Case Summaries

Copyright

[06/22] Recording Indus. Assn. of Am. v. Library of Cong.
In the Recording Industry Association of America's petition for review of the Copyright Royalty Board's decision instituting a 1.5 percent per month late fee for late royalty payments, and implementing a penny-rate royalty structure for cell phone ringtones (under which copyright owners received 24 cents for every ringtone sold using their copyrighted work), the petition is denied where: 1) the Board appropriately took market evidence into account when imposing a late fee; 2) a copyright owner's ability to terminate a section 115 license in no way barred the imposition of a late fee; and 3) even if it were true that divided interests in a copyright made it difficult to make timely payments to each copyright owner, that fact would in no way counsel against the imposition of a late fee.

[06/21] Golan v. Holder
In an action challenging the constitutionality of Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which granted copyright protection to various foreign works that were previously in the public domain in the U.S., summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) the government's interest in securing protections abroad for American copyright holders satisfied this substantial government interest standard; 2) Congress had substantial evidence from which it could reasonably conclude that the ongoing harms to American authors were real and not merely conjectural; and 3) there was substantial evidence from which Congress could conclude that Section 514 would alleviate these harms to American copyright holders.

More...

Patent

[06/28] Bilski v. Kappos
In a patent application seeking protection for a claimed invention explaining how commodities buyers and sellers in the energy market could protect, or hedge, against the risk of price changes, the denial of the application is affirmed where: 1) the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. section 101; 2) Section 101 precluded a reading of the term "process" that would categorically exclude business methods; and 3) even though petitioners' application was not categorically outside of section 101 under the two atextual approaches the Court rejected today, that did not mean it was a "process" under section 101.

[06/23] Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins., Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins., Co.
In a suit for patent infringement, related to computerized methods for administering variable annuity plans, district court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe the claims at issue of the '201 patent is reversed and remanded where: 1) the district court erred in denying defendants' motion for JMOL of noninfringement as the evidence on the record does not support jury's verdict of infringement; and 2) because defendant did not infringe, its argument that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to grant it leave to amend its complaint to assert a claim for invalidity under 35 U.S.C. section 101 need not be addressed.

More...

Trademark

[06/03] Amazing Spaces, Inc. v. Metro Mini Storage
In an action alleging infringement of a star design that plaintiff claimed as a service mark, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where: 1) the record evidence was replete with similar or identical five-pointed stars, both raised and set in circles, and used in similar manners, such that -- notwithstanding the residual evidence of the presumption of validity -- no reasonable jury could find that the star symbol was even a mere refinement of this commonly adopted and well-known form of ornamentation; and 2) plaintiff failed to raise a fact issue regarding the existence of secondary meaning with respect to the symbol. However, the judgment is reversed in part where plaintiff had not yet had the opportunity to introduce evidence relating to its trade dress claims.

[05/26] Deere & Co. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n
The judgment of the International Trade Commission finding that the sales of European version self-propelled John Deere forage harvesters in the U.S. by intervenors did not violate section 337 of the Tariff Act is vacated and remanded as, although the Commission's determination that the sales of the European-version harvesters in the U.S. by official Deere dealers were authorized is supported by substantial evidence, the Commission improperly applied the "all or substantially all" test.

More...