Case Summaries

Copyright

[12/22] Intervest Constr., Inc. v. Canterbury Estate Homes, Inc.
In a copyright infringement action alleging that district court erred in its examination of the two-floor plan at issue, summary judgment in favor of defendant is affirmed where: 1) the floor plans at issue were protected by compilation copyrights which were "thin"; and 2) the district court correctly determined that the differences in the protectable expression were so significant that, as a matter of law, no reasonable properly-instructed jury of lay observers could find the works substantially similar.

[06/11] Derek Andrew, Inc. v. Poof Apparel Corp.
An award to plaintiff of $15,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act, along with nearly $300,000 in attorney's fees, is reversed and remanded where: 1) the first act of infringement in a series of ongoing infringements of the same kind marks the commencement of one continuing infringement under 17 U.S.C. section 412; 2) defendant began its infringing activity before the effective registration date, and it repeated the same act after that date each time it used the same copyrighted material; 3) thus, the award of statutory damages was error; and 4) the district court may have erred as to the attorney's fees award.

More...

Patent

[12/30] Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
District court did not abuse its discretion in permanently enjoining defendant from selling its product after jury found willful infringement of plaintiff's valid patent. The court correctly applied the four-factor test for permanent injunctive relief, finding that: 1) plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury; 2) remedies at law were inadequate; 3) balance of hardships warranted issuance of injunctive relief; and 4) the public interest was not harmed by issuance of the permanent injunction, despite defendant's assertion that its infringing product was safer than plaintiff's product.

[12/29] In re TS Tech USA Corp.
In a patent infringement action relating to pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies, petition for writ of mandamus to vacate decision denying petitioner's motion to transfer venue and to direct district court to transfer case to another state is granted where: 1) petitioner met its difficult burden of establishing that the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer of venue to the Southern District of Ohio; and 2) mandamus relief was appropriate.

More...

Trademark

[12/23] Visible Sys. Corp. v. Unisys Corp.
In a trademark infringement action for reverse confusion, permanent injunction prohibiting defendant-Unisys from using trademarks or services of plaintiffs and damages award of $250,000 to plaintiff are affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial judge erred in not granting plaintiff a jury trial under both the Lanham Act and the Seventh Amendment on plaintiff's claim for an accounting of defendant's profits; 2) the court erred in tailoring the injunction too narrowly and in denying plaintiff attorneys' fees; and 3) the evidence was insufficient to support both the jury's finding of infringement and the damages awarded.

[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)

More...