No footnotes date February 2008 Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. ArgueDate October 4 ArgueYear 2006 DecideDate January 9 DecideYear 2007 FullName MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. Docket 05 608 USVol 549 USPage 118 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding Contrary to respondents assertion that only a freestanding patent invalidity claim is at issue, the record establishes ... Thomas LawsApplied MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. , Case citation 549 U.S. 118 2007 was a decision ... to Minimize Patent Royalty Payment Risks After Medimmunev. Genentech journal New York University ... from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech ... Genentech a patent term of 29 years. MedImmune was a licensee of the later Cabilly patent, but argued ... of the dispute was a lengthy interference proceeding between Genentech and Celltech which led ... the original expiry date in March 2006. The case was decided in favor of MedImmune, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO declared the patent invalid. Genentech appealed to the USPTO the ruling and the patent remained valid and enforceable until the appeal was concluded. Genentech ... Genentech and Celltech and their dispute over the original Cabilly patent 4,816,567 and the Celltech ... Supreme Court cases, volume 549 List of United States Supreme Court cases Altvater v. Freeman , ussc ... month title Operation Restoration How can Patent Holders protect themselves from MedImmune journal Duke ... biotech patents genentech claims rejected on patent which was subject of recent supreme court decision.html Genentech Claims Rejected on Patent Which Was Subject of Recent Supreme Court Decision . California ... on Genentech s 29 year old patent Patent Baristas Blog . February 22, 2006. http www.gazette.net ... 16, 2005. http www.californiabiotechlaw.com archives biotech patents genentech hit with adverse patent ruling.html Genentech Hit with Adverse Patent Ruling . California Biotech Law Blog . September ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc. court United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit image imagesize imagelink imagealt caption full name Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc. date decided ..., Jr. , Richard W. Goldberg prior actions Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp.2d 463 S.D.N.Y. ... dilution subsequent actions Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc. , 2010 WL 3733894 S.D.N.Y. 2010 district court found no evidence of false advertisement Tiffany Inc. v. eBay, Inc. , 131 S. Ct. 647 writ of certiorari ... title yes Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc. , 600 F.3d 93 2d Cir. 2010 , established that trademark owners ... a Notice of Claimed Infringement form NOCI . ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 478 S.D.N.Y. ... Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 471 472 S.D.N.Y. 2008 ref In 2009, Tiffany had worldwide ... website and eBay recommended Tiffany participate in VeRO. ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d ... . ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 482 S.D.N.Y. 2008 ref Although eBay continued ... of eBay on all issues. ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d 463 S.D.N.Y. 2008 ref Tiffany ... the false advertising claim, which it remanded back to the district court. ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc ... issue on Sept. 13, 2010. ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 2010 WL 3733894, ref Tiffany applied for a writ ... v. eBay, Inc. , 131 S. Ct 647 2010 ref The rulings Direct trademark infringement Tiffany alleged eBay ... ways. ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 493 494 S.D.N.Y. 2008 ref First, eBay profited ... v. eBay, Inc. , 600 F.3d 93, 103 2d Cir. 2010 ref Further, because eBay does not take possession ... outlined in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. , which held a manufacturer or distributor .... ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 576 F. Supp. 2d 463, 502 S.D.N.Y. 2008 ref The Second Circuit held ... v. eBay, Inc. , 600 F.3d 93, 107 2d Cir. 2010 ref For contributory trademark infringement liability .... ref Tiffany v. eBay, Inc. , 600 F.3d 93, 109 2d Cir. 2010 ref The court concluded that eBay did not ignore ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit date argued November 15, 2006 date decided May 16, 2007 full name Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. and A9.com Inc. and Google Inc. citations 508 F.3d 1146 judges Cynthia Holcomb Hall , Michael Daly Hawkins , and Sandra S. Ikuta Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 508 F.3d 1146 9th Cir. 2007 was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving Perfect 10 magazine Perfect 10, Inc. , Amazon.com Amazon.com, Inc. and Google Google, Inc. The court held that Google s Framing World Wide Web framing and hyperlinking as part of an image search engine constituted a fair use of Perfect 10 s images because the use was highly Transformativeness transformative , overturning most of the district court s decision. ref name internetlibrary Samson, Martin. http www.internetlibrary.com cases lib case476.cfm Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. , Internet Library of Law and Court Decisions. ref Background Perfect 10 was an adult entertainment magazine that provided a subscription only website. A number of independent, third party web site publishers ... of their images. ref name internetlibrary ref name courtopinion Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc ... and framing IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. , a similar case References Reflist .... http www.eff.org deeplinks 2007 05 p10 v google public interest prevails digital copyright showdown P10 v. Google Public Interest Prevails in Digital Copyright Showdown , Electronic Frontier Foundation ... and artistic expression to one of retrieving information, citing the similar case, Kelly v. Arriba ... Of Perfect 10 v. Google , The Center for Internet and Society, Stanford Law School May 16, 2007 . ref ... Court Opinion, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals . http www.eff.org cases perfect 10 v google Electronic Frontier Foundation page on Google v. Amazon.com . amazon Category 2007 in United States case law ... more details
SCCInfoBox case name Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. full case name Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. heard date October 18, 2005 decided date June 2, 2006 citations 2006 SCC 22, 2006 1 S.C.R. 772 docket 30839 history Appealed from the Federal Court of Appeal ruling Mattel appeal dismissed ratio SCC 2004 2005 Majority Binnie J. JoinMajority McLachlin CJ., Bastarache, Deschamps, Fish, Abella, Charron JJ. Concurrence LeBel J. NotParticipating Major J. Mattel, Inc. v. 3894207 Canada Inc. lexum scc3 2006 22 1 772 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the trademark infringement infringement of famous trade mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade marked name BARBIE against a restaurant named Barbie s . Background A Montreal woman attempted to register a trade mark for the name Barbie s & design for her restaurant and catering services. Mattel Inc. sued her for trade mark infringement for the use of the word Barbie . Mattel alleged that the use of the name would create consumer confusion. Lower Court Rulings Trade Marks Opposition Board The Board found that there was not a strong likelihood of consumer confusion . It based its decision on the fact that Mattel presented no evidence of actual confusion although it was not required to , the mark had a low degree of inherent distinctiveness as it is a short form of the name Barbara , and the nature of the uses by the two parties were very different. Trial Court Mattel appealed the Board s ruling to the Federal Court. The Federal Court decided that the trade mark, Barbie by Mattel is not iconic enough to cause consumer confusion. Instead, it found that all factors must be considered, including that of the nature of the wares. The judge found the wares to be quite different, and as a result dismissed the appeal. Court of Appeals Mattel again appealed. The Court of Appeals ... also List of Supreme Court of Canada cases Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. , a related case from the previous ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image imagesize caption full name date decided Oct. 29, 1991 citations 776 F. Supp. 135 transcripts judge Peter K. Leisure prior actions subsequent actions holding CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher of content on its forums, and hence could only be liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of the content. keywords Defamation Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. was a 1991 court decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which held that Internet service providers were subject to traditional defamation law for their hosted content. ref name Cubby Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc. , http epic.org free speech cubby v compuserve.html 776 F. Supp. 135 S.D.N.Y. 1991 . ref The case resolved a claim of libel against compuserve CompuServe , an Internet service provider that hosted allegedly defamatory content in one of its forums. The case established ... to create controversy in Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. , in which a service provider ... disparagement, and unfair competition . ref name Cubby cite web title Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe, Inc., 776 F. Supp. 135 S.D.N.Y. 1991 publisher Electronic Privacy Information Center date url http epic.org free speech cubby v compuserve.html accessdate 2009 03 ref CompuServe, an Internet service ... the content published on their domains. In 1995, Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co ... posted material. Facts Cubby, Inc. and Robert Blanchard brought suit against CompuServe Inc ... Communications, Inc. agreed to manage, review, create, delete, edit, and otherwise control the contents ... online newsletter developed by Blanchard and Cubby, Inc. CompuServe did not dispute the defamatory ... of the statements and was thus not held liable. Impact Cubby v. CompuServe treated internet ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc. Court United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals 2ndCircuit Seal.png 180px ArgueDate July 16 ArgueYear 2009 DecideDate April 1 DecideYear 2010 FullName TIFFANY NJ Inc. and Tiffany and Company v. eBay Inc Citations ... Majority SACK, Circuit Judge italic title force Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 2nd Cir ... and popular brand names. ref name District Court cite court litigants Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay, Inc., court ...?case 5946191720195736097&q Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc.&hl en&as sdt 2,5&as vis 1 ref From this, the Court ... trademark infringement, eBay claimed, under 1 800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. this conduct ... to Gucci America, Inc. v. Exclusive Imports International. The court held that, however, that the two ... was a judicially constructed doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. and found the liability for trademark infringement can extend beyond .... ref name Inwood Case cite court litigants Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc ... Hendrickson v. eBay, Inc., court United States District Court, C.D. California. date 2001 url http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 4231495504418710622&q Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc.&hl en&as sdt ... Corp. v. Wolfe s Borough Coffee, Inc., in which the Lanham Act infringement and Section 43 a claims ... Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay, Inc., court United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit date 2010 ... by Justice Sotomayor. ref Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc., 131 S. Ct. 647 Supreme Court http ... us 2nd circuit 1498342.html Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe s Borough Coffee, Inc. References reflist DEFAULTSORT Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc. Category United States Court of Appeals for the Second ... Who We Are url http www.ebayinc.com who publisher eBay Inc. ref , and is the world s largest online ... to a flea market and uses Hendrickson v. eBay as a case that eBay features elements of both ... more details
Infobox Court Case name Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit image imagesize caption full name date decided Dec. 2, 1997 citations 130 F.3d 414 transcripts judges Harlington Wood, Jr. , Pamela Ann Rymer , A. Wallace Tashima prior actions United ... jurisdiction in internet cases in the United States Personal jurisdiction Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. was a trademark infringement case based on the use of an internet service mark . The United ... Jurisdiction Zippo 20Mfr 20Co.pdf Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F. Supp. 1119 W.D. Pa. 1997 . ref Facts of the Case Plaintiff Cybersell, Inc. Cybersell AZ , an Arizona corporation with principals ... name Cybersell http ftp.resource.org courts.gov c F3 130 130.F3d.414.96 17087.html Cybersell, Inc. v Cybersell, Inc. , 130 F.3d 414 9th Cir. 1997 . ref Cybersell FL used their website to provide contact ... for guidance, namely CompuServe, Inc. v. Patterson, 89 F.3d 1257 6th Cir. 1996 and Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King , 937 F. Supp. 295 S.D.N.Y. 1996 , aff d, 126 F.3d 25, 1997 WL 560048 2d Cir. 1997 ... , 937 F. Supp. 295. See also Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 W.D. Pa ... Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 161 D. Conn. 1996 , where a relatively passive ... Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. Personal jurisdiction in Internet cases in the United States References ... To Out of State Jurisdiction Over Web Sites DEFAULTSORT Cybersell, Inc. V. Cybersell, Inc. Category ..., while Cybersell AZ was in the process of registering as a federal service mark, Cybersell, Inc ... to WebHorizons, and later to WebSolvers, Inc., to disassociate themselves from Cybersell AZ ... Ballard v. Savage, 65 F.3d 1495, 1498 9th Cir. 1995 . ref The court determined that Cybersell FL s conduct ... looked to its discussion of purposeful availment in Ballard v Savage, noting that the purposeful ... in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 1984 . ref provided grounds for personal jurisdiction because ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. court United States ... , Unfair Competition Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook ... ref name schultz Judge Fogel s reasoned that MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. and Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc. indicated that the scraping of a webpage inherently involves the copying of that webpage ... Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. In the MAI case, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of MAI ... customers. ref http www.law.cornell.edu copyright cases 991 F2d 511.htm MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 . ref Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc. In this particular ... www.internetlibrary.com cases lib case567.cfm Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc. , 507 F.Supp.2d ... 9th circuit facebook incv power ventures inc Gary Pong Eric Engle ed. , Facebook.com v. Power Ventures ... Inc., a third party platform, collected user information from Facebook and displayed it on their own ... 502.9 California Penal Code 502 ref According to Facebook, Power Ventures Inc. made copies of Facebook ... competition Unfair Competition Law UCL . Power Ventures Inc. filed a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ... , but Judge Fogel denied the motion. In a counter claim, Power Ventures Inc. alleged that Facebook ... Ventures, Inc. and Steve Vachani date 2009 07 09 accessdate 2010 03 30 format pdf ref Background N. B. Power Ventures Inc. licensed the domain power.com. At no time was the owner of power.com or the domain ... ifacebook v. power ventures i facebook terms of use against scraping Facebook v. Power Ventures Facebook .... ref name smith Opinion of the Court Facebook Inc. sued Power Ventures Inc. in the Northern District ... of defendant RMG Technologies Inc. RMG distribution of a software application that permitted ... in facebook v power ventures.html Provocative Ruling in Facebook v. Power Ventures , TechLaw May ..., and throws in a reference to Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly Twombly for good measure. The court also ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. court United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio image imagesize caption full name CompuServe Incorporated v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace date decided Start date 1997 02 03 citations transcripts judge James L. Graham prior actions subsequent actions holding Trespass to chattels occurs when the defendant intrudes upon the plaintiff s property such that damage results. keywords CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. was a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in 1997 that set an early precedent for granting online service provider s the right to prevent commercial enterprises from sending unsolicited email advertising also known as Spam electronic spam to its subscribers. It was one of the first cases to apply United States tort ... explicitly requested Cyber Promotions emails. ref name netlitigation Implications CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. is the first of a series of cases where the trespass to chattels doctrine was reconfigured ... laws. ref name canning spam ref name technical and legal See also Intel Corp. v. Hamidi School of Visual Arts v. Kuprewicz References Reflist refs ref name compuserve cyber opinion cite court litigants CompuServe Incorporated v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace court United States District ... case?q CompuServe Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc.&hl en&as sdt 2,5&as vis 1&case 5495026680730867334 ... v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. and Sanford Wallace court United States District Court for the Southern ..., Inc. v. Cyber Promotions, Inc. , 32 University of Richmond Law Review 545 1998 . http heinonlinebackup.com ... Chang, Edward W. Bidding on Trespass eBay, Inc. v. Bidder s Edge, Inc. and the Abuse of Trespass Theory ... Inc. , was one of the largest commercial online service provider s in the United States. Similar ... service provider . ref name internet milestones The Defendant, Cyber Promotions, Inc., was an online ... more details
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc. , 976 F.2d 700 Fed. Cir. 1992 , is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit , in which the court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine , for example in Bauer & Cie. v. O Donnell . ref Richard H. Stern , http docs.law.gwu.edu facweb claw DemiseExh.htm The Unobserved Demise of the Exhaustion Doctrine in US Patent Law Mallinckrodt v. Medipart , 15 EUR. INTELL. PROP. REV. 460 1993 . ref Image Mallinck.jpg thumb 300px Drawing of patented device in Mallinckrodt case Factual background According to the opinions in the case, the plaintiff Mallinckrodt owned a patent on a device for dispensing a radioactive mist used in taking diagnostic lung X rays, and for trapping the mist after use. Mallinckrodt sold the device to hospitals for about 40 or 50. Hospital personnel would load the device with a suitable radioactive fluid to perform a diagnostic procedure on a patient, use the device, and then discard it. Mallinckrodt labeled the devices it sold ... claw EIPR Quanta.pdf Quanta Computer Incv LGE Electronics Inc Comments on the Reaffirmance of the Exhaustion ... defined relevant market. ref Mallinckrodt, 976 F.2d at 706 quoting Windsurfing Int l, Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1001 02 Fed. Cir. 1986 . ref Other Federal Circuit decisions have followed the ruling of the Mallinckrodt misuse prong. ref See, e.g., U.S. Philips Corp. v. International Trade ... at the point of sale. ref See opinion of US Supreme Court in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , 128 S. Ct. 2109 2008 The longstanding doctrine of patent exhaustion provides that the initial ... General filed an amicus curiae brief in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , ref 128 ... Court s 2008 decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. , which broadly reaffirmed ... only if its effect is to restrain competition in a relevant market. citations omitted Monsanto Co. v ... more details
?WeatherID 519 work Chilling Effects title Court Sees Clearly Now Use in 1 800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. and Vision Direct, Inc. author Chloe Hecht date 2005 09 25 accessdate 21 October ... cases lib case335.cfm title 1 800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. author Martin ...Infobox COA case Litigants 1 800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com Court United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals 2ndCircuit Seal.png 180px ArgueDate April 5 ArgueYear 2003 DecideDate June 27 DecideYear 2005 FullName 1 800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com Citations http scholar.google.com scholar case?case 2107127810154335355 414 F.3d 400 Prior Holding WhenU s actions did not amount to the use that the Lanham Act requires in order to constitute trademark infringement. The appeal court reversed the preliminary injunction and ordered the dismissal of all claims made by 1 800 CONTACTS that were based upon trademark infringement, leaving the claims based upon unfair competition and copyright infringement. The case is remanded to the district court. Judges John M. Walker, Jr. John Walker , Chester J. Straub Chester Straub Majority John Walker LawsApplied usc 15 1125 a 1 800 CONTACTS v. WhenU.com was a legal dispute beginning in 2002 over pop up ad vertisments. ref name DistrictOpinion 1 800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. 309 F.Supp.2d 467 S.D.N.Y., 2003 12 22 , reversed in part and remanded, F.3d 2d. Cir., 2005 06 27 ref It was brought by 1 800 Contacts , an online distributor of various brands of contact lenses against WhenU SaveNow , a maker of advertising software. The suit also named Vision Direct, one of WhenU advertising customers, as a co defendant. 1 800 CONTACTS alleged that the advertisements provided by WhenU, which advertised competitors of 1 800 CONTACTS such as Vision Direct when people viewed the company s web site, were inherently ... v whenu title 1 800 CONTACTS v. WhenU publisher Electronic Frontier Foundation accessdate 21 October ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. ArgueDate March 3 ArgueYear 1976 DecideDate June 14 DecideYear 1976 FullName TSC Industries, Incorporated, et al. v. Northway, Incorporated USVol 426 USPage 438 Citation 96 S. Ct. 2126 48 L. Ed. 2d 757 1976 U.S. LEXIS 155 Fed. Sec. L. Rep. CCH P95,615 Prior U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. denied plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability, 361 F. Supp. 108 7th circuit reversed, 512 F.2d 324 Subsequent Holding A misstated or omitted fact in a proxy soliciation is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important in deciding how to vote. SCOTUS 1975 1981 Majority Marshall JoinMajority Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, Powell, Blackmun NotParticipating Stevens LawsApplied Securities Exchange Act of 1934 TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. , Case citation 426 U.S. 438 1976 ref http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com scripts getcase.pl?navby CASE&court US&vol 426&page 438 426 U.S. 438 Full text of the opinion courtesy of Findlaw.com. ref , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States articulated the requirement of Materiality law materiality in securities fraud cases. Facts and procedural history National Industries, Inc. sought to Mergers and acquisitions acquire TSC Industries, Inc., and had purchased 34 of TSC s voting stock from the corporation s founder. Five nominees from National were placed on TSC s board of directors . TSC s board voted on October 16, 1969 with National s members abstaining to liquidate and sell the asset s of TSC to National. One aspect of the proposed merger was to exchange both Common stock common and Preferred stock preferred in TSC for that of National. TSC and National then issued a joint proxy statement to their shareholder ..., Inc. was a TSC shareholder who brought Lawsuit suit against both TSC and National, alleging that the proxy ... of transactions with Madison Fund, Inc., a mutual fund. One of National s directors also had ... more details
Infobox COA case Litigants A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Court United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit CourtSeal File US CourtOfAppeals 9thCircuit Seal.svg 100px ArgueDate October 2 ArgueYear 2000 DecideDate February 12 DecideYear 2001 FullName A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. Citations 239 F.3d 1004 Prior Subsequent Holding Napster could be held liable for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, affirming the District Court holding. Judges Mary M. Schroeder , Richard ... JoinDissent LawsApplied 17 U.S.C. 501, 17 U.S.C. 106 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. , 239 F.3d ... 16401.html A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster , 239 F.3d 1004 9th Cir. 2001 ref was a landmark intellectual ... infringement contributory infringement and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int l Serv. Ass n Vicarious ... the case is referred to as A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, the full list of plaintiffs included a number ... news.cnet.com News Pages Special Napster napster patel.html A&M Records, Inc. et. al. v. Napster No. C ... Procedural background main A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 Plaintiffs alleged ... of success, ref 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 at 911 citing Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc. ref but added that In a copyright infringement case, demonstration of a reasonable .... of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , the Betamax case , because of Napster s actual, specific ... by MGM . The case, MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , went to the Supreme Court of the United ...&ndash 124 doi 10.1257 089533003765888467 url accessdate quote Law DEFAULTSORT A&M Records, Inc. V. Napster, Inc. Category United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases Category United States ... analyses used in the Sony or RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia ref name RIAA Diamond http cyber.law.harvard.edu property00 MP3 rio.html RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia No. 98 56727 , United States District Court .... Unlike Judge Patel, the Ninth Circuit accepted that Religious Technology Center v. Netcom might be relevant ... more details
newopinions.nsf DE8297F56287C0BC882572DC007DACC6 file 0655405.pdf?openelement Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , Case citation 487 F.3d 701 9th Cir 2007 . On March 5, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ... this article is updated, please see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. which details the 9th Circuit ... legal cases Perfect10 v Google EFF page about the case including copies of appeal briefs DEFAULTSORT Perfect 10, Inc. V. Google Inc. Category United States copyright case law Category United States Internet ...Confusing date January 2008 Out of date date February 2011 Italic title force true Perfect 10 v. Google , Inc., et al. , Case citation 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 C.D. Cal. 2006 , was a USA U.S. court case between Perfect 10 magazine Perfect 10 , an adult men s magazine and Google , in the district court of the United States District Court for the Central District of California Central District of California . The plaintiff requested a preliminary injunction for Google to stop creating and distributing thumbnail s of its images in its Google Image Search service, and for it to stop indexing and linking to sites hosting such images. In early 2006, the court granted the request in part and denied it in part, ruling that the thumbnails were likely to be found infringing but the links were not. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court s ruling on its fair use and contributory infringement findings on 16 May 2007 and remanded the case for further consideration. We conclude that Perfect 10 is unlikely to be able to overcome Google s fair use defense and, accordingly ... . The court found Google s use highly commercial, more so than in Kelly v. Arriba Soft ... infringement. As summarized by MGM v. Grokster , One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing ... lawful use, which the distributor knows is in fact used for infringement as paraphrased by MGM v ... ruling from the court s website http wendy.seltzer.org media p10 v google 060221.pdf Text of the district ... more details
citation style date April 2012 Infobox United States District Court Case name Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York image imagesize caption full name date decided June 23, 2010 citations http www.google.com press pdf msj decision.pdf No. 07 Civ. 2103 , 2010 WL 2532404 S.D.N.Y 2010 transcripts judge Louis L. Stanton prior actions subsequent actions holding Google s motion for summary judgement was granted on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act s safe harbor provisions shielded Google from Viacom s copyright infringement claims. keywords Copyright , Digital Millennium Copyright Act , Safe Harbor Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. , No. 07 Civ. 2103, is a U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case in which Viacom lawsuit sued YouTube , a video sharing site owned by Google , alleging that YouTube had engaged in brazen and massive copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view hundreds of thousands of videos owned by Viacom without permission. Google s motion for summary judgement was granted on the grounds that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act s safe harbor provisions shielded Google from Viacom s copyright infringement claims. Background On March 13, 2007, Viacom filed a US 1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleging that the site had engaged in brazen copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view copyrighted material ... 1 hilite format PDF title 10 3270, 10 3342 Viacom Int l, Inc., Football Ass n Premier League Ltd. v. YouTube, Inc. accessdate 2011 04 05 date 2011 04 05 ref Among other things, Viacom and the other ... hein.journals ncjl9&div 6&g sent 1&collection journals Viacom v. YouTube Preliminary Observations ... 2012 04 second circuit 3.htm title Second Circuit Ruling in Viacom v. YouTube Is a Bummer for Google ... date 5 April 2012 ref and, contrary to the Ninth Circuit s dismissal of the Veoh case UMG v. Shelter ... more details
orphan date September 2010 IBP, Inc. v Alvarez , a Supreme Court case in 2005, expanded worker protections initially outlined in the FLSA Federal Labor Standards Act FLSA of 1938, as amended by the Portal to Portal Act of 1947. Workers for the IBP, Inc. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc . IBP, Inc. , now known as Tyson Foods, Inc. , filed a class action lawsuit requesting reparations for unpaid wages. Workers were not being paid for time spent putting on and taking off protective gear, nor for time walking to and from the changing area. IBP, Inc. argued that changing into protective gear did not constitute a principal activity of the job, and thus was not compensable by law. Court ruling The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in the workers favor. According to the opinion released, donning protective gear and walking to and from changing areas are integral and indispensable to the job s principal activities , and must, therefore, be compensated. The court moderated its opinion slightly, siding with the employer regarding time waiting in line for protective gear. This waiting time, two steps removed from principal activities , is not compensable under FLSA regulations. However, time spent waiting ..., employees will be compensated for their waiting time. Implications IBP, Inc. v Alvarez encourages ... ruling by the United States Court of Appeals , First Circuit, in Tum v Barber Foods, Inc in 2003. Forty four employees filed a class action suit against Barber Foods, Inc., identical in nature to employees complaints against IBP, Inc. Barber Foods successfully argued that time spent donning and doffing ... between the changing room and the meatpacking floor. References 1. IBP, Inc. v Alvarez. 546 US. 21 US Sup. Ct. 2005. 2. IBP v Alavarez. Duke Law. September 2010. http www.law.duke.edu publiclaw supremecourtonline .... Don and Doff the Day s Apparel IBP, Inc. v Alvarez. Martindale.com. 7 December 2005. September 2010 ... v Barber Foods, Inc. 331 F. 3d 1 United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. 2003. Category United ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr ArgueDate April 23 ArgueYear 1996 DecideDate June 26 DecideYear 1996 FullName Medtronic, Inc., Petitioner 95 754 v. Lora Lohr, et vir Lora Lohr, et vir, Petitioners 95 886 v. Medtronic, Inc. USVol 518 USPage 470 Citation 116 S. Ct. 2240 135 L. Ed. 2d 700 1996 U.S. LEXIS 4260 64 U.S.L.W. 4625 CCH Prod. Liab. Rep. P14,634 29 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d Callaghan 1077 96 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4685 96 Daily Journal DAR 7557 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 83 Prior Holding SCOTUS 1994 2005 Majority Stevens JoinMajority Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer parts I, II, III, V, VII Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg parts IV, VI Concurrence Breyer Concurrence Dissent O Connor JoinConcurrence Dissent Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas LawsApplied Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr , scite 518 470 1996 , is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the scope of federal preemption . See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 518 List of United States Supreme Court cases Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume External links http www.altlaw.org cite 518 U.S. 470 Full text at Altlaw Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States federal preemption law Category Medtronic SCOTUS case stub ... more details
Inc. may refer to Incorporation business , an abbreviation of Incorporated , a suffix indicating a corporation Inc. magazine Inc. magazine , an American business magazine Incoming Include, included, or including Inc may refer to Increment , a short form in computer programming languages, particularly assembler mnemonics See also INC disambiguation disambig sr Inc sk inc ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Time, Inc. v. Firestone ArgueDate October 14 ArgueYear 1975 DecideDate March 2 DecideYear 1976 FullName Time, Inc. v. Mary Alice Firestone USVol 424 USPage 448 Citation Prior Florida state court grants 100,000 libel claim for the respondent. Florida Supreme Court affirms. Holding Mary Firestone can collect libel damages from Time, Inc., because she was not a public figure. She had no special prominence in societal affairs, nor did she thrust herself into a controversy to influence its resolution. SCOTUS 1975 1981 Majority Rehnquist JoinMajority Burger, Stewart, Blackmun, Powell Concurrence Powell JoinConcurrence Stewart Dissent Brennan Dissent2 White Dissent3 Marshall Abstain Stevens LawsApplied First Amendment to the United States Constitution U.S. Const. Amend. I Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution U.S. Const. Amend. XIV New York Times, Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 Time, Inc. v. Firestone , ussc 424 448 1976 , was a Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Supreme Court case concerning defamation suits against public figures. Background Mary Alice Firestone was married to Russell A. Firestone, Jr. , an heir to the Firestone Tire and Rubber Company family fortune. Mary filed for divorce, and Russell submitted a counterclaim on the grounds of extreme cruelty and adultery. The judge discounted much of the evidence concerning extramarital affairs. Nevertheless, Time, Inc., publisher of Time magazine the eponymous weekly news magazine , ran an article about the affairs, despite evidence to the contrary. A week after the decision was made, in the milestones section of the Time s editorial, the news of Firestone s divorce was published ... of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan , which protected media from liability in such suits except in cases ... Supreme Court ruled that Mary was not a public figure, using language defined in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 1974 . Decision In a 5 3 decision, with Justice Stevens abstaining, the Supreme Court ... more details
italic title Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner , 889 S.2d 871 Fla. 2d Dist. App. 2004 , was a case before the Florida Second District Court of Appeal concerning whether the Collier County, Florida Property Appraiser could require prospective commercial users of the records created in his office to first enter into a licensing agreement. The court concluded that he may not. ref name appeals opinion p2 cite court litigants Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner vol 889 reporter S.2d opinion 871 date 2004 pinpoint at 2 url http www.2dca.org opinions Opinion Pages Opinion Page 2004 December December 2001, 202004 2D03 3346.pdf ref In the decision, the court held that Skinner has no authority to assert copyright protection in the GIS maps, which are public records. ref name appeals opinion p6 cite court litigants Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner vol 889 reporter S.2d opinion 871 date 2004 pinpoint at 6 url http www.2dca.org opinions Opinion Pages Opinion Page 2004 December December 2001, 202004 2D03 3346.pdf ref In support of this, the court held that the Florida public records law ... overrides a governmental agency s ability to claim a copyright in its work unless the legislature has expressly authorized a public records exemption. ref name appeals opinion p9 cite court litigants Microdecisions, Inc. v. Skinner vol 889 reporter S.2d opinion 871 date 2004 pinpoint at 9 url http www.2dca.org opinions Opinion Pages Opinion Page 2004 December December 2001, 202004 2D03 3346.pdf ref This was a Florida District Court of Appeal decision, but the Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the case and ordered ... Microdecisions, Inc. V. Skinner Category Florida state case law Category United States copyright ... http commons.wikimedia.org wiki File Microdecisions v. Skinner SCOTFL RULING.djvu Commons DjVu format ... reasoning for the decision in County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition by the 4th ... government County of Suffolk v. First American Real Estate Solutions , http bulk.resource.org courts.gov ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Lear, Inc. v. Adkins ArgueDateA November 20 ArgueDateB 21 ArgueYear 1968 DecideDate June 16 DecideYear 1969 FullName Lear, Incorporated v. John Adkins USVol 395 USPage 653 Citation 89 S. Ct. 1902 23 L. Ed. 2d 610 1969 U.S. LEXIS 3099 162 U.S.P.Q. BNA 1 1969 Trade Cas. CCH P72,823 Prior 67 Cal. 2d 882 vacated and remanded Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1969b Majority Harlan JoinMajority Warren, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall Concurrence Dissent Black in part JoinConcurrence Dissent Warren, Douglas Concurrence Dissent2 White in part LawsApplied wikisource Lear, Inc. v. Adkins , 395 U.S. 653 1969 , ref wikisource inline Lear, Inc. v. Adkins ref is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the doctrine of licensee estoppel and holding that public interest considerations require that licensees be free to challenge the validity of possibly spurious patents under which they are licensed. This entailed the overruling of Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. ref 339 U.S. 827, 836 1950 holding that licensee estoppel is the general rule . ref and prior cases that it had reaffirmed. Opinion of the Court The Supreme Court recognized that a conflict existed between the demands of contract law, which forbids a purchaser to repudiate his promises simply because he later becomes dissatisfied with the bargain, and federal policy, which requires that all ideas in general circulation be dedicated to the common good unless they are protected by a valid patent. Past efforts at compromise to reconcile these competing interests led to a chaos of conflicting case law. The Court found guidance in a 19th Century decision stating that i t is as important to the public that competition should not be repressed by worthless patents as that the patentee of a really valuable invention should be protected in his monopoly. ref Pope Mfg. Co. v. Gormully, 144 U.S. ... reflist External links caselaw source case Lear Inc. v. Adkins findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. ArgueDate December 4 ArgueYear 2007 DecideDate February 20 DecideYear 2008 FullName Charles R. Riegel, et ux. v. Medtronic, Inc. OralArgument http www.oyez.org cases 2000 2009 2007 2007 06 179 argument Docket 06 179 USVol 552 USPage 312 Citation Prior Subsequent Holding The MDA s pre emption clause bars common law claims challenging the safety or effectiveness of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the FDA. SCOTUS 2006 2009 Majority Scalia JoinMajority Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, Alito Dissent Ginsburg LawsApplied Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc. , Case citation 552 U.S. 312 2008 , is a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the pre emption clause of the Medical Device Amendment bars state common law claims that challenges the effectiveness or safety of a medical device marketed in a form that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration . See also Wyeth v. Levine FDA Preemption Further reading http supreme.justia.com us 552 06 179 index.html Syllabus and opinion in printable format from Justia.com cite journal last Korobkin first Russell authorlink coauthors year 2007 month title Who Should Protect the Public? The Supreme Court and Medical Device Regulation journal New England Journal of Medicine volume 357 issue 17 pages 1680 1681 doi 10.1056 NEJMp078142 url accessdate quote pmid 17960010 Category United States Supreme Court cases Category United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court Category United States federal preemption law Category Medtronic SCOTUS stub ... more details
Infobox United States District Court case name Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen court United States District Court for the District of Idaho image United States District Court for the District of Idaho imagesize caption full name Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen date decided April 15, 2011 citations No. 10 553, 2011 WL 1458351 D. Idaho Apr. 15, 2011 transcripts judge Honorable Edward Lodge prior actions Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen, No. 07 212 D. Idaho Sept. 30, 2010 subsequent actions holding keywords CAN SPAM Act of 2003 , spam , collateral estoppel , standing law , summary judgment Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen was a United States District Court for the District of Idaho case which clarified the meaning of internet access provider and direct adverse effect as used in the Controlling the Assault of Non Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, or CAN SPAM Act of 2003 , 15 U.S.C. 7701 et. seq. ref name Melaleuca2 Cite court litigants Melaleuca, Inc. v. Hansen vol 2011 reporter WL opinion 1458351 pinpoint court D. Idaho date Apr. 15, 2011 url http www.scribd.com doc 53684976 Melaleuca v Hansen 10 Cv 00553 D Idaho Apr 15 2011 accessdate quote ref Among several claims, Melaleuca Inc. claimed that Hansen ..., Inc. v. Hansen vol reporter opinion No. 07 212 pinpoint court D. Idaho date Sept. 30, 2010 url http www.scribd.com doc 41490886 Melaleuca Incv Hansen CV 07 212 E EJL MHW D Idaho Sept 30 2010 ... v. Virtumundo, Inc. , ref name Gordon Cite court litigants Gordon v. Virtumundo vol 575 reporter ... 08 gordon v virtumundo inc no 07 35487.html accessdate quote ref a Ninth Circuit case, the court specified ... ref Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc., 575 F.3d 1040 9th Cir. 2009 ref name Gordon ref http itlaw.wikia.com wiki Gordon v. Virtumundo Gordon v. Virtumundo Wikia http dockets.justia.com docket washington wawdce ... title Court Says CAN SPAM Plaintiff Can t Take Second Bite at the Apple, Melaleuca v. Hansen author ... v. Virtumundo ref name Gordon ref . Both cases further define the boundaries of internet access provider ... more details
LabCorp v. Metabolite, Inc. is a court case related to the patentability of scientific principles which the Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear, and later dismissed, in 2006. In 1999, Metabolite sued LabCorp for infringement of a patent covering a diagnostic test. The claims of Metabolite s patent include the correlation between levels of homocysteine and vitamins Vitamin B6 B sub 6 sub and Vitamin B12 B sub 12 sub . A jury ordered LabCorp to pay 4.7 million in damages and the decision was upheld by a federal court, which further stated that doctors were directly infringing Metabolite s patents each time such a test is ordered and interpreted. LabCorp argued that the correlation is a principle of nature, and therefore the patent should never have been granted. The court dismissed the case, although Stephen Breyer Justice Breyer , John Paul Stevens Justice Stevens , and David Souter Justice Souter dissented from this decision. Breyer s dissenting opinion cited numerous cases in which scientific principles had been held to be unpatentable. Had the case been heard, and had Metabolite s patent been invalidated, the case would have had broad implications for biotechnology companies, which may have extended far beyond patentability of correlations of Biomarker biomarkers to disease states. Metabolite s brief to the court suggested that overturning the patent might lead to invalidation of all drug patents on the grounds that the inventors merely discovered that certain chemicals interact with the human body in ways directed by chemistry. References US patent 4940658 , the disputed patent http www.supremecourt.gov opinions 05pdf 04 607.pdf nowiki LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, DBA LABCORP, PETITIONER v. METABO LITE LABORATORIES, INC ... Is a Patent? . Science . 311 5763 946. DOI 10.1126 science.311.5763.946 See also Diamond v. Diehr Diamond v. Chakrabarty Parker v. Flook O Reilly v. Morse Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co ... more details
Guth v. Loft, Inc. , 5 A. 2d 503 Del. Ch. 1939 is a Delaware corporation law case on corporate opportunity corporate opportunities and the duty of loyalty . It deviated from the 200 year old rule laid down in Keech v. Sandford ref Keech v. Sandford 1726 Sel Cas. Ch.61 ref that a fiduciary should leave open no possibility of conflict of interest between his private dealings and the job he is entrusted to do. Facts Charles Guth Mr. Guth was the President of Loft Inc, which made a cola drink. Loft s soda fountains purchased cola syrup from Coca Cola Ltd, but then Mr. Guth decided it would be cheaper to buy from Pepsi after Coke declined to give him a larger jobber discount. Pepsi went bankrupt before Mr. Guth could inquire about obtaining syrup from Pepsi. Mr. Guth bought the company and its syrup recipe, which he then had Loft chemists reformulate and then purported to sell the syrup on to Loft Inc. He was alleged to have breached his fiduciary duty of loyalty to the company by failing to offer that opportunity to Loft Inc, and instead appropriating it for himself. Judgment Daniel J. Layton , the concurrent chief justice, gave the lead judgment for the Delaware Supreme Court. He started off by paying service to the general principle against conflicts of interest. blockquote Corporate officers and directors are not permitted to use their position of trust and confidence to further their private interests. While technically not trustees, they stand in a fiduciary relation to the corporation and its stockholders. A public policy, existing through the years, and derived from a profound knowledge of human characteristics and motives, has established a rule that demands of a corporate ... See also US corporate law Keech v. Sandford 1724 2 Sel Cas Ch 16 Boardman v. Phipps 1967 2 AC 46 Broz v. Cellular Information Systems Inc. Del. Supr. 637 A2d 148 1996 . Corporate law Business judgment ... Journal of Business Law 122 142 V. Brudney and R. C. Clark, A New Look at Corporate Opportunities ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
