Deft's registration of copyright in sound recording as "work for hire" and lack of subsequent royalty payments were insufficient repudiations of the plaintiff's rights in the composition to trigger the statute of limitations on the plaintiff's claim.
http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57bd403b-df30-4dd7-8243-9eb9a1d9f495/2/doc/17-1549_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/57bd403b-df30-4dd7-8243-9eb9a1d9f495/2/hilite/
Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label IP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IP. Show all posts
Ninth Circuit: JL BEVERAGE CO V. JIM BEAM BRANDS CO.
FRCP, Trademarks
Error to issue summary judgement referencing only the denial of a preliminary injunction, as the considerations are distinct.
Sufficient indicia of confusion and foreknowledge to create a genuine issue of material fact as to consumer confusion.
JL BEVERAGE CO V. JIM BEAM BRANDS CO.
Federal Circuit: BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Patent
(Which, we say again, we really don't know all that well. Rely on nothing on this website.)
Although each element of the process may be individually untenable, an ordered combination of claim limitations, considered holistically, might state a claim to be considered a single practical, particular application of the idea.
C in J: Bifurcation of eligibility/patentability is problematic.
BASCOM GLOBAL INTERNET v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC
Federal Circuit: OAKVILLE HILLS CELLAR, INC v. GEORGALLIS HOLDINGS, LLC
Trademark
Similarly spelled unfamiliar marks are sufficiently different.
OAKVILLE HILLS CELLAR, INC v. GEORGALLIS HOLDINGS, LLC
Second Circuit: MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
Trademarks
The requisite level for scienter under the Lanham Act for fraudulent patent applications is actual knowledge of a competitor's use of the mark.
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
The requisite level for scienter under the Lanham Act for fraudulent patent applications is actual knowledge of a competitor's use of the mark.
MPC Franchise, LLC v. Tarntino
Federal Circuit: ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP
Patent, Dissent from denial of en banc
(Reminder: We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent. Entertainment purposes only, as always.)
Using the merits panel to screen patent challenges is contrary to statute, and risks prejudgement.
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP [ORDER RE EN BANC PETITION]]
(Reminder: We don't know many things, but we especially don't know Patent. Entertainment purposes only, as always.)
Using the merits panel to screen patent challenges is contrary to statute, and risks prejudgement.
ETHICON ENDO-SURGERY, INC. v. COVIDIEN LP [ORDER RE EN BANC PETITION]]
Sixth Circuit: LFP IP, LLC v. Hustler Cincinnati, Inc.
Injunctions
No clear error in court holding that injunction protecting mark derived from a surname owned by one sibling to the exclusion of others can be modified to include related products.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0010p-06.pdf
No clear error in court holding that injunction protecting mark derived from a surname owned by one sibling to the exclusion of others can be modified to include related products.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0010p-06.pdf
Eleventh Circuit: Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute for Self Development v. Target Corporation
Court properly dismissed right of publicity claim under public interest exception.
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510880.pdf
http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201510880.pdf
Tenth Circuit: Savant Homes v. Collins
Copyright - architecture
Summary judgment for deft upheld, as plaintiff did not establish uniqueness of architectural elements.
Not per se error for the court to use "abstraction & filtration" for architecture.
No error in dismissal of trade dress claims.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-1115.pdf
Summary judgment for deft upheld, as plaintiff did not establish uniqueness of architectural elements.
Not per se error for the court to use "abstraction & filtration" for architecture.
No error in dismissal of trade dress claims.
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/15/15-1115.pdf
Ninth Circuit: Adobe Systems v. Joshua Christenson
IP - Copyright & Trademark
Where a first sale defense to copyright infringement is argued, the party asserting the defense has the burden to prove the sale, but the party claiming infringement has the burden to prove that the apparent sale was actually a license.
General testimony and generic licensing templates do not suffice for proof that a specific transaction was a license.
An assertion that goods were sold under the correct mark, but without the consent of the owner of the mark speaks to unfair competition, not infringement.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-17371.pdf
Where a first sale defense to copyright infringement is argued, the party asserting the defense has the burden to prove the sale, but the party claiming infringement has the burden to prove that the apparent sale was actually a license.
General testimony and generic licensing templates do not suffice for proof that a specific transaction was a license.
An assertion that goods were sold under the correct mark, but without the consent of the owner of the mark speaks to unfair competition, not infringement.
https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2015/12/30/12-17371.pdf
Federal Circuit: Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Patent, Appellate Procedure
Retained on remand after Supreme Court review of the question whether belief of non-infringement operates as a bar to inducement liability, the Court finds no infringement - either direct or inducement - as the processes are not identical.
[Standard patent caveat: None of this is legal advice, but Patent is one of the areas in which it's not merely likely that we're wrong about this stuff, but it's almost certain that we're ludicrously off-base. -CB]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF
Retained on remand after Supreme Court review of the question whether belief of non-infringement operates as a bar to inducement liability, the Court finds no infringement - either direct or inducement - as the processes are not identical.
[Standard patent caveat: None of this is legal advice, but Patent is one of the areas in which it's not merely likely that we're wrong about this stuff, but it's almost certain that we're ludicrously off-base. -CB]
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1042.Opinion.12-22-2015.1.PDF
Federal Circuit: Personalized Media v. Rovi Guides
Trademarks - Must Read.
En Banc.
Lanham Act provision barring registration of disparaging marks TKO'd by First Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny.
Concurrence: Also void for vagueness.
C/D: Constitutional as to commercial speech, unconstitutional as to political speech. [NB case at bar is an Asian-American band wanting to trademark the name "The Slants".]
Dissent: Nope
Other Dissent: Nope.
110 Pages.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1203.Opinion.12-18-2015.1.PDF
En Banc.
Lanham Act provision barring registration of disparaging marks TKO'd by First Amendment under both strict and intermediate scrutiny.
Concurrence: Also void for vagueness.
C/D: Constitutional as to commercial speech, unconstitutional as to political speech. [NB case at bar is an Asian-American band wanting to trademark the name "The Slants".]
Dissent: Nope
Other Dissent: Nope.
110 Pages.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-1203.Opinion.12-18-2015.1.PDF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)