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
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 ... List of Supreme Court of Canada cases Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc. , a related case from the previous ... 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 ... IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. , a similar case References Reflist Margaret Jane Radin et .... 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 ... to one of retrieving information, citing the similar case, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation ... Falzone, Anthony. http cyberlaw.stanford.edu node 5409 The Two Faces Of Perfect 10 v. Google ... 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 Category United States ... 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 COA case Litigants Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc. Court United States Court of Appeals, Second ... DecideDate April 1 DecideYear 2010 FullName TIFFANY NJ Inc. and Tiffany and Company v. eBay Inc Citations ... Majority SACK, Circuit Judge Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc. 600 F.3d 93 2nd Cir. 2010 , is a United .... ref name District Court cite court litigants Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay, Inc., court United States ...&q Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc.&hl en&as sdt 2,5&as vis 1 ref From this, the Court ruled that eBay ..., eBay claimed, under 1 800 Contacts, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. this conduct is not trademark use ... 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 those who actually ... Case cite court litigants Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., court Supreme Court ... are sold in a highest bid process. ref name Hendrickson Case cite court litigants 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 2,5&as vis 1 ref ... Inc. v. eBay, Inc., court United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit date 2010 url http scholar.google.com ... Sotomayor. ref Tiffany NJ Inc. v. eBay Inc., 131 S. Ct. 647 Supreme Court http scholar.google.com ... 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 Circuit cases Category ... www.ebayinc.om who publisher eBay Inc. ref , and is the world s largest online marketplace, where .... Joint and Several Liability. To support this allegation, Tiffany referred to Gucci America, Inc. v. Exclusive Imports International. The court held that, however, that the two cases were entirely ... market and uses Hendrickson v. eBay as a case that eBay features elements of both traditional swap ... 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
More footnotes date March 2010 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 States District Court for the District of Arizona granted the defendant ... jurisdiction Cybersell, Inc. v. Cybersell, Inc. was a trademark infringement case based on the use of an internet ... 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 ... looked to Second and Sixth Circuit decisions 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 .... v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 W.D. Pa. 1997 holding that interactive websites, in contrast ... follow the District of Connecticut s ruling in Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set, Inc., 937 ... AZ. ref name Cybersell Further reading Zippo Manufacturing Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc. Personal jurisdiction ... Cybersell, Inc. V. Cybersell, Inc. Category United States trademark case law ..., 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 ... 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 ... effects test is a test for personal jurisdiction articulated in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 1984 ... 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
title Court Sees Clearly Now Use in 1 800 CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com, Inc. and Vision Direct, Inc ... CONTACTS, Inc. v. WhenU.Com and Vision Direct, Inc. author Martin H. Samson work Phillips Nizer LLP ...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 deceptive and that one of the advertisements misleads users into falsely believing the pop up advertisements ... legal cases 1800contacts v whenu title 1 800 CONTACTS v. WhenU publisher Electronic Frontier Foundation ... 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 9th Cir seal.jpg 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 Paez , Robert R. Beezer Majority Robert R. Beezer JoinMajority Concurrence JoinConcurrence Dissent JoinDissent LawsApplied 17 U.S.C. 501, 17 U.S.C. 106 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. , 239 F.3d 1004 2001 ref name 9th ... Records, Inc. v. Napster , 239 F.3d 1004 9th Cir. 2001 ref was a landmark intellectual property case ... contributory infringement and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int l Serv. Ass n Vicarious copyright infringement ... to as A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, the full list of plaintiffs included a number of record companies ... Special Napster napster patel.html A&M Records, Inc. et. al. v. Napster No. C 99 5183 MHP No. C ... main A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 114 F.Supp.2d 896 Plaintiffs alleged both contributory and vicarious ... 114 F. Supp. 2d 896 at 911 citing Prudential Real Estate Affiliates, Inc. v. PPR Realty, Inc. ref ..., MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. , went to the Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court ... 089533003765888467 url accessdate quote Law DEFAULTSORT A&M Records, Inc. V. Napster, Inc. Category ... 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 for the Central .... The Ninth Circuit also held that Napster was not protected under Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , the Betamax case , because of Napster s actual, specific knowledge of direct ... Circuit accepted that Religious Technology Center v. Netcom might be relevant. Based on that case ... more details
Infobox United States District Court Case name Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. court United States District Court for the Northern District of California image imagesize caption full name date decided May 11, 2009 citations 91 U.S.P.Q.2d 1430 transcripts judge Jeremy D. Fogel prior actions subsequent ... , Unfair Competition Facebook, Inc. v. Power Ventures, Inc. is a lawsuit brought by Facebook ... SlipOpinion 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 ... MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc. In the MAI case, the Court granted summary judgment .... v. Peak Computer, Inc. , 991 F.2d 511 9th Cir. 1993 . ref Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc. In this particular ... s RAM. ref http www.internetlibrary.com cases lib case567.cfm Ticketmaster LLC v. RMG Techs. Inc. , 507 ... incv power ventures inc Gary Pong Eric Engle ed. , Facebook.com v. Power Ventures, Inc. , Harv ..., Inc. and Steve Vachani date 2009 07 09 accessdate 2010 03 30 format pdf ref Background Power Ventures ... name smith Ryan Smith and Thomas F. Zuber, http www.lawupdates.com commentary ifacebook v. power ventures i facebook terms of use against scraping Facebook v. Power Ventures Facebook Terms of Use Against ... a copyright in its users profile data. ref name smith Opinion of the Court Facebook Inc. sued Power Ventures Inc. in the Northern District of California. The court s ruling addressed a motion to dismiss ... as a result of defendant RMG Technologies Inc. RMG distribution of a software application ... pblog.bna.com techlaw 2009 05 provocative ruling in facebook v power ventures.html Provocative Ruling in Facebook v. Power Ventures , TechLaw May. 22, 2009 . ref The court observes that antitrust claims require a heightened standard of pleading, and throws in a reference to Bell Atlantic Corp. v ... Facebook v. Power Ventures , Technology & Marketing Law Blog Oct. 22, 2009 . ref The court s refusal ... 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
Confusing date January 2008 Out of date date February 2011 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, we vacate the preliminary injunction regarding Google s use of thumbnail images, Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta Ikuta wrote for a three ... file 0655405.pdf?openelement Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , Case ... is updated, please see Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. which details the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ... A law review article about the case http www.eff.org legal cases Perfect10 v Google EFF page about the case including copies of appeal briefs DEFAULTSORT Perfect 10, Inc. V. Google Inc. Category ... . The court found Google s use highly commercial, more so than in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation which .... As summarized by MGM v. Grokster , One infringes contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging ..., which the distributor knows is in fact used for infringement as paraphrased by MGM v. Grokster . The court ... the court s website http wendy.seltzer.org media p10 v google 060221.pdf Text of the district court ... more details
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 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 owned by Viacom. ref name Complaint http online.wsj.com public resources documents ViacomYouTubeComplaint3 12 07.pdf Text of complaint ref The complaint stated that over 150,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom s programming, such as SpongeBob SquarePants and The Daily Show , had been made available on YouTube, and that these clips had collectively been viewed more than 1.5 billion times. Viacom claimed that YouTube had infringed on its copyrights by performing ... v. YouTube Preliminary Observations , North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, Volume 9, Issue ... 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
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 the State ... 9169.2000.html 261 F.3d 179 2001 DEFAULTSORT Microdecisions, Inc. V. Skinner Category Florida ... wiki File Microdecisions v. Skinner SCOTFL RULING.djvu Commons DjVu format copy ref . United ... for the County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition decision by the 4th District of the California ... government County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition County of Suffolk v ... 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
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Lear, Inc. v. Adkins ArgueDate November 20 21 ArgueYear 1968 DecideDate June 16 DecideYear FullName Lear, Inc. v. Adkins USVol 395 USPage 653 Citation Prior 67 Cal. 2d 882 vacated and remanded Subsequent Holding SCOTUS 1969b Majority Harlan JoinMajority Warren, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall Concurrence White in part Concurrence Dissent Black JoinConcurrence Dissent Warren and Douglas 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. 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. 224, 234 1892 . ref It concluded that the equities of the licensor under contract law were outbalanced by the important public interest in permitting full ... References reflist External links caselaw source case Lear Inc. v. Adkins findlaw http caselaw.lp.findlaw.com ... 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
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 USPage CitationNew 552 U.S. 312 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. , 552 U.S. 312 2008 , is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding 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 List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 552 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 of the Roberts Court Category United States federal preemption law Category Medtronic SCOTUS stub ... 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
Weinberger v. UOP, Inc. 457 A.2d 701 Del. 1983 is a case concerning corporate law in the United States in the context of mergers and squeeze out s . In Delaware squeeze out mergers are subject to a two prong entire fairness test. The test focuses on the fairness of both the Financial transaction transaction s price and the process of approval. The two prongs are Fair value fair price and fair dealing. Facts In 1974, Signal Companies, Inc. acquired 50.5 of UOP, Inc. s outstanding shares. At this time, Signal nominated and elected five of the thirteen directors on UOP s board. In 1977, Signal became interested in acquiring the rest of UOP at any price up to 24 per share. Signal received a fairness opinion from Lehman Brothers, stating that 21 per share was a fair price, although the fairness opinion may have been based upon hasty and incomplete review. Signal s board unanimously voted to propose a merger at 21 per share. Upon receiving this offer, UOP s board urged the shareholders to approve the merger. The merger was approved and became effective in May, 1978. Plaintiff brought a class action on behalf of the minority shareholders of UOP, challenging the fairness of the merger agreement. Judgment The Court held that in short form freeze out mergers, defendants have the burden of satisfying the Entire Fairness Test. This test has two prongs fair dealing and fair price. Fair dealing concerns the procedures of the deal how and when it was initiated, where it was negotiated, and how it was approved. The duty of loyalty, as manifested by a showing of good faith and candor, is inherent to fair dealing. When directors or controlling shareholders are on both sides of the transaction, it is difficult to show that the transaction is indeed one at arms length. Directors can try to meet their burden by setting up an independent negotiating committee of outside directors. Fair price .... ref See also Cheff v. Mathes Notes reflist 2 DEFAULTSORT Weinberger V. Uop, Inc. Category Delaware ... more details
206085 1 Lane et al v. Facebook, Inc. et al., Class Action Complaint. Filed August 12, 2008. ref ... Intimate Shopping DEFAULTSORT Lane V. Facebook, Inc. Category Privacy law ...pov check date October 2010 Infobox United States District Court Case name Lane v. Facebook court United States District Court for the Northern District of California image imagesize caption full name Sean Lane, et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Blockbuster Inc., Fandango Inc., Hotwire, Inc., STA Travel Inc., Overstock.com, Inc., Zappos.com, GameFly, Inc. date decided March 17, 2010 citations transcripts judge Richard G. Seeborg prior actions subsequent actions holding Settled under court order Facebook shut down its Beacon Service and created a 9.5M privacy fund. keywords internet privacy Lane v. Facebook was a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California regarding internet privacy and social media . In December 2007, Facebook launched Facebook Beacon Beacon , which resulted in user s private information being posted on Facebook without consent. A simultaneous class action lawsuit in Texas, Harris v. Blockbuster , also alleged injuries based on Facebook s Beacon. Facebook ended up terminating the Beacon program, and created a 9.5 million fund for privacy and security. There was no money handed out to Facebook users that were affected negatively by the Beacon program. Background Plaintiff Sean Lane represented the class of Facebook users ... v. Facebook ref The law firm involved was also behind the lawsuits involving digital rights management .... ref The Beacon affiliated companies were Blockbuster Inc. , Fandango.com Inc, Hotwire.com Hotwire Inc, STA Travel Inc, Overstock.com Inc, Zappos.com Inc, and GameFly Inc. Claims The motion was brought .... ref http www.wired.com images blogs threatlevel 2010 02 epicletter.pdf Re Lane et al. v. Facebook ... Notification of Settlement http www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com 2009 09 lane v facebook ... more details
SCOTUSCase Litigants One, Inc. v. Olesen SubmitDate Can anyone find this? It wasn t argued, so there is no ArgueDate SubmitYear DecideDate January 13 DecideYear 1958 FullName One, Incorporated, v. Otto K. Olesen, Postmaster of the City of Los Angeles USVol 355 USPage 371 Citation 241 F.2d 772 9th Cir. 1957 Subsequent Holding Pro homosexual writing is not per se obscene. SCOTUS 1957 1958 PerCuriam yes Prior Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wikisource One, Inc. v. Olesen ussc 355 371 January 13, 1958 is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States . ONE, Inc. , a spinoff of the Mattachine Society , published the early pro gay ONE The Homosexual Magazine beginning in 1953. After a campaign of harassment from the United States Post Office Department U.S. Post Office Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation , the Postmaster of Los Angeles declared the October, 1954 issue obscene therefore unmailable under the Comstock laws . ref name MurdochPrice2002 cite book last1 Murdoch first1 Joyce last2 Price first2 Deb title Courting justice gay men and lesbians v. the Supreme Court url http books.google.com books?id mH5mzdA1gtMC accessdate 9 October 2011 date 8 May 2002 publisher Basic Books isbn 978 0 465 01514 6 pages 27 50 chapter ONE Standard of Justice ref The magazine sued. The first court decision March 1956 sided with the post office, as did the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 9th Circuit Court of Appeals February 1957 . To the surprise of all concerned, an appeal to the United ... Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed. Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476. 355 U.S. 371, 372 ref cite web url http supreme.justia.com us 355 371 publisher justia.com title ONE, inc. v ... law Category 1950s in LGBT history es One, Inc. contra Olesen tr One, Inc. v. Olesen ... decision in Roth v. United States ussc 354 476 1957 the Court, in a terse per curiam decision , reversed ... more details
Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants Federal Communications Commission FCC v. AT&T , Inc. ArgueDate January .... v. AT&T Inc. et al. USVol 562 USPage Citation Docket 09 1279 OralArgument http www.supremecourt.gov ... invasion of personal privacy . ref cite web last Lustigman first Andrew title FCC v. AT&T, Inc. The Lack of Personal Privacy for Corporations url http www.advertisinglawblog.com 2011 03 fcc v att inc the lack of personal privacy for corporations.shtml accessdate 15 March 2011 ref AT&T ... ref cite web title FCC v. AT&T Inc. url http www.afj.org connect with the issues the corporate court fcc v att inc.html publisher Alliance for Justice accessdate 5 May 2011 ref Based on these precedent ... cite journal last UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT title AT&T INC, Petitioner v ... v. ATT Inc. case was focused on the different type of personal privacy involving corporations, the announcement ... FCC v. AT&T Inc. , 562 U.S. 2011 other source1 Supreme Court of the United States other url1 http ... links Refbegin http www.scotusblog.com case files cases federal communications commission v att inc FCC v. AT&T, Inc. coverage on SCOTUSblog Refend Category 2011 in United States case law Category AT&T ..., Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor NotParticipating Kagan LawsApplied usc 5 552 FCC v. AT&T, Inc. , ussc 562 2011 , is a Supreme Court of the United States United States Supreme Court case on aspects ... that originate or terminate in the United States Defendant AT&T inc. is the largest provider of fixed ... cite journal last UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT title AT&T INC, Petitioner v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent year 2009 url http www.ca3.uscourts.gov ... to the Supreme Court before. In the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad , 118 ... to the issue is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission . The dispute was over whether Citizens ... cite web title Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Docket No. 08 205 url http topics.law.cornell.edu ... more details
Encyclopedia
top
