IP Law Blog

by Jeff Pietsch

In April 2009, the Fourth Circuit upheld a summary judgment granted in favor of an online technology system designed to prevent plagiarism in a copyright infringement action. (A.V. v. iParadigms, L.L.C., (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2009)). The plaintiffs, four high school students who were required to use the system by their schools, sued iParadigms’ for using their written works through the company’s “Turnitin Plagiarism Detection Service.” The plaintiffs argued that Turnitin’s archiving of the students’ works in its system constituted a violation of their copyrights under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. The court, however, disagreed with this assessment and ruled that the archiving of students’ works falls under the fair use doctrine, which allows the use of copyrighted works for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

By W. Scott Cameron

The Internet is a seemingly endless and ever-expanding collection of information. You can find almost anything on the Internet if you look for it, and look in the right place. To find it, however, you often need the “domain name,” or address, of the web site that has the information you want. Every web page has its own unique domain name, and only one company can maintain the database that keeps track of all the domain names on the Internet. That company, currently VeriSign, Inc., essentially controls the Internet. The way VeriSign got that control, and the way it keeps it, led the Coalition for ICANN Transparency, Inc. (“CFIT”), to file an antitrust lawsuit, CFIT v. VeriSign, Inc. The Ninth Circuit ruled this week that CFIT can go forward with its suit, reversing the district court which had dismissed the suit three times. This begs the question: Will the Ninth Circuit bring down the Internet?

By Audrey A. Millemann

A recent decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted provisions in patent litigation settlement agreements that grant a covenant not to sue. The case is TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp., 2009 WL 929033 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

In TransCore, the plaintiff,TransCore, LP, owned several patents covering automated toll collection systems. TransCore sued Mark IV Industries, a competitor, in 2000, for infringement of the patents. The parties settled the case. In the settlement, Mark IV paid TransCore $4.5 million and TransCore released all existing claims against Mark IV and agreed to an unconditional covenant not to sue for future infringement of the patents.

by Dale C. Campbell

Section 43(a) the Lanham Act provides for liability related to unregistered marks. Section 43(a) provides for civil liability for any person who, IN connection with any goods or service uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol or any combination thereof, or any false designation origin, false or misleading description of fact or false or misleading misrepresentation of which (a) is likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of the goods or services by another person or (b) in commercial advertising or promotion misrepresents the nature, character qualities or origin of his or her good, service or commercial activity. Subsection (a) is commonly known as the false origin claim and subsection (b) is commonly known as false advertising claim. In short, one can’t be liable for claims of false origin even if the statements are not made in the course of commercial advertising or promotion as required in subsection (b).

by Zachary Wadlé

Hilton Hotels Corporation and two high-ranking executives are facing a civil lawsuit and a federal grand jury investigation stemming from allegations that they developed Hilton's new luxury lifestyle brand, “Denizen,” using proprietary information stolen from rival hotel company Starwood.

The civil complaint filed in federal district court in White Plains, New York, alleges that Ross Klein and Amar Lalvani, two former Starwood executives who joined Hilton last summer, stole more than 100,000 electronic and paper documents containing Starwood’s trade secrets.

by James Kachmar

On May 7, 2009, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case, Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (No. 05-36189), in which it decided the issue of whether the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (“CDA”) protected Yahoo from a lawsuit where it allegedly promised to remove harmful material to the plaintiff from its website but failed to do so. 

In 2004, Cecilia Barnes broke up with her boyfriend and he responded by posting profiles of Ms. Barnes on a Yahoo website. The profiles contained nude photographs of Ms. Barnes and her ex-boyfriend that were apparently taken without her knowledge and the profiles included solicitations to engage in sexual intercourse. The ex-boyfriend also participated in discussions in Yahoo chat rooms in which he posed as Ms. Barnes and directed correspondents to the fraudulent profiles of Ms. Barnes he had created. In response to these profiles, several men contacted plaintiff, including visits to her office, all in the expectation of sex.

by Scott Hervey

It’s been five years since the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dramatically changed the way Untied States trademark registrations are handled. The case of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. reflected an analytical shift in the way in which the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) determines whether an applicant committed fraud on the trademark office. The holding also provided those seeking to cancel a trademark registration with a powerful weapon, and created substantial risk for trademark applicants and registrants who overstate the goods or services in their application. The facts of Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. are as follows:

by Jeff Pietsch

Earlier this month, the Tenth Circuit court upheld a preliminary injunction granted in favor of a manufacturer of electronics equipment against a reseller of its goods in a trademark infringement action. (Beltronics v. Midwest Inventory Distribution (10th Cir. April 9, 2009)). The reseller argued that it was able to resell the manufacturer’s goods online based on the first sale doctrine. The court, however, disagreed with this assessment and ruled that the resellers violated the manufacturer’s trademark rights because Midwest’s actions caused consumer confusion.

by W. Scott Cameron

Most everyone knows that federal copyright laws protect an author’s expression of an idea. When someone infringes a protected work, either by copying or distributing it without permission, the copyright owner is generally entitled to damages. In Dream Games of Arizona v. PC Onsite, --- F.3d --- (April 2, 2009), the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit: Whether illegal use or operation of a work by the copyright owner precludes the award of actual or statutory damages for copyright infringement. 

By Audrey Millemann

In Tokyo Keiso Company, v. SMC Corporation, 2009 WL 59769 (Fed. Cir. 2009)the Federal Circuit has again relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR in invalidating a patent for obviousness.

The plaintiff, Tokyo Keiso, is the owner of a patent that covers a volume flow meter that measures the volume of a fluid flowing through a pipe or measuring line. The patent describes the prior art devices as having two measuring heads, one on each end of the measuring line, and using an acoustic signal transmitted through the metal measuring line. The problem with the prior art devices was that the sound travelled faster through the metal than through the fluid, resulting in inaccurate measurements. The invention in Tokyo Keiso’s patent used a measuring line made of plastic, instead of metal, which caused the acoustic signal to travel more slowly through the plastic than the fluid and made the flow meter more accurate.