Opinions Filed in October 2012

Hobbs v. John

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

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Wilden Pump and Engineering LLC v. JDA Global LLC

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

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

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

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.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

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

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.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. Kappos

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.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Sempris, LLC v. Watson

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

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trade Secrets

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

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

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

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

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.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

The Authors Guild v. Hathitrust

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.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Belkin Intl., Inc. v. Kappos

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

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Back to Top