Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

Most of us easily will recall one of the first uses of the internet: Napster. While Napster thrilled users with the prospect of “free” music and the ability to locate those obscure songs you thought were lost when your last vinyl LP record broke, its widespread use was devastating to the retail music industry and infuriated Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich. Further, in most instances, the use of Napster to download music and other content also amounted to copyright infringement. Accordingly, Napster was sued, the general public was educated about the fact that stealing copyrighted content is unlawful, and Lars Ulrich was happy.

The end of Napster marked only the beginning of the use of the internet for sharing files over what are called peer-to-peer (“P2P”) networks. Although Napster ultimately was moved to make adaptations to comply with copyright laws, multiple other unrestricted P2P file-sharing tools sprang up in its place. Seemingly overnight, tools like LimeWire Kazaa, and BearShare came into existence to fill the void left by Napster.Continue Reading The Trouble With Torrents

By Jeff Pietsch and Fabiola Larios

In a 4 to 4 split per curiam decision, the United States Supreme Court recently affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. which held that the first sale doctrine is not a defense to infringement claims on products imported in an unauthorized manner into the United States.

Omega S.A. (Omega) manufactured watches in Switzerland and sold the watches globally to consumers through authorized distributors and retailers. Omega first sold watches to authorized distributors overseas. Unidentified third parties eventually purchased the watches and sold them to ENE Limited, a New York Company, which in turn sold them to Costco Wholesale Corp (Costco). Costco then sold the watches to consumers in California. Omega originally authorized the foreign sale of the watches, but did not authorize their sale into the United States. Omega claims that by purchasing the watches bearing the copyrighted design which had been imported into the United Stated by third parties, Costco bypassed the authorized U.S. distribution channels thereby obtaining “gray market” goods. Continue Reading No First Sale Defense on Foreign-Made Copies

It’s with mixed emotions that we wish Matthew Massari farewell.  Matt is joining our client Nike’s legal department in Portland, Oregon.    A recent story by Bob Shallit tells the story well.

Sacramento attorney Matt Massari has just nabbed his "dream job" – with Nike Inc. in Beaverton, Ore. A former football All-American at UC Davis, …

By Audrey A. Millemann

A patent may be infringed directly or indirectly. Direct infringement exists when the alleged infringer makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, or imports a patented product or performs a patented method. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Indirect infringement exists when the alleged infringer causes another to directly infringe a patent. 35 U.S.C. §271(b) and (c). 

There are two types of indirect infringement: inducing infringement and contributory infringement. Inducing infringement is essentially aiding and abetting another to infringe a patent. Section 271(b). Contributory infringement exists when the alleged infringer sells a component of a patented invention knowing that the component is especially made for use in an infringing product and not a staple article of commerce having substantial noninfringing uses. Section 271(c). Continue Reading Supreme Court Adopts Willful Blindness Standard for Inducing Patent Infringement

By Scott Hervey

A California statute signed into law in 2005 by Governor Schwarzenegger was struck down by the United States Supreme Court on June 27 for running afoul of the First Amendment. The law prohibited the sale or rental of “violent video games” to minors; violations were punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000.   The statute defined a “violent video game” as games in “which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted” in a manner that a “reasonable person, considering the game a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors.” The Supreme Court found the statute to be overreaching and invalid.Continue Reading The Supreme Court Shoots Down California’s Violent Video Game Statute