• Email Subscriptions
• Search Summaries
• WLO Editors and Staff
• U.S. Supreme Court Updates
• 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Updates
• Oregon Supreme Court Updates
• Oregon Court of Appeals Updates
• Intellectual Property Updates

 


 


 


 

Intellectual Property Updates

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.
Read summary →

Harley v. Nesby

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

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.
Read summary →

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.
Read summary →

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.
Read summary →

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.
Read summary →

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.
Read summary →

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."
Read summary →

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.
Read summary →

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.
Read summary →

← Older summaries