SCCInfoBox case name AppleComputer, Inc. v. MackintoshComputersLtd. AppleComputer, Inc. v. 115778 Canada Inc. full case name MackintoshComputersLtd., Compagnie d lectronique Repco Lt e Repco Electronics Co. Ltd., Maison des Semiconducteurs Lt e House of Semiconductors Ltd., Chico Levy and Nat Levy v. AppleComputer, Inc. br 115778 Canada Inc., carrying on business under the firm name and style of Microcom, James Begg and 131375 Canada Inc. v. AppleComputer, Inc. heard date February 26, 1990 decided date June 21, 1990 citations 1990 2 S.C.R. 209 docket 20643 docket2 20644 history Judgment for AppleComputer, Inc. in the Federal Court of Appeal Canada Federal Court of Appeal . ruling Appeal dismissed ratio Programs embedded on a Integrated circuit microchip are protected by copyright under the Copyright Act of Canada Copyright Act . SCC 1989 1990 Unanimous Corey J. Majority JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent JoinDissent NotParticipating LawsApplied Copyright Act of Canada AppleComputer, Inc . v. MackintoshComputersLtd. , is a Canadian case on copyright law regarding the copyrightability of software. The Court found that programs within Read only memory ROM silicon chips in this case, the Autostart ROM and Applesoft BASIC Applesoft in Apple II systems are protected under the Copyright Act of Canada Copyright Act , and the conversion from the source code into object code is a form of translation. The judge held that translation does not include the expression of an idea in another form, but rather only applies to the expression of an idea in another language. A translation has a one to one correspondence between works that are expressed in two different languages. In effect, it should simply be a reproduction ... AppleInc. litigation Category Canadian copyright case law Category Supreme Court of Canada cases Category AppleInc. litigation MackintoshComputersLtd. Category 1986 in Canada Category 1986 in case ... more details
ref improve date March 2012 Infobox Court Case name AppleComputer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation court ... 19, 1994 full name AppleComputer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett Packard Co. citations ... Fernandez , Pamela Ann Rymer , and Thomas G. Nelson AppleComputer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation ... c F3 35 35.F3d.1435.93 16883.93 16869.93 16867.html AppleComputer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation , 35 F.3d 1435 9th Cir. 1994 . ref In the midst of the Applev. Microsoft lawsuit, Xerox also sued Apple alleging that Mac s GUI was heavily based on Xerox s. ref name xeroxsuesapple Fisher, Lawrence. http www.nytimes.com 1989 12 15 business company news xerox sues applecomputer over macintosh copyright.html?scp 3&sq apple xerox&st nyt Xerox Sues AppleComputer Over Macintosh Copyright , The New ... lawsuit in which AppleComputer, Inc. now AppleInc. sought to prevent Microsoft Corporation ... to ensure that if Applev. Microsoft established that look and feel was copyrightable, then Xerox ... Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases Category AppleInc. litigation Category Microsoft criticisms ... in Apple s Apple Lisa Lisa and Apple Macintosh Macintosh operating system s. The court ruled that, Apple cannot get patent like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea ... Apple s GUI infringed Xerox s. ref http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 3538913398421433687&hl en&as sdt 2&as vis 1&oi scholarr Xerox Corp. v. AppleComputer, Inc. , 734 F. Supp. 1542 N.D. Cal. 1990 . ref Apple lost all claims in the Microsoft suit except for the ruling that the trash can icon ..., ref name courtopinion and Apple s appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied. Background Apple ... GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0 . Apple claimed the look and feel of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected ... insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed ... more details
nofootnotes date August 2008 Infobox COA case Litigants AppleComputer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp ... AppleComputer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. Citations 714 F.2d 1240 3d Cir. 1983 70 A.L.R.Fed. ... Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent LawsApplied Copyright Act of 1976 AppleComputer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. , 714 F.2d 1240 3d Cir. 1983 , was the first time an appellate level court in the United States held that a computer s operating system could be protected by copyright . Franklin Computer Corporation introduced the Franklin ace 100 Franklin Ace 100 , a clone computer science clone of AppleComputer s Apple II , in 1982. Apple quickly determined that substantial ..., it could be freely copied. The Apple II firmware was likened to a machine part whose form was dictated entirely by the requirements of compatibility that is, an exact copy of Apple s ROM was the only part that would fit in an Apple compatible computer and enable its intended function , and was therefore ... protected by copyright. See Williams Elec., Inc., v. Artic Int l, Inc. , 685 F.2d 870 1982 . The Court ... also Notable litigation of AppleComputer External links http digital law online.info cases 219PQ113.htm ... AppleInc. litigation Category United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit cases Category ... Subsequent Rehearing and rehearing en banc denied, 3d Cir. Sept. 23, 1983 Holding Computer software ... Apple s versions, and on May 12, 1982, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ... the presence of some of the same embedded string computer science string s, such as the name James Huston an Apple programmer , and Applesoft, on both the Apple and Franklin system disks. Franklin admitted that it had copied Apple s software but argued that it would have been impractical to independently ... its own version of Apple s copy utility and was working on its own versions of other software. Franklin argued that because Apple s software existed only in machine readable medium machine readable ... more details
AppleInc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. AppleInc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the first of many of a series of ongoing lawsuit s between AppleInc. and Samsung Electronics . In the spring of 2011, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were fully engaged in a patent war on several fronts, Apple also began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, expanding its ongoing war to fight another major technology company at the same time. ref AppleInc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. , case 11 CV 01846 LHK, 768 F. Supp. 2d 1040, U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D.Cal. 2011 4. ref Apple s multinational ... scholar case?case 7640267488041819002 AppleInc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al , Order ... infringement, and unjust enrichment . ref name samsungComplaint Complaint, Applev. Samsung , CV ... story 25087 Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Applev Samsung Case Apple Also Manipulated Evidence in Dutch Applev Samsung Case , OS News, osnews.com, 2011 8 19. ref ref name earley .... AppleInc. , NSD1792 2011. Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia Sydney . ref U.S. courts The injunction ... 1 28. ref See also Smartphone patent licensing and litigation AppleInc. litigation Motorola Mobility v. AppleInc. References Reflist Navboxes list1 Samsung Electronics Samsung phones Apple iOS Category AppleInc. litigation Category Lawsuits Category United States lawsuits Category Intellectual .... ref Barrett, Paul M., http www.businessweek.com articles 2012 03 29 apple s war on android Apple ... 2011, Apple and Samsung were carrying out their legal battles in 19 ongoing lawsuits in 12 courts ... Albanesius, Chloe, http www.pcmag.com article2 0,2817,2392920,00.asp Every Place Samsung and Apple ... article 2011 10 27 us apple samsung australia idUSTRE79Q0SN20111027 Australian court to fast ... Approaches To Measuring Consumer Demand , Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal ... Apple and Samsung Chief executive officer s into settlement talks to sort out their patent disputes ... more details
loses court case against AppleComputersApple Corps v. AppleComputerAppleInc. litigation A moron ... and the computer manufacturer AppleComputer now AppleInc. over competing trademark rights. The High Court of Justice handed down a judgment on 8 May 2006 in favour of AppleComputer, but the companies ... and AppleComputer, Inc. vol reporter UK opinion Mr. Justice Mann pinpoint court High Court date ... 05apple.html title AppleInc. and The Beatles Apple Corps Ltd. Enter into New Agreement publisher ... Barry Miles Apple Corps Apple DEFAULTSORT Apple Corps VAppleComputer Category Apple Corps ... label, Apple Records , filed a lawsuit against AppleComputer for trademark infringement . The suit ... sep2004 tc20040930 9317 tc056.htm ref As a condition of the settlement, AppleComputer agreed not to enter the music business, and Apple Corps agreed not to enter the computer business. ref name LEM cite web last Hormby first Thomas title What s In a Name? Apple Corp vs. AppleComputer publisher ... ref cite news url http news.bbc.co.uk 1 hi entertainment 4750533.stm title History of ApplevApple publisher BBC date 2006 05 08 accessdate 2007 02 03 ref 1986 1989 In 1986, AppleComputer added Musical ... & Semiconductors Ensoniq into the Apple IIGS Hardware features Apple II small GS small computer. In 1989 ... profitable Apple II series Apple II line, all forays at the time by AppleComputer into the multimedia ... , while AppleComputer held the right to use Apple on goods or services...used to reproduce, run ... words, AppleComputer agreed that it would not package, sell or distribute physical music materials. 2003 2006 In September 2003, Apple Corps sued AppleComputer again, this time for breach of contract , in using the Apple logo in the creation and operation of AppleComputer s iTunes Store iTunes Music ... the wording of the previous settlement favoured AppleComputer in this case. ref name BW Other observers speculated that if Apple Corps was successful, AppleComputer would be forced to offer a much ... more details
patent licensing and litigation AppleInc. litigation AppleInc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. References references Navboxes list1 Motorola phones Apple Category AppleInc. litigation Category Lawsuits ...This article also uses YYYY M D date styles in the references. DISPLAYTITLE Motorola Mobility v. AppleInc. Motorola Mobility v. AppleInc. is one of a series of ongoing lawsuit s between technology companies Motorola Mobility and AppleInc. . In the year before AppleInc. litigation Applev. Samsung ..., Inc. v. AppleInc. , In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data ... Mobility, Inc. v. AppleInc. and NeXT Software, Inc. , U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Del., 2010 10 8 AppleInc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. , U.S. Dist. Ct., W.Dist. Wisc., 2010 10 29 In the Matter ... v. Motorola , 337 TA 750, 2012 3 16 Apple, Inc. and Apple Sales International v. Motorola Mobility ... Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. Quanta v. LG Electronics . ref name skullduggery Stern ... 13486316684325795728 Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , 128 S. Ct. 2109, 2008 accessed ... Apple allegation alleging patent infringement. ref name MoVsAp Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AppleInc ... filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment against Apple and NeXT Software, Inc. ref Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AppleInc. and NeXT Software, Inc. , U.S. Dist. Ct., Dist. Del., 2010 10 8. ref ... Mobility, Inc.. ref AppleInc. v. Motorola, Inc. and Motorola Mobility, Inc. , U.S. Dist ... a new action in the Western District of Wisconsin, AppleInc. v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. , alleging ... . ref Apple, Inc. and Apple Sales International v. Motorola Mobility, Inc. , case 12CV0355 JLS BLM ... Ends Applev. Motorola , IEEE Micro, ipv6.ppk.itb.ac.id, 2012 3 4, nowiki 3B2 9 mmi2012020003.3d 10 ... 750 notice03162012sgl 1.pdf ITC s ruling , in the case Applev. Motorola , 337 TA 750, 2012 3 16. ref ... that Apple Retail Germany GmbH, Apple Sales International, and AppleInc. infringed three of Motorola ... more details
Infobox Court Case name St Albans City and DC v International ComputersLtd court Court of Appeal image No to the Poll Tax grafitti.jpg caption IC Ltd made faulty software for the poll tax date decided full name citations 1995 FSR 686 1996 4 All ER 481 judges prior actions subsequent actions opinions Scott Baker J transcripts keywords Unfair terms, bargaining power, poll tax St Albans City and DC v International ComputersLtd 1996 4 All ER 481 is an English contract law case, concerning unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 . Facts A contract to provide software COMCIS for the implementation of the poll tax Community Charge of International ComputersLtd limited its liability to 100,000. The software was meant to create a register of tax payers. Because of errors in the software, the loss to the council was 1,313,846. The council claimed breach of contract, and that the liability limitation was unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 . International ComputersLtd claimed that the liability limitation should remain. Judgment Scott Baker J awarded the full sum because the council was operating on IC Ltd s written standard terms of business and so UCTA 1977 section 3 applied. Sections 6 or 7 also applied and under section 11 the clause was unreasonable. Under section 11 4 Scott Baker J highlighted that IC Ltd had ample resources and had 50m worldwide product liability insurance. Looking at Schedule 2, he said that the council was in a weaker bargaining position because they had financial restraints and were not in the commercial field. They had no opportunities of other contracts without the term. The council knew of the term and made representations about it. He noted as in The Flamar Pride that Schedule 2 should be taken into account just as with ss ... in English law The Salvage Association v CAP Financial Services Ltd 1995 FSR 655, failure to show ... Products Ltdv Compair 1999 2 All ER Comm 389, Judge Bowsher QC had some trouble with the written ... more details
have shown that literal elements of program code are protected by copyright in AppleComputer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. ref name Apple http bulk.resource.org courts.gov c F2 714 714.F2d.1240.82 1582.html AppleComputer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. , 714 F.2d 1240 3d Cir. 1983 . ref among ... infringement, non literal elements, substantial similarity, abstraction filtration comparison Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 2d Cir. 1992 ref name CA http www.bitlaw.com source cases copyright altai.html Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. , 982 ...Original research date September 2009 Primary sources date September 2009 Infobox Court Case name Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. court United States Court of Appeals for the Second ..., and vacated and remanded the ruling on trade secret misappropriation. full name Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. citations 982 F.2d 693 119 A.L.R. Fed. 741 61 USLW 2434 ... http ftp.resource.org courts.gov c F2 797 797.F2d.1222.85 1358.html Whelan Associates Inc. v. Jaslow ... York in which the district court found that defendant Altai s OSCAR 3.4 computer program had infringed plaintiff Computer Associates copyrighted computer program entitled CA SCHEDULER. ref name CA The district ... concluded that Computer Associate s state law trade secret misappropriation claim against Altai was preempted .... ref name CA Background of the case Computer Associates CA created a Job scheduler job scheduling program called CA SCHEDULER which sorts, runs, and controls the various tasks given to a computer. This scheduler was designed to be compatible with IBM System 370 computers which ran one of three ... James Williams recruited his longtime friend Claude Arney, an employee of Computer Associates ... a proper test that took into consideration the copying of non literal elements of computer software ... of ADAPTER including flow charts, inter modular relationships, Parameter computer science parameter ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. court United States District Court for the Northern District of California image imagesize caption full name Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. date decided September 10, 2009 citations http docs.justia.com cases federal district ..., Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. Jul. 18, 2008 http docs.justia.com cases federal district ... in January 2007. ref name deferring Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468, 2009 U.S. ..., Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008 http docs.justia.com cases federal ... Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd , Inside casesofinterest.com. ref To determine whether to dismiss ... per the parties stipulation. ref name dismissal Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. ... Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd., No. 33 O 374 08, http www.bettinger.de rechtsdatenbank urheberrecht ... write this keywords Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , Copyright infringement , forum non conveniens , Trade dress , Trademark law , venue law venue Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , was a federal lawsuit filed on July 18, 2008 by Facebook, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against StudiVZ StudiVZ Ltd. , a UK company with its principal place of business ... history Facebook, Inc. operates a social networking website, that was originally founded ... . ref The same day, Facebook filed a complaint against StudiVZ Ltd., Verlagsgruppe Georg Von Holtzbrinck ... Jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for Forum Non Conveniens filed by Studivz, Ltd. . ref Holtzbrinck Networks GmbH and Holtzbrinck Ventures GmbH ref name Holtzbrinckmotion Facebook, Inc. v. StudiVZ Ltd. , No. 08 03468 N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008 http docs.justia.com cases federal district courts california ... of California Facebook s claims Facebook alleged five different causes of action Violations of the Computer ... to access Facebook s computer servers beyond the terms set forth in Facebook s terms of use ... more details
in AppleComputer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation . ref name lemms Hormby, Thomas. http lowendmac.com ... Computer, Inc. would from that point on be known as AppleInc., because computers were no longer ... January 3, 1977 as AppleComputer, Inc. founder ubl Steve Jobs Steve Wozniak Ronald Wayne ref ... Inc. Anobit homepage URL Apple.com AppleInc. NASDAQ AAPL formerly AppleComputer, Inc. is an American ..., 1977, ref name orgincpr the company was named AppleComputer, Inc. for its first 30 years. The word ... as an advisor. ref cite web title AppleComputer, Inc. Finalizes Acquisition of NeXT Software Inc ... 2, 2010 dead link date June 2011 ref ref cite web author AppleComputer, Inc. url http www.apple.com ... company name AppleInc. logo File Apple logo.svg 125px type Public company Public traded as ubl NASDAQ ... August 7, 2010 publisher AppleInc. ref and an Apple Store online online store . ref A US version ...?iid splwinners ref However, the company has received Criticism of AppleInc. widespread criticism ... January 9, 2007 work The New York Times ref History Main History of AppleInc. 1976 1980 The early ... Computer, Inc. publisher No Starch Press year 1999 url http extras.denverpost.com books chap0411h.htm ref to sell the Apple I personal computer kit. They were hand built by Wozniak ref cite news ...&p irol faq corpinfo1 Apple Investor Relations FAQ , Appleinc. Retrieved on March 2, 2007. ref without ... ref harv ref ref cite web title AppleInc. url http ca.encarta.msn.com encyclopedia 761552652 apple ... of computer designers and a production line. The company introduced the ill fated Apple III in May ... in the Cultural History of Personal Computers ref and is now considered a watershed event for Apple .... ref name lem1985 Jobs resigned from Apple and founded NeXT NeXT Inc. the same year. ref cite news ... Windows Windows , focusing on delivering software to cheap commodity personal computers while Apple ... year, Apple introduced the Power Macintosh , the first of many Applecomputers to use IBM s PowerPC ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. ArgueDate March 29 ArgueYear 2005 DecideDate June 27 DecideYear 2005 FullName Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., et al. v. Grokster, Ltd ... S. Ct. 686 2004 Subsequent Remanded by MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17145 ... summary of arguments DEFAULTSORT Mgm Studios, Inc. V. Grokster, Ltd. Category United States Supreme ... LawsApplied United States Copyright Act of 1976 Copyright Act of 1976 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Case citation 545 U.S. 913 2005 is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court ... or contracted the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Sony Betamax doctrine , however the Court as a whole has not chosen to reexamine the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Betamax precedent in the decision, being split into three equal groups. Thus the Betamax ... maker of Morpheus computer program Morpheus could be sued for inducing copyright infringement for acts ... characterized as a re examination of the issues in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios , Case ... District of California originally dismissed the case in 2003, citing the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. Betamax decision . Then a higher court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ... because the company is based in Vanuatu . Computer and Internet technology companies such as Intel ... at http www.copyright.gov docs mgm copyright.gov and http www.eff.org IP P2P MGM v Grokster eff.org ... by the MGM Studios v. Grokster Supreme Court decision, Grokster was forced to pay 50 million ... v. Grokster , Mark Gorton , the chief executive officer of the firm that produces LimeWire , has ... Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC , which held that Lime Group LLC induced copyright infringement with its ... External links Wikinews U.S. Supreme Court hears MGM v. Grokster Wikisource http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ... www.eff.org IP P2P MGM v Grokster 04 480.pdf Copy of the decision from EFF Portable Document Format ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Murphyores Inc Pty Ltdv Commonwealth court High Court of Australia image Australian coat of arms 1912 edit.png date decided April 14, 1976 full name Murphyores Inc Pty Ltdv The Commonwealth of Australia citations http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth high ct 136clr1.html 1976 136 CLR 1 , http www.austlii.edu.au au cases cth HCA 1976 20.html & 091 1976& 093 HCA 20 judges Garfield Barwick Barwick CJ, Edward McTiernan McTiernan , Harry Gibbs Gibbs , Ninian Stephen Stephen , Anthony Mason judge Mason , Kenneth Jacobs Jacobs & Lionel Murphy Murphy JJ prior actions none subsequent actions none opinions 7 0 Section 112 of the Customs Act 1901 Cth was a constitutionally valid law under the trade and commerce power small per Barwick CJ, McTiernan, Gibbs, Stephen, Mason, Jacobs & Murphy JJ small Murphyores Inc Pty Ltdv Commonwealth 1976 136 Commonwealth Law Reports CLR 1 1976 HCA 20, was a case decided in the High Court of Australia regarding the scope of the trade and commerce power in Section 51 i of the Australian Constitution section 51 i of the Australian Constitution Constitution . Background Section 112 of the http www.austlii.edu.au au legis cth consol act ca1901124 Customs Act 1901 Cth prohibited the exportation of mineral sands unless authorised by the Minister. Murphyores Inc Pty Ltd, which held leases from the state of Queensland to mine mineral sands on Fraser Island , sought permission from the Minister to export mineral sands. Such authorisation was withheld pending the outcome of an environmental inquiry. Murphyores challenged the constitutional validity of prohibition and sought an injunction to the study, and a declaration that the Minister cannot make a prohibition for environmental purposes. Decision In a unanimous decision, the court held the legislation was a valid exercise of the trade and commerce power. Section 51 i of the Australian Constitution Section 51 i was a non purposive power, and the only relevant factor was the subject ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. full case name Apotex Inc. and Novopharm Ltd. v. Wellcome Foundation Limited, Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Interpharm Inc. and Allen Barry Shechtman heard date February 14, 2002 decided date December 5, 2002 citations 2002 SCC 77, 2002 4 S.C.R. 153 docket 28287 history Judgment against Apotex in the Federal Court of Appeal . ruling Appeal dismissed. ratio The doctrine of Utility in Canadian patent law sound prediction sound prediction is a valid way of determining the utility of a patent. SCC 2000 2002 Unanimous Binnie J. NotParticipating LawsApplied Apotex Inc. v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd. , 2002 4 S.C.R. 153, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the utility requirement for a patent in Canada. The Court rejected a challenge by the generic drug manufacturers Teva Canada Novopharm and Apotex to declare Glaxo Wellcome s patent for Zidovudine AZT , an AIDS fighting drug, invalid. Background Beginning in 1983, a team at Glaxo Wellcome began researching an anti AIDS drug. The team hoped to develop a chain terminator to halt HIV in the reverse transcription stage of its HIV life cycle. Drugs selected on the basis of their chemical structure were screened starting in 1984. One of the drugs screened at that time is what is now known as Zidovudine AZT . This drug was originally synthesized by cancer researchers in 1964, in a project that was eventually abandoned. Since that time, Glaxo Wellcome had been developing Zidovudine AZT as an anti bacterial. In vitro testing on mouse cells revealed that Zidovudine AZT was potentially effective against AIDS . Glaxo Wellcome was not equipped to do testing of the drug on human cell lines, so it contracted with the National Institutes of Health for this work. In February 1985, the NIH reported the positive results of their screening to Glaxo Wellcome , and, on March 16, 1985, Glaxo Wellcome filed a patent application for a new use of Zidovudine AZT in the United Kingdom. The validity ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. ArgueDate January 16 ArgueYear 2008 DecideDate June 9 DecideYear 2008 FullName Quanta Computer, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. LG Electronics, Inc. USVol 553 USPage 617 Citation 128 S.Ct. 2109, 170 L.Ed.2d 996, 76 USLW 4375, 86 ... JoinConcurrence Dissent NotParticipating LawsApplied Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , Case citation 553 U.S. 617 2008 ref 128 S. Ct. 2109 2008 . ref is a decision of the U.S. Supreme ... facweb claw EIPR Quanta.pdf Quanta ComputerIncv LGE Electronics Inc Comments on the Reaffirmance ..., given the Federal Circuit s 1992 ruling in Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. ref 976 F.2d .... v. Medipart, Inc. , ref 976 F.2d 700 Fed. Cir. 1992 . ref the Federal Circuit had held that patent ... Windsurfing Int l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1001 02 Fed. Cir. 1986 . ref But this Federal .... For example, in Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. , ref 395 U.S. 100 1969 . ref the Supreme .... Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 731 F.2d 840, 845 Fed. Cir. 1984 . ref Under the Supreme Court s Lincoln ..., Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. , which had limited the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine when a sale ... Incv LGE Electronics Inc Comments on the Reaffirmance of the Exhaustion Doctrine in the United States ... General Talking Pictures case. The second format follows the pattern of the Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart ... into computers and then the use of those micropressors as computer components is a patent infringement ... 1304.05 1302.05 1264.05 1262.html LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc. , 453 F.3d 1364 ... Circuit perhaps reasonably, see Quanta EIPR at 531 LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc ... Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int l, Inc. , 615 F.Supp.2d 575 E.D. Ky, 2009 , the district court reconsidered ... its decision in LG Electronics, Inc. v. Bizcom Electronics, Inc ., 453 F.3d 1364, 1369 Fed. Cir. 2006 ... microprocessor products with other parts of a computer . The License Agreement also provided, however ... more details
Educational assignment Infobox COA case Litigants Fujitsu Limited v. Netgear Inc. Court United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals FederalCircuit Seal.svg 180px ArgueDate ArgueYear DecideDate September 20 DecideYear 2010 FullName Fujitsu Limited and L.G Electronics and U.S. Philips Corporation v. Netgear Inc. Citations http www.cafc.uscourts.gov images stories opinions orders 10 1045.pdf 587 F.3d 1324 Prior Fujitsu Limited v. Netgear Inc. , No. 07 CV 0710. Subsequent Holding Non infringement in two patents. Infringement of the third patent in four specific models. Judges Alan David Lourie , Daniel Mortimer Friedman , Kimberly Ann Moore Majority Kimberly Ann Moore JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent LawsApplied usc 35 271 , usc 35 287 Fujitsu v. Netgear , Inc was a patent infringement case centered around three patents claimed to be required for full compliance of the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard and the Wireless Multimedia Extensions WiFi Alliance Wireless Multi Media WMM Specification . US patents 4.974,952, 6,018,642, and 6,469,993 were owned by Philips Electronics , Fujitsu , and LG Electronics respectively, and placed in the Via Licensing ref name via cite web title Via Licensing url http www.vialicensing.com licensing ieee 80211 overview.aspx accessdate 2011 09 25 ref pool. The Via Licensing pool claimed to hold all patents required for a complete WiFi WMM implementation. Netgear did not enter an agreement with Via Licensing but produced a series of products that conform to the WiFi standard and WMM Specification. Philips Electronics , Fujitsu , and LG Electronics sued Netgear for patent infringement claiming a complete implementation of the WiFi standard implied violating patents held by Via Licensing pool. When tried in United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin , the court granted summary judgment of non infringement by Netgear for all three patents ref name dstcourt cite ... more details
Italic title force true MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 , was a case heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which addressed the question of whether or not the loading of a software program into Random Access Memory RAM by a computer repair technician makes a copy of the software that is a potential violation of copyright law. The court held that it did, although the United States Congress subsequently enacted an amendment to USC 17 117 to specifically overrule this holding in the circumstances of computer repair. Background Peak Computer, Inc. is a computer maintenance company that organized in 1990. Peak maintained computer systems for its clients by performing routine maintenance and emergency repairs. When providing maintenance or making emergency repairs, Peak booted the MAI computer, causing the MAI operating system to be loaded from the hard disk into RAM. MAI also alleged that Peak ran MAI s diagnostic software during Peak s service calls. This case involved the two parties MAI Systems and Peak Computer, as well as defendant Eric Francis, a former MAI Systems Corporation employee who joined Peak Computer, Inc. Copyright Issues MAI contended that Peak s use of the MAI operating system constituted copyright infringement. MAI argued that the license agreement which permitted an end user to make a copy of the program for their own use did not extend to Peak because Peak was not the licensee and therefore had no rights ..., the same as, or working with MAI Systems. External links MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , http www.law.cornell.edu copyright cases 991 F2d 511.htm 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 . Category ... s headquarters and the unlicensed loaning of computers featuring MAI s operating system to Peak ... ability to service MAI computers as MAI. This was an issue of fact because if Peak was unable to use ... subset of MAI s computers were a part of the Peak product offerings. The court found these claims ... more details
alleged. ref Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 127 S.Ct. 2499, 2504 05 2007 . ref Tellabs ... Reflist DEFAULTSORT Tellabs, Inc. V. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. Category United States Supreme ...update date November 2010 SCOTUSCase Litigants Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights ArgueDate March 28 ArgueYear 2007 DecideDate June 21 DecideYear 2007 FullName Tellabs Incorporated v. Makor Issues & Rights Docket 06 484 CitationNew 551 U.S. 308 127 S. Ct. 2499 166 L. Ed. 2d 681 2007 U.S. LEXIS 15 75 U.S.L.W. 3349 Prior Subsequent Holding To qualify as strong within the intendment of 21D b 2 , we hold, an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent. SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Ginsburg JoinMajority Concurrence Scalia, Alito JoinConcurrence Concurrence2 JoinConcurrence2 Concurrence Dissent JoinConcurrence Dissent Dissent Stevens JoinDissent Dissent2 JoinDissent2 LawsApplied Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights , Case citation 551 U.S. 308 2007 , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 s requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights. ref http www.oyez.org cases case ?case 2000 2009 2006 2006 06 484 OYEZ article ref The various federal circuits have taken different approaches to defining what it means, under the PSLRA, for a plaintiff to sufficiently plead a strong inference of scienter a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud . The Court ruled a reasonable inference of scienter from assumed true facts was insufficient and inconsistent with Congressional intent. Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg wrote that to qualify as strong within the intendment of 21D b 2 , we hold, an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable it must be cogent and at least as compelling ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Int l Holdings, Inc. ArgueDate March 21 ArgueYear 2001 DecideDate May 21 DecideYear 2001 FullName Wharf Holdings Limited, Petitioners, v. United International Holdings, Incorporated, Respondents USVol 532 USPage 588 Citation 532 U.S. 588 2001 Prior Jury verdict in favor of defendant upheld, 210 F. 3d 1207 10th Cir., 2000 Subsequent Holding An oral agreement to grant an option to buy stock, while secretly intending not to honor the option, violates the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 . Tenth Circuit affirmed. SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Breyer JoinMajority unanimous Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent Dissent2 Dissent3 LawsApplied Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Int l Holdings, Inc. , ussc 532 588 2001 , was a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case decided in 2001. The case concerned a provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 dealing with manipulating and evading rules set by the Securities and Exchange Commission SEC . The Court concluded that a secret understanding to violate an arrangement under the Act still constituted a violation, rejecting an argument that oral contracts were categorically excluded from the provision s coverage. Background In return for United International Holdings, Inc. s assistance in preparing its application, contracts, system, and financing for a cable television system in Hong Kong, Wharf Holdings Ltd. Oral contract orally granted United an option to buy 10 of stock in the system. ref name BACKGROUND The agreement was never written down. Ultimately, Wharf refused to allow United to exercise its option. United then sued Wharf in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado , claiming that Wharf violated ... 532 588 case.html 532 U.S. at 597. ref External links Caselaw source case Wharf Holdings Ltd. v. United Int l Holdings, Inc. , 532 U.S. 588 2001 findlaw http laws.findlaw.com us 532 588.html justia http ... more details
. DEFAULTSORT Reckitt & Colman Products LtdV Borden Inc Category House of Lords cases Category ...Unreferenced stub auto yes date December 2009 Orphan date December 2009 Reckitt & Colman Ltdv Borden Inc 1990 1 All E.R. 873, &ndash also known as the Jif Lemon case &ndash is a leading decision of the House of Lords on the tort of passing off . The Court reaffirmed the three part test reputation and goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in order to establish a Claim legal claim of passing off. Background per Jif Lemon LJ Reckitt Benckiser Reckitt , sold lemon juice under the name Jif lemon juice Jif Lemon which came in plastic yellow container that was shaped like a lemon . Borden, a competitor, started to produce lemon juice in a similar lemon shaped plastic container that was only slightly larger with a flattened side. Reckitt sued Borden for passing off their product as Jif Lemon juice. At trial the Court found in favour of Reckitt, which was subsequently upheld at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales Court of Appeal . Opinion of the Court At the House of Lords, the Court upheld the previous judgments. Lord Oliver , at page 880, reaffirmed the classic test for passing off First, he must establish a goodwill or reputation attached to the goods or services which he supplies in the mind of the purchasing public by association with the identifying get up whether it consists simply of a brand name or a trade description, or the individual features of labelling or packaging under which his particular goods or services are offered to the public, such that the get up is recognised by the public as distinctive specifically of the plaintiff s goods or services. Second, he must demonstrate a misrepresentation by the defendant to the public whether or not intentional leading or likely to lead the public to believe that goods or services offered by him are the goods or services ... Kingdom Case law stub See Also Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ... more details
Cleanup date October 2010 Data General Corp. v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. was a 1971 case in which ... identical in design ref name 1975case Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. , 375 .... ref name 1972case Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. 297 A.2d 437 Del. Supr ... reporter archives tabor hoffman.htm Tabor v. Hoffman , 118 N.Y. 30, 23 N.E. 12 N.Y. 1889 . ref ref Schulenburg v. Signatrol, Inc. , 33 Ill.2d 379, 212 N.E.2d 865 Ill. 1965 . ref and has ... injunction barring Digital Computer Controls from selling the D 116 based primarily on a claim of trade secret misappropriation. ref name 1971case Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc. , 297 A.2d 433 Del. Ch. 1971 . ref Digital Computer Controls consequently moved for summary ... Computer Controls, Inc. Category Trade secrets Category United States computer case law Category ... a shrinkwrap license . After acquiring drawings with a Nova 1200 purchase, Digital Computer Controls designed its own nearly identical minicomputer. Digital Computer Controls maintained that its use ... had sufficiently protected the secrecy of the drawings and that Digital Computer Controls ... as fast as previous models. Upon purchaser s request, Data General Corporation would include with the computer design documentation intended to allow customers to maintain and repair their own computers ... agreement of confidentiality with their purchase. In March 1971, the president of Digital Computer Controls purchased a secondhand Nova 1200 from a third party. Before receiving the computer, Digital Computer Controls requested the accompanying design documentation from the seller and subsequently photocopied ... items without the written permission of Data General Corp. Digital Computer Controls then used ... based on Digital Computer Controls alleged misappropriation of trade secrets. Digital Computer Controls ... Computer Control s acquisition of the design documentation was appropriate, as the purchaser of a Nova ... more details
term in Japan for any large ape. ref Sheff 124. ref Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd ... City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit July 15, 1986 . Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. cite web title Universal Goes Ape month ... article DEFAULTSORT Universal City Studios, Inc. V. Nintendo Co., Ltd. Category Video game law Category ...Infobox Court Case name Universal v. Nintendo court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image USDCSDNY.jpg date decided 1984 full name Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. citations 746 F.2d 112 judges Robert W. Sweet prior actions subsequent actions opinions Italic title force true Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet . In their complaint, Universal Studios alleged that Nintendo s video game Donkey Kong arcade game Donkey Kong was a trademark infringement of King Kong , the plot and characters of which Universal claimed for their own. Nintendo argued that Universal had themselves proved that King Kong s plot and characters were in the public domain in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc. Sweet ruled that Universal had acted in bad faith by threatening Nintendo s licensees and that it had no right over the name King Kong or the characters and story. He further held that there was no possibility for consumers to confuse Nintendo s game and characters with the King Kong films and their characters. Universal ... in Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General Inc., et al. , wherein they proved that the plot of King ... for the likes of PepsiCo, Inc. PepsiCo. , General Foods Corporation General Foods , and Pfizer Inc ... law es Caso Universal City Studios contra Nintendo pt Caso Universal City Studios, Inc. contra Nintendo Co., Ltd. ... more details
on the similar case between Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. Sega Enterprises Ltd. and Accolade Inc. in 1992, where the key finding relating to Connectix v. Sony was that copying for the purpose ...Infobox Court Case name Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corporation court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date argued Sept. 14, 1999 date decided February 10, 2000 full name Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corporation citations 203 F.3d 596 9th Cir. 2000 judges Herbert Choy, William Canby Jr., and Barry G. Silverman Italic title force true Sony Computer Entertainment v. Connectix Corporation , 203 F.3d 596 2000 , is a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled that the copying of a copyrighted BIOS software during the development of an emulator software does not constitute copyright infringement , but is covered by fair use . The court also ruled that Connectix Connectix Corp. had not tarnished Sony s Sony Playstation PlayStation trademark by selling its emulator software, the Virtual Game Station . Background of the case Connectix started the development of the Virtual Game Station VGS for the Macintosh platform in July 1998 with the aim of creating a software program that emulated Sony s popular PlayStation video games console s hardware and firmware . This would make it possible for the VGS users to play games developed for the PlayStation on Macintosh hardware, with plans to release a Windows PC compatible version at a later ... of their product. , finding it to be artificial. ref name case cite web title SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT v. CONNECTIX CORP., 203 F.3d 596 9th Cir. 2000 accessdate 23 May 2011 PD notice ref ... by making numerous intermediate copies that is, copies of copyrighted computer code created ... hollaar cite web last Hollaar first Lee A. title Chapter 2 Copyright of Computer Programs url http ... of emulators within the United States. ref name pettus See also Sega v. Accolade Connectix Reverse ... more details
Wershba v. AppleComputer, Inc. , 110 Cal. Rptr. 2d 145, Cal. Ct. App., 6th App. Dist 2001 ... Proceeding No. 4355, San Mateo Co. Sup. Ct. and New York action Mosley v. AppleComputer, Inc. , case ..., Inc. Wolfe v. AppleComputer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc. Hirst v. Apple Canada, Inc. Hamilton v. AppleComputer, Inc. and Apple Canada, Inc. . ref iPad and iPhone privacy issue class action In December ... AppleComputerInc., http www.sec.gov Archives edgar data 320193 000110465905003520 a05 2329 110q.htm ... v. Apple, Inc. , 11 cv 00407 LHK, filed 2011 1 27 Rodimer v. Apple, Inc., et al. , 11 cv 00700 LHK, filed 2011 2 15 Gupta v. Apple, Inc. , 11 cv 02110 LHK, filed 2011 4 28 Velez Colon v. Apple, Inc. , 11 cv 02270 LHK, filed 2011 5 9 Normand v. Apple, Inc. , 11 cv 02317 LHK, filed 2011 5 10 and one case not yet consolidated, Jenkins v. Apple, Inc. , 11 cv 01828 LHK, removed 2011 4 14. Other related ... 2009, a group of consumers filed the class action suits Owens v. Apple, Inc. and Johnson v. AppleInc ... Johnson v. AppleInc. , case 1 09 CV 146501, Cal. Sup. Ct., Santa Clara, 2009. ref absorbed the Owens ... AppleComputer, Inc., http media.corporate ir.net media files irol 10 107357 10K 2006.pdf Apple 10K ... using the undefined phrase butt head . ref name Poundstone, p. 364 ref Sagan v. AppleComputer ... for Lawyers are Wimps . Intellectual property Trademark Apple Corps main Apple Corps v. AppleComputer ... Inc. then AppleComputer litigated a dispute involving the use of the name Apple as a trademark and its ... http www.apple.com pr library 2007 02 05apple.html AppleInc. and The Beatles Apple Corps Ltd. Enter .... v. AppleInc. , 07 198, U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. Cal. 2007. ref in January 2007 alleging Apple s iPhone ... marks. ref name VideoPodBrief AppleInc., http ttabvue.uspto.gov ttabvue v?pno 91176027&pty OPP&eno .... ref Apple, Inc. opposition to NYC & Company, Inc. , http ttabvue.uspto.gov ttabvue v?pno 91181984 ... thumb right 200px AppleInc. litigates from an address it claims as the first point of an Infinite ... more details
orphan date November 2009 Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. , Case citation 426 F.3d 1001 8th Cir. 2005 , is a trademark case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the name of one of the largest ice cream truck franchise companies in the United States was neither distinctive nor famous enough to receive protection against being used in a violent video game. Background Frosty Treats, Inc. is the name of one of the largest ice cream truck street vendors in the United States. Their trucks uniformly feature a Frosty Treats logo, typically surrounded by the logos of various frozen snacks sold by the vender. Another feature of the trucks is the Safety Clown , an image of a clown pointing children towards the back of the vehicle. In the mid 1990s, Sony released Twisted Metal 2 , a video game that allows players to wreak havoc on simulated streets with a variety of vehicles including an ice cream truck prominently featuring a logo that says Frosty Treats . The video game ice cream truck is driven by a crazed clown known as Sweet Tooth Twisted Metal Sweet Tooth , one of many featured in the game. Lawsuit Frosty Treats, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Sony contending that the game infringed on the company s trademarks through the use of the phrase, Frosty Treats , as well as similarities between the video game clown and the company s own safety clown. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Sony and dismissed the case, holding that the name could not be protected because it was generic. U.S. District Judge Scott Wright stated in his May 19, 2005 dismissal that the various depictions of the Sweet Tooth character in defendant s Twisted Metal series Twisted Metal games and plaintiff s Safety Clown are so dissimilar that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that they are confusingly similar. http www.bizjournals.com kansascity stories 2004 07 26 focus5.html Additionally ... more details
No footnotes date April 2009 AppleInc. has used a variety of typeface s in its marketing , operating system s, and industrial design . Marketing For at least 18 years, Apple s corporate font was a custom variant of the ITC Garamond typeface, called Apple Garamond. It was used alongside the Apple logo , for product names on computers, in countless ads, printed materials and on the company website. Since 2001, Apple has gradually shifted towards using Myriad typeface Myriad in its marketing. Motter Tektura Image Apple logo Motter Tektura.svg thumb 350px The apple logo alongside the Motter Tektura typeface Prior to the first Macintosh, Apple used a typeface called Motter Tektura ref http www.networkworld.com ..., Apple felt that the existing ITC Garamond Condensed, at 64 , was too narrow. Bitstream Inc. Bitstream ... sitting below an apple tree. The words APPLECOMPUTER CO. were drawn on a ribbon banner ornamenting ... of Apple typefaces List of fonts in Mac OS X References references AppleComputer http www.apple.com ... SIGNEDAMERICA pages JANOFFUS.html Rob Janoff Graphic Designer, Author of the first logo for AppleComputer ... www.landsnail.com apple local design index.html Apple and the History of Personal Computer Design ... Inc. Category AppleInc. Category Digital typography Category AppleInc. typefaces fr Typographies ... ref alongside the Apple logo, which was designed in Austria by Othmar Motter of Vorarlberger ... playful qualities and techno look, in line with Apple s mission statement of making high technology ... McKenna . The Apple logo s bite mark was originally designed to fit snugly with the Motter Tektura a. In the early 1980s, the logo was simplified by removing computer nc. from the logo. Motter Tektura was also used for the Apple II logo. This typeface has sometimes been mislabeled as Cupertino font Cupertino , a similar bitmap font, probably created to mimic Motter Tektura. Apple Garamond This section is linked from Garamond Image Apple logo Think Different vectorized.svg thumb Apple Garamond ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
