Case Summaries

Trade Secrets

[02/12] Ansys, Inc. v. Computational Dynamics N. Am., Ltd.
In plaintiff's suit against its former employee and his new employer (a competitor) claiming breach of noncompetition and confidentiality clauses in the employee's employment contract, interference with contractual relations, misappropriation of trade secrets, and unfair trade practices, denial of plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction to enforce the provisions of a one-year noncompetition clause in the employment agreement is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding that plaintiff has failed to make a showing of likelihood of success on the breach of contract claim, or a likelihood of irreparable injury.

[12/29] Jasmine Networks, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's action under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act claiming that the defendants misappropriated certain trade secrets belonging to plaintiff, trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff had forfeited its standing to maintain an action for misappropriation when it had gone through bankruptcy proceedings shortly after filing the complaint is reversed where: 1) a current ownership requirement is not supported by general principles of property or tort law; 2) existing authority imposes no "current ownership requirement" on trade secret plaintiffs; 3) adoption of a current ownership requirement in trade secrets cases is not warranted by analogy to trademark, patent, or copyright law; and 4) no policy concern preponderates in favor of current ownership requirement.

[12/03] Ultimax Cement Mfg. Corp. v. CTS Cement Mfg. Corp.
In a patent infringement action involving patents related to rapid-hardening, high-strength cement, summary judgments finding noninfringement and that no trade secret was violated is affirmed in part, dismissed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) district court's finding of noninfringement is vacated and remanded as the court erred in claim construction of the the term "soluble CaSo4 anhydride"; 2) district court's grant of summary judgment of laches is reversed and remanded relating to one patent as it was not clear that plaintiff knew or should have known of defendant's alleged infringement before it conducted discovery on another patent in 2002; 3) district court erred in granting summary judgment finding that one patent claim was indefinite; 4) plaintiffs' appeal with respect to one patent is dismissed as it waived the argument of its invalidity; 5) denial of plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint is affirmed; 6) summary judgment finding no trade secret violations is affirmed; 7) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs' motion to disqualify defendants' attorneys; and 8) the district court's decision on exceptional case status is vacated for further proceedings on remand.

[11/24] Standard Microsystems Corp. v. Winbond Elec. Corp.
In plaintiff's suit against a Taiwanese corporation and an Israeli corporation claiming that they misappropriated the design of a microchip used in manufacturing personal computers, trial court's entry of default judgment against defendants is reversed where: 1) undisputed facts plainly establish defendants' attorney's fault necessary to trigger a right to mandatory relief; 2) plaintiff's argument that relief was barred by Code of Civ. Proc. section 1008, which restricts motions for reconsideration and renewals of previously denied motions, is rejected; and 3) to the extent a literal application of section 1008 might conflict with the provisions of section 473(b), the latter must prevail.

[11/05] Perlan Therapeutics, Inc. v. Sup. Ct.
In plaintiff's case against the defendant for misappropriation of its trade secrets of an anti-viral protein based therapeutic used as a daily nasal spray for the prevention and treatment of the common cold, plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to accept plaintiff's trade secret identification statement as sufficient and to allow it to commence discovery is denied where: 1) the trial court applied the correct legal standard to plaintiff's trade secret identification statement; and 2) there was a basis in the record to support the court's conclusion that the statement was not reasonably particular under the circumstances presented.

[10/27] Awuah v. Coverall N. Am, Inc.
In a class action lawsuit against defendants brought by their franchisees, defendants' interlocutory appeal seeking review of a discovery-related order by the district court is dismissed for want of a final judgment.

[10/05] Premium Mortgage Corp. v. Equifax, Inc.
In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets against credit reporting agencies engaged in the practice of permitting lenders competing with plaintiff to purchase pre-screened consumer reports containing "trigger leads" compiled by plaintiff, dismissal of the action is affirmed where: 1) the Fair Credit Reporting Act preempted state law claims based on pre-screened reports; and 2) plaintiff failed to identify the legal basis for defendants' alleged duty and obligation to maintain the confidentiality of trigger leads.

[09/21] Southwest Stainless, LP v. Sappington
In an action for breach of a noncompetition agreement restricting defendants' ability to work with competitors, judgment for plaintiff is affirmed in part where the district court properly distinguished in its findings of fact between plaintiff's general lost profits and profits lost on specific orders. However, judgment for plaintiff is reversed in part where certain information used by defendants did not qualify as a trade secret because plaintiff disclosed this information to its customers without reservation.

[08/20] Retirement Group v. Galante
In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, a preliminary injunction in favor of plaintiff is reversed where the injunction could not rationally be upheld as limited in scope to the only legitimate protection (i.e., enjoining the misappropriation of plaintiff's trade secrets) for which injunctive relief may be issued.

[08/11] Hertz v. Luzenac Group
In a trade secret misappropriation action, partial judgment for plaintiffs and defendants is affirmed in part where plaintiff failed to present adequate claims of tortious interference with contract and prospective business advantage. The ruling is reversed in part, however, where the question of whether defendant's manufacturing process was a trade secret was a question of fact that could not be resolved on the current record.

[07/31] Jasco Tools, Inc. v. Dana Corp.
District court order affirming bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where: 1) plaintiff's objections to the procedures leading up to the grant of summary judgment are without merit; 2) the court erred in granting summary judgment as plaintiff should have been allowed to complete discovery of defendant; and 3) there were genuine issues of material fact regarding plaintiff's claim of an alleged conspiracy to misappropriate its trade secrets.

[07/30] Proudfoot Consulting Co. v. Gordon
In an action for breach of a covenant not to compete, an injunction against defendant is affirmed where defendant failed to show that the district court clearly erred in finding that defendant's confidential information constituted a legitimate business interest that justified the non-compete covenant. However, the damages award in favor of plaintiff is reversed where plaintiff failed to establish that defendant's solicitation of a client for plaintiff's competitor resulted in plaintiff's loss of the project that was the basis of the damages award.

[07/28] PFS Distribution Co. v. Raduechel
In an action for breach of fiduciary duties, copyright infringement and other claims, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied of plaintiff's motion for a new trial on its breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trade secrets claims as the jury could have concluded that defendants' conduct did not proximately cause plaintiff to lose the customers' business; 2) the court did not erroneously deny plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the conspiracy claim as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury findings that accounting defendants and banking defendants did not conspire with the former employees; 3) jury instructions on the conspiracy claim were not erroneous; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on its aiding and abetting claims as the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the defendants did not know the employees' conduct was improper; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim; and 6) the court did not err dismissing defendant's counterclaim that he was improperly denied a bonus.

[07/21] Raining Data Corp. v. Barrenechea
In an action for misappropriation of trade secrets, trial court orders are affirmed where: 1) the court properly granted plaintiff's anti-SLAPP motion as plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating the acts underlying the cross-complaint arose from protected activity and defendant failed to show a probability of prevailing on the cross-claim; and 2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the amount of attorney's fees awarded as the fees incurred were reasonable and not manifestly excessive.

[07/07] State Indus. Prods. Corp. v. Beta Tech. Inc.
In an action for sharing confidential trade information, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where the "discovery rule" regarding the statute of limitations was not applicable because Plaintiff's claims did not involve latent injury; but vacated in part, where a prior consent judgment was binding on Defendant as a related party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(2)(C).

[06/15] FLIR Sys., Inc. v. Parrish
In an appeal from an attorney's fee order issued as a sanction for bringing a trade secret action in bad faith, the order is affirmed where: 1) there was evidence that Plaintiffs had an anticompetitive motive; and 2) the action was brought on a theory of "inevitable disclosure" not recognized by California law.

[05/29] CDI Energy Servs., Inc. v. West River Pumps, Inc.
In a action alleging breach of loyalty, trade-secret misappropriation, and business interference, district court judgment denying plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolving the temporary restraining order is affirmed where: 1) the court did not err in finding that plaintiff failed to prove that defendants took trade-secret information or that plaintiff took reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets, and thus there is little justification for granting a preliminary injunction regarding the trade-secret claim; and 2) the court did not err in concluding that while plaintiff had a likelihood of success on its claims for statutory breach-of-loyalty, injunctive relief was not warranted, as the balancing of factors, such as irreparable harm, balance of harms, and the public interest favored defendants.

[05/11] M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp.
In an action for breach of seismic data license agreements, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed, where: 1) the District Court did not err in holding that the agreements could not be transferred without Plaintiff's approval; and 2) the jury's finding that Defendant improperly disclosed trade secrets was not against the weight of the evidence.

[04/20] SunCoke En'gy Inc. v. MAN Ferrostaal A.G.
In an action seeking the return of trade secret information, the dismissal of the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction is reversed, where Defendant's dealings with Plaintiff in Tennessee and jurisdiction over a highly integrated group of transactions should be adjudicated as a whole and not piecemeal.

[04/16] World Fin. Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Fin. Serv., Inc.
In an action involving trade secrets and confidential information, trial court's denial of defendant's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike the complaint filed against them by plaintiff is affirmed where defendants failed to meet their burden of proof to show plaintiff's complaint was based on defendant's protected activity arising out of acts done in furtherance of their free speech rights.

More...

Trade Dress

[12/01] Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.

[09/16] Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent'mt. Inc.
In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.

[06/11] Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. King Mtn. Tobacco Co.
In a trademark infringement action based on allegedly infringing cigarette packaging being sold on the Internet, an Indian reservation and elsewhere, the District Court's order staying the action in favor of proceedings before a tribal court is reversed where the tribal court did not have colorable jurisdiction over a nonmember's claims for trademark infringement on the Internet and beyond the Indian reservation. (Amended opinion)

[11/25] Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees. (Revised opinion)

[11/25] Bd. of Supervisors for La. State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. Smack Apparel Co.
In a trademark dispute alleging that defendant infringed trademarks by selling t-shirts with several universities' color schemes and other identifying indicia referencing the games of the schools' football teams, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the color schemes had secondary meaning and, although unregistered, were protectible marks; 2) there was a likelihood of confusion connecting the marks and the universities themselves; 3) the marks at issue were nonfunctional and thus subject to Lanham Act protection; 4) defendants' use of the marks was not a nominative fair use; 5) the defense of laches did not apply; 6) actual confusion was not a prerequisite to an award of money damages; and 7) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorneys' fees.

[11/05] E.S.S. Entm't 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc.
In an action brought by the operator of a strip club in Los Angeles against the producer of a video game in the "Grand Theft Auto" series claiming, inter alia, that the game's depiction of a strip club called the "Pig Pen" infringed its trademark and trade dress associated with the "Play Pen", summary judgment for defendant-game producer is affirmed where: 1) modification of plaintiff's trademark was not explicitly misleading and was thus protected by the First Amendment; and 2) the First Amendment defense applies equally to plaintiff's state law claims as to its Lanham Act claim.

[05/29] UT Lighthouse Ministry v. Found. for Apologetic Info. and Research
In an action claiming trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cybersquatting, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) trademark infringement and unfair competition claims failed as plaintiff did not show that "Utah Lighthouse" was protectable, that defendant's use was in connection with any goods or services, and that defendant was likely to cause confusion among consumers as to the source of goods sold on its online bookstore; 2) defendant lacked a bad faith intent to profit from the use of plaintiff's trademark in several domain names under the Anti-Cybersquatting Protection Act (ACPA); and 3) defendant's website met safe harbor conditions of the ACPA since it was a parody.

[12/26] McNeil Nutritionals, Inc. v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC
In a trade dress infringement action brought by the marketer of the artificial sweetener Splenda against defendants, who package and distribute sucralose as store brands to a number of retail grocery chains, alleging their product packaging is confusingly similar to Splenda's, denial of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed in part, but reversed in part as to certain boxes and bags where plaintiff demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits with respect to the third element of trade dress infringement, as there was a likelihood of confusion between those products' trade dresses and the analogous Splenda trade dress.

[09/12] General Motors Corp. v. Urban Gorilla, LLC
In trademark dispute over steel "body kits" designed to make a truck look like a military-style vehicle, denial of plaintiff GM's motion for preliminary injunction is affirmed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that GM failed to make a strong showing of a likelihood of success on the merits that the "body kits" infringe upon and dilute GM's trade dress rights in its Hummer line of vehicles.

[08/22] Optimum Techs., Inc. v. Henkel Consumer Adhesives, Inc.
In dispute arising out of distributorship agreement and competing adhesive products for floor coverings, judgment for defendants is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in granting: 1) partial summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition; 2) summary judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiff's claims of breach of confidential relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent concealment, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation; and 3) granting defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims, due to a lack of evidence establishing plaintiff's damages.

[07/30] Magic Kitchen LLC v. Good Things Int'l Ltd.
In suit alleging dress infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising regarding a kitchen device known as the "Tartmaster," order granting directed verdict for defendants on trade dress claims, and finding for defendants on other claims are affirmed as there was no error or abuse of discretion.

[06/29] Hansen Beverage Co. v. Nat'l Beverage Corp.
Grant of a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendant from infringing upon the trade dress of Hansen Beverage Company's line of "Monster" energy drinks with defendant's line of "Freek" energy drinks is reversed where the district court abused its discretion in determining that plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits, as a finding of a likelihood of confusion was clearly erroneous.

[03/28] ITC Ltd. v. Punchgini, Inc.
Summary judgment for defendants on claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and related false advertising is reversed in part pending response of the New York Court of Appeals to the following certified questions: 1) Does New York common law permit the owner of a famous mark or trade dress to assert property rights therein by virtue of the owner's prior use of the mark or dress in a foreign country?; and 2) If so, how famous must a foreign mark be to permit a foreign mark owner to bring a claim for unfair competition?

[11/27] Audi AG v. D'Amato
In a case arising from defendant's use of the domain name www.audisport.com to sell goods and merchandise displaying Audi's name and trademarks, summary judgment, injunctive relief, and an award of attorneys' fees to Audi on trademark, trade dress, and AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) claims are affirmed where: 1) there was a likelihood of confusion for purposes of trademark infringement, and defenses to the claim including laches, consent, and fair use, failed; 2) trademark dilution was proven; 3) a finding that defendant violated the ACPA was proper; 4) injunctive relief was warranted; and 5) given his bad faith use of counterfeit marks, the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys' fees under 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a).

[10/25] Gen. Motors Corp. v. Lanard Toys, Inc.
In a trademark and trade dress infringement suit filed against a toy company by GMC involving a series of toy vehicles resembling GMC's Hummer, summary judgment for GMC is affirmed where: 1) despite the district court's failure to adequately discuss the Frisch factors, summary judgment was appropriate on the trademark infringement claim due to the weight of the factors in favor of a finding a likelihood of confusion; 2) GMC established that there were no material issues of fact as to any of the three elements of trade dress infringement; and 3) denial of summary judgment on laches and estoppel defenses was proper.

[06/15] HI Ltd. P'ship v. Winghouse of Fla., Inc.
Judgment against plaintiffs on their claims of trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, and unjust enrichment, and judgment for one counter-claimant that a settlement agreement barred plaintiffs from bringing the present suit, are affirmed, as plaintiffs' claims fail as a matter of law. Where plaintiffs failed to file a postverdict motion regarding the settlement, they cannot raise it on appeal.

[03/21] In re Slokevage
A decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office sustaining a refusal of an examiner to register a trade dress mark for clothing is affirmed where substantial evidence supported a finding that the trade dress was product design and that the trade dress was not unitary.

[01/18] Shelby v. Superformance Int'l, Inc.
Appeal from a partial summary judgment grant for defendant is dismissed in a trademark and trade-dress case involving a car manufacturer and the manufacturer of replica vehicles where plaintiff's appeal was moot.

[08/08] Bretford Mfg. Inc. v. Smith Sys. Mfg. Corp.
In a trademark dispute concerning a computer table, defendant did not engage in "reverse passing off" when it incorporated some of plaintiff's hardware into a sample table that it presented to potential purchasers.

[01/13] TUMBLEBUS INC. v. CRANMER
A preliminary injunction issued against defendant, restricting her use of a mark's trade dress during the pendency of an underlying infringement action, is reversed where the district court failed to make any findings on the record as to why plaintiff's mark was distinctive.

More...

Copyright

[03/02] Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
In a class action alleging copyright infringement, a circuit court's ruling vacating a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, but a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.

[02/25] Maverick Recording Co. v. Harper
In a copyright infringement action based on unlawful file sharing, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the uncontroverted evidence was more than sufficient to compel a finding that defendant had downloaded the files; and 2) defendant infringed plaintiffs' exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted works by downloading the 37 audio files to her computer without authorization. Moreover, the partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where lack of legal sophistication could not overcome a properly asserted 17 U.S.C. 402(d) limitation to the innocent infringer defense.

[02/25] Gaylord v. US
In plaintiff's suit against the United States for copyright infringement involving stamps issued by the US Postal Service that made use of plaintiff's copyrighted work, depicting part of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) weighing the factors, the government's use of plaintiff's copyrighted work in the stamp was not a fair use; and 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err in determining that authorship of the art rested solely with plaintiff.

[02/19] Utopia Provider Sys., Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Sys., L.L.C.
In a copyright infringement action based on defendant's alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's paper templates designed to capture a physician-patient encounter, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the selection and arrangement of the terms in the template did not convey information and was not sufficiently original.

[01/29] Latin American Music Co. v. American Soc'y of Composers Authors & Publishers
In parties' dispute over the rights to a song, jury verdict in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to a 1982 contract; 2) district court did not err in refusing to give a missing witness instruction; and 3) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected.

[01/27] Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Buchel
In a dispute between an artist and a museum over the implementation and installation of a football-field sized artwork, judgment of the district court in favor of the museum is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) applies to unfinished works, and as such, genuine issues of material fact forecloses summary judgment on one of the artist's VARA claims - that the museum violated his right of artistic integrity by modifying the installation; and 2) the artist asserted a viable claim under the Copyright Act that the museum violated his exclusive right to display his work publicly.

[12/01] Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.

[11/05] Schrock v. Learning Curve Int'l, Inc.
In plaintiff's copyright infringement action against defendant who had hired him to take photos of the "Thomas & Friends" toy train characters for use in promotions, district court's dismissal of his complaint is reversed where: 1) the photos qualify for the limited derivative-work copyright provided by section 103(b) as plaintiff's artistic and technical choices combine to create a two-dimensional image that is subtly but nonetheless sufficiently his own; and 2) district court erred in concluding that plaintiff needed defendant's permission to copyright the photos, as there is nothing in the Copyright Act requiring the author of a derivative work to obtain permission to copyright his work from the owner of the copyright in the underlying work.

[11/04] Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc.
In plaintiff's copyright-infringement case against defendant for infringement of its copyright on George Clinton's song, based on the use of the phrase "Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea", district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's rights in the song and an award of statutory damages of $88,980 are affirmed where: 1) the jury instructions were not erroneous as a matter of law; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the instructions requested by the defendant.

[10/21] Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ'g., Inc.
In plaintiffs' lawsuit against defendants, alleging copyright infringement and various state law claims relating to the use of samples in rap recordings, district court's denial of defendants' motion requesting that attorney's fees be imposed as a condition of granting plaintiffs' motions to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice the twenty cases at issue is affirmed as the district court did not abuse its discretion either by failing to provide specific reasons for its decision, or by deciding not to impose attorney's fees as a condition of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).

[09/25] Cincom Sys., Inc. v. Novelis Corp.
In a copyright infringement case involving software licensing agreements, district court's summary judgment to plaintiff is affirmed as defendant did not abide by the express terms of plaintiff's license and gain prior written approval before impermissibly transferring the software license when it underwent internal reorganization.

[09/16] Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent'mt. Inc.
In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.

[08/24] SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.
In an action for slander of title regarding statements made by defendant about its alleged ownership of certain software copyrights, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) the parties' agreement satisfied the Copyright Act's writing requirement; and 2) the admissible evidence concerning the ambiguous contract language regarding copyright ownership was not so one-sided as to warrant summary judgment.

[08/21] Arista Records, LLC v. Launch Media, Inc.
In a copyright infringement action, an order finding that LAUNCHcast, a music webcasting service that provides users with individualized internet radio stations, did not constitute an interactive service under 17 U.S.C. 114(j)(7) is affirmed where: 1) a user could not request a particular song on demand through defendant's service; and 2) defendant's service did not provide a program specially created for the user.

[08/14] R.W. Beck, Inc. v. E3 Consulting, LLC
In a copyright infringement action based on Defendant's alleged copying of Plaintiff's independent-engineer reports, summary judgment for Defendant is affirmed in part, where Plaintiff's state-law claims were preempted by the Copyright Act; but reversed in part, where Plaintiff created genuine disputes of material fact by presenting evidence that: 1) Plaintiff did not take the language in its copyrighted reports from a third-party report; and 2) the copyrighted reports derived their language from earlier, nonpublic reports prepared by Plaintiff.

[08/05] Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon
In a copyright infringement action, denial of defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue is affirmed where defendant would be subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of California if that district were treated as a separate state, and thus venue was proper in that district.

[08/03] Janky v. Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau
In a copyright infringement action, summary judgment for plaintiff is reversed and remanded for summary judgment in favor of defendant where plaintiff and her bandmate qualified as co-authors of the song in question, as they intended to be joint authors of the song at the time the work was created and they both contributed independently copyrightable material.

[07/28] PFS Distribution Co. v. Raduechel
In an action for breach of fiduciary duties, copyright infringement and other claims, district court judgment is affirmed where: 1) the court properly denied of plaintiff's motion for a new trial on its breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of trade secrets claims as the jury could have concluded that defendants' conduct did not proximately cause plaintiff to lose the customers' business; 2) the court did not erroneously deny plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the conspiracy claim as there was sufficient evidence to support the jury findings that accounting defendants and banking defendants did not conspire with the former employees; 3) jury instructions on the conspiracy claim were not erroneous; 4) the court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on its aiding and abetting claims as the evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude the defendants did not know the employees' conduct was improper; 5) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim; and 6) the court did not err dismissing defendant's counterclaim that he was improperly denied a bonus.

[07/10] Intercollegiate Broad. Sys. v. Copyright Royalty Bd.
In a petition for review of a determination of the Copyright Royalty Judges setting rates and terms relating to webcasting, the petition is granted in part, where the Judges failed to explain their minimum fee provision for commercial webcasters; but denied in part, where nothing in the Judges' interpretation of the Copyright Act established unreasonableness.

[07/09] St. Luke's Cataract & Laser Inst., P.A. v. Sanderson
In an action alleging that Defendant misused Plaintiff's Internet domain names and website to promote his solo medical practice, judgment for Plaintiff is affirmed in part, where a reasonable jury could find that Defendant made misrepresentations in a copyright registration application; but reversed in part, where the District Court erred in determining that Plaintiff could not recover damages under both the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and the Lanham Act.

More...

Intellectual Property

[03/09] Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.
In an action for patent infringement relating to a design patent for a multi-function carpentry tool that combines a hammer with a stud climbing tool and a crowbar, a district court's finding of noninfringement is affirmed as the district court correctly construed the claim at issue and correctly determined that the patent was not infringed.

[03/08] Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiffs' suit alleging violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act in the importation and sale of certain lysine feed products made by the methods claimed in their patents relating to improved methods of producing L-lysine with genetically engineered E-Coli bacteria, the International Trade Commission's determination of no section 337 violation is affirmed where: 1) the asserted claims of plaintiffs' '698 patent and '160 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. section 112 for failure to comply with the best mode requirement; and 2) plaintiffs' argument that the Commissioner erred in finding '698 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct is waived.

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

[03/04] Tivo Inc. v. Echostar Corp.
In a patent infringement action against EchoStar, relating to the software component of plaintiff's patent that allows television users to simultaneously record and play broadcasts using what is commonly known as a digital video recorder (DVR), district court's decision finding defendants in contempt of a permanent injunction is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in its decision to hold contempt proceedings; 2) there was clear and convincing evidence before the district court to find that both types of EchoStar receivers continue to infringe and that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ocurt to find EchoStar in contempt of the infringement provision; and 3) given defendant's refusal to disable the DVR functionality in its existing devices and the fact that its original attempts to design around TiVo's patent were wholly unsuccessful, the district court had ample justification for its determination that court pre-approval of any new design-around effort was necessary to prevent future infringing activity.

[03/03] In re: Whirlpool Corp.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by LG Electronics against Whirlpool, relating to a dryer that uses steam to reduce wrinkles, Whirlpool's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the district court's order to disclose communications between its attorneys and its outside advertising agencies is denied as it failed to show both that the order will be effectively unreviewable if Whirlpool is forced to wait until the end of the case and also that the order is patently erroneous or usurpative in character. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), that rulings that allegedly infringe upon the attorney-client privilege are not appealable as collateral orders, and as such, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[03/02] Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick
In a class action alleging copyright infringement, a circuit court's ruling vacating a settlement class certification order for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is reversed where 17 U.S.C. section 411(a)'s registration requirement is a precondition to filing a copyright infringement claim, but a copyright holder's failure to comply with that requirement does not restrict a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction over infringement claims involving unregistered works.

[03/02] Davis v. Brouse McDowell, LPA
In plaintiff's legal malpractice suit claiming that defendants failed to timely file three patent applications related to a website-search engine, summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) the district court exercised proper jurisdiction over plaintiff's malpractice cause of action; 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in striking portions of the supplemental affidavit of plaintiff's patent law expert; and 3) plaintiff failed to introduce evidence sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the patentability of her inventions.

[03/01] Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc.
In a patent infringement suit involving a patent directed to a cooling device designed to mount within the drive bay of a computer, district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed certain claims of plaintiff's patent, that certain independent claims were not invalid as obvious, and that certain dependent claims were obvious is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) defendant's contention that a new trial is required because the district court's claim constructions were in error is rejected as the court's claim constructions were correct; but 2) the district court was required to grant a new trial because the jury's verdicts on obviousness were irreconcilably inconsistent.

[03/01] Media Techs. Licensing, LLC. v. Upper Deck Co.
In a patent infringement suit involving patents related to memorabilia cards, district court's conclusion that the patents are invalid for obviousness is affirmed where: 1) defendants have met the burden of showing that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to attach a sports-related item instead of those items attached in the prior art references; and 2) secondary objective evidence also fails to establish non-obviousness.

[02/25] Maverick Recording Co. v. Harper
In a copyright infringement action based on unlawful file sharing, partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed where: 1) the uncontroverted evidence was more than sufficient to compel a finding that defendant had downloaded the files; and 2) defendant infringed plaintiffs' exclusive right to reproduce their copyrighted works by downloading the 37 audio files to her computer without authorization. Moreover, the partial denial of summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where lack of legal sophistication could not overcome a properly asserted 17 U.S.C. 402(d) limitation to the innocent infringer defense.

[02/25] Gaylord v. US
In plaintiff's suit against the United States for copyright infringement involving stamps issued by the US Postal Service that made use of plaintiff's copyrighted work, depicting part of the Korean War Veterans Memorial, judgment of the United States Court of Federal Claims is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded where: 1) weighing the factors, the government's use of plaintiff's copyrighted work in the stamp was not a fair use; and 2) the Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err in determining that authorship of the art rested solely with plaintiff.

[02/25] Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc.
In plaintiff's action for patent infringement for patents relating to software for displaying the market for a commodity traded in an electronic exchange, judgment of district court is affirmed where: 1) defendant's infringed the asserted claims of one patent with one accused service product, but not willfully; 2) the two other accused products did not literally infringe, and as such, plaintiff is precluded from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 3) the on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. section 102(b) does not apply; 4) there are no indefiniteness problems in the asserted claims; and 5) there is no finding of inequitable conduct during the prosecution of the patents-in-suit.

[02/24] In re Chapman
Decision of the US Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Inferences, finding that certain claims of an application directed at technology involving divalent antibody fragments were unpatentable as obvious, is vacated and remanded as the Board's opinion includes erroneous statements that are not harmless because they increase the likelihood that plaintiff was erroneously denied a patent on grounds of obviousness.

[02/24] Crocs, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
In plaintiff's action for unfair competition under 19 U.S.C. section 337 and patent infringement relating to their patented footwear, the United States International Trade Commission's judgment is reversed and remanded where: 1) the Commission erred in finding that the prior art taught all of the claimed elements of the '858 patent and incorrectly weighed the secondary considerations; 2) thus, the Commission erred in finding that the '858 patent would have been obvious; and 3) Commission erred in claim construction for the '789 patent in applying the ordinary observer industry requirement and in applying the technical prong of the 19 U.S.C. section 337 domestic industry requirement.

[02/19] Utopia Provider Sys., Inc. v. Pro-Med Clinical Sys., L.L.C.
In a copyright infringement action based on defendant's alleged misappropriation of plaintiff's paper templates designed to capture a physician-patient encounter, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where the selection and arrangement of the terms in the template did not convey information and was not sufficiently original.

[02/18] Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. US
In a patent infringement suit by Honeywell involving a patent related to passive night vision goggles that are compatible with a full color display when both are used in an airplane cockpit, decision of the Court of Federal Claims is reversed and remanded where: 1) the government has not proved by clear and convincing evidence that a claim of the patent-in-suit is invalid; 2) plaintiff has standing to assert a claim for just compensation under the Invention Secrecy Act; and 3) the first sale doctrine does not preclude plaintiff from recovering damages against the government for use of infringing systems in the F-16 aircraft.

[02/05] SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.
In a patent infringement action by a French company that specializes in home-cooking appliances against a Hong Kong corporation, involving a patent which claims a deep fryer with an inexpensive plastic outer shell or skirt, judgment of the district court is affirmed where: 1) there is no manifest of injustice in honoring a jury's finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents; 2) there is no prejudice to defendant in the district court's conclusion at the preliminary injunction stage that prosecution history estoppel did not apply; 3) the district court did not err in admitting plaintiff's expert testimony; 4) the jury's finding of inducement is justified, and the damage award, even if it was based on inducement alone, stands; 5) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for JMOL on discovery misconduct grounds; 6) district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant a new trial to defendant based on the summation of plaintiff's counsel; and 7) there is no detectable error in district court's decision to set aside its original awards of enhanced damages and attorney's fees.

[02/05] ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc.
In a patent infringement action involving a technology relating to screen recognition and terminal emulation processes that download a screen of information from a remote mainframe computer onto a local personal computer, the decision of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated and remanded where: 1) district court's judgment that plaintiff's patent is valid and is infringed by defendant is affirmed; 2) district court's ruling that another of plaintiff's patents is not infringed is affirmed; 3) district court's imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 against plaintiff and its counsel is reversed; and 4) district court's award of damages of $506,305 for past infringement based on a hypothetical royalty of 12.5%, plus prejudgment interest is vacated and remanded for redetermination of damages.

[01/29] Latin American Music Co. v. American Soc'y of Composers Authors & Publishers
In parties' dispute over the rights to a song, jury verdict in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) district court did not err in instructing the jury with respect to a 1982 contract; 2) district court did not err in refusing to give a missing witness instruction; and 3) plaintiff's remaining claims are rejected.

[01/27] Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art Found., Inc. v. Buchel
In a dispute between an artist and a museum over the implementation and installation of a football-field sized artwork, judgment of the district court in favor of the museum is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) applies to unfinished works, and as such, genuine issues of material fact forecloses summary judgment on one of the artist's VARA claims - that the museum violated his right of artistic integrity by modifying the installation; and 2) the artist asserted a viable claim under the Copyright Act that the museum violated his exclusive right to display his work publicly.

More...

Trademark

[03/04] US v. Xu
Defendant's conviction for trafficking in counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs is vacated as to one count where a rational juror could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the Zyprexa mark, allegedly misappropriated by defendant, was registered on the USPTO's principal register.

[03/03] In re: Whirlpool Corp.
In a trademark infringement suit brought by LG Electronics against Whirlpool, relating to a dryer that uses steam to reduce wrinkles, Whirlpool's petition for a writ of mandate challenging the district court's order to disclose communications between its attorneys and its outside advertising agencies is denied as it failed to show both that the order will be effectively unreviewable if Whirlpool is forced to wait until the end of the case and also that the order is patently erroneous or usurpative in character. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held in Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), that rulings that allegedly infringe upon the attorney-client privilege are not appealable as collateral orders, and as such, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

[01/05] Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, LLC
In a trademark dispute between companies in the hair care industry involving a settlement agreement entered into nineteen years ago in which their predecessors stipulated to the withdrawal of the parties' respective claims and to not object further to the registration of the others' trademark, district court's grant of plaintiff's request for declaratory judgment is affirmed as, notwithstanding possible arguments on each side about potential confusion between their respective phrases, "Great Cuts" and "Great Clips", no evidence is offered that the parties sought only to allow each to register its mark but to reserve for future litigation the practical consequences of registration.

[12/23] In Re Sones
Decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, denying petitioner's registration application for the mark "One Nation Under God" for charity bracelets, is vacated and remanded as a picture is not a mandatory requirement for a website-based specimen of use, and the test for an acceptable website-based specimen, just as any other specimen, is simply that it must in some way evince that the mark is "associated" with the goods and services as an indicator of source.

[12/03] Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe's Borough Coffee, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action by Starbucks Corp. regarding a competitor's use of the name "Charbucks," judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Charbucks Marks were minimally similar to the Starbucks Marks; 2) the Charbucks line of coffee was marketed as a product of very high quality ? as Starbucks also purported its coffee to be ? which was inconsistent with the concept of tarnishment. However, the judgment is vacated in part where the district court needed to conduct further proceedings on the issue of whether Starbucks demonstrated a likelihood of dilution by "blurring" under federal trademark law.

[12/01] Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC
In plaintiff's suit against defendant for infringement of jewelry designs, trademarks and copyrights, trial court's decision denying plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed as the filing of a lawsuit in a foreign country is not protected activity under the United States or California Constitutions as to implicate the statute.

[11/16] Lahoti v. VeriCheck, Inc.
In an action seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff's acquisition of the vericheck.com domain name did not constitute trademark infringement or cybersquatting, judgment against plaintiff is vacated and remanded where the district court's factual decision that the "VeriCheck" mark was a distinctive, legally protectable mark under the ACPA and federal trademark law was based in part on reasoning contrary to federal trademark law and based in part on reasoning that could support the district court's conclusion.

[11/13] Kim Seng Co. v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York
In a dispute over whether plaintiff's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify plaintiff in a trademark infringement action under an "advertising injury" policy, summary judgment for insurance company is affirmed as the prior publication exclusion in the policy bars coverage for trademark infringement in this case.

[11/06] In re 1800Mattress.com IP., LLC
Final decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) refusing registration of the mark "Mattress.com" is affirmed as the Board's decision finding the mark generic in relation to the recited services was supported by substantial evidence.

[11/05] Cold War Museum, Inc. v. Cold War Air Museum, Inc.
In trademark cancellation proceedings, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (Board) decision canceling registration of appellant-Cold War Museum's service mark THE COLD WAR MUSEUM, finding that it had not proven acquired distinctiveness of the mark, is reversed where: 1) the Board erred in deciding that it could not consider evidence of acquired distinctiveness because appellant did not resubmit the evidence in the cancellation, as the unambiguous language of 37 C.F.R. section 2.122(b) provides that the entire file of the registration at issue is automatically part of the record, without any action necessary by the parties; and 2) the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that appellee had established a prima facie case that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness as appellee failed to present any evidence whatsoever relating to the distinctiveness of the mark and failed even to argue that the mark had not acquired distinctiveness in its petition for cancellation.

[10/28] Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co.
In a trademark infringement case involving interpretation of a trademark licensing agreement of defendant's "VO5" trademark and Japanese trademark law, district court's judgment in favor of the defendant, and orders enjoining plaintiff from using the variant mark and terminating the licensing agreement to return all the licensed trademarks to the defendant is vacated and remanded as under Japanese trademark law, the term senyoshiyoken, which the district judge refused to give the meaning of to the jury, means exclusive-use right where the license holder not only has an exclusive right to use the licensed trademarks within the geographical scope of the licensed trademarks but can sue infringers of the trademarks in its own name.

[09/16] Art Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Ent'mt. Inc.
In a copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement action, judgment as a matter of law for defendant on copyright and trade dress infringement claims is affirmed where: 1) defendant did not timely move for judgment as a matter of law, but the time limit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) is not jurisdictional; and 2) plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant had access to plaintiff's copyrighted works or that plaintiff's trade dress had acquired secondary meaning.

[09/16] Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc.
In a patent and trademark infringement case involving a method of preventing formation of an air pocket around the blades of a consumer blender, summary judgment in favor of defendant is vacated and remanded in part, and affirmed in part where: 1) district court's judgment of no direct infringement is vacated and remanded with instruction to apply the correct claim construction; 2) findings of no invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, or lack of enablement is vacated and remanded with instructions to apply the correct claim construction; 3) district court's judgments of no inducement, no contributory infringement, and no trademark infringement is affirmed; and 4) district court's judgment of no inequitable conduct and no laches is affirmed.

[09/11] Am. Eagle Outfitters v. Lyle & Scott Ltd.
In a contract case arising from parties' efforts to resolve a dispute over the use of similar trademarks in their respective clothing lines, a magistrate judge's rulings are affirmed in part where both parties intended an informal document to be a binding contract and no reasonable jury could decide otherwise, and the terms of such document were sufficiently definite to warrant enforcement. However, the case is remanded as the terms agreed to by the parties with respect to certain clauses were not sufficiently unambiguous to permit judicial interpretation of the contract.

[09/03] Hensley Mfg. Inc. v. ProPride, Inc.
In a trademark infringement action alleging improper use of a trailer hitch designer's name, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the complaint did not allege facts sufficient to show that defendant's use of the name created a likelihood of confusion as to the source of its products; and 2) the fair use defense applied because the use of the name was descriptive.

[08/31] Hilton v. Hallmark Cards
In a trademark infringement and state tort action by Paris Hilton against the greeting card company Hallmark for using her image and catchphrase in a birthday card without her permission, a denial of defendant's motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff had some probability of prevailing on the merits before a trier of fact on the issue of whether defendant's use of her image was transformative; and 2) defendant could not employ the public interest defense because its birthday card did not publish or report information.

[08/31] In re Bose Corp.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's finding that Bose Corporation (BOSE) committed fraud on the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PRO) in renewing the registration for the trademark WAVE, and its resultant order cancelling the registration entirely, is reversed as there was no substantial evidence that Bose intended to deceive the PTO in the renewal process.

[08/24] One Indus., LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc.
In an action seeking a declaration that plaintiff's logo did not infringe defendant's trademark, summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where 1) the material differences between the marks at issue indicated that the case did not present an "exceptional" instance in which tacking should be permitted; and 2) the marks were visually dissimilar.

[07/30] Gabbanelli Accordians & Imports, L.L.C. v. Ditta Gabbanelli Ubaldo Di Elio Gabbanelli
In a trademark dispute, district court judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the court properly granted summary judgment for plaintiff as defendant missed the deadline for responding to a request for admissions, and the Italian judgment in defendant's postdates the American one, and thus cannot be pleaded as res judicata; and 2) the court erred in awarding lost profits and statutory damages, as the lost profits are compensatory damages, and statutory damages may be awarded only in cases in which compensatory damages are not awarded for the same violation.

[07/28] Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc.
In an action for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act, district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim is vacated and remanded where plaintiff's allegations that Google's recommendation and sale of plaintiff's mark to its advertisers triggers the appearance of plaintiff's advertisements and links in a manner likely to cause consumer confusion when a Google user launches a search of plaintiff's trademark, adequately pleads a use in commerce and is a proper claim under the Lanham Act.

More...