempted North Carolina's gasoline blending statute, allowing producers to require in-line blending of gasoline to protect the quality of their marked products.

(Filing Date: 06-06-2013)

Broad. Music, Inc. v. Young

Copyright: Infringement: A copyright infringer is liable for either actual or statutory damages, whichever the copyright owner chooses.

(Filing Date: 06-06-2013)

Jim Marshall Photography, LLC v. Varvatos

Copyright: Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

Lube-Tech Liquid Recycling, Inc. v. Lee's Oil Service, LLC

Trademarks: Infringement: A descriptive mark (conveying an immediate idea of the ingredients, qualities or characteristics of the goods) was protectable only if the mark was shown to have acquired a secondary meaning.

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

Coach, Inc. v. Goodfellow

Trademarks: Contributory Infringement: Flea market operator may be contributorily liable for trademark infringement of vendors if the operator knew or had reason to know of the infringement yet continues to facilitate the infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2013)

Kelly-Brown v. Winfrey

Trademarks: Infringement: Use "as a mark" is not a threshold requirement for a Lanham Act claim.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2013)

Muromura v. Rubin Postaer & Assocs.

Copyright: Infringement: In order for infringement to be found, works need to have extrinsic substantial similarity.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2013)

Nexstar Broad., Inc. v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 05-30-2013)

Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc.

Copyright: Wilfulness: The Copyright Act provides an additional damage remedy if a plaintiff can show that the infringement was wilfull.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2013)

NexTUNE, Inc. v. McKinney

Trade Secrets: Intentional acquisition: A competitor merely reviewing documents lawfully acquired containing trade secret information is insufficient to prove that the trade secrets were intentionally acquired.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2013)

General Electric Co. v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

Patents: Inequitable Conduct: Patent applicants have an “uncompromising” duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the PTO, which includes the duty of disclosing all known material prior art.

(Filing Date: 05-28-2013)

Keurig, Inc. v. JBR, Inc.

Patents: Infringement: Infringement of design patents is analyzed under the ordinary observer test, which considers whether the ordinary observer, giving the usual attention of a purchaser, would be deceived into purchasing the accused design believing it to be the patented design.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2013)

Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Allegheny Techs., Inc.

Patents: To show that a patent is unenforceable because of inequitable conduct, the alleged infringer must show that the patentee intentionally withheld, or misrepresented, material information from the patent examiner. The intent and materiality elements must be shown independently, and each must be proven by clear and convincing evidence.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

Cuidado Casero Home Health of El Paso v. Ayuda Home Health Care Services LLC

Trade Secrets: Damages: When making a claim of lost profits the plaintiff must show that the lost profits are non-speculative and corroborated.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

H&R Block Eastern Enters. v. Intuit, Inc.,

Trademarks: Confusion: The "confusion" element in determining infringement of a registered trademark only includes “confusion as to source, origin, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a good or service.”

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

Ophthalmic Research Associates, Inc v. Sarcode Corporation

Trade Secrets: Choice of Law: "Predictability, the protection of justified expectations, and ease of adjudication" should be considered when determining which state law applies in a trade secret dispute.

(Filing Date: 05-22-2013)

Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. v. Warrick

Copyright: Infringement: Organizational diagrams may be eligible for copyright protection if the idea is separable from the expression.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Gen. Motors, LLC v. Rapp Chevrolet, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: In trademark infringement cases under the Eighth Circuit’s jurisdiction, ‘likelihood of confusion’ need not be shown exclusively through incidents of ‘actual confusion’ by consumers.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Hart v. Elec. Arts

Trademarks: Transformative Use Test: An artist depicting a celebrity must contribute something more than a 'merely trivial' variation, [but must create] something recognizably 'his own,' in order to qualify for legal protection.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Kuvedina, LLC v. Cognizant Technology Solutions

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation of trade secrets require (1) existence of a trade secret; (2)acquisition of the trade secret as a result of a confidential relationship; (3) unauthorized use of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2013)

Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom International

Trademarks: License Infringement: Having a licensing agreement with a 3rd party infringer is not alone sufficient to expose a trademark owner to claims of vicarious and contributory infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2013)

Krafft v. Downey

Trade Secrets: Bad Faith: 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.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2013)

Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros., Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: Trademark use in a fictional context does not constitute infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-16-2013)

Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, L.L.P.

Trade Secrets: Damages: Punitive damages are appropriate when trade secrets are maliciously appropriated.

(Filing Date: 05-15-2013)

Bowman v. Monsanto, Co.

Patents: Patent Exhaustion: Remanufacturing or copying an article is not protected by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

(Filing Date: 05-13-2013)

Righthaven LLC v. Hoehn

Copyright: Standing: Under the SAA, the temporary assignee of a copyright does not have standing to sue for infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-09-2013)

B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.

Trademarks: Infringement: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision was overturned because it was not an Article III court and used different factors in determining whether there was trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2013)

Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: A party can only sue for copyright infringement if it has an exclusive license or ownership interest. Such an interest can be evidenced by a writing that shows a parties' intent to transfer the copyright to the moving party.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2013)

In re Bashas’ Inc.

Copyright: Discovery: To prove copyright infringement, claims must rise above the level of speculation.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2013)

Bryan C. McIntire v. Sunrise Specialty Co.

Patents: Infringement: A design patent is infringed if “the patented design, or any colorable imitation thereof,” is applied to “any article of manufacture for the purpose of sale.”

(Filing Date: 05-07-2013)

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.

Copyright: DCMA: An agent must be registered with the US Copyright Office in order to comply with Section 512(c).

(Filing Date: 05-07-2013)

Holton v. Physician Oncology Services, LP

Trade Secrets: Inevitable Disclosure: The inevitable disclosure doctrine is not an independent claim through which a trial court may enjoin an employee from working for a competitor employer.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

Language Line Services, Inc._v._Language Services Associates, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Conversion: The Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts all common law claims that are based on the same nucleus of facts as the claims of misappropriation and conversion.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

Musket Corporation v. Star Fuel of Oklahoma, LLC

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: A renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law was not granted because the court found sufficient evidence for the elements of trade secret misappropriation.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

U.S. v. Wen Chyu Liu

Trade Secrets: Conspiracy to steal: The relevant inquiry in a claim for conspiracy to steal trade secret information is whether the defendant conspired to steal information he believed to be a trade secret, rather than whether the information at issue was in fact a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 05-06-2013)

Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Patents: Obviousness: A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where prior art suggests the efficacy of the chemical combination found in the claim and where the prior art provides a motivation to make the combination.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Smith

Copyright: Transfer of Rights: For a motion for reconsideration to be considered, the motion must be timely and the party must have a vested interest.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Vyong Tran

Copyright: Default Judgment: The moving party must establish a valid claim of copyright infringement and the Court must find that the infringer's conduct could not be attributed to excusable neglect before an entry of default judgment in a copyright matter can be granted.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Mud Buddy, LLC v. Gator Tail, LLC

Patents: Anticipation: A patent claim is invalid by anticipation when each and every limitation of the claim is contained in prior art. The party alleging invalidity has the burden of producing clear and convincing evidence of anticipation, however, to defeat a motion for summary judgement the patent-holder must also produce some evidence showing there is a material issue of fact.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2013)

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC

Patents: To be entitled to pre-complaint damages for patent infringement, the patent-holder must provide the accused infringer with either actual or constructive notice. A contractual requirement that obligates a licensee to mark implementing products with the patent number provides sufficient evidence that the patent-holder made reasonable efforts to ensure compliance with the marking requirement such that the patent-holder can survive a motion for summary judgment.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

Reservoir, Inc. V. Truesdell

Trademarks: Infringment, Priority of Use: The person first using the trademark was granted ownership despite the fact that the other party had filed the trademark.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

Troy v. Samson Mfg. Corp.

Patents: Reduction-to-Practice: To show prior actual reduction-to-practice, a party must show that it (1) was first to construct an embodiment that met every element of the challenged claim, and (2) that the embodiment operated for its intended purpose.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2013)

Taylor v. Taylor Made Plastics, Inc.

Patents: Standing: To have standing, all co-owners of a patent must be joined as parties. Ownership of a patent is determined according state law.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2013)

Cariou v. Prince

Copyright: Fair Use Defense: Derivative works need not comment on the original work to fall under the fair use defense.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2013)

Anytime Fitness, LLC v. Roberts

Trademarks: Infringement : The likelihood of possible consumer confusion supported an injunction against a spammer from using another company's trademark.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2013)

The State ex rel. Lukin v. Corporation for Findlay Market of Cincinnati

Trade Secrets: Lease Agreements: Terms of lease agreements in regards to consideration paid and duration are considered trade secrets and excluded from public records requests.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2013)

UMG Recordings., Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

Copyright: DCMA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not shield Internet file sharing services from common-law copyright infringement suits on pre February 15, 1972 recordings.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2013)

Larson v. Warner Brothers Entertainment

Copyright: Revocation and Re-grant: An agreement that revokes copyright interest from one part and re-grants the interest in another party, in order to gain a more lucrative contract for granting of the same rights, will be upheld if it does not constitute an “agreement to the contrary” of the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2013)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Diamond Investment, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: Exclusive rights to a performance are violated when someone owns a valid copyright and the copyrighted content is distributed without the owner's authorization.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Nassau Precision Casting Co., Inc. v. Achushnet Co., Inc. Cobra Golf Co., and Puma N.A., Inc.

Patents: Infringement: Infringement was not proved because golf clubs alleged to be infringing did not meet the specifics of the patent claim language.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Nucal Foods, Inc. v. Kaye

Trademarks: Cybersquatting: Default judgment was appropriate when a cybersquatter registered a domain name that was confusingly similar to a trademark.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. DK 547, LLC

Copyright: Infringement; Liability: Copyright infringement of a musical work was shown by proving a public performance, originality and authorship of work, a valid copyright under Copyright Act, claimant’s ownership of work at issue, defendant’s public performance of work, and defendant’s failure to obtain claimant’s permission for such a performance. Joint and several liability for copyright infringement for a corporate officer was determined because the officer had the right and ability to supervise the activity and direct financial interest in the infringement.

(Filing Date: 04-15-2013)

Calisi v. Unified Financial Services, LLC

Trade Secrets: CLIENT LISTS: Without specialized client information, client lists do not constitute trade secrets.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Coach, Inc. v. Island Rayz

Trademarks: Infringement: Counterfeit products create a presumption of likelihood of confusion as to whether the sellers are affiliated with the owner of the senior mark.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Disney Enters. v. Rea

Patents: Obviousness: A patent claim is invalid for obviousness where it merely combines technologies existing at the time of invention.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2013)

Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple, Inc.

Patents: Infringement: To demonstrate direct infringement, a plaintiff must show that the accused device practices each claim of the patented method. A showing of indirect infringement is dependent on a showing that the accused device directly infringes the patent.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Johnston v. Rea

Patents: Review After Initial Rejection: In a civil action to receive a patent after initial rejection, the applicant may submit new, objective evidence and if that evidence relates to a disputed question of fact the PTO's findings of fact are reviewed de novo. If no new evidence is offered, the PTO's findings are entitled to deference and will only be set aside if the PTO's actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not in accordance with the law.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Reg Seneca, LLC v. Harden

Trade Secrets: Noncompete Clause: (When an employee has trouble discerning between general knowledge about his employment and trade secrets, an injunction enforcing a noncompete clause is appropriate to protect trade secrets.)

(Filing Date: 04-09-2013)

Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson

Patents: Claim Interpretation: Means-plus-function descriptions are limited by clearly linked corresponding structure descriptions.

(Filing Date: 04-04-2013)

Hamin Khatib v. Sun-Times Media Group, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Misappropriation: To state a trade secrets misappropriation claim upon which relief may be granted, plaintiff must claim that the misappropriated information was in fact a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 04-03-2013)

ZilYen, Inc. v. Rubber Mfrs. Ass'n

Copyright: Affirmative Defense: 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.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2013)

WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc.

Copyright: Infringement: 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.

(Filing Date: 04-01-2013)

Dawson v. Dawson

Patents: PATENT; CONCEPTION: Inventor must have formed a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention as it is to be applied in practice.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

Luvdarts, LLC v. AT & T Mobility, LLC

Copyright: To give adequate notice under the DMCA, a copyright holder must give notice of which copyrights were infringed, who infringed them, and when they were infringed.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2013)

Allied Mach. & Eng'g Corp. v. Competitive Carbide, Inc.

Patents: Where a third party complaint against inventor/patent assignor is based on the defense of invalidity, rather than a cause of action, and the inventor's rights in the patent have been assigned to another party, the third party plaintiff and defendant do not have adverse legal interests sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Anvik Corp. v. Nikon Precision, Inc.

Patents: A reasonable finder of fact could have found that an inventor did not have a preferred method for practicing the invention based on extrinsic evidence, thus the best mode requirement was improperly determined by summary judgment.

(Filing Date: 03-22-2013)

Columbia Pictures Indus. V. Gary Fung

Copyright: Services involved in and promoted for use in a process of reproducing copyrighted material may give rise to contributory infringement even if no product is provided to actual infringers.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2013)

Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC

Patents: Because a new claim contained more material than the original claim, the claim was enlarged and the patent was invalid.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Copyright: The 'first sale' doctrine is not constrained by a geographic limitation and applies to any copyrighted work which was lawfully produced in accordance to the Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Synqor, Inc. v. Artesyn, Inc.

Patents: PATENTS; INDUCED INFRINGEMENT: Datasheets and other markings on patented material showed actual knowledge required to prove induced infringement.

(Filing Date: 03-13-2013)

Gibson Guitar Corp. v. Viacom International Inc.

Trademarks: A plaintiff must effectively plead that an infringing product is actually in the market to state a claim of trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2013)

Wilson v. New Palace Casino, LLC

Copyright: Protection of works of art under VARA does not extend vicariously to derivative works.

(Filing Date: 03-07-2013)

Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance, Ltd.

Patents: Liability for indirect patent infringement can occur when claim steps are performed by more than one entity, provided the elements for inducement are met.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2013)

PC Puerto Rico LLC. v. El Smaili

Trademarks: Injunctive relief was appropriate when gas stations stopped selling gas but continued to display the Texaco mark.

(Filing Date: 02-28-2013)

Yellowbook, Inc. v. Brandeberry

Trademarks: If a trademark is owned in both a personal and corporate capacity, sale of the corporate interest in the mark does not mean it can be used in business by the seller.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2013)

Building Graphics, Inc. v. Lennar Corp.

Copyright: In the absence of direct evidence of a violation, the circumstantial evidence must demonstrate a reasonable possibility of access to the copyrighted work.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

Rucker v. Harlequin Enterprises, LTD

Copyright: Copyright violations will not be found when the only similarities between competing romance novels are generic tropes and character traits commonly used in the industry.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

West Plains, L.L.C. v. Retzlaff Grain Co.

Trade Secrets: Compilations of information may qualify for trade secret protection even if the information is publicly available.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

Interactive Fitness Holdings, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

Patents: When a patent differs from prior art by only a single limitation, the patent is invalid by anticipation if that limitation is covered by other prior art.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2013)

Multi Time Mach., v. Amazon.com

Trademarks: To prove trademark infringement, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s website uses the plaintiff’s mark confusingly when a consumer searches the defendant’s website.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Engenium Solutions v. Symphonic Techs.

Copyright: In a claim of literal infringement of software a court uses a filtration-comparison analysis rather than the abstraction-filtration-comparison test used in non-literal software copyright claims.

(Filing Date: 02-15-2013)

Cephalon, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Patents: Enablement can be found when one skilled in the art can practice the invention without “undue experimentation.”

(Filing Date: 02-14-2013)

Hallford v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.

Copyright: In order to determine substantial similarity between a television show and a screenplay the court compares the stories' plot and sequence, characters, themes, setting and pace, and total concept and feel.

(Filing Date: 02-13-2013)

Image Online Design, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names & Numbers

Trademarks: Stated intention to license the use of a service mark is too speculative to form the basis of an infringement action.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2013)

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.

Patents: The disclosure of an algorithm for a similar, but different, structure from which a person skilled in the art could derive the undisclosed algorithm is not adequate disclosure, and the limitation containing the undisclosed algorithm is therefore invalid for indefiniteness.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2013)

Skyline Zipline Global, LLC v. Domeck

Patents: A device that is the antithesis of a patented product does not infringe the original patent.

(Filing Date: 02-06-2013)

Bridgetree, Inc. v. Red F Marketing LLC

Trade Secrets: Making employees available for deposition, providing discovery for the alleged trade secret in question, and providing expert testimony are sufficient steps to identify alleged trade secrets.

(Filing Date: 02-05-2013)

CleanCut, LLC v. Rug Doctor, Inc.

Patents: Objective willfulness exists where the patentee shows that “the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.”

(Filing Date: 02-04-2013)

U.S. v. Howley

Trade Secrets: Taking reasonable steps to protect trade secrets includes a "no photography" policy and guards surrounding the building.

(Filing Date: 02-04-2013)

Lead It Corporation v. Tallapalli

Copyright: The Copyright Act requires the copyright holder to register their works before suing for copyright infringement, however statutory damages and attorney's fees will be barred if the infringement of commenced after first publication of the work and before the effective date of its registration.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2013)

Pfizer, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Patents: Animal tests of multiple animals are not required for enablement purposes of pharmaceutical patents, so long as the claim reflects varied effects on different species.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2013)

Rexnord Industries, LLC v. Kappos

Patents: Prior art may anticipate a missing feature that must be necessarily present, or inherent, without explicitly disclosing that feature.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2013)

Alberts v. Kappos

Patents: If the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art, then the patent is obvious.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2013)

Whitaker v. Stanwood Imps.

Copyright: Without further circumstantial evidence, wide dissemination and third party copying is insufficient to show access for copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2013)

Parallel Networks, LLC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.

Patents: To demonstrate literal infringement, the plaintiff must show that the defendant infringed every claim limitation.

(Filing Date: 01-16-2013)

Wax v. Amazon Techs., Inc.

Trademarks: Using a mark for a variety of services preserves a priority for the mark's use.

(Filing Date: 01-14-2013)

Blehm v. Jacobs

Copyright: When determining whether works are substantially similar, courts will analyse the protected expression of underlying concepts and themes – not the themes sought to be expressed.

(Filing Date: 12-27-2012)

C. W. Zumbiel Co., Inc. v. Kappos

Patents: A patent claim's preamble is a limitation if it is essential to understand limitations or terms in the claim body.

(Filing Date: 12-27-2012)

In re Fenofibrate Patent Litigation

Patents: When a patent claim calls for a quantity “between” two numbers, it should be construed to cover only that specific range and it should not be read to cover “a range between two values which are themselves ranges.”

(Filing Date: 12-27-2012)

Miller’s Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House, LLC

Trademarks: To relitigate a previous judicial determination of genericness, a purported trademark holder would need to show a drastic change in consumer perception.

(Filing Date: 12-20-2012)

In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation

Patents: An unsuccessful filing of an ANDA is a statutory act of infringement.

(Filing Date: 12-14-2012)

National Football Scouting, Inc. v. Rang

Copyright: A numerical expression representing an opinion of a player’s likelihood of succeeding in the NFL is copyrightable.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2012)

Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega

Trademarks: Delay in registering trademark resulted in unfair prejudice.

(Filing Date: 12-06-2012)

In re Yamazaki

Patents: Once a patent has issued subject to the terms of a terminal disclaimer, the Patent and Trademark Office is foreclosed from later reissuing the patent with a term greater than that for which the patent was originally issued.

(Filing Date: 12-06-2012)

Pregis Corp. v. Kappos

Patents: Because the Patent Act provides sufficient administrative and judicial relief for third parties injured by wrongly issued patents, the APA cannot be used to provide competitors in a patent dispute with an alternative means to obtain relief.

(Filing Date: 12-06-2012)

Brandywine Commun. Tech, LLC v. Casio Computer Co. Ltd.

Patents: To state a valid claim for contributory infringement, a plaintiff must plead facts suggesting the defendant both knew of the existence of the relevant patent at the time of the infringement, and that the product has no substantial non-infringing uses.

(Filing Date: 12-05-2012)

Metso Minerals Indus., Inc. v. Johnson Crushers Intl., Inc.

Patents: When the difference between subject matter patented and prior art is such that the solution patented would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art, the patent is invalid for obviousness.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2012)

General Electric Co. v. Wilkins

Patents: The Clear and Convincing evidentiary standard required to rebut the presumption of patent validity will not be met when the key corroborative witness testimony is predicated on the challenging party’s own sequence of events.

(Filing Date: 11-29-2012)

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. Sandisk Corporation

Patents: Parties that purchase patented goods have standing to assert a Walker Process antitrust claim against the patentee, alleging the patent was obtained by fraud on the PTO.

(Filing Date: 11-20-2012)

Edsal Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Vault Brands, Inc.

Trademarks: Claims for trademark infringement are not proper if the term has only been used as a descriptor, not a trademark.

(Filing Date: 11-15-2012)

Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Drilling USA, Inc.

Patents: When a court determines that a patent presents a prima facie case of obviousness, a presumption of invalidity for obviousness is raised. That presumption, however, can be rebutted by strong, objective evidence showing that the patent is nonobvious.

(Filing Date: 11-15-2012)

Hor v. Chu

Patents: The time period for asserting the defense of laches against an inventorship claim is measured from the date the patent was issued, not from the date the patent application was filed.

(Filing Date: 11-14-2012)

Norgren, Inc. v. ITC

Patents: The possibility of drawing inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not mean an administrative agency's conclusion was not supported by substantial evidence.

(Filing Date: 11-14-2012)

Hobbs v. John

Copyright: Concepts and feelings are not copyrightable when they belong to the general scène à faire of the genre.

(Filing Date: 10-29-2012)

Wilden Pump and Engineering LLC v. JDA Global LLC

Trademarks: Part numbers are not source identifiers when a prefix is used to differentiate between makers of similar parts

(Filing Date: 10-29-2012)

Brandywine Commun. Tech., Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Patents: Where knowledge is an essential element of a patent infringement claim, the defendant must have been aware of the patent's existence before litigation was instigated in order for that element to be satisfied.

(Filing Date: 10-24-2012)

Winchester Mystery House, LLC v. Global Asylum, Inc.

Trade Secrets: A trademark claim could be made when an allegedly infringing movie title bares no relation to the film or there was an intent to mislead.

(Filing Date: 10-24-2012)

Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos

Patents: To rebut the presumption that a limitation is not a means-plus-function limitation, the patentee must show that the limitation is essentially “devoid of anything that can be construed as structure.”

(Filing Date: 10-23-2012)

Sempris, LLC v. Watson

Trade Secrets: Noncompete agreements signed by employees of a company that are later acquired remain valid.

(Filing Date: 10-22-2012)

Technology Patents, LLC v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd.

Patents: Doctrine of Equivalents will not broaden claims beyond their explicit terms.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2012)

Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S

Patents: Prosecution history estoppel bars the assertion of the doctrine of equivalents when the presumption that a key claim phrase was narrowed to secure the patent in question is not overcome.

(Filing Date: 10-12-2012)

The Authors Guild v. Hathitrust

Copyright: Digitizing a book and putting it into a format possible for a print-disabled person to access it is sufficiently transformative for a fair-use defense.

(Filing Date: 10-10-2012)

Belkin Intl., Inc. v. Kappos

Patents: The Director's determination that prior art does not raise substantial new questions of patentability is final and nonappealable.

(Filing Date: 10-02-2012)

Molinelli-Freytes v. University of Puerto Rico

Copyright: An original manuscript created by employees while performing duties that are within the scope of their employment may be used by the employer without violating the 1976 Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 09-30-2012)

Granger v. Acme Abstract Co.

Copyright: In order to determine if a computer program is copyrightable and has been infringed, one must delineate between the copyrightable expression and the unprotected elements of the program.

(Filing Date: 09-27-2012)

Outside the Box Innovations, LLC v. Travel Caddy, Inc.

Patents: To render a patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, both the materiality of a nondisclosure or misrepresentation and intent to deceive the USPTO must be proven.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2012)

Preferred Systems Solutions, Inc. v. GP Consulting, LLC

Trade Secrets: A list of confidential information, which fails to explain which items are trade secrets or how that information was misappropriated, is insufficient to support a claim of misappropriation of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 09-14-2012)

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset

Copyright: Record companies are not entitled to clarification of the Copyright Act without a Art. III case or controversy; Copyright infringement includes making media available to be distributed as well as actual distribution.

(Filing Date: 09-11-2012)

Libya v. Miski

Trademarks: To establish a protected right in a descriptive mark, a party must demonstrate, with survey data or other evidence, that the mark has obtained secondary meaning in the marketplace.

(Filing Date: 09-06-2012)

Ibormeith IP, LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

Patents: For “means-plus-function” claims using algorithms, one must disclose it so as to show how its structure, material, or act supports the patent claim.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2012)

Suntree Tech., Inc. v. Ecosense Intl., Inc.

Trademarks: A plaintiff must establish that the defendant not only used its protected mark, or one confusingly similar to it, but also that it was likely to confuse consumers as to source of the product or service.

(Filing Date: 09-05-2012)

In re Applied Materials, Inc.

Patents: Simple determination of optimum ranges for operation, and development of more comprehensive explanations of variable relationship based on broad ranges of prior art, does not qualify as non-obvious.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2012)

ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

Patents: A JMOL for patent non-infringement must be supported with substantial evidence. Permanent injunctions on patent infringement cannot be upheld where losses are quantifiable based on lost license fees and damages are not irreparable harm.

(Filing Date: 08-24-2012)

Greenliant Systems, Inc. v. Xicor LLC

Patents: A patentee may enlarge the scope of his original claim only if by error he claimed less than he had a right to claim in the original patent.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2012)

Peters v. West

Copyright: A strong evidentiary showing of the opportunity to copy a work does not lessen the plaintiff's burden to show a significant similarity between the copyrighted and offending works.

(Filing Date: 08-20-2012)

Golden Hour Data Systems, Inc. v emsCharts, Inc.

Patents: Clear and convincing evidence cannot be established upon successful claim reexamination when material is not deemed "but-for" material.

(Filing Date: 08-15-2012)

Perfect Pearl Co. v. Majestic Pearl & Stone, Inc.

Trademarks: Prior use of a mark in commerce is sufficient to earn trademark rights and trumps those rights in the marks that were later obtained by another by registering the marks.

(Filing Date: 08-14-2012)

Hearthware, Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons

Copyright: Similarities in infomercials do not constitute copyright infringement when the similarities are standard components of infomercials.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

Hearthware Inc. v. E. Mishan & Sons Inc.

Trademarks: If an allegedly infringing product owner does not make a literal lie in advertising the product, then there must be a showing of a likelihood of confusion.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2012)

In re Beineke

Patents: An accidental seedlings discovery is not the product of the human inventive faculty.

(Filing Date: 08-06-2012)

Chicago Bldg. Design P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.

Copyright: Although the courts should be reluctant to resolve religious property disputes, they may do so if the dispute can be resolved without consideration of doctrinal or other religious matters.

(Filing Date: 08-02-2012)

Lopez v. Gap, Inc.

Trademarks: TRADEMARK; UNFAIR COMPETITION (Trademark infringement was not found when marks are not sufficiently distinctive and use primarily geographic terms.)

(Filing Date: 08-02-2012)

InterDigital Communications, LLC. v. International Trade Commission

Patents: The differentiation doctrine presumption is particularly strong in cases where a limitation is the sole differentiation between claims and one party is asserting a dependent claim on an independent claim.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2012)

Chicago Bldg. Design P.C. v. Mongolian House, Inc.

Copyright: A claim for copyright infringement must be brought within 3 years of a party receiving notice (actual or inquiry) of a completed claim.

(Filing Date: 07-31-2012)

Dish Network, L.L.C. v. Alejandri

Copyright: To demonstrate circumvention of access controls, the plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant distributed the technology, and (2) that the technology was designed to circumvent access control systems and has only limited alternative uses.

(Filing Date: 07-30-2012)

Granger v. One Call Lender Services

Copyright: The award of statutory damages is appropriate in the default judgment context, but a single infringer of a single work is only liable for a single amount regardless of the number of infringement acts.

(Filing Date: 07-27-2012)

In re Antor Media Corporation

Patents: Unclaimed disclosures in patents carry a presumption of enablement.

(Filing Date: 07-27-2012)

deVere Group GMBH v. Opinion Corp.

Trademarks: Use of company name and description in web address for an internet consumer review site does not show plausible confusion required for a trademark violation.

(Filing Date: 07-13-2012)

Loughlin v. Ling

Patents: If a patent application is entitled to receive the benefit of an earlier effective date under 35 U.S.C. § 120, the earlier date is that application’s filing date for determining whether any of that application's claims offend the one year time restraint in 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(2).

(Filing Date: 07-11-2012)

Midwestern Pet Foods, Inc. v. Societe Des Produits Nestle S.A.

Trademarks: Evidence of fame that postdates an intent-to-use application is relevant to a showing of a likelihood of confusion.

(Filing Date: 07-09-2012)

Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. Chicago American Manufacturing, LLC

Trademarks: A trustee’s rejection of a contract does not abrogate a trademark license.

(Filing Date: 07-09-2012)

General Electric Co. v. ITC

Patents: Tariff Act of 1930, § 337, protects domestic industry by prohibiting imports that infringe on U.S. patents.

(Filing Date: 07-06-2012)

Fishman Transducers, Inc. v. Paul

Trademarks: When parties are not in direct competition, evidence linking a loss in profits to the trademark infringement is required.

(Filing Date: 07-03-2012)

In re Mouttet

Patents: When a patent claims a structure already known, differing only in the substitution of one known element for another, it must do more than yield the predictable result of that substitution to avoid rejection for obviousness.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2012)

WesternGeco LLC v. Ion Geophysical Corp.

Patents: An infringing system is made at the place where it is assembled for use, while it is used at the place where it is put into operation.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2012)

Drew Estate Holding Co., LLC v. Fantasia Distribution, Inc.

Trademarks: Under the "natural expansion" doctrine, a trademark owner enjoys protection over related goods that lie within the realm of the natural expansion of its business.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2012)

Apple, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.

Copyright: When plaintiff claiming patent infringement fails to establish any basis for an award of relief, the defendant is entitled to a judgment dismissing the case.

(Filing Date: 06-22-2012)

Louis Vuitton Mallatier S.A. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.

Trademarks: Trademark dilution was not found when consumers were unlikely to be confused under the Lantham Act standard.

(Filing Date: 06-15-2012)

Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform

Copyright: The courts look to transformative use, the amount of copyrighted material used, and the market in which the copyrighted material is used when determining whether a work is protected under “fair use.”

(Filing Date: 06-15-2012)

L.A. Printex Industries v. Aeropostale Inc.

Copyright: A certificate of registration containing inaccurate information is sufficient to sustain an infringement claim, so long as the applicant was unaware of the inaccuracy, and the inaccuracy would not have caused the copyright office to reject the application.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2012)

Obodai v. Demand Media, Inc.

Copyright: Conforming to the DMCA's safe harbor provision protects a service provider from committing contributory copyright infringement.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2012)

Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc.

Trademarks: Rights to a trademark were not upheld when there was an ambiguous agreement and First Amendment rights did not outweigh public interest in free expression.

(Filing Date: 06-11-2012)

Formfactor, Inc. v. Micro Probe, Inc.

Trade Secrets: A trade secret does not exist upon failure to describe the "subject matter of the trade secret with sufficient particularity to separate it from matters of general knowledge in the trade or of special knowledge."

(Filing Date: 06-07-2012)

Hollmer v. Harari

Patents: When inquiring into the continuity of multiple patent applications, the adequacy of an incorporation by reference is determined by the reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art standard.

(Filing Date: 06-07-2012)

In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing System Patent Litigation

Patents: A complaint that meets the requirements of a relevant sample form in the Appendix to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure cannot be dismissed for failing to meet the requirements established under the Twombly line of cases.

(Filing Date: 06-07-2012)

DISH Network, L.L.C. v. Sonicview USA, Inc.

Copyright: Creating boxes designed to circumvent satellite encryption illegally is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2012)

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.

Copyright: Copyright covers only the specific writing of program code, not program function, or presentation.

(Filing Date: 05-31-2012)

Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc.

Copyright: The Merge Doctrine does not prevent authors from creating copyrightable expressions of rules or concepts.

(Filing Date: 05-30-2012)

Moore v. Commercial Aircraft Interiors, LLC

Trade Secrets: Where there is no suspicion of disclosure of trade secrets, an employer may still prohibit employment with a competitor for fear of unconscious disclosure of trade secrets.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

T. Marzetti Company v. Roskam Baking Company

Trade Secrets: In testing for genericness, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals gauge whether ”the public perceives the term primarily as the designation of the article."

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

Weco Supply co. v. Sherwin-Williams Co.

Trade Secrets: A “supplier/jobber" relationship does not create a duty of confidentiality.

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

Beerntsen Candies, Inc. v. Beerntsen’s Confectionary, Inc.

Trademarks: Surname rule applies even after the name no longer gives information about the owner of the business.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2012)

In re Hyon

Patents: Obviousness is a question of fact that the Court of Appeals reviews for substantial evidence.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2012)

Gucci America, Inc. v. Guess?, Inc.

Trademarks: TRADEMARK; POST-SALE CONFUSION (Post-sale confusion does not result in a “misdirected purchase” but a “purchase intended to confuse.")

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

WNET v. Aereo, Inc.

Copyright: The Copyright Act is preempted by state law when the material is privately broadcasted if it is not already protected and is different from a copyright claim.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

In re Baxter Intl., Inc.

Patents: Because of the lower standard of proof used in PTO reexaminations, the PTO is not bound by validity decisions of the courts on the same patent claims, especially when the PTO considers evidence not presented to the court when it reached its decision.

(Filing Date: 05-17-2012)

Layne Christensen Co. v. Bro-Tech Corp.

Patents: To demonstrate willful infringement, a patentee must show the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood it was infringing a valid patent and that the infringer either knew, or the risk was so obvious that it should have known, of the risk it was infringing a valid patent.

(Filing Date: 05-16-2012)

Wag’n Enterprises, LLC v. United Animal Nations

Trademarks: Unfounded and purely speculative concerns over confusion do not evince actual confusion by consumers.

(Filing Date: 05-09-2012)

In re Youman

Patents: The Patent and Trademark Office must determine whether the narrowing language related to surrendered subject matter.

(Filing Date: 05-08-2012)

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Sandoz, Inc.

Patents: In discerning obviousness, the court looks to whether one of ordinary skill would have had reasonable motivation to modify the earlier claimed compound to make the compound of the asserted claim.

(Filing Date: 05-07-2012)

Scorpio Music S.A. v. Willis

Copyright: A partial owner could terminate his or her right, so long as it was only for his or her part.

(Filing Date: 05-07-2012)

Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10

Trade Secrets: Trade secret infringement is possible even when materials are widely distributed if the methods for compiling those materials are not.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2012)

Art of Living Foundation v. Does 1-10

Copyright: Copyright registration obtained more than five years after publication does not constitute prima facie evidence of valid copyright ownership. Transfer of rights must be accompanied by a written conveyance or a later written confirmation of transference.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2012)

OSI Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc.

Patents: To invalidate a patent on grounds of anticipation or obviousness, an alleged infringer must demonstrate that the patent is invalid with clear and convincing evidence.

(Filing Date: 05-01-2012)

Harley v. Nesby

Copyright: Circumstantial evidence of access plus substantial similarities can show actual copying

(Filing Date: 04-30-2012)

Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ir., Ltd. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.

Patents: Patent infringement cannot be shown where the alleged infringers do not directly apply, and accepted testing method do not show the presence of, the patented substance.

(Filing Date: 04-30-2012)

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Patents: Reverse payment settlements do not violate antitrust laws in patent cases, because patent holders have been granted a lawful right to exclude for the duration of their patent.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2012)

Trident Products & Services, LLC v. Canadian Soiless Wholesale, Ltd.

Trade Secrets: Without expert testimony, a reasonable juror could not determine whether a trade secret was "not known or readily ascertainable by proper means."

(Filing Date: 04-18-2012)

American Calcar, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Patents: Undisclosed prior art is but-for material if the PTO would not have allowed a claim had it been aware of the undisclosed prior art.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2012)

U.S. v. Lam

Trademarks: The jury is granted broad discretion to discern whether allegedly infringed goods and marks are indistinguishable from the legitimate mark.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2012)

Steak Umm v. Steak ‘Em Up

Trademarks: Injunctions for trademark infringement cannot be granted if the trademarks are not likely to cause customer confusion.

(Filing Date: 04-11-2012)

U.S. v. Nosal

Trade Secrets: The phrase “exceeds authorized” in the CFAA is limited to access restrictions, and does not extend to use restrictions.

(Filing Date: 04-10-2012)

Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.

Patents: Intentionally withholding prior art material to the patent's subject matter from the Patent and Trademark Office will render a patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2012)

Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.

Patents: Failure to disclose all of the algorithms necessary for the claimed functions will be treated as if no algorithm was disclosed at all.

(Filing Date: 04-09-2012)

Advanced Fiber Technologies Trust v. J&L Fiber Services, Inc.

Patents: Unclear patent terms can be probative of a lack of willfulness on the part of an alleged patent infringer.

(Filing Date: 04-03-2012)

Fail-Safe, LLC v. A.O. Smith Corp.

Trade Secrets: By volunteering information without broaching the topic of confidentiality, it is unreasonable to expect a confidential relationship.

(Filing Date: 03-29-2012)

Merit Homes, LLC v. Joseph Carl Homes, LLC

Copyright: A nonexclusive license can be granted without a written conveyance.

(Filing Date: 03-27-2012)

Poindexter v. EMI Record Group, Inc.

Copyright: Only the owner of the copyright has standing to assert a claim for its infringement, and assignment of the right to sue to a non-owner is insufficient to confer standing.

(Filing Date: 03-27-2012)

Ergo Licensing, LLC v CareFusion 303, Inc.

Patents: Means-plus-function terms are required to point out the particular structure used to perform the function, lest it be deemed “indefinite.”

(Filing Date: 03-26-2012)

Brigham Young Univ. v. Pfizer, Inc.

Trade Secrets: Under Utah precedent, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempts claims based on the unauthorized use of information, regardless of whether that information met the statutory definition of a trade secret.

(Filing Date: 03-22-2012)

Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.

Patents: Patents based on natural law must contain other inventive elements to ensure the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent of the natural law itself.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

McGee v. André

Copyright: Copyright infringement can only occur when probative and substantial similarity are proven; copyright does not protect unoriginal work.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon Inc.

Patents: Intervening rights with respect to reissued patents do not accrue where the accused product or activity infringes a claim that existed in the original patent and remains without substantive change after reissue.

(Filing Date: 03-15-2012)

Erickson v. Blake

Copyright: If there is primarily only one way to express an idea, the expression cannot be copyrighted under the merger doctrine.

(Filing Date: 03-14-2012)

Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Haibo, Inc.

Copyright: When assessing the amount of statutory damages warranted for infringement, the Court has wide discretion.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2012)

OgoSport, LLC v. Maranda Enterprises, LLC

Trademarks: Even if a plaintiff established a protectable trade dress and a likelihood of confusion, it cannot prevail if defendant shows that trade dress is merely functional.

(Filing Date: 03-12-2012)

Bedford Auto Dealers Assoc. v. Mercedes Benz of North Olmsted

Trademarks: Even though Plaintiff may have registered term as a trademark, if the court finds that the term is generic then the term will not be worthy of the protection of a trademark.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2012)

Ray Communications, Inc. v. Clear Channel Communications, Inc.

Trademarks: Laches may bar relief, but not automatically; a showing of “plus” factors must be presented for laches to bar relief.

(Filing Date: 03-08-2012)

Digital-Vending Services International, LLC v. The University of Phoenix, Inc.

Patents: “The context in which a term is used in the asserted claim can be highly instructive” to its claim construction. A limitation should not be read into a claim “based on statements made during prosecution absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition.”

(Filing Date: 03-07-2012)

In re Viterra Inc.

Trademarks: Concerning identical marks, the “degree of similarity necessary to support a conclusion of likely confusion declines.”

(Filing Date: 03-06-2012)

Own Your Power Communications, Inc. v. Oprah Winfrey

Trademarks: A trademark phrase can be used by Plaintiff in a non-trademark descriptive sense and thus will not infringe on Defendant's trademark phrase.

(Filing Date: 03-06-2012)

In re Erik P. Staats and Robin D. Lash

Patents: The two-year limitation of 35 U.S.C. § 251 relating to broadening of claims on reissue application only applies to the first broadening reissue application; any further broadening reissue applications, whether or not related to the first broadening reissue application, may be filed outside of the two-year limit.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2012)

Beane v. Mii Technologies, LLC

Trade Secrets: An assertion that all information ever created amounts to a trade secret does not satisfy the requirements of the Uniform Trade Secret Act.

(Filing Date: 03-01-2012)

Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC

Patents: Simply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease, LLC

Patents: Simply adding a “computer aided” limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Roger Miller Music Inc. v. Sony/ATV Publishing, LLC

Copyright: If an assignee becomes a registered owner of the copyright and renewal rights in a song while the author is alive and before the rights have vested, then the author cannot will those rights to someone else upon his death.

(Filing Date: 02-22-2012)

Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church

Copyright: A licensing agreement does not entitle the licensee to perpetual use of the composition for post expiration productions. Also, to show that vicarious liability or infringement exists in copyright claims, the individual in question must supervise or at least have the ability to supervise the infringing activity, and the individual must have a financial interest in the allegedly infringing activity.

(Filing Date: 02-14-2012)

Innovative Legal Marketing, LLC v. Market Masters-Legal

Copyright: As a general rule, copyright law does not protect scenes a faire, that are incidents, characters, or settings which, as a practical matter are indispensable or standard in the treatment of a given topic, and though an “ordinary” phrase may be quoted without fear of infringement, a copier may not quote or paraphrase the sequence of creative expression that includes such a phrase.

(Filing Date: 02-13-2012)

Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.

Patents: Long contested patent with application filed on October 24, 1974 and patent finally granted on August 20, 2002. The challenge involves issues of inventorship, anticipation, obviousness, lack of written description and of willful infringement, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an ongoing royalty.

(Filing Date: 02-10-2012)

Astrazeneca Pharmacuticals LP v. Apotex Corp.

Patents: Charging a §271(e)(2) patent infringement claim confers subject matter jurisdiction upon federal courts. In order to state a claim under §271(e)(2) for pharmaceutical use, the Abbreviated New Drug Application of the defendant must claim a use that was already patented.

(Filing Date: 02-09-2012)

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. v. B-Tek Scales, LLC

Patents: In determining the construction of a means-plus function claim “[a] court must look to the specification to determine the structures that correspond to the claimed function."

(Filing Date: 02-08-2012)

United States v. Jin

Trademarks: Under the Economic Espionage Act, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an economic spy intends to supply a trade secret to a benefitting nation.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2012)

Adair, Athwal, and Emtage v. Carter and Presta

Patents: "To overcome a [35 U.S.C.] § 135(b)(1) bar for a post-critical date claim, an applicant must show that such claim is not materially different from a pre-critical date claim present in the application… to obtain the benefit of the earlier filing date.”

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

Seacalt S.A. v. Wuxi Shenxi Constr. Mach. Co

Trademarks: Plaintiff's contention that exterior design of commercial hoist qualified for trade dress protection unavailable under Lanham Act due to a finding of functionality.

(Filing Date: 02-07-2012)

Craig Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC

Patents: The words of a patent claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history.

(Filing Date: 02-01-2012)

Charles L. Sims v. Viacom, Inc.

Copyright: To file a claim for copyright infringement, one must first register a copyright.

(Filing Date: 01-31-2012)

HTC Corporation v. IP-COM GMBH & CO.

Patents: To determine whether a means plus function limitation is definite, a court looks to: 1) the particular claimed function, and 2) the specification and corresponding structure, material, or acts that perform that function.

(Filing Date: 01-30-2012)

Jacob Krippelz, Sr. v. Ford Motor Company

Patents: Conclusory expert testimony is not a substitute for actual prior art disclosure in an anticipation analysis.

(Filing Date: 01-27-2012)

Kinbook, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Trademarks: In a reverse trademark infringement case, the senior trademark owner still must demonstrate that he or she still has a distinct mark.

(Filing Date: 01-25-2012)

Bohnsack v. Varco

Trade Secrets: If the plaintiff filed for a patent on the defendant’s invention, this is enough to constitute use of the defendant’s trade secret.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

Olusegun Falana v. Kent State University and Alexander J. Seed

Patents: "A putative inventor who envisions the structure of a novel genus of chemical compounds and contributes the method of making that genus contributes to the conception of that genus."

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber

Patents: "Disclosure of multiple examples [of embodiments] does not necessarily mean that such list is exhaustive." "Simply adding a ‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent eligible."

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

Golan v. Holder

Copyright: Congress did not exceed its authority under the Copyright Clause of the Constitution by removing works from the public domain previously unprotected by U.S. copyright laws.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Celsis In Vitro Inc, v. Cellzdirect, Inc.

Patents: The court analyzes four factors when considering a preliminary injunction: 1) likelihood of success on the merits, 2) irreparable harm, 3) balance of hardships, and 4) public interest.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2012)

Marctec, LLC v. Johnson & Johnson and Cordis Corporation

Patents: A litigation position which is unsupported by the intrinsic record, because it ignores both the specification and prosecution history, may be found frivolous and support a finding of vexatious litigation misconduct.

(Filing Date: 01-03-2012)

Wolk v. Kodak Imaging Network, Inc.

Copyright: Defendant largely acted in accordance with DMCA when it provided plaintiff with a means to contact concerning removal of infringing images.

(Filing Date: 01-03-2012)

A To Z Machining Service, LLC v. National Storm Shelter, LLC

Copyright: Plaintiff must have a valid copyright registration before filing for copyright infringement; preregistration is not a registered work within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. §411.)

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Universal Furniture International, Inc. v. Paul Frankel

Copyright: To be found personally liable for a violation of the Lanham Act plaintiff must show that defendant, themselves, falsely designated the origin of plaintiff’s property.

(Filing Date: 12-29-2011)

Fancaster, Inc. v. Comcast Corp.

Trademarks: In order to prevail in a trademark infringement case, the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to prove a likelihood of confusion; it is not enough to just allege that there is an infringement.

(Filing Date: 12-22-2011)

Norwood Promotional Products v. Kustomkoozies and Liddle

Trademarks: The continued use of a trademarked image after a failed attempt to terminate a licensing agreement does not constitute trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 12-21-2011)

The Scooter Store, Inc. v. SpinLife.com

Trademarks: Generic terms have no trademark significance and therefore are not entitled to protection against trademark infringement.

(Filing Date: 12-21-2011)

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, LLC

Copyright: if a provider of web hosting service has no actual knowledge or awareness of copyright infringement and the plaintiff never specifies what content is copyright infringing, the provider will be able to claim safe harbor under statute 512.

(Filing Date: 12-20-2011)

AvidAir Helicopter Supply, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Corp.

Trade Secrets: A trade secret does not exist for neither its novelty nor its unavailability, so much as for the reasonable efforts taken in securing the secret's secrecy, and the economic value derived from it.

(Filing Date: 12-13-2011)

Olem Shoe Corp. v. Washington Shoe Co.

Trademarks: If a member of the public is not able to identify the plaintiff’s products with the plaintiff, then even if the defendant creates identical products they would not cause confusion for the public.

(Filing Date: 12-01-2011)

Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Patents: Conception occurs when the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, but the inventor need not understand precisely why his invention works in order to achieve an actual reduction to practice.

(Filing Date: 12-01-2011)

American Express Marketing and Development Corp. and American Express Travel Related Services Co. Inc. v. Black Card LLC

Trademarks: Even if a plaintiff has a registered trademark, the trademark can be cancelled if it is found that the mark is not inherently distinctive and lacks secondary meaning.

(Filing Date: 11-17-2011)

Belair v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.

Copyright: In order to succeed in a copyright infringement action, a plaintiff must show a substantial similarity exists between the defendant’s work and the protected elements of the plaintiff’s work.

(Filing Date: 11-16-2011)

Michael S. Powell v. The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

Patents: “A willful infringement determination requires” that “a patentee must show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement” and if that is met that the “objectively-defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer”

(Filing Date: 11-14-2011)

Typhoon Touch Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc.

Patents: For computer-implemented procedures, the actual computer code does not need to appear in the specification, the algorithm may be described in words sufficient to allow one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the algorithm.

(Filing Date: 11-04-2011)

Lorillard Tobacco Company vs. Hamden, Inc.

Trademarks: When counterfeit products are sold in direct competition with a product they will be found to have a significant impact on interstate commerce.

(Filing Date: 10-21-2011)

Streck, Inc. v. Research and Diagnostic Systems, Inc.

Patents: For purposes of determining priority of an invention, to establish an actual reduction to practice, it is necessary to show that the claimant had possession of the subject matter and that it was shown or known to work for its intended purpose.

(Filing Date: 10-20-2011)

Field Turf Builders, LLC v. Fieldturf USA, Inc.

Trade Secrets: One cannot claim a trade secret if it was not maintained as a secret.

(Filing Date: 10-14-2011)

Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp., LLC

Patents: A presumption of irreparable harm no longer applies when determining whether injunctive relief is appropriate in a suit for patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 10-13-2011)

Absolute Software, Inc. and Absolute Software Corporation v. Stealth Signal, Inc. and Computer Security Products, Inc.

Patents: A patentee's consistent use of the phrase "present invention" or "this invention" does not always limit the scope of the entire invention, particularly where other intrinsic evidence does not support applying the limitation to the entire patent.

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Tianrui Group Company Ltd. v. ITC

Trade Secrets: Under the Tariff Act, when the divulgement of a trade secret occurs extraterritorially U.S. Trade Secret law can still be applied.

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Atlantic Research Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Stephen P. Troy Jr. and Troy Industries, Inc.

Patents: A patent must contain “a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art … to make and use the same” and it must “reasonably convey[] to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.”

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

IGT v. Bally Gaming International, Inc., Bally Technologies, inc., and Bally Gaming, Inc.

Patents: The rules of claim construction include: 1. “The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history,” unless the patentee “clearly set[s] forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning;” 2. The “claim language must be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears;” and 3. “A claim is only indefinite if it is not amenable to construction or is insolubly ambiguous.”

(Filing Date: 10-06-2011)

In Re Stepan Company

Patents: A rejection by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences based on new grounds not considered by the examiner cannot be the final judicial ruling.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2011)

John Mezzalingua Associate, Inc. v. International Trade Commission

Patents: The domestic industry requirement of section 337 of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 can be fulfilled in any one of three ways: 1. significant investment in plant and equipment; 2. significant employment of labor or capital; or 3. substantial investment in its exploitation, including engineering, research and development, or licensing.

(Filing Date: 10-04-2011)

Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., and Bunzl Processor Distribution, LLC

Patents: Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315 only applies after all appeal rights have been exhausted; inherency argument of infringement is only applicable where prior art necessarily functions as the challenged patent.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.

Copyright: COPYRIGHT; MISUSE (It is not misuse when a copyright holder limits the right to use their work.)

(Filing Date: 09-28-2011)

Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific

Patents: Patent infringement analysis is a two-step inquiry: first, the court determines the scope and meaning of the patent claims asserted, and then the properly construed claims are compared to the allegedly infringing device.

(Filing Date: 09-28-2011)

Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon Inc.

Patents: PATENTS; INTERVENING RIGHTS (Doctrine of equitable intervening rights protects an accused infringer's ability to make, sell, offer to sell, or use particular items that are covered by a reexamined patent, provided that the items are of the same type that the accused infringer had made, purchased, or used before the reexamination.)

(Filing Date: 09-26-2011)

Cordance Corporation v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Patents: A general jury verdict of invalidity will be upheld when there is sufficient evidence to support alternative theories of invalidity.

(Filing Date: 09-23-2011)

Monsanto Company and Monsanto Technology LLC v. Vernon Hugh Bowman

Patents: When dealing with self-replicating technology, the doctrine of patent exhaustion does not bar an infringement action.

(Filing Date: 09-21-2011)

Ditocco v. Riordan

Copyright: Defendant's novels and movie adaptation about a teen demigod descended from Poseidon were not substantially similar to the Plaintiffs novels about a teenage boy descended from Perseus as a matter of law.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

Remark, LLC v. Adell Broadcasting Company

Trademarks: Trademark infringement can only occur when the goods themselves confuse the public as to their origins, not when the copyrighted material therein is incorporated into a good.

(Filing Date: 09-20-2011)

In re Phyllis Leithem, Charles A. Kremers, W. Paul Harrell, Stephen Lewis, Karl D. Sears, Quan He, and Peter R. Abitz

Patents: Applicants must have an opportunity to respond to the thrust of a patentability rejection.

(Filing Date: 09-19-2011)

Ultramercial, LLC and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC and WildTangent, Inc.

Patents: With the exceptions of laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, the court should determine patentability of subject matter based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112 rather than 35 U.S.C. § 101; The application of an abstract idea may be patentable subject matter.

(Filing Date: 09-15-2011)

Markem-Imaje Corporation v. Zipher LTD. and Videojet Technologies, Inc.

Patents: Patent claims need not recite every component necessary to enable operation of a working device, though a device will only operate if certain elements are included, that is not grounds to incorporate those elements into the construction.

(Filing Date: 09-09-2011)

Habersham Plantation Corporation v. Art & Frame Direct, Inc.

Trademarks: Court granted summary judgment because plaintiff failed to provide proof of actual confusion.

(Filing Date: 09-08-2011)

Eliyahou Harari, Robert D. Norman, and Sanjay Mehrotra v. Roger Lee and Fernando Gonzalez, and Andrei Mihnea, Jeffrey Kessenich, and Chun Chen

Patents: Unequivocal language may be used to incorporate the disclosure of a previous patent application.

(Filing Date: 09-01-2011)

AIA Engineering Limited and Vega Industries, Ltd., Inc. v. Magotteaux International S/A and Magotteaux, Inc.

Patents: Impermissible recapture under 35 U.S.C. §251 is not implicated unless a patentee attempts to regain subject matter deliberately surrendered during the original patent prosecution.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2011)

Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC

Patents: Inclusion of a physical step may allow an otherwise ineligible process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter to pass the §101 threshold and remain patent-eligible.

(Filing Date: 08-31-2011)

Kim Seng Co. v. J & A Imps., Inc.

Copyright: In order for a plaintiff to prevail on a copyright infringement claim, the item in question must be creative or original enough to qualify for copyright protection.

(Filing Date: 08-30-2011)

In re Keisuke Aoyama, Kojiro Toyoshima, and Yoshitaka Ezaki

Patents: A lower court's decision may be affirmed on alternative grounds, but under 37 C.F.R. §41.50(b) a patent applicant may subsequently be allowed to amend claims or offer new evidence not previously of record to overcome the new ground of rejection.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2011)

Nielsen Co. v. Truck Ads, LLC

Copyright: In order for an item to qualify for a valid copyright it only needs to have a small amount of originality.

(Filing Date: 08-29-2011)

Progressive Products, Inc. v. Swartz

Trade Secrets: A plaintiff must prove trade secrets were not available by proper means and that reasonable efforts were made to maintain the secrecy in order to prevail on a misappropriation claim.

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (a North Carolina Corporation) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (a New Jersey Corporation)

Patents: When claiming priority of a provisional application, the disclosure of best mode required is the best mode contemplated at the time of the provisional application; “a construed claim can be indefinite if the construction remains insolubly ambiguous, meaning it fails to provide sufficient clarity about the bounds of the claim to one skilled in the art,” but may be definite if “discerning the meaning is a formidable task and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree.”

(Filing Date: 08-26-2011)

Unigene Laboratories, Inc. and Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp.

Patents: Obviousness requires the showing that a person of ordinary skill at the time of the invention would have selected and combined prior art elements in the normal course of research and development to yield the claimed invention.

(Filing Date: 08-25-2011)

Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.

Patents: To determine whether an interference is required between two patents under 35 U.S.C. § 291 the court should apply a “two-way test” requiring that each patent, if prior art, would anticipate or render obvious the other patent.

(Filing Date: 08-23-2011)

August Technology Corporation and Rudolph Technologies, Inc. v. Camtek, Ltd.

Patents: In determining the claim construction of a term within a patent the court will consider a ambiguous term to be defined by language within the claim or preamble and will note distinctions within the language of the claim; in order to have an on sale bar the invention must have been conceived at the time of the offer for sale.

(Filing Date: 08-22-2011)

AK Steel Corp. v. Donald Earley

Trade Secrets: When a plaintiff makes a claim of trade secret infringement they must specifically identify what the trade secret information is; conclusory statements about trade secret infringement will be put aside by the court.

(Filing Date: 08-19-2011)

Derek Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc.

Trademarks: An image must be used in commerce in order to qualify as a trademark under the Lanham Act.

(Filing Date: 08-18-2011)

Lorillard Tobacco Company v. Zoom Enterprises, Inc.

Trademarks: A trademark's dilution can be inferred when the junior and senior marks are identical and found on products being sold together.

(Filing Date: 08-18-2011)

Cybersource Corporation v. Retail Decisions, Inc.

Patents: A method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible because computational methods that can be performed entirely in the human mind embody basic tools of scientific work that are free to all men and reserved exclusively to none.

(Filing Date: 08-16-2011)

Curington and Brooks v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

Copyright: Registration of a copyright is a precondition to filing a claim of copyright infringement, without which, the claim is subject to dismissal.

(Filing Date: 08-12-2011)

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., and Cisco Ironport Systems, LLC

Patents: When an obvious error is present, a court must consider reasonable interpretations of a patent claim from the point of view of one skilled in the art.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2011)

MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co. and Nissan North America, Inc., and Hyundai Motor Co.

Patents: The scope of a patent assignment determines whether an assignee has the requisite standing to assert patent infringement.

(Filing Date: 08-10-2011)

In re NTP, Inc.

Patents: Upon reexamination claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art; a printed publication qualifies as prior art if one of ordinary skill in the art would have located the source after a reasonable search; uncorroborated testimony cannot be relied upon to establish a prior reduction-to-practice or conception date.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2011)

In re NTP, Inc.

Patents: A patent cannot claim the priority date of a previous application if the patent introduces new subject matter; as of 2002, during reexamination an examiner can consider any “substantial new question of patentability” and there is no longer a presumption of full consideration of cited sources during initial examination.

(Filing Date: 08-01-2011)

In Re Construction Equipment Company

Patents: Determining either what a reference teaches, or whether a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reason to combine prior art references is a question of fact.

(Filing Date: 02-08-2011)

???

:

(Filing Date: )