Resources

Simulation Materials for May 2014 Program

Tab 1    Claim Construction Simulation: Mangosoft v. Oracle

Tab 2    Claim Construction Simulation: Lux v. BrightBlue

Tab 3    Trademark Preliminary Injunction Simulation 1: Polar Shock — Polar Corp. v. PepsiCo.

Tab 4    Trademark Preliminary Injunction Simulation 2: Swerve

Patent Law
Patent Case Management
Copyright Law
Digital Copyright Law
Trademark Law 
Digital TM Law 

Patent Law

A. Validity

1.  Subject Matter 

        Software and Business Methods

– Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)
                – CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., Fed. Cir. (May 10, 2013) (en banc)

        Biotechnology

– Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012)
– Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)  

2.  Utility

                – Brenner v. Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966)  
– In re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (DNA express sequence tags)  

3.  Novelty

           Inherency

– Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir. 2003) 

 4. Non-Obviousness

                – KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)  

5. Written Description

                – Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc, 285 F.3d 1046 (Fed. Cir. 2002)  
– Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.) cert. denied 540 U.S. 982
                  (2003)  
– Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

B. Infringement

       “Within the United States”

                – NTP v. Research In Motion, 392 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

        Doctrine of Equivalents

Prosecution History Estoppel

– Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002)  
– Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 344 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
                   (on remand from Supreme Court) 

Indirect Liability

                – Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,131 S.Ct. 2060 (2011)  

C. Defenses

         Experimental use

– Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 

D. Remedies

         Injunctions

– eBay v. MercExchange, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006)

         Damages

• Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc. —F.3d—-, 2014 WL 1646435 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
• Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 WL 2111217 (W.D. Wash. 2013)
• Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
• Daralyn J. Durie and Mark A. Lemley, A Structured Approach to Calculating Reasonable Royalties, 14 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 627 (2010)

         Extraterritorial damages

– Microsoft v. AT&T (U.S. Supreme Court 2007)  
– Eolas v. Microsoft Corp., 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 

         Willfulness

– In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc)  
– Knorr-Bremse v. Dana, 383 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (en banc) 

Attorney Fees

 Octane Fitness, LLC V. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., __ U.S. ___ (2014)

Patent Case Management

     Menell, Pasahow, Pooley, Powers, Carlson, & Homrig, Patent Case Management Judicial Guide
     (Second Edition 2013)

A. Patent Local Rules

                – James Ware &  Brian Davy, The History, Content, Application and Influence of the
                  Northern District of California’s Patent Local Rules, 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J.
                  965 (2009)
– Patent Case Management Judicial Guide (Second Edition) Appendix D   

B. Protective Orders and Discovery

– Stipulated Protective Order, Northern District of California  
– eDiscovery Model Order

B. Model Jury Instructions
                – Patent Case Management Judicial Guide (Second Edition) Appendix E

D. Claim Construction (Process and Principal Issues)

                – Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)  
– Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) 

E. Education of Judge and Jury about Technology

– Fed.R. Civ.P. 53 (special masters)  
– FRE 706 (court appointed experts)  
– TechSearch v. Intel, 286 F3d. 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002)   
– Association of Mexican Am. Educators v. California, 231 F3d. 572 (9th Cir. 2000)  

Copyright Law

A. Protectability, Ownership, and Duration

B. Infringement Analysis

                – Arnstein v. Porter, 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946)  
                – Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation, 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930) 

            1.  Music

                        – Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, Ltd., 420 F.Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)  
– Selle v. Gibb, 741 F.2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984)  
– Three Boys Music Corporation v. Michael Bolton, 212 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2000)   
– Grand Upright Music Limited v. Warner Brothers Records, Inc., 780 F.Supp. 182
                          (S.D.N.Y. 1991)   
– Newton v. Diamond, 349 F.3d 591 (9th Cir. 2003)  
– Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 383 F.3d 390 (6th Cir. 2004)   
– Swirsky v. Carey, 376 F.3d 841 (9th Cir. 2004) 

            2. Graphic Works

                        – Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co., 377 F.Supp.2d 444 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) 

            3. Software

                        – Computer Associates v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)  
– Lotus v. Borland, 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 516 U.S. 233
                           (1996)   

C. Fair Use

• Pierre Leval, Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990)

• David Nimmer, “Fairest of them All” and Other Fairy Tales of Fair Use, 66 Law & Contemp.Probs. 263 (Winter/Spring 2003)

1. Parody

                – Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994)  
                – Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 1998)  
                – Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997)  
                – Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001)  
                – MasterCard Intern. Inc. v. Nader 2000 Primary Committee, Inc., 2004 WL 434404, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d
                  1046, (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 8, 2004) 

2. Software – Reverse Engineering

                – Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)
                

3. Transformative

• Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006)

•  Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2006) 

•  Cariou v. Prince, — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 1760521 (2d Cir. 2013) 

D. Remedies
    
                  – Salinger v. Colting, 607 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 2010)
                  – UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.Com, Inc., 2000 WL 1262568 

Digital Copyright Law

Peter S. Menell, This American Copyright Life: Reflections on Re-eqilibrating Copyright for the Internet Age, Journal of the Copyright Society (forthcoming 2014) (42nd Brace Lecture)

     Peter S. Menell, Envisioning Copyright Law’s Digital Future 46 N.Y. Law School Law Review 63 (2002-03) 

     Peter S. Menell and David Nimmer, Unwinding Sony, 94 Cal. L. Rev. 941 (2007) 

     Peter S. Menell and David Nimmer, Legal Realism in Action: Indirect Copyright Liability’s Continuing Tort  Framework and Sony’s De Facto Demise, 55 UCLA L. Rev. 1 (2007) 

A. Indirect Liability

                  – Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005)  
                  – Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984)  
                  – Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)  
                  – Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Intern. Service Ass’n, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007) 

B. DMCA – Online Service Provider Safe Harbors and Copyright Enforcement

1. Scope Online Service Provider Safe Harbor and General Immunity for Passive Conduits

                  – UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, — F.3d —-, 2013 WL 1092793 (9th Cir.
                    2013)
                  – Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, 679 F.3d 19  (2d Cr. 2012)  
                  – Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 488 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2007)  
                  – CoStar Group v. LoopNet, 373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) (continued viability of immunity of  passive conduits) 

2. Notice and Takedown Process

                  – Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (identifying and
                    terminating repeat infringers)  
                  – Rossi v. Motion Picture Ass’n of America, 391 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2004) (knowledge required to
                    trigger DMCA takedown requirements) 

3. Subpoenas to OSPs

• London-Sire Records, Inc. v. Doe 1, 542 F.Supp.2d 153 (D.Mass 2008) 
• RIAA v. Verizon Communications, 351 F.3d 1229 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that DMCA Section 512(h) subpoena provision applies only to Section 512(c) on-line service providers and cannot be used to identify filesharers’ identity) 
• In re Charter Communications, Inc. Subpoena Enforcement Matter, 393 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2005) (same) 
  In re Subpoena to University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2005 WL 1027099 (M.D.N.C. April 14, 2005) (same)  
• Sony Ent. Corp. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (addressing procedural issues relating to Doe filesharing lawsuits; holding that First Amendment did not bar ISP’s disclosure of defendants’ identities)  
• Elektra Ent. Group v. Does 1-9, 2004 WL 2095581 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (granting motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction when the copyright owner has not filed suit in a jurisdiction with which a particular Doe has minimum contacts). 
• BMG v. John Does 1-203, 2004 WL 953888 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (declining to consolidate filesharing cases) 
• Virgin Records America, Inc., v. John Does 1-35, 2006 WL 1028956 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2006) 

4. P2P Enforcement – “Making Available”

     Peter S. Menell, In Search of Copyright’s Lost Ark: Interpreting the Right to Distribute in the Internet Age, 
     59 J. Copyright Soc’y 1 (2011)

Matthew Sag, Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study

5. Public Performance      

                  – WNET, Thirteen v. Aereo, Inc., 712 F.3d 676 (2d Cir. 2013)     
                  – Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir.2008) (Cablevision)

C. DMCA – Anticircumvention

                  – David Nimmer, A Riff on Fair Use in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 148 U. Pa. L. Rev. 673
                    (2000)  
                  – Lexmark v. Static Control Components, 387 F.3d 522 (6th Cir. 2004) (interaction with
                    copyright law’s protectability doctrines)  
                  – Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004)  
                  – Davidson & Associates v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005) 

D. Fair Use on the Internet

                  – Perfect 10 v. Amazon, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)  
                  – Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811, 817 (9th Cir.2003)  
                  – Field v. Google, 412 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D.Nev. 2006) (caching)  

Trademark Law

A. Protection

          Distinctiveness

                  – Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc. 529 U.S. 205 (2000) (trade dress) 

B. Infringement

          Right of Attribution

                  – Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) 

C. Defenses

           Functionality

                  – TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001)
                  – Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir.
                    2012) 

           Fair Use

•  KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 125 S.Ct. 542 (2004)

• Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013)

• Century 21 Estate Corp. v. LendingTree, Inc., 425 F.3d 211 (3rd Cir. 2006)

• New Kids on the Block v. News America Pub., Inc., 971 F.2d 302  (9th Cir. 1992)

D. Remedies

Preliminary Injunction

–Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc. 736 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2013)

E. Dilution

                  – Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006
                  – Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) 

Digital TM Law

A. Domain Names

                  – Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
                    and Numbers (August 26, 2001). 

B. Keyword Advertising

                  – Rosetta Stone Ltd. v. Google, Inc., 676 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 2012)
                  – Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009)

C. Contributory Infringement

                  – Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010)  

D. Defenses: Nominative Use, Fair Use, 1st Amendment

                  – Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F.Supp.2d 1161 (C.D.Cal.1998)
                  – Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002)  
                  – Bosley Medical Institute, Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005)