Intellectual Property Updates
Charles L. Sims v. Viacom, Inc.
Copyright: To file a claim for copyright infringement, one must first register a copyright.
Read summary →
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.
Read summary →
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.
Read summary →
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.
Read summary →
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.
Read summary →
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."
Read summary →
Jacob Krippelz, Sr. v. Ford Motor Company
Patents: Conclusory expert testimony is not a substitute for actual prior art disclosure in an anticipation analysis.
Read summary →
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.
Read summary →
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."
Read summary →
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.
Read summary →