JoshuaKaplan

IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

TableofContents
GeneralIPPolicy/theory

1
Trademarks

ForeignTreaties

4
TypesofMarks

4
Infringement(PolaroidTest)

9
Defenses

10
Internet/UDRP

12
Dilution

13
Remedies

14

Copyrights

16
DerivativeWorks

19
MoralRights

21
Renewal/Termination

23
Infringement(tests)

24
FairUse/Defenses

15
DMCA

27
Remedies

29
Publicity/Misappropriation

32

Patents

34
PatentProsecution

36
Utlity/Novelty/NonObvious

38
Priority

39
StatutoryBars

40
Infringement

41
0

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

Defenses

43
Remedies

44

TradeSecrets

46

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

IPInGeneral
I.

Origins
a. PatentsbeganinVenice
b. CopyrightbeganinEnglandPublishercompetition
c. TrademarksGuildSystemwouldmarkthebottomofproductsothatpeoplewouldknowfromwhomtheywere
purchasing

II.

FederalAuthority
a. Copyright/PatentAuthorityArticleISec.1cl.8
i. Progressofscienceandusefularts
1. Scienceiscopyright,andusefulartsispatents
2. InthedaysoftheConstitutionmeansknowledge.
ii. Utilitarianclausenotbasedonthemoralrights
iii. Mostprotectionisprettymuchonfederallevel.
iv. CertainStateswithparticularbusinessesadoptedtheirownlaws,whichCongresseventuallyincorporated
intofederallaw(e.g.CAsoundrecording)
b. TrademarksCommercepowerbasisforfederalsystem
i. Preventsconsumerconfusionandprotectsinformationassetstellspeoplewhoismakingthegoods
ii. Historically,therewasonlystateTMlaw,butpeoplestartingproducingthingsindifferentstatescausing
consumerconfusion
iii. Mosttrademarkcasesarenotfederalcourts
c.

2Issues
i. FirstAmendmentproblemscopyrightsinfringeonfreedomofspeech
1. HowcanCongressbalancetheinterests?
2. Howfarcanstatesgoinadoptingcommonlaworlegislativesolutions?
ii. Federalismtherearecommonlawandstateprotectionsthatinteractwithfederallaws.Doesthisdisrupt
thefederalistbalance
d. InternationalAgreements
i. TRIPS,WIPO,MadridProtocol
ii. Whatwasonceanationalissuehasbecomeworldwide
III.

IPvs.RealProperty
a. ProtectionforRealProperty5thAmendment
i. AmendVsayscongresscantdeprivepeopleofproperty
ii. Realpropertyisexante,IPisacreationoftheConstitution
b. IPisapublicgood,butRealpropertyisexcludable
i. Tragedyoftheanticommonsifeverybodyownsalittlepieceofknowledgethenputtingitalltogether
willbecomeimpossible
ii. TragedyoftheCommonsneedindividualrightstoutilizeIPefficiently
c. NOTE:IPcreatestransactioncosts
d. ReasonsforIP
i. Compensationforrisks/investment:
1. secondcomerhasfewrisks
2. FirstMoverAdvantage:PeriodofexclusivitycreatesStickynesseBay,MicrosoftWindows
(consumersinvestheavilyinanoperatingsystem)
ii. CombatFreeridereffect
e. ArgumentAgainstIP:Monopolycreatesdeadweightsocialcost.

IV.

AlternativestoIP

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
a.
b.
c.
d.

e.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

PrizesExpostcompensation,getsgovernmentinvolved
LiabilityRulePayafeeforuse(relatestopatentreform)
GovernmentRegulationdoesthisfitoureconomicsystem?
TradeSecrecy
i. Arrowsdisclosureparadoxnobodywantstobuyasecretiftheydontknowwhatitis,butoncethey
knowtheresnoneedtobuyit
ii. TradeSecretstellpeopleonaneedtoknowbasis,butpeopleareliableoftheysteal
iii. Advantages:Lowertransactioncosts;noapplicationfees
iv. Disadvantages:
1. Requiresloyalemployees,bankers,etc.
2. Peoplemightindependentlyinventthesecret
3. Mostsecretseventuallybecomepublic
Commissionspeopleshouldcommissionproducts(e.g.textbooks).Problem:insufficientincentiveonprivateside

Part I Trademarks
Trademarks are available for words, symbols, devices, or other designations that serve to identify the source of
goods or services, assuming a bona fide intent to use in commerce.
I.

Purposes/Policy Consumer oriented

a.
b.
c.
d.

II.

Prevent consumer confusion help consumers identify the source of goods, shopping costs.
Good Will Give producers an incentive to produce high quality goods by preventing free-riding on owners
reputation
Efficiency vesting right in author reduces the number of lawsuits by concentrating all claims into one lawsuit
Downsides people buy goods they cannot afford for name brand violent theft

Requirements for Protection (Common Law) You need not register. However, protection can be had only after
active use of the mark in commerce in connection w/ the product or service. If two persons come up w/ the same mark,
whoever made sufficient use of the mark first will get it and will be able to exclude the other.
a.

The mark must be directed at the goods or services for which protection is sought. No longer an affixation standard.
As long as you associate the mark w/ the goods in a way that will reasonably let consumers understand the
association (advertisement, display, etc.) its enough.

b.

While advertising alone, without actual use, can serve to gain protection, it must (1) be of sufficient clarity and
repetition to create the required identification, and (2) it must have reached a substantial portion of the public that
might be expected to purchase the good or service.

c.

The type and scope of the use must be substantial and in the ordinary course of trade. Sham transactions cant serve
as use, while token transaction can.
Microstrategy Inc. v. Motorola Inc. (Intelligence Everywhere) Microstrategy could not show that IE was
used as an identifying mark. Had to look too closely to find IE on documents. Limited, sporadic, and
inconsistent use. Dissent: Irreparable harm to MS if injunction not given. Mark featured on all of the
business cards! Could be suggestive.

III.

Federal Lanham Registration

a.
b.

3 ways to establish entitlement: Use (in interstate commerce), Bona fide intent to sue, foreign registration
Benefits of Registration
i. 1115(a) prima fascia evidence of a valid trade mark and ownership
ii. Federal Jurisdiction

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

Constructive notice
basis for registration in foreign countries
Registering with Customs
use of symbol

c.

Use-based application per 1051(a) bona-fide use in the course of business. The use must be a use in interstate
commerce. Process takes 9 months 1 year
i. File with PTO: identify goods/services on which mark will be used. Include:
1. date of first interstate use, manner of use (clothing, etc.), specimens
2. drawings
3. Declaration that mark doesnt resemble any other marks currently in use
ii. Filing Fee currently $245
iii. Examination by PTO to verify that complies with 1052 (a)-(f) requirements
iv. If application approved, published in Official Gazette
v. Can oppose w/in 30 days of publication Time for opposition or concurrent use proceeding
vi. If no opposition, will issue certificate of registration in 3 months
vii. If rejected, can appeal to TTAB

d.

Bona fide intent to use application per 1051(b) (1988 Amend. in response to Paris convention) applicant may
file for protection provided he has a bona fide intent to use the mark in the future. Bona fide means a fair, objective
determination of the applicants intent based on all the circumstances. Process:
i. File with PTO: identify goods/services on which mark will be used,
ii. Initial Examination by PTO and publish for opposition
iii. Can oppose w/in 30 days of publication
iv. Issue Notice of Allowance
v. 6 months to begin actual use, but can get extension up to 30 months
vi. Must file Statement of Use once youve begun actual use (or risk abandonment)
vii. PTO examines again for 1052 a-f violations, registered, and constructive notice kicks in.

e.

Supplemental Register If dont qualify for Principal Register, may be registered on Supplemental, if mark is
capable of acquiring secondary meaning.
i. Advantages
1. Use of federal courts w/ respect to state rights
2. Limited benefits under trademark treaties
3. Actual notice can use symbol
4. After 5 years, mark may be transferred to Principal Register 1052(f)
ii. Down sides: No constructive notice, No right to stop imports of infringing goods, No injunctions

f.

Maintenance
i. 1058 During the sixth year of registration, must file an affidavit stating that the is still in use. Failure to do
so = cancellation.
ii. 1059 Must renew every 10 years thereafter or risk cancellation

g.

Opposition
i. 30daywindowforoppositiononceapplicationispublished
ii. TTABinPTOhandlesopposition
iii. TTABcasescanbeappealedtoFederalCircuit(CAFC)

h. Incontestability After five years cannot challenge mark for lack of distinctiveness, confusingly similar
i. Other challenges still stick: generic, functionality, discriminatory treatment, fraud
ii. Problems with incontestability: Mark may be put on supplemental register under theory it was capable of
acquiring secondary, moved to principle register and become incontestable, make other marks infringing.
i.

DefendingmarksinPractice
i. 9/10casesofdeniedregistrationareaboutfactthatmarkisinusebysomebodyelse .1052(d)mark
whichsoleresemblesmarkwhichwaspreviouslyregisteredorpreviouslyused.

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. IPcasesarelitigatedquicklyharmisoftenassumed;caseturnsonmerits.
1. Interlocutoryappeal;injunctiondecidescase
2. Informationproductscantbesqueezedbackintothetube.Gameoveronceproductreachespublic.
i. RoutesofappealGoestoPTOappealstoTTABAppealstoFederalCircuitCourtofAppeals
ii. AlternativeRoutestartcasedenovoinDistrictCourtandappealtoregionalcircuit.Canintroducenew
evidence,butSlowerandmoreexpensive
b. EstablishingSecondarymeaninginCourt
i. Consumersurveys:methodologicalproblems,expensive,whoseopinionmatters?
ii. Dictionariesifitsindictionary,itcouldbegeneric
iii. TradeJournals
IV.

ForeignTreaties
a.

Under1126oftheLA,foreignapplicantsmay,relyingontheirhomecountryregistration,registerinthe
US,notwithstandingtheirlackofuseoftheanywhereintheworld.

b.

ParisConventionformedin1883,adoptedbyUSin1887,implementedthroughdomesticlegislationin1903
i. Substantiveprotectionagainstunauthorizedmarks/falsedesignationoforigin
ii. ArticleII:NationalTreatment,UniversaltreatmentExtendsthenationaltrademarkprotection
iii. ArticleIV:PriorityRule
1. AfilingapplicantmayusethesamedatewhenfilinginanotherParisConventioncountryaslongas
secondfilingoccurswithin6monthsatthefirstfiling;andthefirstfilingmaturestoregistration(NOTE:
Europeancountriesdontrequireuseintenttouseapplications)
iv. ArticleVI:Reservingmarksthatbecomeinternationallyknownfortheproducerswhomadethemfamous.

c.

GATT(TRIPS1994)
i. MirrorsnationaltreatmentandprioritysystemofParisConvention
ii. MostFavorNation(MFN)treatment
iii. UniversalminimumstandardsIncreaseprotectionforgeographicindications,particularlywithrespectto
winesandspirits
iv. Problemexpensesofworldwidefiling

d.

MadridAgreement(1891)
i. Homeregistrationfollowedbysecondinternationalregistrationthatappliesinall70countries,International
bureau,Twentyyearrenewal
ii. CentralAttacktohomecountryregistrationwillcauseothercountryregistrationstofail
iii. PaperworkinFrenchwithfees(singlefee,extrafeeformorethan3registrations,complimentaryfeefor
extensionsofapplication)
iv. Problems:nonuseregistration,centralattackmakesUSbasedmarksweaker(moregroundsforcancellation
inUS)administrativedifficulties
1. 12monthswaitingperiodnotlongenoughforUSPTOtoreviewforeignmarks
2. Feeswouldntcoverworkload

e.

MadridProtocol(1989USjoinsin2002)
i. Basicapplication+intenttouse=fasterinternationalapplication
ii. Englishasacceptablelanguageforcommunication,Individualcountryfees
iii. USstillpayingsameamountasotherapplicationsforregistrationwithlimitedprotection.
iv. Centralattackstillvalid,butnotfatal
1. Ifhomecountrymarkinvalidated,3monthstoconvertapplicationintoaseriesofnational

applications,eachretainingoriginalprioritydate

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

V.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

TypesofMarks
TrademarksTodistinguish/indicatesourceofgoods
ServiceMarksTodistinguish/indicatesourceofservices.Mustdemonstratethatsourceofserviceis
sufficientlyseparatefromthesaleofgoods(GreyhoundBusService,Lexis,Westlaw).
c. CollectiveMarks
i. CollectiveMembershipMarksAdoptedforthepurposeofindicatingmembershipinan
organizationsuchasaunionorprofessionalsociety.Nogoodsorservices.(ABA,GirlScouts).
ii. CollectivetrademarksandservicesmarksAdoptedbyacollectiveorganizationtodistinguish
goodsorservicesfromthoseofnonmembers.Nogoodsorservices,butmayadvertiseorpromote.
(DairyCoOp;FloridaOrangeGrowers)
d. CertificationMarksTocertifythatgoodsandservicesofothershavecertaincharacteristics.Must
maintaincontrolovermark,andmaynotdiscriminate,refusetocertifyqualifiedappicants.(Kosher
mark)
a.
b.

VI.

Physicalrequirements
a.

b.

VII.

AffixationmainrequirementunderFederalandstatelaw
i. Associatedwiththegoodsinsuchawaythatitisasignaltoconsumers,whoknowwhatitsignifies
ii. 1127definesuseofcommerceandhasaffixationrequirement
Use1127
i. OldrulesrequiredActualUseininterstatecommerce,developedpracticeofSymbolicUse
ii. TMmustbeusedasasignal(SeeMotorolav.Microstrategyty)
1. repetitively
2. distinctivepatternordesign
3. Apparent
4. Enableconsumerstoidentify

CognitiveRequirementDistinctiveness
a.

thechiefrequirementtoqualifyasamark.Whenclassifyingthemark,lookatitinrelationtotheproduct(Appleis
arbitraryforcomputers,butnotforfruit.)

b.

Arbitraryandfancifultermsautomaticallyrecognizedasinherentlydistinctive.Abrandnewwordthathasno
othermeaningexceptasanidentifyingmark(Xerox,Exxon).NoobviousconnectionbetweenTmand
product/service.

c.

Suggestivetermsautomaticallyrecognizedasinherentlydistinctive.Titledoesnotdirectlyinvoketheimageof
theproductinthemidoftheconsumerrequiresthought/imaginationtomakeconnection.(Coppertone,Roach
Motelgetit?)

d.

Descriptiveterms(includingsurnamesandgeographicallydescriptivemarks)notrecognizedasinherently
distinctive,butcanbeprotectediftheuserofthemarkdemonstratesthatthemarkhasachievedsecondary
meaning.
i. SecondarymeaningExistsifinthemindsofthepublictheprimarysignificanceofthesymbolistoidentify
thesourceoftheproductratherthanidentifyingtheproductitself.Shownusuallybyconsumersurveys,
lengthandmannerofuse,advertisingexpenditures,orvolumeofsales.Continuoususeforfiveyearswilldo
it.

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. Familynamescanbeused,butonlyiftheyhaveacquiredsecondarymeaning.Notethatsomenamesmight
haveahardertimeb/ctheyaredescriptivewords(i.e.Baker,Carpenter,etc.)

VIII.

e.

Generictermsunprotectable.Thenameofthings(potatochips,cola,etc.)Ifatrademarkbecomesthenamefor
thethingandnolongeridentifiesitssource,itbecomesgenericandiscancelledvia1064(3).Examples:escalator,
yoyo.MoreinInfringementDefensessection.

f.

G.HeilemanBrewingCo.v.AnheuserBusch(LA[lowalcohol]Beer)Presumptionthatinitialsmeanthewords
theyrepresent.NotgoingtoletABpreemptthelawalcoholbeermarket.LAismerelydescriptiveand
unprotectable.Surveysshouldfocusonaveragepotentialcustomer,nottheuninformedpublic.

ProtectedSubjectMatter
a.
b.

WordMarks(CocaCola)
TradeDressTradeDresstheoverallimageofgoodorservices(e.g.thelookandfeelofMcDonalds).
i. TheTwoPesos/WalmartTestforProtectableTradeDress
1. Distinctive(onlyforproductpackaginglikeTwoPesos!)ORacquiredsecondarymeaning;AND
2. Featureisnonfunctional;
AND
3. ConsumersarelikelytoconfusethePsproductwiththeDsproduct
ii. PolicyideasWanttoprotectbusinessesthatareunique,butdontwanttooverprotect.Dontwanttoput
toomuchburdenonstartercompanies.
1. Sometypesoftradedresscouldbefunctionalaswellasaesthetic.SeeTrafixDevicesv.Marketing
Displays;RoadsignsDualSpringDesigncantbetradedress,becauseitsfunctional(Expiredpatentsare
dispositive)
2. Testsforfunctionalityleadtodifferentresults:
a. Doesitputacompetitoratadistinctdisadvantage,becausefeatureisessential
b. Doesiteffectthecostorquality?
3. Solutionstotradedressproblem
a. PreemptionMosttradedresswasprotectedunderstatelawinsteadoffederal
b. LimitIPprotection
i. YoueithergetaTMorCopyright,orPatent,SeeTraFix
ii. DoesntworkineverycaseLotsoffunctionaldesignsareneverpatentedVornadoFans
andcrescentwrenches
4. Protectingpackaging:Howdowetelldifferencebetweenconfigurationandpackaging?(TiffanyBox?)
5. Designprotectioncreatesproblemsforthefollowing:
a. AutoPartsMakers:TheysaythatifFordorChevygetsdesignprotectionforthegrillonyourcar,
youwontbeabletobuyagenericgrill.
b. Insurancecompanies:moreexpensivetobuypartsfromChevythanothercompanies
c. Appliancecompaniesneedtohavedishwasherthatfitsintosameslotforolddishwasher
d. Consumerinterests

c.

TradeDressCases:
i. TwoPesosv.TacoCabana(restaurantdcor)Restauranttradedresswasinherentlydistinctive;noneedto
showsecondarymeaning.Dontwantstartupbusinessestocreatecooltradedress,onlytohaveitstolenbya
competitor.Distinctivenessandnonfunctionalityisallyouneed!
ii. Qualitexv.JacobsonProducts(Colorgreengolddrycleaningpresspads)USSCsaidthatacolormay
satisfytrademarkrequirementsifitacquiressecondarymeaning.Itisthesourcedistinguishingabilityofa
mark,notitontologicalstatusascolor,shape,fragrance,word,orsignthatpermitsittoservethesepurposes.
Featurewillnotqualifyforprotectioniffunctional(bluefertilizerinNorAmChemical,blackoutboard
motors)inDeere&Co.v.Farmhand).Policyissuecolordepletion;thusastricterstandard

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

iii. WalmartStores,Inc.v.SamaraBrothers,Inc.(SamarasuedWalMartanditssupplierforknockingoff
Samarasdressdesigns1pieceseersuckerjumpsuit)Productdesign,(likecolor)canneverbeinherently
distinctive,andrequiresshowingofsecondarymeaning.Productpackagingcanbeinherentlydistinctive.
DistinguishedfromTwoPesosbecauserestaurantdcorismorelikeproductpackaging.
iv. MoslerSafev.EliNorris safehadmetalbandwithsmallbombbehindit,wouldexplodeifjimmiedopen.
Issue:Isthebandfunctionaloraesthetic.Whoarewetryingtoreach,consumerorthief
d.

SlogansRegistrableonSupplementalRegister,23(c).Thelongertheslogan,theharderitistounderstandwhen
readcasually,therebydiminishingtheuniquenessanddistinctivenessofthephrasewhichareessentialtoits
identifyingfunction.Mustbedistinctiveorhaveacquired2ndmeaning.

e.

SurnamesRegistrableonSupplementalRegister,23(c).Notethat1052(e)(4)prohibitsregistrationsofTmsthat
areprimarilyasurname,butthatsnotanabsolutebar.
i. Ifsurnameacquiressecondarymeaningandregistered,thenseconduserwithsamelastnameactsinGF,hisuse
willlikelybegranted.Inordertopreventcustomerconfusion,mayhavetomodifynameabitaddinitialor
something.

f.

SoundCanbegrantedprotectionifdistinctive,notmerelyfunctional.(IntelInsideorNBCchimes)
i. EMICatalougePartnershipv.Hill(musicalcomposition)Grantingamusiccompositionstatuswould
stretchthedefinitionofatrademarkandextendtrademarklawintoanareaalreadyprotectby.
ii. Cf.Oliveirav.FritoLay(samecourtsaidthatamusicalcompositioncouldactasatrademarkeventhough
protectedbya,butaperformercannotgetaTMsignifyingherselfinarecordingorherownfamous
performance.)

g.

ScentCanbegrantedprotectionifdistinctive,notmerelyfunctionallikeaperfume.

h. CompositeMarksCanberegisteredevenifnotallelementscouldbegrantedprotectionindividually.Evaluated
asawhole
i. InreDialAMattreeeOperationCorporationcourtallowsDialamattresswantedtoregister1888
MATTRESS.AlthoughPTOdoesntallowregistrationofnumbers,regardsentireunitinevaluatingstatus.

IX.

SubjectMatterNotProtected
a.
b.

c.

GenericMarksdoesnotdistinguishorigin(aspirin,thermos,etc.).MoreinDefensesSection.
ImmoralorScandalousMarks1052(a)
i. Scandalous
1. Lookatseriousnessofpurpose(messageconveyed)
2. Novulgarity,swearwords,feces,ornakedbodyparts.
3. InreOldGloryCondom(condomthatlookedlikeanAmericanflagdeniedprotectionasscandalousand
likelytooffend.);InreMavetyMediaGroup(BlackTail)Notscandalous.Mustevaluatebasedon
compositeofgeneralpublic,contextofrelevantmarketplace,and/orcontemporaryattitudes.
ii. ImproperAssociationswithpersons,institutions,etc.
1. FalseConnectionTest(See105(2)(a)
a. MarkisthesameoracloseapproximationofthepersonspreviouslyusednameorID
b. Wouldberecognizedassuch
c. Personinquestionisnotconnectedwiththegoodsorservicesoftheapplicant
d. Nameofsufficientfamethatconnectionlikelytobemadebypotentialpurchaser
Deceptive(1052(a))andDeceptivelyMisdescriptive(1052(e))
i. Distinguigh
1. DeceptiveLeadstheconsumertothinktheproductiswhatitisnot.Completebar.
2. DeceptivelyMisdescriptiveProductmisdescribed,butdoesnotinfluencebuyingdecisionanddoesnot
hurtmarket.Notbarredifcanshowsecondarymeaning.(TurtleWax).

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. Test
1. Isthetermmisdescriptiveofthecharacter/function/composition/useofgoods?
2. Ifso,areprospectivepurchaserslikelytobelievethemisdescription?
3. Isthemisdescriptionlikelytoinfluencepurchase(inducement)?
4. GoldSealv.Weeks(GlassWax)Deceptivelymisdescriptivebecauseconsumermightthinkproduct
containswax,butthiswillnotdeceiveconsumerstopurchase.Mustshow2ndmeaningforregistration.
d. GeographicTerms:
i. PrimarilyGeographicallyDescriptive:productconnotesgeographicoriginandgoodsactuallycomefromthat
location.Registerableonlywith2ndmeaning.1052(e)(2).
ii. DeceptivelyMisdescriptive:IfgoodsdoNOTcomefromthatlocation,butpeoplereasonablybelievethatthey
do(goodsplacelink),onlyregisterableif2ndmeaningobtainedpriorto12/8/1993.Ifdeceptive,never
registerable.
iii. Notes:TRIPS&Wine
1. Congressneveramended1052(e)tocomportwithTRIPS.
2. However,1052(a)hasbeenamendedtoprovidespecialwineprotection.Itnowbarsregistrationofall
wineandspiritthatcontainageographicterm,whichisnotrepresentativeoftheproductsorigin,even
ifthedesignationisnotmisleading.
e. Confusion1052(d)notprotected.Morelater.
f. PriorUse1052(d)marksmaynotberegisteredifconfusinglysimilartoanotherTmthatisinuseandhasnot
beenabandoned.Morelater.
g. FunctionalityDonotwanttogiveTmprotectionwherepatentlawisdenied
i. TestsofFunctionality
1. Docompetitorsneedtocopythefeatureinordertocompeteeffectivelyeitherbecausethefeatureis
functionallysuperiorormoreeconomical?
2. Isthefeatureutilitarianormerelyornamental?
ii. TrafFixDevicesv.MarketingDisplays(AfterMDIspatentforwindresistantstandingstreetsignexpired,
Traffixstartedtosellsimilarones)Fortradedresstobeprotectedunder1125(a)(3)thepartymustestablish
thattheelementofthetradedressarenonfunctional(nonessential/doesnotimpactqualityorcost).Court
saidthatpriorpatentwascriticalevidenceofutility.Dualspringfeaturewasfunctionalendoftheinquiry.
Featureisfunctionalifit:(1)affectscostand/orquality,(2)putscompetitorsatasignificantnon
reputationrelateddisadvantage
iii. CrescentToolCo.v.Kilborn&Bishop(crescentwrench)Wrenchshapewasessentialtotheproper
operationofawrenchintightplace,andthusfunctionalandunprotectable.
iv. AOLv.AT&TCorp4thCircuitupheldDistcourtrulingthatAOLcouldnottrademarkphraseYouHave
Mail.
v. AlsoseeOwensCorning(pinkinsulation)Colorservednoutilitarianpurposeanddidnotdeprive
competitorsofanyreasonablerightorcompetitiveneed.Blackenginepartsmightbeanotherstory.Whether
colorisfunctionalhingesonavailabilityofreasonablealternativecolorsinordertoavoidfetteringof
competition.
h. ForeignWordsPTOwilltranslateforeignwordstoEnglishtodeterminewheretheyfitonthemeaning
spectrum.SeeWeissNoodleCov.GoldenCracknelSpecialtyCo.(deniedTMHaLuskKa,whichliterally
meansnoodlesinHungarian.Rationale:Usuallytargetedtoethnicaudiencesthatknowthemeaningitsgeneric
tothem!Andlargersocietymayacquiretheculture(e.g.tortilla,notcornpancake).
i. Other(random)BarstoRegistration:
i. GoodsconsistingoftheflagsorcoatofarmsoftheUS,statesorforeignnation.1052(b)
ii. Markwhichconsistsofthename,portrait,orsignatureoflivingindividualwithouttheindividualsconsent,or
inthename,signature,orportraitofadeceasedPresidentduringthelifeofhiswidow,unlessshehasgiven
consent.1052(c)
X.

TrademarkRights
a.
b.

Ownership of Marks Refresher Timing (first to use; creation has nothing to do with it!), Bona fide usage,
Exhibit control over trademark. Use has to be open. If not trying to enter market, wont get protection.
General Lanham Act Rights/Benefits

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

c.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Prima facie evidence of the registered marks validity

ii. Nationwide constructive notice (1072) of the mark
iii. Registration can be used as a basis for obtaining rights in other countries.
iv. Protection against the importation of offending goods and against counterfeit goods
v. Only federally registered marks may use .
vi. Incontestability after five years
Geographic Limitations The TM doesnt confer rights outside the market in which it is actually used. GF junior
users in remote locations (like Harts Foods) may use the mark subject to holders proper showing of an intent to
use in that region.
i. Limited Area Defense -- 1115(b)(5):
a. Prior User w/ Continuous Use holder cannot acquire rights over merchants who used the mark
prior to the other partys federal registration.
b. Rights Frozen Registration will freeze the prior users rights, confining him to the location where
he was using the mark at the time it was registered + a modest zone of expansion.
c. Thrifty Rent-a-Car System v. Thrift Cars (Thrift opens rental business after Thrifty applied, but
before registration. NOTE: Thrift not protect by Lanham b/c no federal register and not involved in
interstate commerce) Thrift entitled to remain, but cannot expand business. Limited advertising
outside area not deemed sufficient to establish market presence. Mere desire to expand not enough.
Thrifty estopped from entering Thrifts market.
d. Dawn Donuts v. Harts Food (Hart foods using Dawn registered mark on baked goods; selling 60
miles apart) Dawn only allowed to enjoin concurrent uses which are likely to create confusion.
There was infringement, but because uses confined to separate trading areas (60 miles apart & people
likely to buy baked goods close to home), there was no confusion and no need for injunction or
damages. Hart Foods allowed to use until Dawn Donut begins use or shows concrete plans to
expand to region. Dissent (within majority opinion): Dissent would remand to see if adequate
policing of . How regular/thorough were the inspections? Was the inspector trained to perform the
task? Limited cancellation possible via 1119 (in whole or in part).

XI.

Infringement 1114 & 1125

a.

Basic elements
i. Use in commerce of
ii. a reproduction/counterfeit/copy of a registered mark that
iii. is likely to cause confusion, or cause mistake to deceive.

b.

Two Kinds of Infringement

i. Diversion of sales -- Ds use of causes consumers to buy Ds goods when they meant to buy Ps
ii. Damage to goodwill non-competing goods, but Ds has a confusingly similar mark that suggests an
affiliation where there is none

c.

Likelihood of Confusion Test (The Polaroid Factors)

i. Strength of Ps TM The stronger the mark, the more likely that consumers seeing the allegedly similar
mark will be confused
ii. Degree of similarity between Ps and Ds mark
1. Similarity of Appearance overall appearance
2. Similarity of Sound sounds of words, for example S.O. and Esso
3. Similarity of Meaning Mental image evoked by TM may overpower any differences between them (e.g.
Cyclone vs. Tornado; Cat vs. Gato)
iii. Proximity of goods or services Goods likely to be sold in the same or same kind of store/area
iv. Likelihood that P will bridge the gap How likely P is to begin selling the stuff that D is trying to sell.
Even if no immediate plans, the court might still consider Ps right to reserve that option in the future.
v. Actual confusion Not necessary, but highly persuasive.
vi. Ds good faith in adopting the TM Did D intentionally copy just to cash in on Ps goodwill?
vii. Quality of Ds product or services / channels If use their s in same or related services, then there is a
greater likelihood of confusion.
viii. Sophistication of the buyers The more sophisticated, and the more costly the services, the more careful
and exacting the purchasers will be, and less likely to be confused.

10

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

Lois Sportswear v. Levi Strauss & Co. (Lois imports virtually identical jeans from Spain) Uses Polaroid
Factors. Levis very strong mark. Virtually identical within . Both jeans. Protect Levis interests to enter
high-end jean market. Limited harm in US so far, but Ct. not willing to penalizing Levis for acting to protect
brand. Lois didnt do it on purpose, but intent doesnt matter. Lois is a good quality product, but that might
actually confuse consumers more!! Sophisticated buyers likely to be affected in the post-sale context more
affected by sight of stitching pattern.
McDonalds v. Druck and Gerner, DDS. (McDental) McDonalds owns very strong family of marks. 30%
of those surveyed were confused, and thats substantial. Similarity obvious. Proximity b/w eating and
dentistry, but McDonalds did not bridge the gap. Bad Faith dentists trying to capitalize on McDonalds fame.
d.

Initial interest Confusion (metatags) Brookfield Communications v. West Coast Entertainment ( WC used
Brooks TM Movie Buff as a metatag for movie site) There is no source confusion the sites are very clear
but by diverting customers like that, WC improperly benefits from Brooks goodwill. Issue of search costs on the
Internet.
i. Disclaimers sign/statement stating that the site is not associated with the TM (Welles dilution)
1. Courts tend to disfavor them because they dont believe that customers read/understand them.
2. Seen as too late to dissipate initial interest confusion
3. However, might be the only solution sometimes (e.g. two Budweiser beers)

e.

Secondary Confusion/Post-Sale consumer knows hes buying a fake, but those who see the goods in the
consumers possession are confused about their source. Could lead to injury of producers goodwill. We care about
subsequent viewers b/c they are potential buyers (Lois Sportswear)
i. Ferrari v. Roberts (body shells in the shape of the Dodge Spyder) -- Buyers knew it was just a shell, but
observers had no idea.
Reverse Confusion public assumes that the senior users products are really the junior users or that the former
user has become somehow associated to the latter.
Banff Ltd v. Federated Dept Stores (Banffs Bee Wear vs. Bloomies B Wear) Court found reverse confusion
because although Banff was the senior user, Bloomies was the bigger entity. Consumers who were initially aware
of Bloomies may believe that Banffs Bee Wear is infringing Bloomies B Wear. Bloomies use of the deprives
Banff of fair competition/reputation.

f.

g.

XII.

Contributory Infringement Vicarious liability if

i. Induced Infringement. Coke distributor tells restaurant manager to give his customers Coke every time
they order Pepsi without telling them. Manager is infringer. Distributor is contributory
ii. Knowingly aided infringement distributor continues to supply raw materials to someone he knows is
going to use them for infringement purposes.
iii. No duty to look for infringing activities, but once known, affirmative duty to correct/prevent
iv. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Labs (generic drug maker vicariously liable for pharmacists dispensing drug);
Lockheed Martin v. Network Solutions (NSI lacked the requisite control over the means of infringement)

Other43(a)Claims
a.
b.
c.

FalseEndorsementslookalikes(WoodyAllen,VannaWhiterobot)orsoundalikes(Waits)
ReversePassingOffwhenDsellsPsgoods,representingtheirsourceasfromD(plagiarismish).Testfor
passingoffvariesfrombodilyappropriationtomereconsumerconfusiondependingontheCircuit
FalseRepresentationsinAdvertisingrepresentationsthatDsgoodshavequalitiesthattheydonothave.
i. Elementsfora43(a)(1)(B)claim(injunctivereliefonly)
1. Dusesfalseormisleadingstatementsoffactinadvertisingaboutitsownproduct
2. Statementactuallydeceivedorhadthecapacitytodeceiveasubstantialsegmentofthetargetaudience
3. Deceptionwasmaterialinthatitwaslikelytoinfluencethepurchasingdecision
4. Dcauseditsgoodstoenterinterstatecommerce
5. Phasbeenorislikelytobeinjuredasaresult
ii. FalsityandMateriality
1. Mustdemonstrateeither
a. advertisementisliterallyfalse;or

11

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

b. advertisement,thoughliterallytrue,islikelytomisleadandconfuse
2. Unnecessarytodemonstrateintent
iii. BurdenofProofiscostly
1. IfDsimplyclaimsitsproductsaresuperiortoP:PmustshowDsproduct=orinferior
2. IfDclaimstestsorstudiesindicateitsproductsaresuperior,Psatisfiesburdensimplybyshowingthat
testsdidnotestablishthepropositionforwhichtheywerecited
AvonProductsv.S.C.Johnson&Son(JohnsonranadthatsaidOff!Skintasticwas100xbetterthanSkinSoSoft;
4outof5userspreferredOff!)Avoncouldnotdisprovethe4outof5language,andthe100xlanguagewas
dismissedasPufferyRoundnumbersareunderstoodasexaggeration.Avonneededtoshowsurveysproving
confusionbutdidnot.
XIII.

DefensestoInfringement
a.

Genericty
i. Associationbetweengoodsandcategory.LooktoseeiftheprimarysignificanceoftheTMtothepublicis
thecommonnameoftheproductorservice.Doeseveryoneneedtousethewordtocompete?
ii. Factors:
1. Competitorsuseofthemark
2. Plaintiffsuseofthemark
3. Dictionarydefinitions
4. Mediausage
5. Testimonyorpersonsinthetrade
6. ConsumersurveysLookathowmanypeopleidentifyTMvs.howmanyofthosefolkscanidentifythe
source(oratleastknowthatitsfromonesource)
iii. Afindingofgenerictyisntnecessarilytheendoftheline.Mightstillhaveapassingoffclaim!Maybesubject
tolabelingremedies.
InreDialAMattressOperatingCorp.(1888Mattress,andderivatives)TheGinntwoparttest:1)Genus
oftheword&2)Publicunderstanding.Forcompoundwords(e.g.Screenwipe),canevaluateeachofroot
wordsindividually.Butwithaphrase(likethecompoundletters/numbershere),mustlookatmeaningasa
whole.Shoppersdonotrefertoclassas1888Mattres;notgeneric.Competitionstillfreetouseother
pneumonicsandcanstillusethewordmattressinotherrespects.
AmericaOnlineInc.v.AT&TCorp.(AOLsYouveGotMailandBuddyListmarks)Declaredgeneric
andfunctionaltoo!Repeateduseofordinarywordsfunctioningwithintheirordinarymeaning.Cannotgive
AOLrightstothosewordsevenifassociationdevelops.
QualityInnsInternational,Inc.v.McDonalds(McSleepInns;aneconomyhotelconcept)Genericity.
Linguistsanalysisconsidered.Mc+wordiscoined&noveltoeacharticle;alwaysanallusiontoMcDonalds,
andnosingleindependentmeaningofMc.TheprefixMchasnotbecomepartoftheEnglishlanguagenor
isitbeyondMcDonaldscontrol.Abandonment.NoevidencethatsignalingstrengthofMcDsfamilyof
markshasdiminishedb/cof3rdpartyuses.Noabandonmentbecauseofdelayorlackofenforcementofin
thiscase.

b.

Abandonment1127Markisassumedabandonedifnotusefor3years.
i. DiscontinuedUsewithnointenttoresume.3yearhiatus=primafacieabandonment.TMholdercanrebut
presumptionbyofferingevidenceofintenttoresume.
Silvermanv.CBS,Inc.(SilvermanwantedtomakeAmosandAndyplay)CourtsaidA&ATMwas
abandoned:CBShadnotusedsince1966.AlthoughCBShadgoodreasonforkeepingitofftheair
(racism),mustintendtoresumewithinreasonablyforeseeablefuture(topreventwarehousingofmarks).
CBSbareassertionofpossiblefutureuseisnotenough.

12

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
Ferrariv.McBurnieCoachcraft(modelofFerrarihadnotbeenmadein13years)Noabandonment
eventhoughFerrarihadnointentionofresumingproduction.Ferrarishowedgoodwillassociatedwiththe
vehicleandevidenceofongoingpartssupportforvehicle.

c.

LossofDistinctivenessprotectspublicbecauseitassuresthatmarkssendconsistentmessages
i. NakedLicensing(withoutgoodwillattached)LicenseTMwithoutadequatesupervisionnoassurances
thatproduct/serviceswillretainoriginalcharacteristics,andriskconsumerconfusion.Toprotectagainstthis,
assignormustmakeroutineinspectionsorhavesomeotherqualitycontrolsysteminplace.DawnDonut.
1. Useofmarkbyrelatedcompanies(whereoriginalmarkholderexertssomecontrol)isOK.1055.
2. Unlike,trademarksrequireanongoingenterprise.So,ifbuyerofbankruptbusinessdecidesnotto
continueit,anyoneisfreetouseTM.Thisrulereducesvalueofmarksasinstrumentsforraisingcapital.

d.

Lachesknewwasusingthemarkbutdidntdoanythingaboutit.Thiscreatedrelianceinterests

e.

Fairuse/NominativeUseuseofamarkthatisusedfairlyandingoodfaithonlytodescribethegoodsor
servicesoftheownerofthemark.OftenfoundinParody,ComparativeAdvertisement,etc.
i. The3FactorTest1115(b)(4).mustprove
1. UsedinnonTMcapacity
2. Descriptiveofgoodsorservices
3. Fairlyandingoodfaithonly
Prestonettes,Inc.v.Coty(scentedfacepowders;usedTMsoftheperfumesusedonitslabels)Aslongas
itsnotusedtodeceivethepublic,suchuseofTMswasOK!
Playboyv.Welles(TerriWelles,PMOY)CanuseTMsimplytoIDaslongasnoimplicationof
sponsorship.WellesuseofPEIsTMswereallnominativeuses(ExceptforuseofPEIsmarkinthe
wallpaperofhersite).ShouldwouldbeunabletoIDherselfasapastPlaymateoftheYearifshe
couldntusethephrase.Simplydescriptiveofpastsponsorship,notcurrent.Andshehadadisclaimeron
there.Nominativeusesdonotdilute.
KPPermanentMakeupclaimedneedtousetermmicrocolortodescribemakeupproducts.
ii. TheNKOTBNominativeUseTest:
1. Theproduct/serviceinquestionmustbeonenotreadilyidentifiablewithouttheuseoftheTM
2. OnlysomuchoftheTMmaybeusedasisreasonablynecessarytoIDthegood/service
3. Theusermustdonothingthatwouldsuggestsponsorshiporendorsement.

f.

FirstSaleDoctrineAuthorizedinitialsaleexhaustsrighttomaintaincontroloverresale,andthusexhausts
protectionsoftheLanhamAct.Originhasnotchanged,andcustomersshouldnotbeconfused.
i. Policyconsumerwillbenefitbylowerpricing.
ii. MaterialDifferenceException.unauthorizedsaleofamateriallydifferentproductconstitutesinfringement.
Materialdifferenceisonethatconsumersconsiderrelevanttothedecisiontobuy.Lowthreshold.Theory
groundedincustomerconfusion.

Davidoff&Cie,S.Av.PLDInternationalCorp.(CoolWaterfragrancebatchcodesremovedandsoldto
discountUSretailers)Obviousetchingdegradetheappearanceofthebottleandmayleadtheconsumer
tothinkthatthebottlehasbeentamperedwith.THEMATH:AlternationaffectsgoodwillCreates
confusionSatisfiesMaterialDiffException=TMInfringment.Contrasttothehaircarecaseswhere
courtdidnotfindremovalofcodeswouldaffectbuyingdecision.Unlikehaircare,thefragrancebottleisa
bigpartoftheexperienceyouarebuying.
OriginalAppalachianArtworks(applyingMaterialDiffExceptionwhereCabbagePatchDollshad
adoptionpapersinSpanish).

13

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
g.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

Incontestability1115(b)Afterfiveyearsofregistration,mustassurePTOofcurrentuse(8affadavit)and
continuoususe(15affadavit)togetincontestablestatus.Ifdontfile8affadavitinyear5,PTOwillconsider
markabandoned:IncontestabilitygiveTMpresumptionofvalidity.
i. ChallenginganIncontestableMark
1. Cantgetcancellationbasedon:lackofdistinctivenessorsecondarymeaning,confusingsimilar,or
functionality
2. Availablegroundsforcancellation:Genericity,Abandonment,Obtainedthroughfraud,Deceptive,
scandalous,etc.
ii. DefensestoIncontestability1115(b):Fraud,Abandonment,UseofTMtomisrepresentsource,Fairuse,
Limitedterritorydefense,PriorregistrationbyD,UseofTMtoviolateantitrustlaws,Equity
ParkNFlyv.DollarPark&Fly,Inc.DeniedDollarschallengetoP&FsTM,becauseincontestable
markcannotbechallengedasdescriptive.Dissent:PshouldnotbeabletoenforceaTMasincontestablethat
shouldnothavebeenaTMinthefirstplaceduetolackof2ndmeaning.

XIV.

TheInternetandTrademarkLaw
a.

AntiCybersquattingConsumerProtectionAct(ACPA)1125(d)
i. Allowssuitifonecanshow:
1. InfringerhadBadFaithintentinusingTMwiththehopetobenefitAND
2. Theinfringerregisters,trafficd,orusesadomainnamethat:
i. IsidenticalorsimilartoTM;
ii. DilutestheTM;or
iii. IsaTM,word,ornameprotectedby18USC703
ii. BadFaithFactors
1. IPrightsofthedomainname(DN)registrant
2. WhethertheDNisthelegalnameoftheregistrant
3. WhethertheDNhadpriorlawfuluseswithgoods/services
4. RegistrantsintenttodivertcustomersfromlawfulTMownerssite
5. RegistrationofmultipleandidenticalorconfusinglysimilarDNs
6. OffertosellortransferDNfor$$withoutaprioruseorintenttouse
7. SupplyingBSinformationwhenapplyingforregistration
iii. Availableremedies:Injunctiverelief,Actualdamages,StatutoryDamages($1K$100KperDN)
iv. Inremactionavailablewhencannotbefound
1. InthejudicialdistrictinwhichthedomainnameauthoritythatregisteredtheDNislocated
2. Remedylimitedtothelossofthedomainname,unlessbadfaithshown

b.

InternetCorporationofAssignedNamesandNumbers(ICANN)
i. UniformDomainNameDisputeResolutionPolicy(UDRP,43(d))
1. CommenceproceedingsbyfilingacomplaintwitheithertheWIPO,NAF,DeC,ortheCPRInstitutefor
DisputeResolution.MustProve:
a. TheDNatissueisidenticalorconfusinglysimilartoitsTM
b. TheregistranthasnorightsorinterestintheDN
c. BadFaith
2. BadFaithFactors
a. AcquiredDNforpurposesofsaleoftransfer
b. Registeredittopreventsomeoneelsefromusingit
c. RegisteredDNtodisruptcompetitorsbusiness
d. Useddomainnametointentionallycauselikelihoodofconfusion
3. DefensestoBadFait
a. bonafideuseinconnectionwithproductoffering
b. registrantisknownbyDN,eventhoughitdoesnotownTM
c. Legitimatefairuseornoncommercialuse

14

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
4.
5.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
RemediesCancellingDNortransferofDNtoclaimant;NO$$damages
UDRPdoesnotprecludelitigation.
WalMartStores,inc.v.Wallmartcanadasucks.com(cybersquatting)UsesBally(Ballysucks)factors
forlikelihoodofconfusion:(1)similarityofthemarks,(2)evidenceofactualconfusion,(3)marketing
channelsused,(4)degreeofcarelikelytobeexercised,and(5)Dsintentinselectingmark.allowedto
keepdomainname:NomistakingsourceWalmartwasclearlynotasponsor.Criticsim/parody,not
promotinggoods.NominativeuseNeedtomentionWalmartinordertocritiqueit.Qualityof
criticismisimmaterialjustknowledgeofparodicnatureisenough.Nodemandforpayment.
Barcelona.comv.ExcelentismoAyuntamientoDeBarcelona(UnderUDRP,WIPOconcludedsitewas
confusinglysimilar/BFefforttoextort$$;orderedtransferofdomainnametoCity.Bcomthenfiled
actioninVAseekingrestorationofrights)SincetheCityCouncilhadnotregistereditsmarksintheUS,
Bcomwasheldtohavedonenothingunlawful.Inshort,onlyUStrademarkrightsareprotectable,even
thoughthedomainnamesystemisinternationalandforeignholderscanbehailedintoUSCourts.

XV.

DilutionThelesseningofthecapacityofamarktoidentifyanddistinguishgoodorservicesregardlesswhether
consumerconfusionexists.DilutionisallaboutTMpreservations,NOTabouttheconsumer.
a.

StateLawDilution
i. BlurringTypicallyhasverystrongmarks,andusesthesameorhighlysimilarmarkondifferent
goodsorservices.Blursthedistinctivenessofamarkbytryingtodisconnectassociationbetweenproductand
source.Basedonpropertylaw(valueofassociation).Factorsinclude:
1. Similarityofthemarks
2. Similarityoftheproductscoveredbythemarks
3. Sophisticationofconsumers
4. Predatoryintent
5. RenownoftheseniorTM
6. RenownofthejuniorTM
ii. Tarnishment(Disparagement)CreatesnegativeimageofTMthroughanassociationwithunsavory,
unrelatedgoods.Noneedtoshowconfusion.Maybeawaytopreventpeoplefromparodyingyourstuff!
(DebbiedoesDallas,EnjoyCocaine).

c.

FederalTMDilutionAct1995created43(c)oftheLanhamAct
i. RequirementsOwnerofafamousTMcanenjoinanotherscommercialuseif:
1. UsebeginsafterTMbecamefamous
2. Usecausesdilutiontothedistinctivequalityofthemark(actualharm)
ii. Famousfactors43(c)(1)
1. Degreeofinherentdistinctiveness
2. DurationandextentofuseofTMinconnectionwithgoods/services
3. Thedurationandextentofadvertisingandpublicity
4. Geographicalextentofthetradingarea
5. Channelsfortradeused
6. ThedegreeofrecognitionoftheTMinthechannelsoftrade
7. NatureandextentofuseofsimilarTMsby3rdparties
8. WhethertheTMwasfederallyregistered
NOTE:canbringstatedilutionclaimsagainstnonfederallyregisteredTM
iii. TimesMirrorMagazinesv.LasVegasSports(TheSportingNews)Howfamousistobejudgedwithin
nichemarket,notthegeneralpublic.

d. Otherlimitations43(c)(1)Threeusesofamarkareexemptfromadilutioncharge:

15

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

e.

XVI.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Fairuseincludingcomparativeadvertisement
ii. Noncommercialuse(Mattel)
iii. Newsreportingandcommentary.
Cases
i. RinglingBrothersv.UtahDivisionofTravelDevelopment(GreatestSnowonEarthonlicenseplates)
Toprovedilution,mustshow:1)Famousmark,2)Adoptionofmarkafteritwasfamous,and3)DdilutedPs
markbyblurringit.Inadditiontoprovingmentalassociation,courtsaidthatneedtoshoweconomicharm.
Ringlingdidnotdothis.OverruledbyVictoriasSecret
ii. Deerev.MTDProducts,Inc(JohnDeerelogobeingchasedbyMTDstractor)Injunctiongranted.
Competitorscanuseeachothersproductsincomparativecommercialsaslongasitis:1)Truthful,2)TMis
notaltered,and3)thepurposeistoocomparethemeritsofcompetingproducts.
iii. L.L.Bean,Inc.DrakePublishers(LLBeamsBackToSchoolSexCatalog)Parodyprivilegevs.the1st
Amendment.TMrightsonlyextendtoinjurious,unauthorizedcommercialuse.Here,usewasnon
commercial(editorial),parody,smallpartofthemagazine,notonthecover(nonID),andnotpromoting
goods.Cf.OriginalAppalachianArtworksv.ToppsChewingGum(GarbagePailKids).
iv. Moseleyv.VSecretCatalogue,Inc(VictorsLittleSecret,whichisonly5%lingeriesales!)Purposeof
43(c)istoprotectfamousmarksfromsubsequentusesthatblurandtarnish,whethertheresconfusionor
not.UnlikeRingling,noactuallossinsalesneeded(shouldntrequiretowaituntilmarktarnished),but
mereassociationisnotenough.ArmyguymadeassociationwithVictorias,butnoevidenceofany
lesseningofthecapacityoftheVictoriaTMtoidentifyanddistinguishgoods.Officermayhavebeen
offended,butconceptofVictoriasdidnotchange.Needtoshowactualdilution.
v. Mattel,Inc.v.MCARecords,Inc.(BarbieGirlsong)Aparodythatinvolvedthenormativeuseofthe
nameBarbie.Barbienotjustatoybutaculturalicon.UsedBarbienametosellrecords,butsongsocial
commentaryonBarbieimage.Courtconcludedthatitwasnotpurelycommercialspeech,andthereforefully
protected.Relieflimitedtoinjunction.

Remedies
a.

b.

c.

d.

f.

Injunctionsthetypicalanswertopreservestatusquoandprotectagainstconsumerconfusion.Shouldbeno
broaderthannecessary.
i. 1114(1&2)precludemonetarydamagesformanyinstanceswhereBFnotinvolved
ii. Remediesfordilutionarerestrictedtoinjunctivereliefunlesswillfulness
Damagespossibledamageslistedunder1117(a).Typically,mustshowwillfulintenttotradeonowners
reputationortocausedilutionoftrademark(Basch(yes);Sands(no)).
i. TheactualdamagessufferedbytheP.Mustshowthatbutforinfringement,hewouldhavemadespecific
salesthathedidnt.Hardtomeet.OR
ii. Thedefendantsprofits.Plaintiffmustonlyproveamountofdefendantssales,thenburdenshiftsto
defendanttoproveitscostsordeductions.NodoublerecoverycantgetDsprofitsandPslossofprofits!
iii. AttorneysFeesawardedonlyinexceptionalcases.ForPtogetfees,mustshowDsBF.ForDtogetfees,
hemustshowPslackofmeritinthecaseoranintenttoharass.
OtherOptions
i. Trebledamagesunder1117(a)notexceeding3x
ii. Cancellation/restorationofregistrations
iii. Destructionofmaterial
iv. PrejudgmentInterestCompletelywithincourtsdiscretion
v. Correctiveadvertising(doesthiseverhappen?)
vi. AntiCounterfeitingConsumerProtectionAct(ACCPA)1117(c)Increasedpenaltiesandstatutorydamages
available.
GovernmentImmunity
i. 1122nullifiestheFederalgovernmentsimmunityfromsuit,aswellastheStatesimmunityviathe11 th
Amend.
ii. But,unclearwhetherstatescanbesuedforinfringementafterFloridaPrepaid.
Standing

16

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

g.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Registration:Opposermusthavealegitimatepersonalinterestintheopposition,andheorshemust
reasonablybelieveintheclaimofpotentialinjury.Ritchiev.Simpson(RitchiechallengedOJsregistration
ofO.J.,THEJUICE,etc.becausethemarksdamagedhisvalues.Thiswasenoughtocreatestandingeven
iflotsofpeoplesharedthoseviews.)
ii. Infringement:Somecourtssay43(a)onlyappliestocommercialparties,andthusexcludesconsumers.
Otherssaycompetitionnotrequired,butdiscernibleinterestrequiredinfalseadvertisingactions.
Cases
i. GeorgeBasch&Co.v.BlueCoral(NEVRDULL(CAN)&EVERBRITE(USA))Inordertojustifyan
awardofprofits,mustestablishthatengagedinwillfuldeception.Baschnevershowedconfusionnor
salesdiversion.NoBadFaith.Likelihoodofconfusionwaslow,andonlyminimalaestheticremedies
necessary.Injunctionshouldbenobroaderthannecessary!Here,courtrequiredthatEVERBRITEchange
colorofthecanintheUS,andallowedittosellexistingstockw/outpenalty.Dissent:BlueCoral
intentionallycopiedmarkwithSecondarymeaning,createdconfusion,andscored$200K.Profitsare
reasonableinsuchcasesofunjustenrichment.
1. Inordertoreceivedamagesmustprove:actualconfusionORbadfaith
2. Policybehinddamages:Unjustenrichment,compensationforactualdamages,deterrence
ii. Sands,Taylor&Woodv.QuakerOatsCo.(GatoradesuseofSTWsTMThirstAid(TA))Quaker
actedinrelianceontheirlawyersbeliefthatTAwasuseddescriptively,notasTM.TAwasnotcurrently
usedonretailproducts,justinadvertisement.QuakerdevelopedThirstAidindependently,and$24Maward
waytoomuchofawindfallfor.Areasonableroyaltywouldhavebeenbetter.Remandedforaward
determination.NOTE:DamagesOKedhereeventhoughnoBadfaithConcurring:Royaltymightnotbe
enoughemphasisondeterrence.Dissent:$24Misonly10%ofprofitrealized.Whynot?Focuson
causation(ofprofits).
1. Followup:Onremand,Courtawarded$20M.2xthehypotheticalbaseroyalty.Deterrencerationale.
iii. LeverBros.Co.v.UnitedStates(Britishaffiliatessoapimports;LeverwantstokeepitoutoftheUS)No
evidencethatCongresswantedtolet3rdpartiesimportmateriallydifferentTMgoodsthataremanufactured
andsoldabroadbyaforeignaffiliate.Mereaffiliationwillnotcuretheconfusionbroughtonbythe
physicallydifferentgoods.CourtlimitsdecisiontojustLeverstwoproductsb/cLeverneveraskedfor
globalreliefspecifically.Theaffiliateexemptiondoesnotapplytoimported,physicallydifferent
products,bearingforeigntrademarkssimilartoU.S.trademarks(NOTE:decisionusesChevron
analysis)

17

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

PartIICopyrights
Copyrightsareavailabletooriginalworksofauthorshipthatarefixedintangibleform.
I.

General
a. Currentstateoflaw:

i. Protectionbeginsautomaticallyuponthefixingofthework.
ii. Registrationisoptional,butisaprerequisiteforfilinganinfringementsuit.
iii. Generally,protectionextendsforlifeoftheauthorplus70years.

b.

Purposes/Policy
i. Focusonthebenefitsderivedbythepublicfromthelaborsofauthors
ii. Incentivetocreatenewproducts
iii. LimitedmonopolyprovidestimeforadequateROI

c.

LegalBasisandTerms:

i. ArtI,Clause8:progressofscience.Originallyusedasprotectionforthemakingofmaps
ii. 1909actstillgovernsworkscreatedbeforeJanuary1,1978.
1. Term:28yearsfromtimeofpublicationplus28extension
2. Formalitites,protectionfrommomentofpublication
3. Statecommonlawprotectedunpublishedworks
iii. 1976ActNomoreformalities
1. Term:lifeofauthorplus50years(nowlife+70Seebelow)
2. ProtectionfromTimeofcreation
3. Abolishedstatecommonlaws
iv. 1998SonnyBonoAct20yearextensionlife+70
1. Iftheworkfellintothepublicdomainb/f1998,thisdoesntrevivethecopyright.SeeEldredv.Ashcroft
v. DMCA

d.

Currentformalities

i. Registrationnotmandatory.Advantages
1. primafacieevidencethatthecopyrightisvalidandthattheinfoonthecertificateistrue.
2. bringinfringementaction
3. statutorydamages+attorneysfees
4. 90daygraceperiodtoregister(frompublication)
5. burdenofproof(primafaciecase)
ii. depositfineifyoudontdeposit2copies
iii. Noticepsychologicalcomforttocreator
1. symbol
2. Nameofauthor
3. Yearofpublicationcanomitonpictographic,sculpturalworks

e.

Applicationprocess

i. Inspector
1. SubjectmatterWithinscopeofact(assignment8)
2. 2requirements:Originality,Authorship
ii. guidelines:compendiumofcopyrightofficepractice,circular37C.F.R202
iii. ruleofdoubtexaminershouldgiveitregistrationifcourtcouldreasonablyfindeligibility
iv. Jurisdictionisfederaldistrictcourtcangetprotectionevenifcourtrefusedregistration
v. Whenworkisregisteredw/in5yearsofpublication,thecertificateofregistrationisprimafacie

evidencethatthecopyrightisvalidandthattheinfoonthecertificateistrue.Constructivenotice.

18

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
f.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

International
i. UniversalCopyrightConvention1955LostimportancesinceAmericaadheredtoBern
ii. Bernconvention1893(USjoinedin1998)Binds90Countriestoaunitarycopyrightlawsystem

administeredbytheWIPO;NotselfexecutingstillgottagothroughtheCopyrightAct
1. LackofformalitiesPermissivenotice
2. Dualsystemwherebyregistrationisaprerequisiteforbringingaclaimforworksoriginating
intheUS,butnotforforeignworks!!!
3. Eliminatetherequirementofrecordingtransfers(butitsstillagoodideaifyouwanttoprovide
constructivenotice...andyoudo.
4. statutoryprioritytopartywhofirstrecords
iii. TRIPSagreementSection104Acopyrightautomaticallyrestoredtocertainforeignworksthatarestill
underforeigncopyrightprotection,butwhichhadfalleninUSpublicdomainduetolackofformalities

II.

ProtectableSubjectMatter(102)Requirements:
a. OriginalityAworkofauthorshipmustbeoriginaltothepersonclaimingprotection.Copyrightdoesnot
protectmerefacts.
i. Theauthormustnothavecopiedfromanother
ii. Mustdemonstrateaminimaldegreeofcreativity.

iii. Blaisteinv.DonaldsonLithography(circuspostercase)Verylittlecreativityrequiredforposte
iv. Hearnv.MeyersbookhadreportuctionsofsreproductionsoforiginalillustrationsfromWizardof
Ozbook(nowinpublicdomain).ReproductiondoesNOTsatisfyoriginality;slightvariationsarenot
enough.NOTE:originalitymaybemetbychangingmediumofexpression
a. BellBritishMezzotintengravingofoilpaintings;Changeinmediumrequiresjudgmentabout
showingdetails,creativity
b. MilworthConverting:3Dworkconvertedintoemobroiderty
c. AlvascalereproductionsofRodinsculptures,urnsontreatmentoftherearsideofthebase
v. Gracenv.Bradford(WizardofOzplates).BradfordhiresAuklandtomakeapaintingforcommemorative
platebasedonGracenspainting.Gracensuesfor.Courtrulesthatherpaintingisnotcopyrightable:Higher
originalitystandardforderivativeworks

b.

Fixation102(a)Aworkmustbefixedinanytangiblemediumofexpression.Doesntmatterhowaslong,
aslongasitsinstableformthatisreadablebymanormachine.Livetransmissionsareprotectediftheyare
simultaneouslyfixed(onvideotape,forexample).

c.

FactsandIdeasNOTprotected102(b)Protectstheexpressionofanidea,butnottheideaitself.

Onceworkisrevealed,ideainpublicdomain.Creatorcontrolsonlytheforminwhichtheideaisexpressed.
i. Mergerdoctrineinsomecasestheremaybesofewwaystoexpressanideathatthemodeofexpression
mergesw/theidea.Oftenfoundinutilitarianobjectsandgamesrules,etc.
ii. Blankformdoctrineaformthatconveysnoinformationandservesonlytoprovideblankspacefor
recordinginformationcontainsnoexpressionorsectionofinformationthatcouldpossiblywarrantcopyright
protection
iii. Creativityisawaytoescapebothblankformandmerger
iv. Cases:
1. Bakerv.Seldon(bookkeepingledger)Ledgersheetswerenecessaryincidentstothesystemof
accounting.Inordertousesystem,itwasnecessarytocopyauthorsexpression.Merger.
a. NOTE:Thiswasarevolutionaryadvance;Courtwastryingtokeepmethodinpublicdomain

19

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
2.

Cf.Kregosv.AssociatedPress(pitchingform)Notasystemforpredictingoutcomeofgames,but
simplyaselectionoffactsthatpeoplemightwanttoconsider.Manyvariationspossible.Nomerger,but
onlythinprotectionAPsformwasnoninfringingbecauseofslightdifferences
3. Feist(seebelow)compilationsoffactsareprotectedifarrangementshowsminimalcreativity.
4. Westv.LexisWestspenttimeputtingreporterstogether.Lexisprovidesonlineserviceofallthe
opinions.WestsuedLexisoverthepincitestoWestreporters.Westpaginationisthestandardforcourts
torefertocases.Insomestates(e.g.,Texas),Westcodifiedandnumberedstatutes.Courtconcluded
thatWestputinthecreativity,butCasesettled.
5. MatthewBendercaseWhensomethingbecomesadefactostandard,itbecomestoovaluabletobe
takenoutofthepublicdomain
v. ScenesaFairedoctrinesituationsinwhichthereisessentiallynootherwaytoexpressaparticularidea
exceptbyusingstandardelements.
1. Hoehlingv.UnivesalStudios(useofstandardGermanscene,songs,phrases)Impossibletodescribe
erawithoutthem.

d.

III.

Policy:Regulatingcontrolinotherwaysbesidesdenialofcopyright
i. LachesWhywasntWestguiltyofLachesinallowingjumpsitestobecomestandard?
ii. Copyrightmisuse(orantitrustliability)ifyourefusetodeal,itsamisues
1. WhenThompsonboughtWest,theyhadtohavemergerapprovedbyDOJ
2. refusedtoapprovemergeruntiltheydivestedownershipofpagesnumbers
3. goodfordealingwithproblemofholdouts
4. easiertoshowthanTMmisuse
iii. 107122compulsorylicensings
1. Fairuseprovision
2. Architecturalworks:usedtobeblueprintswereillegaltocopy,butcouldcopybuildings.AfterByrne
conventionhadtoprotectarchitecturalworks
3. 120specificcompulsorylicensetoallowpeopletoshowpicturesofcopyrightedbuilding
4. mustletowneralterordestroybuilding
iv. DatabaseProtectionSuigenericprotection,notyetinU.S.

CategoriesofAuthorship102(a)categorieslistedinstatute(notlimiting):
LiteraryworksLiteraryimpliesnoliterarycontent.Includescomputerprograms(code,GUI,and
commands),catalogs,databases,orapoemwrittenonpaperorrecordedontape.
b. MusicalworksFairlysettledmeaning.Includeboththeinstrumentalcomponentoftheworkandany
accompanyingwords.
c. DramaticworksFairlysettledmeaning.
d. PantomimesandchoreographicworksFairlysettledmeaning.Mustcontainoriginalroutines.
e. Pictorial,graphic,andsculpturalworks2Dand3Dworksincludingmaps,charts,diagrams,
models,andtechnicaldrawings.
i. Separability101Thedesignofausefularticlecanbeprotectedonlytotheextentthat
pictorial,graphic,orsculpturalelementsofthearticlecanbeidentifiedseparatelyfrom,andare
capableofexistingindependentlyof,theutilitarianaspectsofthearticle.Ifnot,maybecangeta
designpatent?
1. Physicalseparabilityifthesolefunctionoftheitemisutilitarian,thenyoucantprotectthe
wayitlooks.Butifautilitarianobjecthasartisticelementsthatcanexistindependentofthe
utilitarianfunction,thosepartscanbeprotected.
a. Maizerv.Stein(statuettesofBalinesedancersforbaseoflamp)Copyrightprotectsthe
artisticexpression,nottheutilitarianvalue.Youcanprotecttheusefularticle,butonlyto
a.

20

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

2.

theextentthatyoucanexcludeexactcopies,notthestyle.So,anyonecanmakelampsw/a
womanatthebase,justnotthesameBalinesedancerastheplaintiffs.
ConceptualseparabilityAbilityofartisticfeaturestoexistconceptuallyseparatefromutility
a. BrandirInternational,Inc.(bikerack)Aestheticformtoointertwinedwithfunction.
AdoptsDenicolaTestwithemphasisondesignprocess.Finalformwasaproductof
industrialdesign.
i. Concurrenceadoptsnewmantestordinaryreasonableobserver
b. Cf.KieselsteinCord(beltbucklescopyrightable;ornamentedsurfacesnotrequiredfor
utilitarianfunction
c. CarolBarnhard(mannequintorsosformnotindependentoftheirpurposeofdisplaying
clothes;dissentproposesseparabilityintheeyeofthebeholdertest);

ii. Motionpicturesandotheraudiovisualworks1)Aseriesofimages,2)thecapabilityof

showingtheimagesinsuccessiveorder;and3)impressionofmotion.Soundtrackssomehow
includedhere.
iii. SoundrecordingsWorksthatresultfromthefixationofaseriesofmusical,spoken,orother
soundsonamaterialobject.Notethatinrecordedmusic,thereisalsothecopyrightofthemusical
workitself(thescoreandlyrics).
iv. ArchitecturalworksProtectedin1990byAWCPA(additionsto102,102and120).The

designofabuildingasembodiedinanytangiblemediumofexpression,includingabuilding,
architecturalplan,ordrawing.Includestheformandarrangementofspaceandelements,butnot
individualfeatures.
1. Limitationsby120
a. Maymake/displayphotosorotherrecordingifthebuildingisordinarilyvisible,etc.
b. Ownersofbuildingmaymakealterationsordestroyitw/opermissionofcopyrightowner
2. Cases:Huntv.Pasternack(buildingneednothavebeenconstructedyet);Leicesterv.
WarnerBrothers(streetwallwaspartofeasilyvisiblebankbuildingandsubjecttobeing
photographedinBatman)

IV.

CompilationsandDerivativeWorks,Characters103
a.

Compilationthecollectionandassemblyofpreexistingmaterialthatarearrangedinsuchawaythattheresulting
workasawholeconstitutesanoriginalworkofauthorship(i.e.directoriesanddatabases).
i. FeistPublicationsv.RuralTelephoneSvc.(Feistcopied1,300namefromRuralsphonebook)Protection
ofafactualworkextendsonlytoitsoriginalselectionorarrangement.Analphabeticallistingoftelephone
subscribersandnumbersnotnearlyoriginalenough.Courtrejectedthesweatofthebrowdoctrine
(expenditureofresourcesentitlestoprotection).
ii. Cf.SecondCirinKeyPublicationsvs.ChinatownTodayPublishingEnterprises(originalityinarrangement
andselectionofbusinesslistingstargetedtoChineseAmericanNewYorkers).
iii. NYTCo.vs.JonathanTasini(freelancersarticleonLexis)Newspapernotpermittedtopublish
freelancersarticleinLexisdatabaseb/ceacharticleappearedasseparateitem,ratherthanaspartofeither
theoriginaleditionorarevisionthereof.See201(c).
1. NOTE:Timesnowjustrequireslicensefromauthorbeforepublication

b.

DerivativeWorksworkbasedupononeormoreoriginalworks(i.e.translation,motionpictureversion,or
abridgement).Derivativeworksareprotectedaslongastheunderlyingworkwas(1)usedw/copyrightholders
permission,or(2)wasinthepublicdomain.Onlythenew/originalpartsofthederivativeworkareeligiblefor
protection.

21

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Hearnv.Meyer(seeabove)slavishcopyofWizofOzreproductionHigherstandardoforiginalityfor
derivativeworks.
ii. Authorsusemaybesubjecttorenewaloforiginalownerscopyright.SeeStewartv.Abend
c.

V.

ProtectionofCharactersAreworksfeaturingcharactersfromothercopyrightedworksderivativeworksthat
mustbelicensed?Whatisthestandardforprotectionofcharacters
i. Andersonv.Stallone(AndersoncreatedRockyIVscriptbasedonStallonescomments)Courtholdsthat
Stallonescharactersaredelineatedsoextensively/soessentialtostorythattheyareprotectedfrombodily
appropriationintoasequelbyanotherauthor.Nopartofthisderivativeworkcopyrightableb/cpreexisting
workpervadesderivativeworkcouldnotbeseparated.
1. WarnerBros.v.CBSSamSpadewasnotcopyrightableCharacterisnotcopyrightableunlessit
constitutesthestorybeingtold.
2. Olsonv.NBCcharacterdelineationtestAndersonCourtseemstofavorthistest,buttheyevaluate
theRockyunderbothtests
ii. MGMv.HondaMotorCorpJamesBondandhistraitsarecopyrightableundereitherstorybeingtoldor
characterdelineationtest.
iii. WaltDisneyvAirPiratesDisneycharactersareprotectedbycopyright(animatedcharacters).Ambiguous
howthisaffectsdoctrine
iv. Cf.Silvermanv.CBS(AmosandAndyonBroadway)Broadwayproducercoulduseaspectsofcharacters
thathadfallenintopublicdomain(fromradioscripts),butcouldnotusefurtherdelineatedaspsectsfrom
worksstillprotectedbycopyright
v. PolicyIssues
1. Arrowsdisclosureparadox.Wouldgivingeachauthoracopyrightinhismaterial(blockingrights)
facilitatebargaining(Stallone)
2. Merchandising
3. Shouldtherebeamorelenientstandardforanimatedcharacters
4. Howdoesthisaffectfanfictionstoriesfansrightabouttheirfavoritecharactersoninternet?
5. Whatabouthangingpostersofcharactersinschoolclassrooms?

Ownership
a.
b.

c.

Typically,copyrightvestsinitiallyintheauthor,unless:
Jointworksworkpreparedbytwoormoreauthorswiththeintentionthattheircontributionbemerged
intoinseparableorinterdependentpartsofaunitarywhole.
i. Jointauthorsaretenantsincommonhavingequalundividedinterestinthework
ii. Intentionofauthorsiseverything.
iii. Childressv.Taylor(MomsMableyplay)Taylorcontributedresearchandmadeincidental
suggestions,butnoevidencethatherroleeverinvolvedintoanythingmorethanhelpfuladvice
giver.Lackofintentbybothparties.FactthatChildressrejectedcoauthorKnotdispositive.
ChildresswonsummaryjudgmentagainstTaylorforperformingnewversionofplay(modifiedby
anotherplaywright)w/ocreditingChildress.
iv. Thomsonvs.Larson(Rent;NYUprofessornotconsideredcoauthor)
Worksforhire101Theauthoristheemployerandisvestedw/copyright.Thereareonlytwo
waysaworkforhiremaycomeintobeing:
i. Employee(EE)vs.IndependentContractor(IC)Test.WhenaworkispreparedbyanEEinthe
courseofhisemployment,itsaworkforhireunder101(a)(1).EEstatusdeterminedbypartys
righttocontrolthemannerandmeansbywhichtheproductisaccomplished:
1. Levelofskill
2. Sourceoftools
3. Locationofthework

22

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Durationofrelationshipbetweenparties
Whetherhiringpartycanassignadditionalassignments
Extentofworkersdiscretion
Methodofpayment
Workersroleinhiringandpayingassistance
Isworkpartofregularbusinessofhiringparty
Whetherthehiringpartyisinbusiness
Provisionofemployeebenefits
Taxtreatmentofworker.

ii. 102(a)(2)IfmadebyIC,workforhiremustfallintooneoftheseninestatutorycategories

andbepreparedsubjecttoawrittenagreementindicatingthatitwouldbeaworkforhire.:
1. contributiontocollectivework,
2. partofamotionpicture
3. translation
4. supplementarywork
5. compilation
6. instructionaltext
7. test
8. ananswerstoatest
9. anatlas
iii. CommunityforCreativeNonviolencev.Reid(ReidcreatesnativitysculptureforCCNV)Reid

wasindependentcontractor:usedhisownoffice,undernodailysupervision,retainedforlessthan
twomonths,freedomtodeterminehisownschedule,compensatedlikecontractor,haddiscretion
re:assistants,etc.NOTworkforhirebecausenotoneof9categoriesof101(a)(2).NOTE:On
remanddecidedthattheywerejointauthors.

VI.

ExclusiveRightsgrantedtoownerby106Copyrightownermayexcludeothersfromdoinganyofthe
followingw/ohispermission:
a. ToreproducebymakingcopiesorphonorecordsSuchcopies(andderivativeworks)mustbeactual
reproductions,notmerelysimilar.114.
b. Topreparederivativeworksonlycopyrightownermaymakeatransformedversionoftheoriginalwork(or
licenserightstodosotoothers)
i. SeeStewartv.Abend(RearWindowCase)
c.

Todistributecopiesorphonorecordsofworkincludessales,rental,lease,orlending.
i. LimitedbytheFirstSaleDoctrine(109)Onceaparticularcopyorphonorecordofaworkhasbeen
sold,thebuyercandisposeofitashewishes;doesnotapplytolicenses.
ii. Imports.CopyrightdoesnotbartheunauthorizedimportationofdomesticallymadegoodsbackintotheUS.
1. QualityKingDistributorsv.LanzaResearch(importation)CAmanufacturerofhaircareproducts
unsuccessfullychallengedabilityofforeigncompanytoimportdomesticallyproducedhaircareproducts
backintoUSforresaleatdiscountretailers.Ifproductsweremadeabroad,mightfallunder602(a)
Courthasnotresolvedlatterissue.

d.

Toperformtheworkundercertaincircumstances
i. TraditionalpublicperformancerightOnlythecopyrightownermayperformtheprotectedwork
publicly.Publictransmissionsarealsoconsideredpublicperformances.

23

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. Thisrightdoesnotextendtosoundrecordings.Theownerofaphonorecordmaydisplayorplayit
publiclyw/oviolatingtherightsoftheownerofthecopyrighttothesoundrecordingbutstillmustget
permissionfromownerofcopyrighttothemusicalcompositionunderlyingthesoundrecording.114.
1. 110ExceptionsforMusicalWorks(includingunderlyingcomposition)
a. Charitable,religious,andotherperformances.
b. HomeStyleException.Notaviolationtoplaypubliclyonasinglereceivingapparatusofthetype
typicalinprivatehomessolongasthereisnochargeandtheperformanceisnotfurthertransmitted.
ThisallowsradioandTVinrestaurantsandbars,etc.FairnessinMusicLicensingAct:110(5)(b)
homestyleexemptionnowsetssquarefootanddeviceregulationsthatareprettyspecific.
i. ColumbiaPicturesv.ReddHorne,Inc.(videosrentedforinstoreboothviewingcontrolled
byemployee)Publicplacebecausestorewasopentothepublic.Therelevantplacewas
thewholestore,nottheindividualbooths.Whatifpatronscouldhaveoperatedvideoby
themselves?
2.

e.

VII.

PublicPerformanceViaDigitalTransmissions106(6)Exceptionwhichallowstherightof
publicperformanceofhighquality,ondemandsoundrecordings,butsubjecttoqualificationsin
114(d)whichcreatesexemptionsandcompulsorylicensesfornontraditionalbroadcasters(Internet
radio)andbackgroundmusicinbusinesses,etc.

TodisplaytheworkTheshowingofacopyoftheworkeitherdirectlyorbymeansofafilm,slide,television
image,oranyotherdeviceorprocess,etc.
1. Thisrightdoesnotextendtosoundrecordings.
2. Ownerofacopymaydisplayittopeoplepresentattheplacewerethecopyis.109(b).
3. Exemptionsforcharitable,religious,educational,andothernonprofituses.110.

MoralRights
a.

BerneConvention(joined1989)6Independentoftheauthorseconomicrights,andevenafterthetransferof
suchrights,theauthorshallhavetherighttoclaimauthorshipoftheworkandtoobjecttoanydistortion,
mutilation,oranyothermodificationof,orotherderogatoryactioninrelationto,thesameworkwhichwouldbe
prejudicialtohishonororreputation.
i. Durationissameascopyright(Germany,Netherlands)
ii. FranceMoralrightsareperpetual

b.

VARAActof1990(106A)Addstherightsofattributionandintegrity(andinsomecasestoprevent
destruction)tocopyrightincertainworksofvisualartonly:paintings,drawings,prints,sculptures,andcertain
photographicimagesthatexistin200orfewercopiessignedandnumberedbytheartist(doesNOTincludemovies,
charts,technicaldrawings,maps).Worksforhirenotincluded.Theserightscantbetransferred,butcanbewaived.
i. Attributiongrantsrightsto(1)claimauthorshipofthework,(2)preventhisnamefrombeingattachedtoa
workhedidnotcreate,and(3)preventuseofhisnameiftheworkhasbeenmodifiedinsuchawaythat
wouldprejudicehishonororreputation.
1. Unlikeintegrityrightbelow,alterationsneednotbeintentional
2. DoesNOTincludenegativerightstoanonymityorpseudonymity
a. DMCAcreatesadefactorightofattributionintheInternetEnvironment.
ii. Integritygrantsrightsto(1)preventanyintentionaldistortion,mutilation,oranyothermodificationthat
wouldprejudicehishonororreputation,and(2)preventthedestructionofaworkofrecognizedstaturebyan
intentionalorgrosslynegligentact.
1. NOTE:NOdefinitionsforprejudice,honor,orreputation.
iii. Exceptions
1. Nocoverageifmodificationistheresultofthepassageoftimeorinherentnatureofmaterials

24

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
2.
3.
4.

Integrityrightnotviolatedifmodificationistheresultofconservationeffortsorofpublicpresentation,
unlessgrossnegligenceinvolved
IntegrityandAttributionrightsdonotapplytoreproductions106A(c)
Nocoverageifworkcannotberemovedfromabuildingwithoutbeingmutilatedandartistconsentedto
installationbeforeJune1991

iv. VARADuration
1. workcreatedafterJune1991(effectivedate)lifeofartist.
2. createdonorbeforeJune1991(andartiststillholdstitle)samedurationascopyright
3. workcreatedbeforeeffectivedateandnotitle,norightsatallunder106A.
4. Jointworkslifeoflastsurvivingauthor
5. Alltermsruntoendofcalendaryearinwhichtheywouldexpire
v. PreemptionVARApreemptsequivalentrightsatstatelaw(301(f)),unless
1. actionsstemfromundertakingthatstartedbeforeeffectivedate
2. violationofrightsthatarenotequivalenttothosein106A
3. violationofrightsthatwillextendbeyondthelifeoftheauthor
a. NOTE:Statesfreetoprotectposthumousmoralrights.
c.

NOTE:ProfessorKwallpresentsargumentthatthereispotentialformoralrightsunderCopyrightActof1976
i. 106(2)derivativerightsmaybeusedtocontrolworksbasedonauthorswork
ii. 506(b)beneficialownerwhogaveuptitleinexchangeforroyaltiesmaybringinfringementactions.
Sinceallcreatorsretainpotentialeconomicinterestintheirworks(seeterminationprovisions),maybeable
toextendmoralrightstoallauthors.

d.

Gilliamv.ABC MontyPythongrantedreliefwhenABCeditedtheirskitssoastoputcommercialsinthemiddle.
RighttoeditdidnotexistinoriginalBBClicense(ABCwassublicense).CourtreliedheavilyonBBClicensing
terms.Limitedimplicationsformoralrightsw/ocontract,butsilentcontractlimitslicenseefromextensiveediting.
Couldthisbereliedonbyanauthorwhogivesstudiorightstomakeamoviebasedonherbook?

e.

Cf.Dastarv.TwentiethCenturyFoxFilmCorp.(EisenhowerWWImemoirsTVseries)EisenhowersWWII
memoirsbookgetsrenewedcopyright,butFoxTVSeriesinpublicdomain.FoxreacquiresTVrightstodistribute
CrusadeTVseries,butDastartakesmaterialfromoldseries(changesvoiceovers,etc.)andmarketswithout
attribution/permissionformFoxorbookowners.
i. CourtholdsDastardidnotviolateLanhamAct43(a)originsmeansingredientsthatgointothebox;
Wouldhavetogotoofarbackinthepasttofigureouttheoriginsandassociatetoomanynameswithwork
ii. Catch22IfDastarhadputFoxsnameonthis,Foxwouldhavesuedunder43(a)forfalsesponsorship!
iii. BottomlinemoralrightsnotwellprotectedinUS

VIII.

DurationofCopyright
a.
b.

c.

SonnyBonoCopyrightTermExtensionAct(1998)Added20yearstothecopyrighttermthenineffect.Went
fromlifeplus50tolifeplus70.Doesntrevivecopyrightsalreadyexpiredin1998.
The1976Act(includingSonnyBono)ForworkscreatedonorafterJan.1,1978,effectivelyeliminatedrenewal
conceptinfavorofsingletermforlifeofauthorplus70years.
i. jointauthorshiplifeofthelongestsurvivingauthorisused.
ii. workforhire,writtenanonymouslyorpseudonymously,thenthelesserofeither(1)95yearsfromthedateof
publication,or(2)120yearsfromthedatetheworkwascreated(302(c)).
The1909ActProtectionbeganatthetimetheworkwaspublished.Copyrightwasforatermof28years,
renewableforanother28years.Eveniftheauthorassignedthecopyrightduringthefirstterm,hewasentitledtothe
benefitofthesecondterm,unlessheassignedthattoo.Butiftheauthordiedduringthefirstterm,evenifhehad
assignedtherenewalterm,itaccruedtohisheirs.

25

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Transitiontermsofthe1976ActWorkspublishedbefore1923areinthepublicdomain.Works
publishedb/t1923and1963areentitledto28yearsplusrenewaltermof67years(effectivelyadding39
moreyearsthanbefore),butonlyifcertainrenewalproceduresarefollowed.Workspublishedb/t1964and
1977get28yearsplusautomaticrenewabletermof67yearswithnoformalprocedures,butthereare
advantagestoformallyrenewing.Seemoreonrenewalbelow.

IX.

RenewalandTermination
a.

CopyrightRenewalActof1992
i. PermissiveRenewalIfsecuredb/w19641977,RenewalActconfersrenewalautomaticallyfor67
additionalyearswhenfirsttermends.304(a).
1. Pre1964worksnotaffected.Renewalrightinapplicabletopost1977works.
ii. ClarifyingvestingdateIffilerenewalapplicationin28thyear,renewaltermwillvestinauthor,evenifhe
diesthatyear.Ifnoapplicationmade,renewaltermvestsinauthorssuccessors.
iii. Incentivestoregister
1. Iffileinthe28thyear,theauthorsfirsttermgrantsofrenewalrightstoexploitderivativeworksare
nullifiediftheauthordiesbeforetherenewalterm.
2. Ifnorenewal,derivativeworksfromfirsttermcanbefreelyexploited,butnonewderivativeworkmade
afternewtermbegins
3. Primafacieevidenceastovalidity.Failuretofileatimelyrenewalregistrationlimitsremedies.
Stewartv.Abend(Hitchcockfilm)Assignmentofrenewalrightsbyauthordoesnotdefeattherightof
thesuccessorstothoserightsiftheauthordiesbeforetherenewalrightsvest.Inthiscase,Courtwouldnot
grantinjunction,butwouldawardmonetarydamagescompulsorylicense.
NOTE:Inthiscase,successorsrenewedin28thyear,butifNOtimelyregistrationfiled,aderivativework
madepursuanttothegrantcanstillbeexploited,butnonewderivativeworkcanbemadeafterthenew
termbegins;see203(b)(1)&304(C)(6)(A).

b.

TerminationofTransferofCopyright
i. Terminationunder203(Appliestotransfersmadepost1/1/1978)
1. Canrenegotiatewithassigneeafter35Years203(a)(3)providesthatagrantmaybeterminatedby
qualifiedpersonatanytimewithina5yearterminationwindowopening35yearsafterthe
transferisexecuted.
a. PublicationException:35yearsfromdateofpublicationor40yearsfromdateofexecution,
whichevertermendsearlier
b. Mustgivenoticebetween2and10yearspriortodatewithinthewindow
2. UseofDerivativeWorkunderoriginalgrant203(b)(1)mirrors304(C)(6)(A).Ownerofa
derivativeworkpreparedunderagrantoftheunderlyingworkmaycontinuetoutilizethederivative
workaftertermination,buttheownerofthederivativeworkcannotpreparenewDWonceinitialgrant
terminated.
3. MillsMusic,Inc.v.Snyder(assignmentofsongrightsforroyalties;304protectsauthorsandpublic
accessibilitytoderivativeworks;productionCo.gottokeeptheirshareoftheroyalties)
ii. Terminationunder304(Appliestoworksthatwereintheirrenewaltermon1/1/1978)
1. SecondChance304(c)allowsauthororsurvivorstoterminategrantsofrenewalterminterestsmade
before1/1/1978totakeadvantageofthe39yearbonusperiod
2. Anyfurthergrantofrightscanonlybemadeaftertheeffectivedateoftermination,unlessreturnedto
originalgrantee(canthenbemadeafternoticeoftermination).

X.

Infringement
a.

Ingeneral:Mustshow
i. avalidcopyrightand
ii. illicitcopying.

26

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
1.

Toproveillicitcopy,needcopyingandimproperappropriation.Arnsteinv.Porter;MichaelStillman
v.LeoBurnettCo.(silentcommercial;providestherule).

b.

Copyingcopyingrequiresashowingof:
1. Accesstotheworkrequiresthereasonableopportunitytoviewand/orknowabouttheplaintiffs
work.However,mereprobabilityofaccess,basedonmereconjectureorspeculation,isnotenough.
Accessisoftenprovenbyinference.Notethatinfringementrequiresnointentandcanbeaccidental.
2. SubstantialsimilarityPurelyfactualissueofwhetherthedefendantusedtheplaintiffsworkasa
startingpointforhisown.Comparedintheirentiretyincludingideas,procedures,ortechniques.
Arnsteinsaysyoucanuseexpertsheretoo.
a. strikingsimilarityIfyoucantproveaccess,youmayhavetoproveahigherlevelofsimilarity
thatprecludesanyotherexplanationbutcopying
i. BrightTunesMusicCorp.v.Harrisongs(theMySweetLordcase)Unquestionableaccess
tohitsong,andvirtuallyidentityofmusiccompelledafindingofsubconsciouscopying;
3. ThreeBoysMusicCorp.v.Bolton(BoltonsongsubstantiallysimilartothatofEisleyBrothers,but
weakeraccessargument)
4. Steinbergv.ColumbiaPictures(theMoscowontheHudsonpostercase)heretherewascopyingof
theoverallstyleofthework.

c.

Improperappropriationimproperappropriationrequiresashowingof:
i. Copiedmaterialwasprotectedcopiedfacts,scenesafair,clichdlanguage,commonthemesand
metaphorsarenotprotected.
ii. NewworkissubstantiallysimilartoprotectedworkHere,substantiallysimilarreferstotheultimate
legalissueofwhetherthedefendantviolatedthecopyrightlawsbyreproducingprotectibleexpression.

d.

Testsforsubstantialsimilarity:
i. Abstractionstestearly2ndCircuittest,LearnedHandcomparestheitemstakenasawholeand
decideswhetherornotprotectedelementsarereallysubstantiallysimilar
1. Arnsteinv.Porter(2ndCir.1946)seminalcaseforcopyrightinfringementin2ndCir.Usesstandard
ofordinarylayheareranalyticdissectionandexpertwitnessesareirrelevant.
2. Nicholsv.UniversalPicturesCorp.(2ndCir.1930)AbiesIrishRosemixesupafewfacts.Court:
Stockcharactersfloatintothepublicdomain.Lessdevelopedthecharacters,thelesstheygetprotection
NOTE:Dictaonexpertsexpertsjustconfusetheissueonthingslikethis
ii. Refined2ndcircuittestbreakitdownbythesteps.InComputerAssocaitesv.Altai(programmer
comesovertoAltaiandbringscode.Figureditoutandrewritethecodefromacleanslate).Applied
abstractiontesttofind:NOTsufficientsimilarity
1. Abstractiondissectionofcopyrightedprogramstructuretoisolateeachlevel
2. FiltrationUsemergerdoctrinetofilteroutanumberofthings:
a. elementsofprogamthatweredictatedbyefficiency(merger)
b. elementsdictatedbyexternalfactors,e.g.Mechanicalspecsofcomputers,compatibility,
c. DemandsofindustryAcceptedprogrammingpractice
d. stock/standarddevices(ScenesaFair)
e. elementstakenfrompublicdomain
3. Comparisoncompareremainingelementstodetermineinfringement
a. Wasprotectedexpressioncopied?
b. Assessrelativeimportanceofwhatwascopiedtooverallprogram
4. Policyconsiderations:Isthisamoreformalversionofpreviousversion?Shouldthetestbedifferent
forcomputerprograms?
5. NOTE:Thistimeexpertwitnessesarerelevant
iii. 7thand9thCircuitTestExtrinsic/IntrinsicDreyfusdoesntunderstanditherself

27

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.

6.

e.

XI.

Subtractiveapproach(Extrinsic)Dissection.Determinewhichidea/expressionfeaturesofworkare
protectedandignorethosethatarenot.Then,determinewhethertherearesubstantialsimilaritiesb/w
whatsleft.Canuseexperttestimony.
Totalconceptandfeelapproach(Intrinsic)Dontseparateprotectedfromunprotected(wellmaybe
alittle),butgenerally,lookatthewhole.Testforsimilarityofexpressionfromstandpointofordinary
reasonableobserver.
SomeCourtsseemtomixthetwo.Firstdodissection(Extrinsicportion),thencompare(intrinsicpart)
AppleComputerv.Microsoft(9thCir.1995):ApplelicensesGUIouttoMicrosoft,whoreleasenew
versionofitsGUI.Mergerconcernsleadtothincopyright:Onlysomanywaystouseaniconmetaphor;
Tiledoroverlappingwindowsareonlytwooptions.
a. Extrinsic/intrinsictest
i. Extrinsicobjectiveprong:determinewhatsprotectedandignorewhatisnt,consultexperts
ii. intrinsicsubjectiveprongstandpointofordinaryreasonableobserver
b. Holdingextrinsicfilteringtestworksforthiscase
c. Sometimesreferredtoasmorelenientvirtualidentitytest
Stillmanv.Burnett(N.D.IL,1989)DesignerofSilentEasternAirlinescommercialpitchesideato
Unitedwholaterdoestheirownsilentcommercial.Holding:wholegreaterthansumoritsparts!!
a. Slicesitallupnoneofitisprotectable
b. Putbacktogether,itmightbeprotectable(creativearrangementandinteractionmaybeprotectable).
ReasonablepersoncouldconcludethatUnitedcommercialevokessimilaryresponse
SeeKohusv.Mariol(6thCir2003)(playgroundlock)Seemstoemploybothintrinsicandextrinsic
tests.Focusonperspectiveofintendedaudience.Experttestimonymaybenecessarywhenend
purchaserpossessesspecializedknowledge.Employs2steptest:
a. Filteroutunprotectedelements;
b. Deteremineifprotectedtestsareinfringingordinaryreasonablepersonisdesignedforlay
audienceswhopurchasetheproduct.Whentargetaudiencepossessesspecializedexpertise,consider
similarityfromspecialistperspective

InterimInfringement(ReverseEngineering)permissiblewhenitstheonlywaytogettounprotectedelements
thatwouldallowcompatability.
i. Cleanroomdefenseshouldtherebeinfringementwhenprogrammerotherthanintermediatecopierwrites
newprogramusingintermediatecopiersspecificationbutneverseesoriginalcode.
ii. Segav.Accollade(9thcir.1992)AccoladereversedengineeredtheSegasystemsotheycouldmakegame
cartridgestoworkonSegasystems.Firsthadtodecompliesourcecode,thencreatedmanualwithfunctional
descriptionsofinterfacerequirements.Inordertoachievecompatibilitycopiedportionofcodeintoitsown
gamessothattheydisplayedSegaTM.
1. Intermediatecopyingofcodecouldconstitutecopyrightinfringement,butthatsnottheissuehere
2. CourtfindsFairUsedisassemblywastheonlymeansthroughwhichAccoladecouldgainaccessto
unprotectedaspectsoftheprogram.
iii. SeealsoSonyComputerEntertainmentv.Connectix(9thCir.2000)intermediatecopyingwasfairuse
forscopyingsoftwareprogramthatoperatesPlaystationinordertomakeconsolethatuserscoulduseto
playSonygamesoncomputerinsteadofTV.
iv. WIv.WIREdatawasmultiplelistingserviceseekingtoobtainsdataforspecificlpropertiesforuse
bybrokers.Segawouldprotectthemiftheyneededtomakeacopyofentireprotectedcompilationinwhich
rawdatawascontained.

FairUse
a.
b.

affirmativedefensethatallowsotherwiseinfringingusesofprotectedworks,usuallyforeducationalpurposes,
reviews,comments,criticisms,etc.Ineffect,providessubsidytoconsumeratauthorsexpense!!
4categoriesofFairdealing,basedonBritishCases(purejudgemadelaw)andAlanLandmanarticle

28

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Incidentalusemusicisntthereforitself;itstheretosetascene(e.g.,1940smusicopeningBrighton
BeachMemoirs)
ii. CriticismCriticsoftenquotefrombooks.Courtssaytakethegoodwiththebad
iii. ParodyMadMagazineexception;Madneverlostacase
iv. ProductiveUsesworksmayhavehighsocialvalue,butcopyrightholderwontsell
c.

FourFactorTestfoundin107
i. ThepurposeandcharacteroftheusePrivate,noncommercialuseismorelikelyfairusethan
commercialuse.Notwhetherthesolemotivationismonetarygain,butwhetheruserstandstoprofitfrom
exploitingcopyrightwithoutpayingforit.
ii. ThenatureofthecopyrightedworkFactbasedworksmoresusceptibletofairusethanworksoffiction.
iii. TheamountandsubstantialityoftheportionusedThelessthatscopiedw/opermission,themorelikely
itsfairuse.Neednotbea%analysis;takingtheheartofworkwillnotbefairuse(unlessitsaparody).
iv. ThemarketeffectonthecopyrightedworkIfmarketvalueisdestroyedbyfulfillingdemand,etc.then
nofairuse.SeeminglyMostimportantfactor..
v. Harper&Rowv.TheNation(theFordautobiography;Timepurchasedprepublicationrights,butNation
scoopsTime,andTimecancelledagreement)
1. Authorsrighttocontrolfirstpublicappearanceofunpublishedworkoutweighsfairuse.
2. Nolegitimatenecessitytopreemptfirstpublicationrights.Lackofgoodfaith.
3. Nationsuseexceededthatnecessarytoconveyfactssmall%,butheartofthebook(Fords
distinctiveexpression!).
4. Actualharmofcontractcancellationeffectonmarketforbookpreviewwasdestroyed
vi. AmericanGeophysicalUnionv.TexacoInc.(scientificjournalcopiesmadeby400personcorporationnot
fairuse);
vii. PrincetonUniversityPressv.MichiganDocumentServices,Inc.(copyshopsfailuretoobtainpermission
forexcerptsincoursepacks).Usewascommercialeventhoughultimateuserswerestudents/becausenot
gettingpermissiongavecopyshopacompetitiveedgeoverothershopsthatpaidroyalties.Damages
enhancedforwillfulness.Wanttogivepublishersincentivetoprintscholarlypieces.

d.

FairUse,ContributoryandVicariousLiability
i. SonyCorp.ofAmericav.UniversalCityStudios,Inc.(UsingbetamaxtotapeTV;timeshifting)
1. Analogytopatentlaw:toavoidliability,theremustbesubstantialnoninfringinguse.
2. Onlytwofactoranalysisused:(1)Commercialcharacterofactivityand(2)Effectonmarket.
3. Courtsaysviewerswereinvitedtowatchfreeofchargenoncommercial,privatehomeuse.
4. Universalsharmsclaims(FFcommercial,videorental)purelyspeculative.
5. TimeshiftingenlargesTVaudience,andextendingpublicaccesstofreeTVissocietalbenefit.
Further,Sonynotinapositiontocontroluse,nordiditencouragecopying
6. Dissent:Whereproposedworkisunproductive,onlyneedreasonablepossibilityoffutureharm.
Veryoriginalprogrammingcopied,andinitsentirety!Studiosentitledtosharebenefitsofnewtime
shiftingmarketconsumershouldnotbegivensubsidyatauthorsexpense
ii. A&MRecordsv.Napster,Inc.P2PsystemforfilesharingisNOTfairuse
1. Commericaluseevenifcopiesnotofferedforsale(citingWorldwideChurch(religioustexts));
Receivedfinancialbenefitsfromaneverincreasinguserbasethatwasdependentontheavailabilityof
infringingmaterial.
2. Filesnottransformed,merelycopiedintheirentirety.Notsampling.NotSpaceshifting.
3. Harmtomarket:CDsales,licensingagreements,andadverseaffectondigitaldownloadmarket.
4. ContributoryInfringement.Napsteractuallyknewthatuserswerecommittingcopyrightinfringement
anddidnothingtoblockaccess/removematerial,andmateriallyassistedusersbecausetheycouldnot
sharethefileswithouttheNapsterwebsiteandsoftware.

29

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
5.

VicariousLiability.Napsteractedinasupervisorycapacitybyterminatinguserswhenitreceived
complaints.Policepowerlimitedbysystemacrchitecture(didntreadcontentoffiles),BUTforsystem
towork,titleshadtobereasonablycorrect.Napstercoulddonesomething!!
iii. MGMv.GrokstercontributoryinfringementandNOTfairuse.P2PnetworkwasoutsideofGroksters
control,andthusthecourtfoundnovicariousliability.Grokstercouldshutdowntheirdoorsandpeople
wouldstillbeingcopyingawayactingindependently.
e.

XII.

OtherDefenses
a.
b.
c.
d.

XIII.

Parodies(FairUsecontinued)satiricaluseofwork.Centralpurpose:whetherthenewworkmerelysupersedes
theobjectsoftheoriginalcreation(Folsomv.Marsh),orinsteadaddsomethingnewwithafurtherpurposeor
differentcharacter.Transformativeinquiry.LookatfourFairUsefactorsandbigpicture.
i. TheFolsom/AcuffParodyTest
1. Canwereasonablyperceiveparodiccharacter?
a. Howmuchisnecessaryforparodytoconjureuporiginal?Mayonlytakewhatisnecessaryso
thataudienceknowswhatyouareparodying.
2. Whatisthevalueofmaterialsused?(Acuffvirtuallyignoredthisportion
3. Arethequantityandvalueofmaterialsusedmorethannecessaryforparody?
a. Howsubstantialwascopying?Verbatim?Parodicworksmustbeabletotakeheartoforiginalto
makeitspoint.
ii. Campbellv.AcuffRoseMusic(2LiveCrewBigHairyWoman)2LCtookfirstlineoforig.andthen
useddifferentlyrics.Notacaseofmereduplicationforcommercialpurposes;transformative.Harm
unlikelywhenparodyandoriginalservedifferentmarketfunctionsOverturnsummaryjudgmentand
remandtodetermineiftherewasmarketforrapversionofPrettyWoman.Distinguishbetweencriticism
thatsuppressesmarketdemandandamarketsubstitutewhichusurpsit.
iii. SuntrustBankv.HoughtonMifflinCompany(TheWindDoneGonecritiquestheGWTWsdepictionof
slavery)Acommercialproduct,butahighlytransformativecriticalstatement.Didnttakeanything
thatwasntforparodicpurposes.Noextralatitudeforimportantworks.TWDGwillnotactasamarket
substitutemaybeevencomplement!

Lacheswhereunreasonablydelayedbringingsuitandwasprejudicedbythedelay.
Estoppelaidedincommittinginfringingacts,orinducedorcausedtheirperformance
Uncleanhandseitherparticipatedininfringingactsorcommittedsomeotherfraudortransgressionwhich
resultinharmto
CopyrightMisuseAmorepolicybaseddecision.Typically,couldonlybeusedasdefenseafterantitrust
violationhasbeenshown,butnewlifebreathedintoitlately.

PublicAccessandFirstSaleDoctrine
a.

b.

c.
d.

109(a)FirstSaledoctrineoncelawfullymadecopyofcopyrightedworkissold,rightholderhasnocontrol
oversubsequentsalesordispositionsofthatparticularcopy
i. Licensev.Salesoftwaremanufacturerssetupagreementsaslicenses,ratherthansalesagreements.
ii. digitalfirstsalerightnotspecificallyin109(a),butunlessenacteddoctrinewillbecomeobsoletein
environmentwherecontentsofcopyrightedworkarebeingdisseminatedelectronically.(DMCA
commissionedstudyrejectedneedforthis)
109(b)RecordRentalAmendAct(1984)andComputerSoftwareRentalAmendAct(1990)
i. Recordrentalexceptiontofirstsaledoctrine;precludesrental,lease,orsendingofrecordsfordirector
indirectcommercialadvantage
ii. Computerrentalrentalofsoftwarew/ocopyrightownerpermissionisinfringement.
117makesecondgenerationcopyofcomputerprogramONLYifessetnailstepinutilizationofcomputerw/
machine,orforarchivalpurposesonly
AudioHomeRecordingActrequiresinclusionofSerialCopyManagementSystem(SCMS)indigitalaudio
taperecorders(DATs)SCMSallowsdigitialdigitalcopiesofCDsbyDATs,butpredcludesdigitaltodigital

30

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

e.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

copiesofcopies.Unlimitedfirstgenerationcopies,butoutlawssecondgenerationcopies.DATtechnologynota
significantoportionofelectronicsmarketplace.
602(a)unauthorizedimportationofcopiesacquiredoutsideUSinfringescopyrightownersexclusiverightof
distributionunder106.Doesntcountforreimportationofdomesticmadegoods(SeeQualityKing)

XIV. DigitalMillenniumCopyrightActof1998Exchangesserviceproviderliabilityprotectionsforsafeguards
andotheractionstoprotectcopyrightedmaterialandpreventongoinginfringement.Copyrightownersinbetter
negotiatingpositiontoextractvalue/promisesfromusersifuserscanaffordit.[PolicyissueIfconsumerscant
affordtopaymore,arewereducingpublicaccesstoomuch?]
a. TitleI:WIPOTreatiesImplementationChapter12:
i. Publicaccess
1. 1201(a)basicprohibitiononaccesscircumvention(breakingintothecastle),aswellaspovisiion
prohibitingtraffickingthatfacilitatesaccesscircumvention.
2. 1201(b)additionalviolationssubsectionthosewhofacilitateconductamountingto
cirucumventingtechnologicalmeasuresusedbyowner(Elcom)
a. Onlytraffickingisillegal;notpersonaluse.(Elcom)
b. DMCAdoesntapplytoprohibiteduseofworkonceinlawfulpossession(normalinfringement)
c. Butifyouaid/abetinfringerbyofferingservicestocircumvent,DMCAkicksin
3. 1201(d):Exemptionsfornonprofitlibrariesandeducationalinstitutions
4. 1201(f):ExemptionsforReverseengineering
ii. UniversalCityStudiosv.Corley(DVDdecryption)Fairusedidnotapplywheredefendantviolated
1201(a)(2)byofferingprogramdesignedtocircumventtechnologicalmeasuresprotectingcopyrighted
works.traffickedindevicethatdefendantclaimedwouldallowLinuxuserstodecryptDVDstoviewthem
ontheirowncomputers.Courtassumedthataccesscircumventionwasacompletelyseparateviolationfrom
copyrightinfringement.
iii. 1201(g):exceptionforDecryptionResearch
1. EdwardFelten(Princetonprofessor)woncontesttobreakdigitalwatermarkcodeonCDs
(SDMI)andwantedtosharefindingsatconference,butRIAAthreatenedtosueunderDMCA.
ProfessorsConstitutionalclaimdismissedforlackofstanding.
iv. 1203civilpenaltiesareexpensive$500K
v. 1204criminalpenaltiesaresteep,butlesssothanConventiononCybercrime,whichmakesitacrimejust
th=opossessdevicesdesignedoradaptedprimarilyforillegalaccess.
b.

c.
d.
e.
f.

TitleII:OnlineCopyrightInfringementLiabilityLimitationAct:vicariousliabilityforISPs
i. 512createssafeharbors,whichlimitsliabilityforserviceprovidersfor:
1. Transitorycommunicationsprovidersactasmeredatsconduits(512(a))
a. Ellisonv.Robertson(AOLsliabilitylimitedbecausestorageofcopyrightedworkwastransient;not
maintainedforlongerthannecessary)
2. Systemcachingstoringcopiesofmaterialmadeavailableonline(512(b))
3. Informationresidingonsystemsornetworksatdirectionofusers,aslongasprovidershavenoactual
knowledge,andactimmediatelytoremoveinfringingmaterialwhennotified(512(c))
4. InformationLocationTools(hyperlinkstoothersites)sameknowledgelimitationasabove(512(d))
5. NonprofiteducationalInstitutions(512(e))
ii. Toqualifyforanyoftheseexemptions,under512(i),theserviceprovidermust
1. Adoptandreasonablyimplementapolicyofterminatingtheaccountsofrepeatinfringers
2. Accommodateandnotobstructstandardtechnicalmeasures
TitleIII:ComputerMaintenanceorRepairCopyrightExemption
TitleIV:MiscellaneousProvisions
TitleV:ProtectionofCertainOriginalDesignssuigenerisprotectionforboathulls
Criticisms
i. PermitsencryptionoffactualworksthatdontmeettheFeistTest
ii. Preventscopyingworksinthepublicdomain

31

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

g.

XV.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

iii. Chillingdecryptionresearchefforts
iv. Preventsdecryptionofstuffthatcouldbefairlyused.
1. ButnotethatLibrarianofCongresshasdefined4fairuseexceptionstoDCMA:listsofsitesblockedby
internetfilters,computerprogramsprotectedbyhardwaredonglespreventingaccessduetodamageor
oboscolescence,programsusingobsoleteformats/hardware,ebooksdist.informatpreventinghandicap
accessfromfunctioning(readaloud,etc.)
v. ExtractionofpromisesDMCAmayenableownerstoextractpromisesfromusersnottoresellthework,
nottomakefairuseofwork,ornottouseinformationtomanufacturecompetingproducts
1. Somesayfacilitatespricediscrimination
2. Thosewhoengageinfairusemaynotfullycapturebenefitsoftheuse,andmaybeunabletopayforit.
3. Mayreducethenumberofcheapersecondhandcopiesavailabletomarginalusers
4. Dofairuseandfirstsalepreemptsuchagreementsingeneral?
Cases:
i. USAv.ElcomLtd.(ElcommadeAEBPRthatbrokedownAdoberestrictionsleavingnakedPDF.Suchuse
wouldallowonetousefornoninfringinguses[suchasreadingonanothercomputer,printing,etc,]aswellas
theinfringinguseofunlawfuldistribution.)1201(b)imposesblanketbansontraffickinginorthe
marketingofanydevicethatbypassesorcircumventsarestrictiononcopyingwork.Cantdistinguishby
use.
1. Fairusestillallowed,butitsgoingtobetoughwithoutthetools!!
2. cquittedoncriminalchargeshere,butnow,ConventiononCybercrimemakesitcrimetosimplypossess
devices.
ii. A&MRecordsv.Napster,Inc.NapsterargueditwaswithinsafeharborprovisionsofDMCA.No!Files
transferredthroughInternetandnotNAPwebsite.EvenifNAPmetserviceproviderrequirementofDCMA,
itdidnotprovidewrittennoticethatinfringerswouldbeterminatednortakemeasurestopreventrepeated
infringement.

Remediesthe500seriesintheAct
a.
b.
c.

Injunctions502preliminaryandpermanentinjunctions
502503Bookburning,Presssmashing,Impoundinginfringingarticles
Damages504youcanchooseeither:
i. Actualdamagesplusprofits
1. Lostprofits+anyprofitsattributedtotheinfringernottakenintoaccountincomputingactualdamages;
nodoublerecovery
a. NOTE:Damagesinvolvecounterfactualinquiry,hardtomonetizereputationinterests
2. mustonlyshowreasonablyrelatedrevenuesgained,andthenBurdenofProofontoshowwhat
portionoftotalprofitsattributabletodeductibleexpensesandanynoninfringingelements.
ii. LostProfitsValuationOptionsremembertotakeintoaccountfuturedamages
1. Butfortheinfringement(OnDavis)
2. ComparesalesofinfringeditemtoaveragesalesofallofPssimilargoods,ifany
3. ComparePsinfringedrevenuetoavg.totalrevenueduringnoninfringingperiod
4. MeasureDssalestocustomerswhopurchasedfrombothPandD
5. Difficultiesincalculatinglostprofits
a. BootlegDVDsaslossleaders
b. mightbeinefficientproducerpriceishigh,butsoaresproductioncosts
c. Profitsmaybeattributabletosabilityasamerchant,notsproduct
d. Profitscantbedisaggregatedfromsotherprofits
e. smayhavelossesfromcollateralsales
iii. Statutorydamages;504(c)(receivedinplaceofactualdamages/lostprofits
1. Toqualify,ownermusthaveregisteredworkbeforeinfringement.
a. Statutorydamagesavailableonlyforinfringementsthatoccurafterregistration

32

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

2.

3.

4.

b. exceptioncancollectfordamagesifyouregisterw/in90daysofpublication
ThreeAhmedfactors(bootlegJurassicParkDVDcase)
a. Expensessaved/profitto
b. Revenueslostby
c. Willfulvs.Innocentdetermination(mostimportant)
Notlessthan$500,andnogreaterthan$20,000foreachworkthatisinfringed,notthenumberof
infringements
a. Willfulinfringement(knowledgeandrecklessdisregard)courthasdiscretiontobumpupawardto
maxof$100K
b. InnocentInfringementdiscretiontodecreaseminimumto$200
7thAmendmentrequiresjuryassessmentofstatutorydamages

iv. Problemsw/damagesorwhycourtspreferinjunctions.
1. Biggapbetweenminimumandmaximum
2. Multiplierforeachwork.Logicallycanreadasforeachcopy?
3. WillfulnessWhatisit?Hardtoprove
d.

CostandAttorneysFeesawardedtoprevailingpartyatcourtsdiscretion.MostlyfollowtheAmericanrule
eachsidepaysitsownfees.Privateattorneygeneralargumentoftenrejected;stronginterestinaccess.

e.

DeclaratoryjudgmentAction
i. Peoplehavearighttogotocourtandgetvalidationthattheiractionsarevalid,patentisinvalid,oractions
areinfringement
ii. Thiscomesupmoreofteninpatentexpensivetoengageininfringingaction(buildfactories,hireworkers,
etc.).Wantadecisionbythecourttoprotectinvestments

f.

GovernmentImmunity
i. CopyrightRemedyClarificationAct(1990)expresslyeliminatedstateimmunity,butunclearif
unconstitutional.FloridaPrepaid.
ii. Forinfringementsbyfederalgovernment,28USC1498(b)sayscopyrightownercanonlysueintheClaims
Courtfordamages.Theoreticalbasis:5thAmend.JustCompensationClause.
iii. Worksbygovtarenotcopyrightable
iv. Governmentrighttousecopyrightedandpatentedworks
1. Governmentmustpaylicensingfees
2. Justcompensationfairmarketcompensation
v. TheStatesdontgetbenefitof1498,Originallysilentstatute
1. Specificprovisionthatwaivedstategovernmentimmunityoverruled
a. Congresslackspowertowaiveimmunityforpatentinfringement
b. lowercourtshaveappliedruletocopyright(NoUSSCCase)
2. RightholdersCanstillgetinjunctions11thAmendmentonlybarsdamages
3. Congresshaspowertowaivestateimmunitybutmustmakeagoodshowingthatstatessystematically
engageincommerciallysignificantamountsofinfringementNosuchshowingwasmadeinIPacts

g.

CriminalLiability
i. Piracy,Counterfeiting,Bootlegging,mailfraud,wirefraud,performanceri
1. 506(a)(1)(B)producing$500,000worthofcopiesinany180dayperiodregardlessofprofits
MeanttogetNapster
2. 2318counterfeiting:Bootlegphonorecordsandmovies,CDsandDVDswithcounterfeit
ii. LiabilityException:FamilyEntertainmentActCanremoveoffensivesectionsofmovies
iii. NoElectronicTheftActviaDMCA
1. CriminalInfringementdefined:reproductionduring180dayperiodof1ormorecopiesof1ormore
works,withatotalretailvalueofmorethan$1,000.506

33

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
2.

506(c)fraudulentlyputtingnoticeonnoncopyrightablework

h. RemediesacrossIP
i. InTMlaw,injunctionismostimportantbecauseofconfusion.HardtogetmoneydamagesinTMcases
outsidecontextsofharmtoidentity
ii. Copyrightseemstobeoppositeeasiertogetmoneydamages.
iii. PatentcasesReputationalinterestsarestrippedout,onlyaboutmoney
iv. Injunctionsareonlyaboutdeterrenceotherwisepeoplewouldalwaysinfringe
i.

CaseLaw
i. Ahmedv.UniversalStudios(piratedJurassicParkvideos)Willfulknowledgemaybeinferred.Three
factorsforstatutoryinfringementlistedabove.Statutorydamagesneednotcorrelatewithprofitswon/lost
itsallaboutdeterrence.Mustfocusonnumberofworksinfringed,notthe#ofinfringements;nopenaltyfor
eachtape.
ii. OnDavisv.TheGap(GuywearingDavissunglassesinGapad)Davisneededtoshowgrossrevenues
relatedtotheinfringement,notunrelatedrevenues.Amountofdamagesmaynotbebasedonundue
speculation(e.g.Davis$2.5Mclaimhere).Entitlementlimitedtoprofitsattributabletotheinfringement.
Nostatutoryreliefbecauseinfringementoccurredafterfirstpublicationofglasses,butbeforeregistration.
Nopunitivedamagesgenerallyincopyright.
iii. Abendv.MCA,Inc.(exploitationofRearWindowfilm)CourtconsideredfactthatDinvestedlotsoftime
andmoney.Wheregreatpublicinjurywouldresultfrominjunction,gowithawardorcontinuingroyalty.
Abenddidntshowirreparableinjury.Courtsuggestedawardingactualdamages+reasonableandjust
apportionmentofprofitsbasedontheamountofinfringement(copulsorylicense).
iv. A&MRecordsv.Napster(P2Psystem)Nogreatpublicinjuryhere.Notasituationfor

compulsoryroyalties.
v. Fogertyv.Fantasy,Inc.(FogertysoldrightstoJungleandthenrecordedverysimilarsong)
Prevailingsandstobetreatedalikewithrespecttoawardingattorneysfees,awardedatcourts
discretion.

XVI.

CompulsoryLicensing
a.
b.

XVII.

111(c)cabletelevisionlicense;114digitalsubscriptiontransmissions,includingwebcasting(perDMCA);
116jukeboxes;118publicbroadcastinglicense,119satelliteretransmissionlicenses
115Mechanicallicenseforthereproductionanddistributionofnondramaticmusicalworks.Allowscover
versionsandoriginalownersgetroyaltiessetbyCopyrightOffice.Secondcomermustsendlettertooriginalauthor
askingforlicense.

FederalPreemptionofRightsEquivalenttoCopyright
a.

b.
c.

Basic301PreemptionTest3questionsiftheanswertoanyoneisno,thenNOpreemption
i. IstheworkFixed?
ii. Isit102subjectmatteralreadycoveredbycopyrightact?
iii. Isitarightalreadycoveredin106.
Natureofthework(SubjectMatter)Statesarefreetoregulateallworksthatfallwithinscopeofcopyrights
butareleftunprotectedbecauseoftheirnatureorformofexpression(i.e.iftheyrenotfixed.)
NatureoftheRightsStateWantstoProtect(GeneralScope/equivalency)Ifstateseekstoprotectrightsthat
arenotequivalenttoanyoftheexclusiverightswithinthegeneralscopeofcopyright,thestateslawwillnotbe
preemptedbySection301.
i. 301(b)(3)examplesofnonequivalentrightstatescouldprotectunderCLorstatute:breachofcontract,
breacheoftrust,invationsofprivacy,defamation,deceptivetradepractices.
ii. ExtraElementTest:IfotherelementsoutsideofthefederalCopyrightActarerequiredtoconstitutean
infringementofStatelaw,thennopreemptionwilloccur..
iii. ObjectivesTest:Astatelawwillnotbepreemptedifitservesdifferentinterestsfromcopyrightlaw.
iv. ConflictPreemption:Whethercompliancewithboththefederalandthestatelawisphysicallyimpossibleor
ifthestatelawposesanobstacletofulfillingthegoalsofCongress.

34

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
d.

e.
f.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ArgumentsforasingleFederalSystem:
i. Promotenationaluniformity
ii. Helpgiveaclearinterpretationofpublication
iii. 301willimplementthelimitedtimesprovisionoftheConstitution;noextensions
iv. Needforeffectiveinternationalcopyrightrelations
PolicynoteIfyoucanmakeaclaimunder43(a),thenyoudonthavetoworryaboutpreemption.
NBAv.Motorola(SportsTraxpager);CourtoverturnsNYlawgoesbeyondhotnewsclaimslikethoseinINS
v.AP.Oncegamefixedviabroadcast,bothbroadcastandgameitselfsatisfysubjectmatterrequirement.For
generalscope,seeifextraelementtestismet.
i. Centralelementsofhotnewsclaim:(1)Costofgatherinfo;(2)Timesensitivityofinfo;(3)Freeridingon
plaintiff;(4)Iscompetitiondirect;(5)Iffreeriding,woulditcreatedisincentivetocontinueservice.
Elements1&4arecoveredbyfedcopyrightlaws,but2,3&5areextraelementsthatallowhotnewsclaimto
survivepreemption.
ii. Courtdeterminedthatinthisinstance,thereisnodirectcompetition,MotorolawasNOTfreeriding,and
cantmakeactillegalonbasisofpossiblefuturecompetition:
iii. INSwasnotintendedtopreventlackofproductorservicebecauseofanticipatedfreeriding
iv. CourtdidntwantStatesregulatinggamesthatCongresshaddeliberatelyplacedintothepublicdomain.

g.

MedicalCollegev.Carey(MCATquestions)Reliedonconflictpreemptiontoconcludethatastatelawrequiring
disclosureofMCATQ&Aswaspreemptedb/citdeniedPwhoownedthecopyrightthebenefitshewouldhave
receivedundertheCopyAct.
h. VaultCorp.v.QuaidSoftwarePreemptedstateLicenseEnforcementLawrelatingtotheadaptationofcomputer
programsviadecomplilation,becauseitclearlytoucheduponanareoffederalcopyrightlaw.
i. Bowersv.Baystate&ProCDv.Zeidenberg(Shrinkwraplicensing)Theselicenseshaverecentlybeenupheld
because1)aprivatecontractualagreementsupportedbymutualconsentandconsiderationand2)thecontract
affectedonlytherightstotheagreementandnottheworldatlarge.Thus,itsrightswerenotequivalentto
copyright,andthereforenotpreemptedunder301(a).Shrinkwraplicensescanbeusedtorestrictlicensesinways
thatarenotcontemplatedbytheCopyAct(i.e.couldprohibitfairuseorcompulsorylicense;couldprohibitresale.)
i. NOTE:Seetextp.563forcontroversiysurroundingUCITA(UniformComputerInformationTransactions
Act)onlyadoptedbyMDandVA(originallypartofUCCart.2B,butALIpulledoutofproject)

XVIII. Misappropriation
a.
b.

c.

d.

e.

Unfaircompetitioncommonlawdoctrinestopunishculpablebehaviorinthemarketplaceequitableremedy
thatshouldntbereadtoobroadly.
Misappropriationtheintellectualpropertyversionofunjustenrichment.
i. madeasubstantialefforttogatherinfow/theexpectationofcommercialprofits
ii. hasappropriatedthatinfoatcomparativelylittleeffortandmadecommercialuseofit
iii. hassufferedeconomicharmentitledtoequitablerelief
NBAv.Motorola(SportsTraxpager)1976Actgaveprotectiontosimultaneouslyrecordedbroadcasts,butnot
theunderlyinggamesthemselves.Sinceeachpartybearingowncostsforcollectionandtransmission,limited
competitionconcerns,andNBAcouldntshowdamageofffreeriding,NBAsclaimformisappropriationwas
dismissed.
InternationalNewsServicev.Assoc.PresswouldreadAPsWWIreportsfromthefront,rewordthemand
distributeonEastCoast.APdidntclaimcopyrightinfringement,butreliedonmisappropriationandgotinjunction.
SupremeCourtfoundunfaircompetitionquasipropertyrightasbetweencompetitors.Holmesdissented,not
recognizinganypropertyright,butwouldhavemadeINSdisclosetheAPasitssource.
ChicagoBoardofTradev.DowJonesCBThadcomeupw/itsownindex,butregulatorsmadethemuseawell
knownindex.DJofferedthemalicense,buttheyrefusedandsimplyusedarelabeledDJIA.TheIll.SCsaidthis
wasmisappropriation.DJhadspenttimeandeffortcomingupw/itsindexandCBOTwasreaping.Noticethere
isntdirectcompetitionhere.

35

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

XIX.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

RightofPublicity
a.
b.
c.
d.

e.

f.

g.

Statecauseofactionallowingacelebritytoenjointheunauthorizedcommercialuseoftheirpersonalattributesina
waythatcausescommercialdamagetothem.Personalattributesmayincludename,voice,signature,appearance,
likeness,andpersonality.Aneconomicrightbaseduponunjustenrichment.
Rightsofpublicityaretransferablelikepropertyrights,maysurvivethelifeofthecelebrity
1999AstaireCelebrityImageProtectionActextendedrightsfordeceasedcelebsinCAconcernsre:newdigital
technology(e.g.morphing).Willthestatutestiflecreativity?

ClearfirstAmendmentissuesleadstobalancingtest.Rightofpublicitycanonlybemaintinedifthe
proprietaryinterestsatissueclearlyoutweighvalueoffreeexpressioninthiscontext(Guglielmi).
Drawsuponfairusefactorpurposeandcharacteroftheuse
i. Defendantsuseofthecelebritylikeness:
1. Transformativecharacterofthework:hasitbecomethesownexpression?
a. requiresmorethanatrivialvariation;mustcreatesomethinghisown.
b. Worksofparody/distortionsareprotected
2. Wascelebritylikenessrawmaterialorsum&substanceofthework?
ii. Appropriationofplaintiffspersonalattributestodefendantscommercialadvantage
1. Wasitapurelycommercialspeechorwasitinextricablyentwinedwithotherexpressiveelements?
2. Doesthemarketabilityandeconomicvalueofthechallengedworkderiveprimarilyfromthefameof
thecelebritydepicted?Istheworklikelytointerferewiththeeconomicinterestsofthecelebrity?
iii. Lackofconsentbyplaintiff
iv. Injurytotheplaintiff
v. Exceptionsthattypicallydonotrequireconsent:
1. News
2. PublicAffairs
3. Sportsbroadcasts
4. Politicalcampaigns
ComedyIIIProductions,Inc.v.GarySaderup,Inc.(charcoaldrawing;ThreeStoogesshirt)Abalancingtest
betweenthe1stAmendmentandtherightofpublicitybasedonwhethertheworkinquestionistransformedinto
somethingmorethanamerecelebritylikeness.Notransformativeelementshere.Primaryobjectiveto
create/exploitliteraldepictionof3Stoogesandvaluederivedfromtheirfame.Courtnotesthatnotall
reproductionsareunprotectedby1stAmend(i.e.Warholspresentationofcelebsasasocialcommentary.Awards
profitsplusattorneysfees.Cf.ETWCorp.v.JirehPublishing(paintingofTigerattheMasterwasacollageand
conveyedamessage)
Zacchiniv.ScrippsHowardBroadcasting(TVstationhadvideotapedandbroadcastentirehumancannonball
performancewithoutconsent).Stationwasliablebecausetheyhadtakenentireact.Cf.Cardtoonsv.MLB
(caricaturecards;socialcommentaryonpublicfiguresandnoninterferencewithinterestsofcelebrity).
DustinHoffmanv.CapitalCities/ABC,Inc.TootsiephotoredoneinLAMmagazinefeaturingHoffmanshead
withbodydoubledressedinnewfashion;articlefeaturedsimilarshotsofothercelebs
i. Commercialspeechgetssome1stAmend.protection,butnotasmuchasnoncommercial.
ii. PrintarticlemeanttodrawattentionntoforprofitmagazineisnotoutsideofFirstAmendmentbecauseit
maysellcopies.
iii. Hoffmanarguesthatadusedtosellclothing
iv. Courtsaysitsnotpurecommercialspeechcommercialaspectsareinextricablyentwinedwith
expressiveelements.
1. LAMdidnotreceiveconsiderationforfeaturingclothinginarticle
2. articledidntadvanceacommercialmessage
3. articleisacombinationofphotography,humor,andeditorialcomment

h. OtherCommercialUsesofcelebritylikenesses:
i. Midlerv.FordMotor(useintelevisioncarcommercialofsoundalikerenditionofhersong);distinctiveand
widelyrecognizedvoiceofprofessionalsingerisprotectedattributeinrighttopublicity.

36

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. Carsonv.HeresJohnnyPortableToilets(useofphraseHeresJohnnyinconjunctionwithworlds
foremostcommodian).celebritysrighttopublicityisinvadedwheneveridentityisintentionally
appropriatedforcommercialpurposes.
iii. Whitev.Samsung(VannaWhiterobotcase)9thCircuitruledthatVannahadcommonlawrightrobot
attiredtolooklikehernexttogameboardrecognizableasWheelofFortuneset.
iv. Wendtv.HostIntl(Cheersrobots).Districtcourtdismissed,but9thcircuitheldlikenessdeterminationisan
issueforjury.NOTE:actorsdidnthaverighttoCheerscharactersthemselves,buttheyargueditwasthe
physicallikenesstoactorsthatcreatedvalue.Courtalsorejectdsargumentthatscantclaimrightof
publicitybyrelyingonidnciaofCheersbar(propertyofParamount).
v. Courtshaveappliedthisdoctrinetonicknames,professionalstatisticalinformation,anddistinctiveracing
cars.

37

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

PartIVPatents
I.

InGeneral
a. Patentsavailableforinventionsofappliedtechnology,includingmachines,processes,andcompositionsofmatter.
b. Shorterterm:Endurefor20yearsfollowingthedateofapplication(since6/8/95)
i. NOTE:Usedtobelongerof:17yearsfromissuance,or20yearsfromapplication
c. Granttheusertherighttoexcludeothersfrommaking,using,selling,offeringtosell,orimportingthepatented
invention.
d. HardestformofIPprotectiontoget.
i. Morethanauthor
ii. Newnotalreadythere
iii. Nonobvious(somethingthatsomebodywithordinaryskillintheartcouldnthavedone)
e. ProtectionisstrongerEveryuseisinfringement(includinginnocentinfringer)
i. NoshowingofconfusionlikeTIM
ii. NoshowingofcopyinglikeCopyright
f. PatentPurposes
i. InduceInnovation
1. limitedmonopolyperiodforROI
2. createsincentivesdesignaroundpatentedtechnology
ii. InduceDisclosureexclusivityiscostlytosociety;avoiddeadweightlossproblems
1. Innovatormaybeabletokeepprocesssecret,butPatentlawrequiresdisclosure
2. QuidproQuoinexchangefordisclosureyougetprotection
3. SolutiontoArrowsParadox
iii. InduceCommercializationgetitouttomarketbeforeexclusivityexpires
iv. Creatingincentivestobargain.Apatentonanimprovementisdistinctfromrighttothetechnologythatis
beingimprovedupon.Ifbothunderlyingtechnologyandimprovementarepatentedbydifferentpeople,need
togetpermissionfrombothpartiestousetheimprovedversion.Issuesofblockingrightsandcrosslicenses.
Hopefully,thisallleadstonegotiationsthatleadtoproperallocationofprofits.Yeah,right.
g. SocialCostsofPatents:
i. Copyrightholdsdowncostscanmakesomethingfunctionallyequivalentbutdoesntviolate
ii. Patentworkispatentedastoentireworldsothereislimitedmonopoly
iii. Theonlythingthatwillkeepdownpricesisdemand,completelydifferentinvention

II.

TheApplication112
a.

RequirementsPTOregscontrolwhatanapplookslike,butstatuterequiresthreethingsbeincluded(maybeused
asadefensetoinfringementifnotincludedorpoorlydone).Containsbasicinformationlikenameoftheinventor
anddescriptionofinvention(includingbackgroundinformationonfield)
i. Enablement112thespecificationmustenableanyoneskilledinthearttomakeandusetheclaimed
invention.
ii. BestModetheappmustsetforththebestmodeofachievingtheinventionknowntotheinventor.Dont
wantinventortoconcealpreferredembodimentsoftheirinventions.
iii. WrittenDescriptiondistinctfromenablement.Pinpointsexactlywhenapplicantwasinpossessionofthe
invention.Includes:(1)theclaims,(2)specification(i.e.thedictionary),(3)thedrawing,and(4)otherstuff.
1. CentralGallery,Inc.v.BerklineCorp.(noinfringementbecausewrittendescriptionspecificationfailed
toshowthattheinventedthesofawiththefolddowntable).
b. TheClaimsClaimsdefinetheinventionanditswhatyoulookatwhenyoureconsideringinfringement112.
Thepatentapplicationmustclosewithoneormoreclaims.
i. Distinctivenesstheclaimsmustdistinctlyclaimthesubjectmattertheapplicantregardsashisinvention.
ii. Independentvs.DependentClaims
1. Dependentclaimsincorporateindependentclaimsbyreference,andthencontainlanguagewhichusually
servestolimitit.

38

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

2. Independentclaimsinherentlymoreriskybecausemorebroadandmaybechallengedforlackofnovelty.
iii. Corevs.PeripheralClaiming
1. Core:laysoutthecentralinsightoftheinvention,deferringthedeterminationofwhichextensionsofthat
insightinfringetothetimewhensuchadeterminationisnecessary.
2. Peripheral:metesandboundsofinventionaredelineated.
3. ManifestationoftensionbetweenbroadclaimingandcoreprotectionNOTE:Forinfringement,an
accusedproductmustduplicateeverystructureinthespecification,oruseanequivalentofthatexact
structure.
iv. Means+FunctionClaiming
1. Elementsinaclaimforcombinationmaybeexpressedasameansorstepforperformingafunction.
ExtendsreachofPatenttoliterallycoverotherembodiments,butitsbeenreadprettynarrowly.
2. Example:Rollermeansformovementcoversmorethanwheels
v. Terminologyistechnical
1. comprisingisanopentermanythingwiththesefeaturesisinfringing
2. consistingofisclosedtermthisexactcombinationitself
vi. ClaimSurvivalNoBluePenciling.Iftheclaimisinvalidated,itisstruckinitsentirety,evenifitcould
havebeenedited.However,remainingclaimswillsurviveevenifoneclaimisstruck.
vii. Patentreissuewithinfirsttwoyears,youcangetabroaderclaimifyourealizedyouclaimedtoonarrowly
1. Peoplewhostartedpracticinginventionduringinterimcancontinuethescopeofwhattheyaredoing
viii. PolicyissueClaimingDifficulties:OperatingatInventiveEdge
1. Mightnotknowexactlywhyinventiondoeswhatitdoesdifficulttoclaiminusefulway
2. MightnotbevocabularytodealwithwhatthepatentisdoingPatenteecanbeherownlexicographer,
butsometimeswontdoitaccurately
3. LotsofplaywithdictionariesNOTperfectnotice;
a. differentdictionaries,and
b. Dictionarieschange.Whatisthetime?Registration?Application?Timeofthecase?

III.

PatentProsecutiontheprocessofgettingapatent
a.

Inventorshipmaybesoleorjointunder116.
i. BayhDoleActallowsfederallyfundedresearcherstoretaincontroloverthepatentrightstotheirinventions,
butinexceptionalcircumstancesgovernmentkeepsthem
ii. Agenciescangetmarchin(licensing)rightswhenpatenteenotaggressivelyhuntingforuses.
b. Searchofthepriorarttofigureoutifyoushouldfile
c. ApplicationisClassifiedaccordingtoitstechnicalart,andassignedtoanexamininggroup.
i. Examinerconductssearchofpriorart,thenexaminestheapp.
ii. Officeactionsenttoapplicantexplainingissuanceorrejection.
iii. Applicantmayrespondormayamend.
iv. Ifunconvinced,asecondofficeaction(finalrejection)mayissue.
v. Applicantcanthenabandonedorappealed.
d. Publication122After18monthspending,applicationsaretobepromptlypublished.Disappointedpatent
applicantscannolongerkeepinventionsasatradesecrets.
i. ifapplyingabroad,youCANrequestsecrecy...oratleastaredactedversion!
e. Interference135Examinerfindsthattheapplicationclaimsaninventionthatisthesubjectofanother
applicationorsubjectofapatentcurrentlyinforce.Ifthathappens,bothpartiesmustappearbeforetheBPAI.
Mustprovedatesofinvention.BurdenofProofonapplicantwhofiledlater.SettlementsfiledwithPTO.
i. StrategyIfyoudontwin,nextbestoutcomewouldbetoprovethattheinventionisntPatentableatall,so
thatyou(theloser)dontbecomeanautomaticinfringer.
ii. PrivateNegotiationsEfficient,butcanworkcontrathepublicinterest.Mayeliminateincentivetoputall
theinfoonthetable,whichmightinvalidatethepatent.Bewareanticompetitiveconduct.Mustputprivate
negotiationsonthepublicrecord.

39

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

iii. UsePendingAppealLosingpartycanusewhilePatentpendingoronappeal,butwillhavetopayroyalties
oncePTissues.
f. AmendmentFiletoamendforbasicchangesunder132.Ifmorefundamentalchangesnecessary,applicantmay
berequiredtosplituptheapplicationandfileseparatelyunder121.Donthavetogiveuptheinitialfilingdateif
fileadivisionalapplication,120.
g. Reissue251&252allowsinventorstocorrectproblemsinissuedpatents.
i. Reissuecannotenlargethescopeoftheoriginalpatentunlessitisappliedforwithin2yearsofissuance.
ii. Thosewhobegantopracticethatnewinventionenjoyinterveningrightstherighttocontinueusages
thatbeganbeforethereissuetookplace.
iii. PostWanerJenkins,ifyoudontreissue,youdontgetDoE.
h. Reexamination301307thirdparties(Trolls)canrequestareexaminationbypointingtopriorartthatwas
notbeforethePTOduringprosecution.Ifitfindsthisisvalidpriorart,thePTOwillreopentheprosecution.
IV.

TheInternationalStage
a.

Inmostothercountries,thefirsttofileisalwaysthefirstinright.Thatmeansnointerference,noneedtoproves
anydates,noneedtocorroborate,etc.
b. TheParisConvention
i. NationalTreatmentProvision
ii. PriorityRight
1. Originalfilingdatemaintainedaslongasnomorethan12monthshaveelapsedbetweentheforeignand
USfilings.
2. foreignactivitiesmaybeusedtoestablishpatentrights,butcannotbeusedtodefeatthepatent
rightsofanother.See102,especially,102(g).Butnote102(f)exception.
c. GATT/TRIPS
i. NationalTreatmentProvision&PriorityRightliketheParisConvention
ii. Mostfavorednationtreatment(MFN)AnytimeonememberoftheGATTentersintoanagreement
relatedtointellectualpropertywithanyothermember,theadvantagesoftheagreementaregeneralizedto
applytoallothersignatories.
iii. UniversalMinimumStandards
d. ThePatentCooperationTreaty(1970)cratedInternationalApplicationoption
V.

PatentableSubjectMatter101
a.

BasicsubjectmatterAnynewandusefulprocesses(methodpatents),machines,manufacture,or
compositionofmatter.Anythingunderthesunmadebyman,
i. NOTElawsofnature,naturalphenomena,orabstractideas
ii. Diamondv.Chakrabarty(newoileatingbacteriapatentableifnotinnature).

iii. FunkBros.(613n.4a)nopatentforcultureofnitrogenfixingbacteria;nopatentforartificially
enhancednaturallyoccurringmaterials.
1. Cf.Merckv.OlinMathiesonChem.Corp.613,n.4aallowedpatentonB12isolatedfromcowliver.
b. ProcessePatents102definitionisnothelpful.Somethingthatpromotesaphysicalchangeinnaturehow
farecanyoutakethisincontextofcomputerscience
i. Canyoupatentanewuseforaknownsubstance?Needincentivesformedicaltestsing
ii. Processvs.productMostpeoplewouldratherhavepatentonproduct.Processcanbeusedinsecret.
Hardertomonitoruses.
iii. Medicalproceduresamendment(287(c))saysperformingamedicalprocedurecantbebasisfor
monetaryorinjunctivereliefagainstmedicalpractitionerorhealthrelatedcareentity
1. SupremeCourthasgrantedcert.inLabcorpv.Metabolite:ShouldMethodtodetectB12deficiencybe
patentable?
c. utilitypatentsaredescribedin101
d. Designpatents:171New,original,ornamentaldesigns
i. Notmuchusedrequiresexamination

40

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. Designisusuallysooverbythetimeyougetthepatent
iii. Commonlyusedforlabequipment,rarelyforconsumergoods
e. Plantpatents
i. 161asexuallyproducedplantsoriginallyonlythesecouldbepatented
ii. 7U.S.C.2321sexuallyreproducedplans(cameafter161),administeredbyPTO
f. PolicyquestionDoespatentpickupwherecopyrightends?
i. Somecopyrightcasesseemtothinkso
ii. Isitconceivableforpatenttodothat?
g. PolicyQuestionHowfarupthepipelineshouldpatentsextend?
i. Principlesofnaturedontliearoundpeoplemustfigurethemout;Stillproblemofgettingrightlevelof
incentives
ii. Thingsvaryfromfieldtofield
iii. Subjectmatterhascomebackinahugewayinbiotechandcomputerscienceindustries
h. Ideasvs.EmbodimentsBellandMorse(606,n.1)
i. MorseinventedthetelegraphClaim8(broadestclaim:useofmotorpowerofelectromagnetismfor
markingcharacteratanydistance)isunpatentable;cantpatentprincipleofusingelectromagnetism
ii. BelltelephonesClaim5(transmittingvocalsoundsthroughelectricalformations)waspatentable
Embodiment,notprinciple
iii. Differencewasmostlylinguistinc
1. MorsewasanidiotIdonotproposetolimitmyself
2. Belldisguiseditelectricalundulations
iv. ScopeofinventionMorsedidntinventtelegraphheinventedtherepeatercircuit,butBellactually
inventedthecleartelephonebyusingdirectcurrent(directundulation).WithoutClaim5,Bellwouldhave
nothing
i.

Utilitymustbeoperable&useful;nonspeculative.Theinventiondoesnthavetobebetterthananything
existing,justdifferent.Forcesinventortowaittoapplyuntilcanarticulateconcreteusebutitsaprettylow
standard.
i. StateStreetBankv.SignatureFinancial(hubandspokefinancialdatasystem)Patentabilityhingeson
practicalutility.Useofmathematicalsystemtogettofinalsharepriceispracticalapplication.Usefuland
relieduponbyregulatoryauthoritiesandinsubsequenttrades.Factthattheusefulresultwasexpressedin
numberswasirrelevant.Thiscaseistheoriginatorofbusinessmethodpatents
ii. Brennerv.Mason(homologueofMansonssteroidproveneffectiveinmice)Patentprotection
inappropriateforintermediateproducts;nosocialutility.
1. Denyingpatentencouragesotherstofinduse(questionable).Untiluseisshown,scopeofpatentcannot
bedetermined.Patentnotahuntinglicense.
2. Dissent:Ifunpatentable,peoplelikelytokeepprocessessecretuntilfinduse.Intermediateproducts
allowscientiststotakebiggerstepsleadingtousefulitem.
iii. JuicyWhipv.OrangeBang(upholdingapatnetonajuicedispensereventhoughitwassetuptomixwater
andsyrupinamannerthatmakesitappeartobedispensingaconstitutedbeverage)
1. ItsnotthePTOsplacetoaddressmoralissues/detrimentalutilityinpatentcases.
iv. IntroofLegislationforaMoratoriumonthePatentingofGeneticallyEngineeredAnimals
1. Stressesneedtoprotecteconomicinterestsoffarmers/researchers;Moratoriumnolongerinplace.
2. Ethicalconcerns:Sufferingtoanimalsthemselvesandunbalancedecosystem.
3. NotethatevenwithoutPTprotection,testingwontstopwillsimplybecometradesecret.
4. Patentencouragespublicationofresearchresultsandallowspublictomonitorsideeffects

j.

Noveltydefinedin102(a),(e),andpartsof(g).
i. Generally:Theinventionmustbenewsomethingmorethananobviousimprovement.
1. Operabilityisnotrequiredbythestatute,buttheCourtshavereaditinthere.
2. Therealissue:Doespriorartanticipatetheclaimedinvention?Noveltyprovisionschargetheinventor
withknowledgeoftheentireuniverseofpriorart!

41

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

ii. Standardforknowledge:NOTastandardofabsolutenewness
1. KnownorusebyothersinUS
2. PrintedpublicationorpatentinUSorabroad
iii. EnablementAreferencecannotbeanticipatingunlessitisenablessomeoneskilledinthearttomakeand
practicetheinvention.Speculativefictionorfuturistpredictionscannotserveasanticipation.
1. Gaylerv.Wilder(firesafe)Thosewhoinheriteditdidnotknowhowtorecreateit;nodisseminationnor
enablement.Somelevelofpublicitynecessary.Ifknowledgenotaccessibletothepublic,itsasifit
neverexisted.RediscoveryofthislostartisPatentablebecauseinventorconfersbenefitonpublic.
Lawpromotesdissemination.Alsonotethatsafehadneverbeentested(operabilityissue).
2. Coffinv.Ogden(doorlockw/reverselatch)Inventionmustbecompleteandcapableofworking.
Priorityoflockclearlyshown.Lockwastestedandmethodexplainedtoothers.Priorknowledgeanduse
byasinglepersonissufficient.
iv. TheEveryElementTestrequiresthatalloftheelementsandlimitationsoftheclaimarefoundwithina
singlepriorreference.Thatwhichinfringes,iflater,wouldanticipate,ifearlier.
1. RangesArangemightnotanticipateaprecisedetermination;mightbeanonobviousimprovement.
Searchcostsaretoohigh.Rangewouldnottellscientistaboutcharacteristicsatdifferentlevels,so
shouldnotrequirescientiststoreadthatreferencefirst.
a. Cf.TitaniumMetals(titaniumalloyscontaining0.25%molybdenumand0.75%nickelanticipates
referenceswhichclaimedalloyscontaining0.20.4%molyand0.60.9%nickel)
2. ScrippsClinic&ResearchFoundationv.Genetech,Inc.(clottingfactor)The4CornersTest.Harris
dissertationalonedidnotappeartocoverScrippsinvention;neededtoclarifywithothersources.
Summaryjudgmentnotappropriate.
v. InherencyPriorartwillanticipateifitnecessarilycontaintheinherentelement.Mereprobabilitynot
enough.
1. InreCruciferousSproutLitigation(growingandeatingsproutstodecreasecancer)Priorartmay
anticipatewhentheclaimlimitationnotexpresslyfoundinthatreferencearenonethelessinherentinit.
Bassicahassimplyrecognizedinherentcharacteristicsofsproutstheyhavenotinventedanythingnew.
Seedselectionprocesspreemptedbycookbooks(Idontgetthis).
2. ElanPharmaceuticalsv.MayoFoundation(recipeformicew/Alzheimers)Priorartcontainedsome
recipethatcouldhavebeenusedtoproducethesamekindofmice,butdidnotrecognizeit.Courtheld
thatthereferencewasnotanticipatory(butthedecisionwaslatervacatedforotherreasons).Criticisms:
Thiswouldencouragenewuses/features,butallofasudden,priorartbecomesinfringing.Ramifications
mightscrewupmarketplace.Further,itallowsaninventortoacquiresuccessiveperiodsofexclusivity
firstonoriginalandthenonotherinherentfeatures.
.
vi. PatentNoveltyConceptvs.Copyright
1. Inventionsarefungibleunlike,Coexistencewontdo.Twoinventorswoulddrivepricedownto
marginalcost,andROIwouldbelimited.
2. SearchModelRatiobetweenthecostofsearchingpriorarttolearnaparticularinventionvs.costof
startingfromscratch.MucheasiertosearchPatentthan;infobetterindexed.Becausesearchcosts
lower,PTpenaltyfornotsearchingishigher(completeexclusion).
VI.

NonObviousness&Originality
a.

NonObviousness103(a)TheinventionsoughttobepatentedmustnothavebeenobvioustoaPersonhaving
ordinaryskillintheartatthetimetheinventionwasmade.
i. Muchlikenovelty,referencesmustbefoundanddated,adequacyofdisseminationdetermined,andcontents
oftheartscrutinized.T
ii. hepatentexaminerhastheburdenofshowingaprimafaciecaseofobviousness,andthentheburdenshiftto
theapplicanttosayotherwise.

42

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

b. ThreeDistinctionbetweenNonObviousness(103)andNovel
i. Multiplereferencesmaybeused
ii. NoInherency.Unlikenovelty,elementofinterestmustbespecificallypointedout
iii. LimitedFieldofReference:WithinthefieldoftheinventorsendeavororReasonablypertinenttothe
particularproblem.
1. Secondaryconsiderationscourthasindicatedthatseveralsecondaryfactorsmayindicate
inventiveness.Besuretoconsiderwhetherthereisanexusbetweeninventionandthesefactors.
a. Commercialsuccess
b. UnexpectedResults
c. Copying
d. Failureofothers
e. Longfeltandunmetneeds
f. Praisefromexperts
g. Acquiescenceandlicensing
c. TeachingawayLesslikelytobeobviouswhenpriorartactuallydiscourageswhattheinventorhasdone.Adams
(wetbatteries).
d. MotivationtoCombineInrecentyears,theFedCircuithasrequiredevidenceofateaching,motivation,or
suggestiontoselectandcombinethereferencesasevidenceofobviousness.However,PTObearsburdenof
showingwhyapplicantwouldhavecombined;cantsimplysaycommonsense.Lee(combinedvideodisplay
deviceandhelpprogram)
e. ObvioustotryHaslongbeenheldnottoconstituteobviousness.Rather,thequestioniswhethertherewasa
reasonableexpectationofsuccess.Ifthereweremanyapproachesalongtheway(manypitfalls),thesuccessful
outcomewillbedeemednonobvious.
f.

Originality(akaDerivation)102(f)Preventsapatentfromissuingtoanapplicantwhodidnothimselfinvent
thesubjectmattersoughttobepatented.Ifanindividualderivedtheinventionfromanother(secretlyornot),it
createspriorartforobviousnessdeterminations,andnopatentwillresult.
i. ForeignKnowledgecanbeusedtodefeatapatentunder102(f),butnotunder102(a)or(g)!!
ii. IncreasedLitigationCostsneedmoretimeand$$toinvestigatebothpublicandprivatesourcesof
information
iii. 102(f)/103rejectionsCoversartcommunicatedtoinventorbyanother.Donthavetocommunicatefull
substance;communicateenoughtomakeitobvious!
1. 103(c)solvessomeproblembyrestricting102(f)toinformationfromstranger.Allows
communicationw/insamecompany
iv. 102(e)/103combinationthingsinthepipeline(applicationsfilebutnotreleased)
1. everythinginthepatentcountsaspriorartthatcanmakeanotherinventionobvious
2. NOTE:18monthsuntileverythinginapplicationsbecomespublic
v. 102(g)/103combinationtradesecrets
1. eveniftradesecretisnotthesamething,itmakeslaterapplicationobvious
2. thisresultsinscrewingthelaterinventor,butnotreallybenefitingthepriorinventor
vi. SecretArtsProblemsnotinpipelinetoeverbecomingpublic,andNotinactualuse
1. Coststosystemifnobodycangetpatent,wontbringforthinvention
2. Destabilizinginvestorwontknowwhatresearchershavebeensold
3. Chinesewallsw/o103(c)Researchgroupswouldstoptellingeachotherinformation

g.

Grahamv.JohnDeere(plowthatdoesntbreak)Test:(1)Evaluatescopeofclaimedinventionandpriorart.(2)
Determineifdifferenceswouldbeobvioustosomeoneskilledintheart.(3)Youthenlookatsecondaryindicialike
commercialsuccess,failureofothers,longfeltneed,etc.Here,Personofordinaryskillwouldhaveknowntoinvert
theshankandhingeplate.

43

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

h. Sakraidav.AgPro,Inc.(Waterflushsystemtoremovecowcrap)Techniquehasbeenaroundforever,justask
Hercules.Simplyusingoldelementsinthesameway(gravity).Nochangeinfunctionsoftheelementscombined.
Yes,itscheaperandfaster,butnotnewordifferent!

VII.

i.

InreDillon(tetraorthoestercompoundsinfueltoreducesootemissions)Structuralsimilaritiesbetweentriand
tetraorthoesters.Priorartcreatedreasonableexpectationthattheywouldbehavesimilarlyinfuelmotivationfor
creation.Relevantpriorartisbroad,eitherwithinthefieldoftheinventorsendeavororreasonablypertinentto
theparticularproblem.
i. CourtdoesnotwantPtoremovefrompublicanobviousvariantofpriorart.
ii. Dissent:Nopriorartsuggestinglinkbetweenwaterstuffandsootreduction.Dillontakesnothingfromthe
publicdomain,andcourtwouldrathererronthesideofPTbecausetheywanttobesurethisthinggets
commercialized.

j.

OddzOnProductsv.JustToys,Inc.(Vortextossingball)102(f)createspriorartforobviousnessdeterminations.
Subjectmatterderivedfromanotherisunpatentableinitself,andwhencombinedwithotherpriorart,maymake
resultingobviousinventionunpatentabletothepartyundercombinationof102(f)and103.

PriorityofInvention
a.

NOTE:Everyothercountrygivespriorityonfirsttofilebasis.PolicyUSmaintainsitsconceptiondriven
modelbecauseofourrespectforthesmallinventor.Wedontwanttorushtopublicifnotready,butastrictfirstto
inventrulemightdetertranslationfromideatoreality.Requiringdiligencefromthetimeanotherinventorenters
theraceisagoodproxyforcosteffectivediligence.
b. AccessibilitybyGeography102(a)aninventionknownorusedinthiscountry,orpatentedordescribedina
printedpublicationinthisoraforeigncountrybeforetheinventiondatethereofbytheapplicant,maynotbe
patented.
c. Knownorused.Requiressometypeofpublicknowledgeoffirstinventionbeforesecondisrejected.
i. Couldareasonableresearcherhavefoundthepublication?Wasitindexed?Abstracted?Marked
Confidential?LimitedDistribution?
ii. Notcosteffectivetosearchforalluses(Gaylerv.Odgen)
d. DatingInvention
i. Step#1:Doestheeffectivedate(datethepublicreceivedbenefitofthepriorart)ofthereferenceprecedethe
criticaldate(assumedfromtheoutsetof102atobethefilingdate).Ifpriorartisfoundfromanearliertime,
mustmovetoStep#2.
ii. Step#2:Tobeanticipatory,mustaskwhethertheeffectivedateofthepriorartpredatesthedateofactual
invention,notjustthefilingdate!Applicantmaybeabletoswearbehindhisfilingdate.Musteithershow
reductiontopracticeonadateprecedingthereference,orconception+duediligence.See102(g):
1. Conceptionthementalactofinvention;mostvalued.Adefiniteandpermanentideaofthecomplete
andoperativeinventionasitistobeappliedinpractice.Mustincludeeveryfeatureoftheinvention,but
neednotbeoperable.Inventorsmustproveconceptiondatew/models,documentation,andthirdparty
testimony
2. ReductiontopracticeConstructive:adeterminationthattheinventionwouldworkforitsintended
purpose;filinganapplicationwiththePTOrequiresthis.Actualreductiontopracticeistheconstruction
ofaworkingmodel.
3. Diligencecontinuousandreasonableeffortstowardthereductiontopractice.Aninventorwhoisfirst
toconceive,butlasttoreducetopractice,willbeentitledtoprioritybyshowingreasonablediligence.
Onlyonepartysdiligencematters:theinventorwhowasfirsttoconceive,butlasttoreduce.
iii. SUM:Thefirsttoreduceandpracticewins,unlessthesecondtoreducetopracticecanproveearlier
conceptionANDdiligence(constructivereductiontopractice)
iv. Acceptablereasonsfordelayindilligence
1. reasonableeverydayproblemsandlimitationsofinventorincluding:relatedapplications,illness,
responsibilitytofamily,etc.

44

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
2.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
NeitherConveniencenorcommercialdevelopmentareacceptableexcusesfordelay.

v. Griffithv.Kanamaru(CornellProf.waitingforgraduatestudent&outsidefunding)Reasonablediligence
balancesrewardinginventionvs.publicsinterestinearliestpossibledisclosure.
1. CornellProf.workingonotherstuff,grantwriting,andwaitingforgradstudentsisnotanexcusefor3
monthgapindiligenceoverasummer
2. Ifuniversitieswantthebenefitsofthesystemtheymustbeplayers
e.

f.

VIII.

PrivateInventionMaybePriorArtUnlessAbandoned/Suppressed102(g)
i. Acompletelyprivateinventionmadeinthiscountry(ONLY)mayserveaspriorarttopreventanewpatent
under102(g)unlessithasbeensuppressed,abandoned,etc.Notethatatradesecretwillserveas
suppression.
1. Unlike102(a),requiresproofofcontinueduse;notpublicity.
2. Cf.Masonv.Hepburn(clipgun)Masonbuiltgunearlierbuthiditaway,onlytorevealitafterheheard
Hepburnhadcomeupwiththesamething.HepburnwonbecauseMasonhadsuppressedcourthates
folkswhokeepstuffsecret.
SecretknowledgeinthePipelinemayalsobePriorArt102(e)
i. Theeffectivedateofanissuedpatentisthefilingdate.Ifsecretart(thatwilleventuallyresultinadisclosed
patent)hasbeenplacedintothepipelinepriortoyourapplication,yourinventionwillbedeemedtohavebeen
anticipated.
ii. Mostapplicationsarepublished18monthsafterfilingsoyouwontknowyoureintheclearuntil18months
later.102(e)expresslylimitedtoUSpatentapplications.

StatutoryBarstoPatentsIssuing102
a.

Publicuse102(b)deniesapatentwheretheinventionwaspatentedordescribedinaprintedpublicationin
thisoraforeigncountry,orinpublicuseoronsaleinthiscountryformorethanoneyearpriortothedateof
application.Intendedtoencourageinventorstoapplyforpatentsandtopunishthemforenjoyingexclusivebenefits
intheinventionformorethanthestatutoryterm.Evenalimitedusethatresultsinnegligibleexposuretothepublic
counts.
i. NoninformingPublicUsesPatentswereactuallygrantedonmethodsthathadbeenusedforlongerthatthe
statutoryperiod.How?Theorywasthattheproductsdidnotpubliclyrevealtheprocessthroughwhichthey
weremade.
1. Gillman(quiltpuffingmachine);W.L.Gore(methodforstretchingteflon).NOTE:oddb/c102(b)
usuallyignoresenablementissues.Thosewhoweresellingtheproductsatthetimeallofasudden
becameinfringers.
ii. Dating.Unlikenovelty,thecriticaldatefor102(b)isoneyearprecedingthedateofapplication.swear
behindthatoneyearlimit,oryoullgetbounced.
iii. Informingvs.NoninformingDistinction.Ifinformingandinventorknowsthatinformationhasbegunto
disseminate,hemustapplyforhispatentwithin1year.Ifnoninforming,inventorhasnotbeenwarned,and
willnotbepenalizedfordelayinghisPTOapplication.
iv. Egbertv.Lippman(Barnespresentedcorsetasagifttowomanwhoeventuallybecomeshiswife)
1. Notnecessarythatmorethanonearticlebepubliclyused,ormorethan1personknow.
2. Neednotbeseenpubliclyifhiddenpartofagreaterproductinpublicusesomethingsarecapableof
beingusedonlywheretheycannotbeseen.
3. Complete,notbeingusedforexperimentation,imposednorestrictiononitsuse.
4. Hedsleptonhisrightsfor11years,andhadineffectabandonedtheinventiontothepublic.
v. Experimentalusedefenseto102(b)applicantcouldclaimthathewasexperimenting
1. Elizabethvs.Nicholsoninventsnewtypeofpavement.Laysitbeforeatollwayforoverayear.
inventionisinpublic,butheneededtohaveitouttheretotestdurability

45

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

b. Onsale102(b)patentbarredifinventionisplacedonsaleintheU.S.byanyonemorethanoneyearbeforethe
patentapplication.Anysaleoroffer,evenifprivate,andevenifnoteventuallysold,willbar.
i. Offerstosellthepatentrightsdontcount,onlyofferstosellthethingitselforcommercialembodimentsof
thethingitself.
ii. Pfaffv.WellsElectronics(TexasInstrumentsaskguyforinvention)doestheonsalebarapplytoinventions
thatarentreducedtopractice?Test:
1. Productmustbethesubjectofacommercialofferforsale,and
2. theinventionmustbereadyforpatenting(a)theinventioniseitheralreadyreducedtopractice,or(b)
therearedrawingsorotherplanssufficientlydetailedtoallowsomeoneskillinthearttomakeit.
c.

Abandonment102(c)barsapatentwherepatenteehasabandonedthepatent.Onlyusedwheninventor
intentionallysurrendertothepublic.Rarelyusedbecauseabandonmentwilltypicallytrigger102(b),andsection
(c)ismoreonerousprovisionbecausedoesnotprovideagraceperiod.NOTE:Section102(c)isconcernedwith
abandoningrighttoapatent;102(g)isaboutabandoningtheinvention.
i. MacBethEvanGlassvs.GE(glassmaking;employeequitandsoldsecrettoGE)MacBethsuseof
inventionwithoutthebenefitofpatentindicatedintenttoabandontothepublicdomain.Youcanchoose
eitherpatentortradesecret,butnotboth!

d. DelayedU.S.filing102(d)barswhen:(1)whenaninventorfilesaforeignapplicationmorethan12months
beforeaU.S.application,and(2)aforeignissuancepriortotheU.S.filingdate.WanttoencouragepromptUS
filing.Usedinfrequentlybecauseofpatentofficedelays.
IX.

Infringement271(a)aquestionoffact.
a. Ifsomeoneuses,sells,etc.anyofthethingsthatarespecifiedintheclaimsofapatent,thenthereisinfringement.
b. PolicyQuestion:shouldpioneerpatentsgetbroaderprotectionagainstinfringement?
i. E.g.,Firstguytoinventmicrowavegetsbroadrange;Guywhoinventsturntableordefrostbuttongetsnarrow
range
ii. firstinventorhashardesttimedrafting;doesntknowrangeorimpactoftechnology.Breadthhelpstocatch
laterinventions
1. Bellinventedthephone,butnottheparticularphoneeverybodywantedtosue.W/obroadclaim,he
wouldhavenothing
iii. Insupportofnarrowerpatents:encouragecompetitivedevleopments
1. Dontwantsomebodycontrollingthemarket
2. Concernaboutupstreampatent
3. Givethemnobelprizes,butnotbroadpatents
iv. Intermediatepointgivebroadpatentbutdevelopstrongdefensestoinfringementtoallowutilization
1. Incopyright:thincopyrightsallowotherstoutilizecreativityforparticularpurposes,compulsory
licenses107122(broadensfairuse_
2. Patentsdonthaveanequivalentoffairuse;P.831,notegattemptsbyCongresstoenactsome
analogouspatentlaws
3. Commonlawlimitstoinfringementhavedeveloped.Dotheygofarenough??
c.

GeneralRuleInfringementisanalogofanticipation:
i. Somethingthatwouldbw/inequivalencelatershouldanticipateifearlier
ii. Somethingthatwouldanticipateearlierisreallyinequivalencelater

d. BroaderdefinitionofinfringementthanotherIP
i. Copyrightextrinsicevidence
ii. TMconfusion,dilustion
iii. Infringementisnotsobroadinpatent

46

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

e.

Literalinfringementwhentheaccusedtechnologyembodieseachandeverylimitationoftheclaim.Twosteps:
i. InterpretclaimsResponsibilityofJudge.
1. Markman(pretrial)hearingsmaybenecessary.
2. Useexperttestimonytoresolveambiguousclaims.
3. ExaminedocsandoralprosecutionhistorytoevaluateintentofPatentee.
ii. CompareclaimsandaccuseddeviceDeterminewhethertheaccuseddevicepossesseseveryelementof
theclaimedinvention.

f.

Infringementunderthedoctrineofequivalentspreventsothersfrommakingsimilarinventionswithnarrow
differencesthatexistsimplytoavoidtheclaimsofotherpatents.Ifanaccusedinfringementpresentsunsubstantial
differencesfromtheclaimedinvention,theninfringementexists.
i. Limitationstodoctrineofequivalence:
1. TheeveryelementstestEachclaimisntconsideredholistically,butelementbyelement.
a. foreachelementsomebodycouldsubstituteanequivalent
b. MustshowthatallelementsarepresentAorAmustbethere
c. Ifyougetsameresultw/oallelements,thenyouvedonesomethingreallynewandareoutsidethe
patent
d. SeePennwalt(courtheldthattherewasnoinfringementunderDoEb/ctheaccusedfruitsorting
devicedidnothaveanequivalenttothepatentedinventionsprogresstracker.)
2. ProsecutionhistoryorFileWrapperestoppelInventorheldtowhatshesaidtoPTO:
a. Ifyouclaimsomethingduringprosecutionfor(almost)anyreason,itsyours!
b. BUTFestoyourestillentitledtoscopeofequivalenceafteramendments;itsjustnotthatbroad
i. WarnerJenkinsseemedtoonlyapplyestoppeltorequiredamendmentstoavoidpriorart
ii. everynoncosmeticamendmentmustnowbeexaminedtodeterminewhetheritbarsuseofthe
DoEnomatterwhatitsbasisandirrespectiveofwhethertheamendmentwasrequiredbythe
PTOorwaspurelyvoluntary.
iii. AmendmentdoesNOTsurrendersubjectmatterif:
1. equivalentwasunforeseeableattimeofapplication
2. rationaleforamendmentbearsnomorethanatangentialrelationtoequivalentinquestion
3. someotherreasontothinkpatenteecouldnotreasonablehavebeenexpectedtodescribe
insubstantialsubstituteinquesiton
iv. Festodoctrineofequivalencelimitationsoflanguagetodescribetechnicalmaterials
v. Nomatterhowmuchyouknewaboutthefuturestillwouldntbeabletoprovidereallygood
explanationofwhatyourepatenting;takesmorethan20min.toputtogetherIkeadesk.
c. ExtentofterritoryyieldedNothingspecificallyrelinquishedcanberecovered
d. PostFestoEstoppeltest
i. Didamendmentnarrowthescopeofclaim?
ii. Ifyes,wasitsubstantiallyrelatedtopatentability?
1. presumptionthatitwasrelated(Ifnoreasonfoundinprosecution)
2. opportunitytorebutpresumptionw/experttestimonyandextrinsicevidencethat
a. equivalentwasunforeseeable
b. boretangentialrelationshiptoequivalent
c. limitsoflanguageorsomeotherreasonforamendment
3. NonobviousnessPatenteecannotuseDoEtostretchthepatenttoencompassactivitythatwouldhave
beenconsideredobviousatthetimehemadehisinvention.
4. OtherfactorsSubstantialityofthedifferences.Inventiveactivityvs.Purecopying.
ii. PolicyIssuesencouraginginnovation
1. Ifyouholdstrictly,thepatentbecomesrecipeforinfringement.Thiswilldiscourageinnovationby
increasingrisk
2. Ifyoumakethelinefuzzier,maybepeoplewilltakeinventiveresourcestoleapfrogovertheinvention
(moreinnovation)

47

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

3.

PolicyGoal#1Attempttofindwaytolimittheextenttowhichyoumakedoctrineofequivalence
functionallyequivalenttocentralclaiming(WarnerJenkinsonandFesto)
4. Policygoal#2preventinventorformlosingoutbecauseofafteracquiredtechnologyworried
aboutsubstitutionsthatdontgotoheartofinventionthatpatenteecouldntclaiminthefirstplace
iii. WarnerJenkinsv.HiltonDavis(dyeimpurityremovalprocessinpH6.09.0)InitiallyclaimedpH>9.0,
butalteredto6.09.0duringPatentprosecutiontodistinguishfromantherPatent.Testofequivalenceisoneof
insubstantialdifferences.Intentimmaterial.
1. DoctrinemustbeappliedtoeachelementofPatent,notdeviceasawhole.
2. Testforinsubstantialdifferences:(1)gettingthesamefunctioninthesameway(Graver),(2)copying,
(3)interchangeability,and(4)(non)obviousness.
3. Prosecutionhistoryestoppeldiscussion.Seedefensesbelow.
g.

X.

IndirectInfringementtheremustalsoalwaysbeadirectinfringementbysomeoneelse
i. Activeinducement271(b)whenoneknowinglyencouragesanothertoinfringeoraidsinthat
infringement.Usuallysellingcomponentsw/instructionsformakinginfringingcombination
ii. Contributoryinfringement271(c)usuallysellingamaterialpartoftheinventiontothedirect
infringer.Typically,thepartisespeciallymadefortheinventionandthemakerknowsofthepatentandthe
infringersintendeduse.Maynotbeastaple/commodityarticle.SeeSonyrationalesfromcopyright..

NonStatutoryDefensestoInfringementanyoftherequirementsforpatentabilitymaybeadefense
butthereareothersinclude:
a.

Experimentaluseisnotapublicuse.Ifauseisnotcommercialandisintendedtomakesuretheproductworks
foritsintendedpurpose,itisexperimental.NOTE:courtshavegenerallyrefusedtogivemarketresearchthebenefit
ofthisexception.
i. Factors.Lookatthetotalityofthecircumstances,including:
1. Numberofprototypes
2. Durationoftesting
3. Attentiontorecordsduringtesting
4. Existenceofconfidentialityarrangement
5. Receiptofcommercialadvantagebypatentee
6. Controlovertestingbyinventor
7. Tailoringoftestingtospecificfeaturesofinvention
8. Whetherthetestingcouldhavebeencarriedoutprivately
ii. CityofElizabethv.AmericanPavementCo.(woodenpavement)InventorgrantedPTeventhough
installationoccurredwaybeforePTapplicationsubmitted.Usewaspublic,butnecessarytotestdurability.
Notvoluntarilyallowingotherstogenerallyreproduce/sellit.Inventionkeptunderinventorscontrol,and
inventorretainedtitletopatent.[NOTE:isthisNOTaninfringementcase,buttheconceptisthesame]
iii. Madeyv.DukeUniversity(Madeymovedlaser(FEL)labfromStanfordtoDukethengetsfired;Madeysole
ownerof2patentsusedbylab)DistinctionbetweenexperimentingonaPTinvention(permissible)and
experimentingwithaninvention(impermissible).Useisdisqualifiedfromthedefenseifitisinfurtherance
ofthelegitimatebusinessoftheallegedinfringer,andnotsolelyforphilosophicalinterest.Theprofit/non
profitstatusoftheuserisnotdeterminative.DukesresearchprojectsfurtherUniversitybusiness:faculty
participation,increaseschoolstatus,andluresstudents/grants.

b. FirstSaleDoctrinethearticlepasseswithoutmonopoly
i. Adamsv.Burke(licenseforsaleofpatentedcoffinlidfor10mileradiuswithBostonatcenter)Aftersale,
thepatentedobjectisopentotheuseofthepurchaserwithoutfurtherrestriction.Here,sellercouldonlysell
inBoston,butbuyercouldusecoffinwhereverhedlike!
ii. NOTE:Commonlawexceptionsthathaveswallowedtherule
1. Malincrotv.Medipart,24uspq2d1173(1992)patentapparatusfordeliveringaerosolmisttonose.
Cansaidforsingleuseonly

48

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

2.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss
a. FederalCirhealthreasontonotallowrefills
b. Patenteesputlimitationsontheembodimentstheysellandcourtupholdsthem(e.g.,restrictreuseand
resale)
Somecircuitshavestuckhardertofirstsaledoctrine

c.

ReverseDoctrineofEquivalentsSometimesonecancopytheclaimsexactly,butbecausetheinvention
functionsdifferently(orbetter!),thereisnoinfringement.Usedinfrequently.Somesaythiswouldprovidesome
incentivetomakeimportantimprovementswithouthavingtowrestlewithblockingrights.
i. BoydenPowerBrakeCo.v.Westinghouse(airbrakefortrain)Originaldevicedescribedwell,butunableto
executeairnotreleasedfastenough.Accuseddevicemanagedtopullitoff,andthecourtsaidthatitwas
patentablebecauseitwasutilizingdifferentinsight.

d. FirstInventorDefensealsoknownasaprioruserright.Forbusinessmethods,ifreducedtopracticeatleast1
yearbeforethefilingdate(andcanshowcommercialuse),yourehomefree.
e. InequitableconductIftheapplicantwasntcandid(especiallyw/knownpriorart)intheapplication.The
intentionalfailuretodiscloserelevantpriorartorothermisdeedswillmakeapatentunenforceable.Need:
i. materialinfo,AND
ii. intenttodeceive
f.

DoublepatentingFilingduplicativeapplicationsastothesameinvention,theappshouldberejected.If
applicationwasntrejected,ininfringementsuitcanbringupissue.BUTblockingpatentsOK:
i. SpecialEquipmentv.Coe(patentsportionofhispearprepmachinetopreventothersfrommakingsimilar
stuff)CourtsaidblockingisOK.Grantofpatentnotconditioneduponuse.Thatswhywehavelimited
patentterms,sopublicwillgetaccesstoitafterpatentexpires.
1. Dissent:Inconsistentwithpolicyofpromotingtheprogressofscience.Wedontwantinventorssitting
onimportantinventions,especiallygood/importantones.

g. ProsecutionHistoryEstoppelseeDoctrineofEquivalentsabove.
h. Estoppelifthepatenteeletstheinfringerbelievethathewontenforce,theinfringerrelies,andsuffersfromthe
reliance
i. Shoprightsarightoftheemployertoanonexclusive,royaltyfree,nontransferablelicensetomakeandusethe
invention.Onlyapplieswheninventionsaremadebyemployeeshiredforotherpurposes,butwhowindup
developingstuffthroughtheuseoftheemployersfacilities.
j. Lacheswhenthepatenteesdelayinbringingsuitwasunreasonableandtheallegedinfringersufferedmaterial
prejudicebecauseofthedelay.
k. PatentMisusewhenthepatentholderimpermissiblybroadensthescopeofhispatentwithananticompetitive
effect.Typicallyseenwith:
i. tyingtoanotherproduct
ii. postpatentroyalties
iii. packagewithlicensesnottodeal
iv. pricerestraints.
XI.

ExtraterritorialityAUSpatentprovidesexclusivityonlywithintheUS,but...
a.

SellingAbroad271(f)RecognizingtheimportanceofforeignsalestothepatenteesoverallROI,271(f)does
notpermitamanufacturertoselladisassembleddeviceoverseassothatthepurchasercansimplyrecreateit.
b. ManufactureAbroad271(g)Productsmadewithpatentedprocessesareconsideredinfringing,evenwhen
manufactureoccursabroadpreventsimportsfrominfringersabroad
XII.

Remedies284:adequatetocompensate
a.

Injunctions283temporaryandpermanentinjunctions;courtshavebecomemoresensitivetothepublic
interestsideofthings

49

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

i. Problems:
1. Cantscompensateforbackdamages
2. Increasesocialcostswhenpatenteecantkeepupwithdemandorsimplyrefusestoallowothertodoso
3. PatentTrollsCompanies,notactivelyengagedinDsbusiness,whosebusinessitistolookforpatents
thatarearguablybeinginfringedandthentofilesuits,mainlywiththeideaofsecuringsettlements.
Injunctiongivestrollbargainingpowerb/cinjunctionharmsDwithoutreallybenefitingtroll.Litigation
hasbeenproposedtochangethis.
b. Damages284reasonableroyaltyistheminimum.Damagescanbe(upto)tripleinthecasesofwillful
infringement.NorecoverybeforeinfringerhadnoticeofPT(PT#isconstructivenotice)andnorecoveryfor
infringementsthataremorethan6yearsoldatthetimeoffiling.
i. ReasonableRoyaltycourtslookatwhatapersonwouldbe(orwouldhavebeen)willingtopayforalicense
andstillmakeareasonableprofit.FactorstoConsider:
(i)royaltiescurrentlyreceivedbyPTee,(ii)ratespaidbyinfringerforothersimilarpatents,(iii)theowners
licensingpolicy,(iv)commercialrelationshipb/ttheownerandinfringer,(v)durationofthepatentandlength
ofthelicense,(vi)theprofitabilityandcommercialsuccessoftheinfringement,(vii)industrycustom,(viii)
experttestimony,(ix)theportionoftheprofitthatshouldbecreditedtotheinventionalone,etc.Georgia
Pacificv.USPlywood
ii. LostProfitsownermustshow(1)butforcausationor(2)showcausationbyestablishingthatinfringer
shouldhavereasonablyforeseenhowinfringementwouldhavecausedtheloss.RiteHitev.Kelley.Two
schoolsofthoughthere:
1. Maximizepatenteereturn.Putpatenteeinsamepositionasiftherewasnoinfringement.Increase
incentivetoinvent.
2. patenteecanonlyrecoverinitscurrentmarkets.Reducesflexibilitybutstrongincentivetobringproduct
toallpossiblemarkets.
a. Shouldbaseincludesubstitutetechnologies?Complementaryproducts?Maybeonlywhenpatented
inventionandrelateditemformfunctionalunit?
b. Preinfringementdatacanbeused,butmustbeadjustedforchangesinthemarket,
3. NOTE:RiteHitev.KelleyCompan,Inc.Cangetdamagesevenforitemyoudontuse.patenteehad
inventednewwaytostabilizetruckswhenstoppedandunloading,incorporatedintomanualtruckstop,
butchosenottodoautomatictruckstop,soasnottocompetewithitsotherstop.arguesthatpatentee
didntsufferanydamages,becausehesnotusingpatentforautomatictruckstop
a. Dissent:denydamages,policyshouldencouragepeopletobringproductstomarket.
iii. AttorneysFeeAswithTMand,onlyinexceptionalcircumstances,285.Feesandprejudgmentinterest
necessarytomakePatenteewhole,andtodeterinfringement.
iv. Prejudgmentinterestvalueofmoneylostupuntiljudgmentispaid(lotsofmoneybecauseoflonger
litigationperiod.Patenteedoesntgetinterestifhescausingdelay
v. Trebbledamagesincentivenottoinfringe.Onlywhenyoucanshowwillfulness
1. Whatcountsaswillful?Whatistheevidentiarystandard?
2. BlackberrygetshundredsofC&Ds.Howcantheykeeptrackofallofthemandtellwhicharelegit.
c. DeclaratoryReliefGenuinecaserequirement
i. Dsconductmusthaveproducedareasonableapprehensionofsuit
ii. Pmusthaveproducedorbepreparedtoproductthedevice
d. ExclusionOrderscanpreventimportationofinfringingarticles,aslongasindustryexistsormakingreasonable
effortstoestablish
i. Unlawfulimportation19USC1337(tariffActprovision)CoversallIPexceptionappliesmostlyinpatents
ii. Example:BurnbedstorotatevictimswerenotbeingmadeinUS,socourtdeniesinjunction.RU486not
beingsoldinUS
e. StandingOnlythosewithexclusiverighttopracticetheinventiongetstanding

50

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey
XIII.

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

DesignPatents171Patentsfornewandoriginaldesignsforanarticleofmanufacture.Adesignpatentprotects
ornamentationw/oprotectingfunction..
a. Adesignpatentisinfringedif,fromthevantagepointofatypicalpurchaser,theinfringingdesignseems
substantiallythesamesimilartoprotection.Only14yearprotection.
b. BoatHullsSince1998,boathullshavehadtheirownstatutoryscheme.ReasontobelievethatCongressisusing
thisprotectiontotestthewatersfordevisingbetterprotectionforotherfunctionaldesigns.
c. CriticismsofDesignPatentProcessOften,designpatentwillissueafterpopularityofdesignhaspeaked.Non
obviousnessisverysubjectivewhenitcomestoornamentation.

XIV.

FederalPreemptionStatelawsarepreemptedbythepatentlawsundertheSupremacyClause
a.

Federal/StatePreemption
i. FieldpreemptionwhenCongresssothoroughlyoccupiesalegislativefieldthatitisreasonabletoassume
thatCongressleftnoroomforthestatestosupplementit
ii. ExplicitPreemptionAnylegalorequitablerightsunderstatelawequivalenttoanyoftheexclusiverights
withinthegeneralscopeofcopyright
iii. ConflictPreemptionStatelawsarepreemptedbytheSupremacyClauseiftheystandasanobstacletothe
accomplishmentandexecutionofthefullpurposesandobjectivesofCongressinenactingapatentstatute

b. SuiGenerisLegislation(liketheFLstatuteinBonito&theSemiconductorChipAct)
i. Advantages
1. Cancombinecopyrightandpatenttoconformtoindustryneeds
2. Betteraccountofpublicaccessinterests
ii. Disadvantages
1. Difficulttodesignandimplement
2. Toughtoensureglobalprotection
iii. BonitoBoatsv.Thundercraft(boathulls)Boathullswerentcopyrightableb/ctheywerefunctionalobjects,
andnotpatentableb/cdidntmeetnonobviousnessstandards!Therefore,shouldhavebeeninpublicdomain.
FLlawoutlawedmoldcopyingforeverineffect,scoopingupboathullsfromthepublicdomainandplacing
themunderprivatecontrolagain.SupremeCourtdeclaredthatfederalIPlawspreemptedsuchstatelaw.
1. Dontwantstatesfavoringhomeindustries.
2. CongressrespondedbypassingboathulllawaspartofDMCA
iv. SearsRoebuckv.Stiffel(polelamp)Searspurchasedunauthorizedcopiesofthelampandcameinwitha
verycompetitiveprice.SCsaidthatfederallawhaddeterminedthatthelampwasineligibleforpatent
protection,andthusinthepublicdomain.Statelawcouldnotinterferewiththatdeterminationandalterthe
incentivestoinvent/competeassetforthbyCongress.
v. Cf.KewaneeOilv.Bicron(stateprotectionfortradesecretsnopreempted)
1. UnliketheitemsinBonitoandSears,tradesecretswereneverinthepublicdomaininthefirstplace.
2. TradeSecretlawprovidesweakerprotectionthanpatentlaw.
3. Tradesecretsprotectsomenoneconomicalinterestsoutsideofthepatentsphere(e.g.privacy).
c.

Federal/FederalPreemption
i. thesameinnovationcannotbeprotectedbymorethanoneofthefollowing(TM,orPatent).
ii. ApplicationofYardley(SpiroAgnewwatch)PTOsaidnopatentbecausepicturewasalreadycopyrighted,
butCCPAsawnoproblemwithusing2modesofexclusiveprotection.
iii. SingerManufacturingv.JuneManufacturing(sewingmachinepatents)Asthepatentwasabouttoexpire,
Singerputinforforthename/shapeoftheirmachines.Theyseemtohavegottenthe,butSupremeCourt
didnotallowthemtoenforceit.TheCourtthoughtthatprotectionforaformerlypatentedarticlewould
impermissiblyextendtheterm,preventingthepublicfromenjoyingfreeaccess.NOTcompletelyoverruled
byTraffix.

51

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

PartIVTradeSecretsandUnfairCompetition
I.

TradeSecretsanyinformationthatcanbeusedinbusinessthatissufficientlyvaluableandsecrettoaffordan

economicadvantageoverothers.
a. causeofactionagainstthosewhoacquireatradesecretbyimpropermeans.Thisincludestheuseordisclosure
ofasecretobtainedby(i)breachofconfidence,(ii)abuseofaconfidentialrelationship,or(iii)byaccidentor
mistake
b. Protectionexistsaslongasthesecretiskeptfrombeingknownwidely
i. iftheinformationbecomescommonknowledgeinanindustry,thenitsnotprotected.
ii. Tradesecretsexpirewhenreverseengineered.
c.

II.

Twomainfactorsdeterminetradesecretstatus
i. SecrecyCourtswilllookatthemeasurestakentokeeptheinformationsecret.Thequestioniswhether
themeasurestakeswerereasonableunderthecircumstances.Limitationstoaccessaregoodindicatorsof
secrecy.
ii. Valuetheinformationmustbesufficientlyvaluabletoaffordanactualorpotentialeconomicadvantage
overothers.Canbeshownby
1. directevidence
2. willingnessofothertopayfortheinfo
3. accusedinfringersdecisiontoresorttobadfaithmethodstoacquireit.

Impropermeansofacquiringatradesecretinclude:theft,fraud,unauthorizedinterceptionofcommunications,
inducementoforunauthorizedparticipationinabreachofconfidence,andothermeanswrongfulinthemselvesor
wrongfulunderthecircumstances.(IndependentresearchisOK,espionageisnot.)Thetwomainimproprieties:
a.

BreachofaconfidentialrelationshipIfowedadutyofconfidentialitytoowner(),andusedordisclosed
information,thentheresacauseofaction.Suchrelationshipsarisethroughemploymentandotherbusiness
relationships.
i. Reasonableeffortstomaintainsecrecy
1. indicatevalue
2. institutionalallocationcompanycanhidesecretsbetterthancourts(economicquestion)
a. DuPontv.ChristopherDuponttradesecretformakingMethane.Builtmachinery,thenwalls,
thenroof.Somebodytookarialphotosbeforeroofbuiltroof.Courtheldprocessofcovering
machinerywouldbetooexpensive
3. secrecyproceduresProvidenoticetoemployeesthatcertainstuffisnottransportable
ii. PepsiCov.Redmond(QuakerwantstohireawayRedmondfromPepsi,buthessignedaConfidentiality
agreementthatpreventshimfrommakinguseofconfidentialinformation)Redmond,aseniormanager,had
accesstoallkindsofconfidentialinfo.Courthelddisclosurewasinevitable.Redmondcouldnothelpbut
relyon/disclosehisoldknowledge,andwasenjoinedfromtakingnewjobtopreventbreachofK.Lower
courtdidnotabusetheirdiscretionbyconsideringRedmondslackoftruthfulnessw/PepsiandUzzis
unnaturalaffinityforhiringexPepsifolks.
iii. NOTE:Hardercasesinvolvenegativeinformation:Somebodygoestoanthercompanyanddoesthings
different,andoriginalemployersayshelearnednegativeinformation(thingsnottopursue)

b. Impropermeansofacquisitionanymeansthatfallbelowthegenerallyacceptedstandardsofbusinessmorality
andreasonableconduct.
i. SeeDupontv.Christopher(Airplanetakingpicturesofethanolplant)
ii. Propermeansinclude:independentdiscovery,reverseengineering,observationofiteminpublicuseor
display,orfrompublishedliterature.
III.

CovenantsnottoCompete(notinCA!!)
a. Courtswillenforcetoprotectcommercialmoralityandencourageinvention

52

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

b. balanceagainstworkermobility.
c. Generally,courtslooktoreasonablenessofterms.
i. Valueoftheemployeeswagepackageshouldcompensateforlostjobopportunities.
ii. BUTdidtheemployeehavenegotiatingpower?Didheevenunderstandtheclause?
d. NOTE:CAdoesntenforcecovenantsnottocompetesomesaythatswhySiliconValleyisinCA(replaced
Route128inBoston)
IV.

RemediesDamagesareawardedasthegreaterofeitherthelosssufferedbyowner,orgainbythief.Injunctionsand
damageawardsaretobedecidedequitably.
a. EconomicEspionageActcriminalizesviolationsoftradesecrecylaw(harsherpenaltiesforgivingsecretsto
foreigncountries.Liabilitymayrunnotonlytotheindividualmisappropriatingthetradesecrets,butalsotothe
organizationsthatemploythem
i. Enactedinlullbetweencoldwarandwaronterror
ii. Unemployedspieswouldmovetoprivatesectorandlookforindustrialsecrets
iii. Extraterritorialeffectpeoplecanuseinformationintheirowncountryaccordingtolocallawandstill
violateUSlaw
iv. CaseofJapaneseclientswhouseinformationtheyhadlearnedatClevelandclinic.
b. RighttoKnowLawscompromisetradesecretsinordertokeeptheenvironmentandtheworkplacesafe.OSHA,
forexample,requiresdisclosureofsomesecretinformation.Governmentnotallowedtoreusedataifreasonable
expectationsofconfidentiality;otherwiseitsanunconstitutionaltaking.Monsanto.
c.

Injunctivereliefhowlong?
i. permanentinjunctionsneverusesecretsagain.takesonecompetitorout
ii. injunctionuntilinformationbecomespublicpeoplebegintoworrythatthisistoolong
iii. Reasonabletime;experimentsHowlongwouldsecretshavelasted?Inaccurate

V.

ThreeProblemswithTradeSecrecy
a. Monitoringwhoknowswhenpartyisusingitinsecret
b. ROITimesomeproductshardtoinventbuteasytoreverseengineer
c. Reluctancetoenforcerightsdontwanttodisclosesecretinformationattrial

VI.

EconomicCostsoftradesecretsvs.OtherIP
a. Cantbuildoninventions.Peoplewasteresourcesreinventingthewheel
b. Healthandsafetyproblemsstatedoesntknowwhatyouredoing
c. DisruptsEmploymentmarket
i. Restrictsemploymentopportunities(cantgotoworkforcompetitors)
ii. Endupmisusingtalents
iii. Keepssalariesdown(nocompetingoffers)
iv. Increasedrisksforthosew/seasonedemployees
1. ComputerAssocv.Altai(406,n.6)arniegoesfromCAtoAltaiandmiraculouslycreatescomputer
programthathadtakenCAlongtimetofigureout.
v. Slowstechnologicaldevelopmenttransferringinformationisslowed(employeemovementisbestway
forinformationtotravel,e.g.visitingprofessors)

VII.

Reasonsmoststateshavetradesecretlaw
a. Otherwisepeoplekeeprealsecrets:tieemployeesmoretightly
b. Givesabilitytoshareinformationwithbankersregulators,etc.inordertosecureloans/ivestors
c. Guaranteeslegalrecourseincaseofleaks

VIII.

Istradesecretlawpreempted?
a. 102(g)verysecretinformationcanstillpreventpatents

53

JoshuaKaplan
IPSurvey

Fall2005
ProfessorDreyfuss

b. Courthasretreatedfromstarkposition.P.906(describedincaseon918)
i. Kiwanidisloyalemployeebringsmethodforgrowingcrystalstocompetitor
1. OHtradesecrecylawwasbrought
2. Courtsaysenforcementoftradesecretisntpreempted:anybodywouldcouldgetapatentwouldgetit
c. Tradesecrecypreemptionisstillviablenotion
i. notionthatpeoplegetpatentswhenevertheycanisquestionable.
ii. onlywaytogetbenefitofpublicdistributionisthroughdisclosureandpatentsystem
iii. suigenerislegislationaimedatparticularinformation:CAsoundrecordinglaw
1. BUTstateboathulllawsstruckdown.

54