Source: https://socalip.wordpress.com/category/copyright/
Timestamp: 2019-09-20 18:47:11
Document Index: 12930563

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 201', '§112', '§ 103', '§ 145', '§ 145', '§ 103']

Copyright | SoCal IP Law Group
SoCal IP Institute :: October 20, 2014 :: Copyrights
Leave a comment Posted by SoCal IP Law Group on October 17, 2014
Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 20, 2014 will be a discussion of copyrights. Chris Kopitzke will present a summary of the State Bar of California’s, “Copyright Office Comes to California” event. In addition, we will discuss the following two cases (one of which was previously discussed, but is a good refresher).
Metropolitan Regional Information Systems, Inc. v. American Home Realty Network, Inc. (4th Cir. 7/17/2013) (available here). The plaintiff, MRIS, offers an online multiple listing service for real estate brokers and agents. Subscribers must pay a fee for MRIS’s service, which allows subscribers to upload their real estate listings. Subscribers must agree to assign to MRIS the copyrights in each photograph included in a listing. The defendant, AHRN is a California real estate broker that owns and operates the website NeighborCity.com. Plaintiff sued defendant and requested a preliminary injunction against defendant’s use of plaintiff’s photographs on its website. The district court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction, and the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction order.
Alaska Stock v. Houghton Mifflin, Docket No. 10-36010 (9th Cir. March 18, 2014) (available here). Reversing the district court’s dismissal of a copyright infringement action, the panel held that copyright registration of a collective work registers the component works within it. The panel held that the Register of Copyrights had authority to prescribe a form and grant certificates extending registration to individual stock photographs within a collection where the names of each of the photographers, and titles for each of the photographs, were not provided on the registration applications. Agreeing with other Circuits, and deferring to the Copyright Office’s interpretation of the Copyright Act, the 9th Circuit panel held that where the photographers had assigned their ownership of their copyrights in their images to the stock agency, and the stock agency had registered the collection, both the collection as a whole and the individual images were registered.
All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, October 20, 2014 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.
Copyright	collective works, Copyright, copyright registration
SoCal IP Institute :: July 14, 2014 :: Liens on IP do not Create Federal Questions and Receivership Over Some George Clinton Recordings Affirmed
Leave a comment Posted by SoCal IP Law Group on July 13, 2014
Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 14, 2014 will be a discussion of one 4th Circuit case regarding federal subject matter jurisdiction for liens enforced on intellectual property and a 9th Circuit decision on the appointment of a receiver and that receiver’s rights over IP held by an individual. Brief synopses of the cases appear below.
Flying Pigs, LLC v. RRAJ Franchising, LLC, No. 13-2135 (4th Cir. July 1, 2014) (available here). Through a very convoluted set of steps including foreclosure on a series of renters, two bankruptcy proceedings, an overarching settlement agreement across several parties, and removal (twice) of proceedings from Lenoir County, North Carolina Superior Court to the Eastern District of North Carolina, Flying Pigs came to bring a lien-related proceeding in Superior Court. Defendant RRAJ removed the case under “federal question” subject matter jurisdiction. The district court denied Flying Pigs’ remand motion and granted RRAJ a dismissal with prejudice.
The 4th Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal order, and returned the matter to the Superior Court. Specifically, the 4th Circuit held that the matter did not raise a federal question, but instead arose under state law–essentially as a lawsuit to enforce a lien in part against the IP.
Hendricks & Lewis PLLC v. Clinton, No. 13-35010 (June 23, 2014) (available here). Hendricks & Lewis PLLC represented George Clinton in a series of legal matters over the course of a number of years. Mr. Clinton failed to pay for those services. The bill totaled over $3 million, but was reduced to just over $1.5 million in arbitration proceedings in which Mr. Clinton did not participate. A year after the arbitration, Clinton sued Hendricks & Lewis for malpractice. They, in turn, sought to enforce the arbitration award. The district court appointed a receiver for Mr. Clinton’s assets and authorized the license or sale of the copyrights in order to cover the fee award.
The 9th Circuit held that under Washington law Clinton’s copyrights in the masters were subject to execution to satisfy judgments made against him. The panel also held that § 201(e) of the federal Copyright Act did not protect Clinton from the involuntary transfer of his copyrighted works. The court further held that under Washington law the district court did not abuse its discretion by appointing a receiver to manage or sell ownership of the copyrights. The court also held that Clinton may raise claims of fraud on the court and judicial estoppel for the first time on appeal, but concluded that both claims were meritless. Finally, the court held that Clinton failed to raise his preemption, Erie doctrine, and due process arguments before the district court, and, therefore, they would generally not be considered, and in any event they were without merit.
All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, July 14, 2014 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.
Copyright, Ownership	flying pigs, george clinton, hendricks & lewis, lien, ownership, receiver, receivership, RRAJ
Leave a comment Posted by SoCal IP Law Group on June 16, 2014
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instrum., Inc. 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1688, 572 U.S.___ June 2, 2014) (available here). In Nautilus, the Supreme Court remanded to the Federal Circuit to determine whether claims to an exercise machine were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112,¶2. Procedurally, the District Court granted Nautilus’ summary judgment motion to dismiss on the basis of invalidity, but the Federal Circuit reversed saying the claim term at issue was not “insolubly ambiguous.” In remanding, the Supreme Court stated that the “insolubly ambiguous” standard does not comport with the statute. “To tolerate imprecision just short of that rendering a claim ‘insolubly ambiguous’ would diminish the definiteness requirement’s public-notice function and foster the innovation-discouraging ‘zone of uncertainty.’ ” The ball is back in the CAFC’s court to clearly define a definiteness test.
Side-issue brought up in Nautilus: What are “hybrid” apparatus/method claims, and when are they invalid?
Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. et al., S.Ct. No. 12-1315 (May 19, 2014) (available here). The screenplay for the movie “Raging Bull,” written by Jack Petrella and Jake LaMotta, was copyrighted in 1963 and assigned to MGM. The movie was released in 1980, and upon Petrella’s death, his rights reverted to his daughter, plaintiff here. She renewed the copyright in 1991, becoming its sole owner. In 1998 she threatened MGM with an infringement suit, and in 2009 she sued, claiming monetary and injunctive relief limited to the three years prior to the date the suit was filed. The Ninth Circuit granted summary judgment to MGM based on laches. The Supreme Court reversed on a 6-3 vote, holding that laches does not apply to copyright claims for damages brought within the copyright statute’s prescribed three-year window. In extraordinary circumstances, however, laches might curtail some forms of equitable relief.
All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, June 16, 2014 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.
Copyright, indefiniteness, Ownership, Patent	biosig, Copyright, indefiniteness, laches, metro-goldywn mayer, Nautlius, ownership, petrella
SoCal IP Institute :: April 28, 2014 :: Preliminary Injunctive Relief and Trademark Infringement
Leave a comment Posted by SoCal IP Law Group on April 28, 2014
Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 28, 2014 will be a discussion of two cases. The first relates to preliminary injunctive relief in patent cases and the second case relates to trademark infringement. Brief synopses of the cases appear below.
Trebro Mfg. v. Firefly Equipment and Steven Aposhian, Case No. 2013-1347 (Fed Cir. April 9, 2014) (available here). Trebro Mfg. appeals the district court’s ruling denying Trebro’s preliminary injunction motion. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacates the district court’s ruling and remands for further proceedings.
The Ohio State University v. Skreened, Ltd., (S.D. Ohio. April 18, 2014) (available here). The district court denied in part and granted in part Ohio State University’s motion for summary judgment relating to trademark infringement.
All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 28, 2014 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.
Claim Construction, Copyright, Patent
SoCal IP Institute :: April 21, 2014 :: Copyright Registration of Collective Works and Appeals of Ex Parte Reexams
Leave a comment Posted by SoCal IP Law Group on April 20, 2014
Our weekly SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 21, 2014 will be a discussion of two cases. The first relates to a copyright dispute involving a collection of photographs registered by a stock photo company and the second involves an appeal of an adverse ex parte reexamination decision by the patent owner. Brief synopses of the cases appear below.
Alaska Stock v. Houghton Mifflin, Docket No. 10-36010 (9th Cir. March 18, 2014) (available here). Reversing the district court’s dismissal of a copyright infringement action, the panel held that copyright registration of a collective work registers the component works within it. The panel held that the Register of Copyrights had authority to prescribe a form and grant certificates extending registration to individual stock photographs within a collection where the names of each of the photographers, and titles for each of the photographs, were not provided on the registration applications.
Agreeing with other Circuits, and deferring to the Copyright Office’s interpretation of the Copyright Act, the 9th Circuit panel held that where the photographers had assigned their ownership of their copyrights in their images to the stock agency, and the stock agency had registered the collection, both the collection as a whole and the individual images were registered.
In re Teles AG Informationstechnologien et al., Docket No. 2012-1297 (Fed. Cir. April 4, 2014) (available here). Teles AG Informationstechnologien and Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH own all substantial rights in U.S. Patent No. 6,954,453 on a method and apparatus for transmitting data in a telecommunications network. The Patent and Trademark Office conducted an ex parte reexamination of the ’453 patent and rejected claims 34–36 and 38 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed.
Teles brought suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Board’s decision pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145 (2006). The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and hold that the version of § 145 in effect at the time did not authorize a patent owner in an ex parte reexamination to bring suit in district court challenging the Board’s action. But The Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the case and instead should have transferred the case as it attempted to do after the dismissal. The Federal Circuit treated the case as having been transferred to the Federal Circuit and considered it as an appeal from the Board’s decision. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejection of claim 35 as obvious under § 103.
All are invited to join us in our discussion during the SoCal IP Institute meeting on Monday, April 21, 2014 at Noon in our Westlake Village office. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Noelle Smith by 9 am Monday morning.
Copyright, Patent	alaska stock, collective work, Copyright, ex parte reexam, houghton mifflin, reexamination, registration, teles AG