<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Copyright Law - MoreLaw.com</title>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com</link>
<description>Copyright Law - MoreLaw.com</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>&#169; Copyright 2008, MoreLaw.com Inc All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
<category>Recent Cases</category>
<item>
<title>Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corporation</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=C%2008-03251%20WHA&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41987</link>
<description>ORDER RE CROSS MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTIn this copyright-infringement action, plaintiff Apple, Inc. and defendant Psystar Corporation have filed cross motions for summary judgment. For the following reasons, Apples motion is GRANTED and Psystars motion is DENIED.STATEMENTPlaintiff Apple Inc. launched its Macintosh computer in 1984 and its Mac OS X operating system in 2001. Apple has manu</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bridgeport Music, Inc. and Southfield Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. and University Music Inves</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=07-5596&amp;s=TN&amp;d=41909</link>
<description>This copyright-infringement case is one of several hundred filed by [Bridgeport Music, Inc., and Southfield Music, Inc.] against entities and/or individuals associated with the rap or hip-hop music industry, seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages from some 800 defendants for copyright infringement under the federal copyright statute, 17 U.S.C.  101 et se</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 6 Nov 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Daniel P. Schrock v. Learning Curse International, inc., RC2 Brands, Inc. and HIT Entertainment</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-1296&amp;s=IL&amp;d=41935</link>
<description>HIT Entertainment (HIT) owns the copyright to the popular Thomas &amp; Friends train characters, and it licensed Learning Curve International (Learning Curve) to make toy figures of its characters. Learning Curve in turn hired Daniel Schrock, a professional photographer, to take pictures of the toys for promotional materials. Learning Curve used Schrocks services on a regular basi</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Nov 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>James Siracusano v. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=06-15677&amp;s=AZ&amp;d=41839</link>
<description>Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. (Matrixx) is a pharmaceutical company that sells cold products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Zicam, LLC. One of its main products is Zicam Cold Remedy, which comes in several different forms.1 Plaintiffs-Appellants are lead plaintiff, NECA-IBEW Pension Fund, and named plaintiff, James Siracusano, in a class action brought against Matrixx and three Matrixx exe</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc. and Kremers Urban, LLC</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=09-1438,%2009-1462,%2009-1601&amp;s=&amp;d=41911</link>
<description>The parties to this Lanham Act suit are manufacturers of an oral laxative the chemical name of which is polyethylene glycol 3350. Schering, the plaintiff, sells its version under the trade name MiraLAX. MiraLAX is an over-the-counter drug. The four defendants sell the generic version of the drug under its chemical name (except that defendants Kremers and Schwarz also use the name GlycoLax</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Bayly Crossing, L.L.C., et al. v. Consumer Protection Division, Office of the Attorney General</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=No.%201328%20September%20Term,%202008&amp;s=MD&amp;d=41656</link>
<description>This appeal arises from a civil administrative action by the Consumer Protection Division of the Maryland Office of the Attorney General (CPD) against appellants Julia B. Passyn, Theodore B. Passyn, Theodore B. Passyn, III (the Passyns), and Bayly Crossing, LLC. CPD charged appellants with failing to register under the Home Builder Registration Act (HBRA), Maryland Code (2004 Rep</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2008-1509,%20-1510&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41522</link>
<description>The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (Stanford) appeals a final judgment that the asserted claims of U.S. Patents No. 5,968,730 (730 patent), No. 6,503,705 (705 patent), and No. 7,129,041 (041 patent) are invalid for obviousness. Bd. of Trs. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 563 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (Invalidity Opinion). Ro</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Oct 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jose Antonio Aquirre v. Turner Construction Company, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-3999&amp;s=IL&amp;d=41508</link>
<description>This is a tort suit brought in federal district court under the diversity jurisdiction by a bricklayer (and his wife, who is claiming loss of consortium).It is governed, so far as the substantive issues are concerned, by Illinois law. The plaintiff was seriously injured when he fell off a scaffold while working on the renovation of Soldier Field, the big Chicago athletic stadium. His employer was </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Wounder Warrior Project, Inc. v. Wounded Warriors Family Support</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=07-cv-370-LES-FG3&amp;s=NE&amp;d=41424</link>
<description>Wounded Warrior Project, Inc. ("WWP") sued Wounded Warriors Family Support on a copyright violation theory claiming that defendant wrongfully infringed its copyright on Lanham Act and Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act violation theories claiming that defendant's use of a similar name was intended to confuse the public.</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Cincom Systems, Inc. v. Novelis Corp.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=07-4142&amp;s=OH&amp;d=41503</link>
<description>Novelis Corporation appeals from the order of the district court granting summary judgment to plaintiff Cincom Sysems, Inc. (Cincom), on its claim of copyright infringement. See 17 U.S.C.  501. Novelis argues that the district court erred by concluding that a series of mergers Novelis underwent as part of an internal corporate restructuring resulted in a prohibited transfer of the software</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Art Attacks, Ink, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc.; Isaac Larian</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=07-56110&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41335</link>
<description>Art Attacks Ink, LLC (Art Attacks) brought suit against MGA Entertainment Inc. (MGA), alleging copyright, trademark, and trade dress infringement. A jury found for MGA on the trademark claim, but could not reach a verdict on the remaining claims. MGA then moved for judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(b). The district court granted the motion and Art Att</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Super Duper Inc., dba Super Duper Publications v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Co</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=26717&amp;s=SC&amp;d=41805</link>
<description>The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina presents certified questions concerning commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies.  We are asked, as an issue of first impression in South Carolina, whether the respective policies inclusion of an advertising injury may encompass trademark infringement.  Generally, based on the policy terms before us, we answer in t</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nancy Lewis v. Rio Grande Sun</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=09-2122&amp;s=NM&amp;d=41269</link>
<description>Plaintiff Nancy Lewiss pro se complaint for copyright infringement charged that defendant, New Mexico newspaper Rio Grande Sun, ran a front page story she had written without crediting her authorship and published another article with an editorial change she had not approved.1 The district court referred the case to a magistrate judge who recommended that it be dismissed for lack of jurisdictio</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions, Inc. and Managed Solutions Group, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=5:07-cv-03952-JW&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41179</link>
<description>Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. sued ISPs Akanoc Solutions, Inc. and Managed Solutions Group, Inc. and Steven Chen on Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") violation theories claiming that defendants knowingly allowed others to sell counterfeit Vuitton goods on website hosted by them. Plaintiff produced evidence in support of its claims that defendants knew of the illegal activities being conduc</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Paris Hilton v. Hallmark Cards</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-55443&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41132</link>
<description>We must decide whether California law allows a celebrity to sue a greeting card company for using her image and catchphrase in a birthday card without her permission.I Paris Hilton is a controversial celebrity known for her lifestyle as a flamboyant heiress. As the saying goes, she is famous for being famous.She is also famous for starring in The Simple Life, a socalled reality televis</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 1 Sep 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>The SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-4217&amp;s=UT&amp;d=41066</link>
<description>This case primarily involves a dispute between SCO and Novell regarding the scope of intellectual property in certain UNIX and UnixWare technology and other rights retained by Novell following the sale of part of its UNIX business to Santa Cruz, a predecessor corporate entity to SCO, in the mid-1990s. Following competing motions for summary judgment, the district court issued a detailed opinion gr</description>
<pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Cardiac Pacemarkers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2007-1296,%20-1347&amp;s=IN&amp;d=41146</link>
<description>Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., Guidant Sales Corporation, Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, and Anna Mirowski (collectively, Cardiac or appellants) appeal from the decision of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana granting summary judgment of invalidity of claim 4 of U.S. Patent 4,407,288 (the 288 patent). See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=H031631&amp;s=CA&amp;d=41010</link>
<description>The Content Scramble System (CSS) is the standard technology used to prevent unauthorized copying of movies and other copyrighted content stored on DVDs. Defendant Kaleidescape, Inc. (Kaleidescape), licensed CSS from plaintiff DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. (DVDCCA), in order to develop a home entertainment system for viewing movies distributed on DVD.1 The system Kaleidescape developed is cap</description>
<pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Aviat Aircraft, Inc. v. Edward Saurenman</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=2009%20WY%2098&amp;s=WY&amp;d=41082</link>
<description>[1] Appellant, Aviat Aircraft, Inc. (Aviat), seeks review of the district courts Judgment in Accordance with Verdict. We will explain the details below, but we briefly note here that Aviat actually appealed from a decision of the district court that was made independent of, but which was subsumed into, the above identified Judgment. We also note that Aviat filed a motion for new t</description>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Shawn Van Asdale v. International Game Technology</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=07-16597&amp;s=CA&amp;d=40989</link>
<description>This case presents our first opportunity to examine the substantive requirements necessary to establish a claim under the whistleblower-protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C.  1514A. Plaintiffs Shawn and Lena Van Asdale appeal from the district courts summary judgment in favor of their former employer, International Game Technology (IGT), on their claim of retaliator</description>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Custom Hareware Engineering &amp; Consulting and David York v. Assurance Company of America</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=ED91441&amp;s=MO&amp;d=41017</link>
<description>Custom Hardware Engineering &amp; Consulting, Inc. and David York1 appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Assurance Company of America, on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We affirm.I. BACKGROUNDPlaintiff Custom Hardware, a corporation with its principal place of business located in Fenton, Missouri, provides service and maintenance on computer equ</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Custom Hardware Engineering &amp; Consulting, Inc. v. Assurance Company of America</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=ED91441&amp;s=MO&amp;d=41005</link>
<description>Custom Hardware Engineering &amp; Consulting, Inc. and David York1 appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of their insurer, Assurance Company of America, on their claims for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Custom Hardware, a corporation with its principal place of business located in Fenton, Missouri, provides service and maintenance on computer e</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Richard Vicari, dba Color Arts Landscaping v. Lake Havasu City</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=1%20CA-CV%2008-0534&amp;s=AZ&amp;d=40913</link>
<description>1 Richard Vicari and Color Arts Landscaping (collectively Vicari) appeal from the portion of the superior courts final judgment that awarded $1,000 in attorneys fees to Lake Havasu City (the City). For the following reasons, we affirm.BACKGROUND2 On June 12, 2007, Vicari, a subcontractor for Western Municipal Construction, Inc. (Western), filed a first-amended compl</description>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Capital Records, Inc. et al v. Joel Tannenbaum</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=1:03-cv-11661-NG&amp;s=&amp;d=40802</link>
<description>Answerthink, Inc., Arista Records, Inc., BMG Music, Capital Records, Inc., Capitol Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group Inc., Fonovisa, Inc., Motown Record Company, L.P., Recording Industry Association of America, Sony Music Entertainment Inc., Sony Music Entertainment Inc., UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation  sued Joel Tanenbaum for violatin</description>
<pubDate>Sat, 1 Aug 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Nicholas Lohman v. Duryea Borough, et al.</title>
<author>kent@morelaw.com (Kent Morlan)</author>
<link>http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=08-3524&amp;s=&amp;d=40768</link>
<description>Nicholas Lohman appeals from the District Courts award of $30,000.00 in attorneys fees following a jury verdict in his favor in his wrongful discharge action. The jury awarded Lohman $12,205.00 in lost wages and nominal damages, after finding Appellees liable on one of Lohmans three First Amendment retaliation claims. Lohman contends that the District Court improperly considered settlemen</description>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 2009 00:00:00 CST</pubDate>
</item>
</channel></rss>

