Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Anna Biani participated in an online role-playing forum themed around Victorian London, where she created three original characters: Charlotte Émilie Benoit, Frederick FitzClarence, and Landon Otis Lloyd. She registered copyrights for these characters and her forum posts. Biani alleged that the television series Penny Dreadful, which aired on Showtime, infringed her copyrights by incorporating aspects of her characters into the show’s characters, particularly Vanessa Malcolm and Sir Malcolm Murray. She pointed to similarities in character traits, backgrounds, and the casting of Eva Green, whom she had identified as resembling one of her characters.The United States District Court for the Central District of California reviewed Biani’s complaint. The court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim, finding that Biani had not plausibly alleged that the defendants had access to her work or that the similarities between the characters were so striking as to preclude independent creation. The district court applied the extrinsic test for substantial similarity, filtering out unprotectable elements such as stock features of the Victorian-era genre, and concluded that any remaining similarities were insufficient. Biani was given leave to amend but chose not to do so, resulting in dismissal with prejudice.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit held that, to state a claim for copyright infringement, a plaintiff must plausibly allege ownership of a valid copyright and that the defendant copied protected aspects of the work. The court found that Biani failed to plausibly allege copying, as the similarities were not so extensive as to preclude coincidence or independent creation. Additionally, the court agreed that Biani did not allege substantial similarity in protectable expression under the extrinsic test. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "BIANI V. SHOWTIME NETWORKS, INC." on Justia Law

Trader Joe’s, a national grocery store chain, has used its distinctive trademarks, including a unique red typeface and logo, since 1967 and does not franchise or license these marks. The company also sells branded merchandise such as reusable tote bags. Trader Joe’s United, a labor union representing some of Trader Joe’s employees, began selling merchandise—including tote bags, apparel, mugs, and buttons—on its website, allegedly using Trader Joe’s trademarks and design elements. Trader Joe’s sent cease-and-desist letters, objecting only to the union’s commercial use of its marks on merchandise, not to the union’s use of the company name for identification or advocacy. The union refused to comply, and Trader Joe’s filed suit, alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and related claims.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the union’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, finding no plausible likelihood of consumer confusion under the Sleekcraft factors and concluding that the Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLGA) barred injunctive relief because the dispute arose from a labor dispute. The district court also dismissed the trademark dilution claim under the nominative fair use doctrine and awarded attorneys’ fees to the union, finding the suit frivolous and improperly motivated.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the trademark infringement claim, holding that, when viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to Trader Joe’s, the district court erred in its application of the Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion test. The appellate court also held that the district court erred in dismissing the dilution claim without proper analysis and in concluding that the NLGA categorically barred injunctive relief at the pleading stage. The Ninth Circuit vacated the attorneys’ fees award and remanded for further proceedings. View "TRADER JOE'S COMPANY V. TRADER JOES UNITED" on Justia Law

Two brothers, Tom and Robert Hoffmann, were formerly partners in a family heating and air conditioning business. After Robert bought out Tom’s interest, they settled their disputes in state court with an agreement that included a four-year prohibition on Tom’s use of the “Hoffmann” name in any HVAC business, as well as non-disparagement and non-solicitation clauses. After the four-year period, Tom started a new company, Hoffmann Air Conditioning & Heating, LLC, using the family name. Robert and his company, Hoffmann Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc., objected and filed suit in federal court, alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted summary judgment to Tom and his company on the copyright claim, finding insufficient evidence of damages or a causal link between the alleged infringement and any profits. The remaining claims proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a mixed verdict largely favoring Tom and his company on the trademark and unfair competition claims. Both sides sought attorney fees, but the district court denied all requests.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the district court’s rulings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the copyright claim, holding that the evidence of damages and profits was too speculative. It also upheld the jury instructions and verdict on the trademark claims, finding the instructions properly reflected the law regarding customer sophistication and initial-interest confusion. The court agreed that ambiguity in the settlement agreement’s language about post-four-year use of the Hoffmann name was a factual question for the jury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of attorney fees to Robert, as he had not personally incurred any fees. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in all respects. View "Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating" on Justia Law

A company developed and patented a process for desulfurizing heavy marine fuel oil (HMFO) to comply with international sulfur content standards. The patented process involves taking a high-sulfur HMFO that meets certain physical property requirements and then hydroprocessing it to reduce its sulfur content. The company marketed its technology to various refineries, including the defendants, but no licensing agreement was reached. The defendants later modified their refineries to produce low-sulfur HMFO, prompting the plaintiff to sue for patent infringement, specifically alleging that the defendants’ processes at one refinery infringed two claims of the relevant patent.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the parties disputed the proper construction of certain claim terms and the appropriate method and location for testing the fuel’s compliance with the required standards. During discovery, the defendants argued that it was too dangerous to obtain certain test samples, and the court accepted their position, allowing the plaintiff to use an estimation formula instead. On the eve of trial, however, the defendants introduced a new noninfringement theory, arguing that only actual test data—not estimates—could prove compliance. The district court allowed this argument, and the jury returned a general verdict of noninfringement. The district court later found the defendants’ argument improper and prejudicial but deemed the error harmless and denied the plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the district court abused its discretion in finding the error harmless because the jury’s general verdict made it impossible to determine whether the improper argument affected the outcome. The appellate court reversed the denial of a new trial and remanded for further proceedings, also affirming the district court’s construction of the disputed claim term. View "MAGEMA TECHNOLOGY LLC v. PHILLIPS 66 " on Justia Law

Two business compliance companies entered into a partnership to develop a software product, with one company providing “white-label” services to the other. The partnership was formalized in a written agreement, but disputes arose over performance, payment for out-of-scope work, and the functionality of the software integration. As the relationship deteriorated, the company that had sought the services began developing its own infrastructure, ultimately terminating the partnership and launching a competing product. The service provider alleged that its trade secrets and proprietary information were misappropriated in the process.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania presided over a jury trial in which the service provider brought claims for breach of contract, trade secret misappropriation under both state and federal law, and unfair competition. The jury found in favor of the service provider, awarding compensatory and punitive damages across the claims. The jury specifically found that six of eight alleged trade secrets were misappropriated. The defendant company filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and remittitur, arguing insufficient evidence, improper expert testimony, and duplicative damages. The District Court denied these motions.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the District Court’s rulings. The Third Circuit held that the defendant had forfeited its argument regarding the protectability of the trade secrets by not raising it with sufficient specificity at trial, and thus assumed protectability for purposes of appeal. The court found sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding of misappropriation by use, and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. The court also found no reversible error in the admission of expert testimony. However, the Third Circuit determined that the damages awarded for trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition were duplicative, and conditionally remanded for remittitur of $11,068,044, allowing the plaintiff to accept the reduced award or seek a new trial on damages. View "Harbor Business Compliance Corp v. Firstbase IO Inc" on Justia Law

A musician and songwriter alleged that another composer copied his liturgical song, “Emmanuel,” in creating her own work, “Christ Be Our Light.” The plaintiff had published and performed “Emmanuel” widely in the 1980s and early 1990s, including at conventions attended by both the defendant and her publisher. The defendant, a British musician, composed “Christ Be Our Light” in 1993, and her publisher had received copies of “Emmanuel” from the plaintiff in the mid-1980s. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had access to his work through these conventions, widespread dissemination, and her relationship with her publisher.The plaintiff initially filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana, but after a procedural dismissal and re-filing, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. During discovery, the plaintiff disclosed, after the deadline, letters from the publisher acknowledging receipt of “Emmanuel.” The district court, adopting a magistrate judge’s recommendation, excluded these letters and the related access theory as a sanction for late disclosure, finding the failure to disclose was neither substantially justified nor harmless. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that, without the excluded evidence, the plaintiff could not show access or striking similarity, and thus could not proceed with his copyright claim.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the exclusion of the late-disclosed evidence and the related access theory, holding that the discovery sanction was not claim-dispositive and was within the district court’s discretion. However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment, holding that, even without the excluded evidence, there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant had access to “Emmanuel” and whether the two works were substantially or strikingly similar. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "AMBROSETTI V. OREGON CATHOLIC PRESS" on Justia Law

Two employees of a debt-collection firm, one of whom was out sick with COVID-19, collaborated to resolve an urgent licensing issue for their employer. The employee at home, unable to access her work computer, asked her colleague to log in using her credentials and retrieve a spreadsheet containing passwords for various company systems. The colleague, with express permission, accessed the computer and emailed the spreadsheet to the employee’s personal and work email accounts. Both actions violated the employer’s internal computer-use policies. Separately, the employee at home had, over several years, moved accounts into her workgroup to receive performance bonuses, believing she was eligible for them. Both employees also alleged persistent sexual harassment at work, which led to internal complaints, one employee’s resignation, and the other’s termination.After these events, the employer, National Recovery Agency (NRA), sued both employees in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), federal and state trade secrets laws, civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The employees counterclaimed for sexual harassment and related employment claims. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court entered judgment for the employees on all claims brought by NRA, finding no violations of the CFAA or trade secrets laws, and stayed the employees’ harassment claims pending appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. It affirmed the District Court’s judgment in full. The Third Circuit held, first, that the CFAA does not criminalize violations of workplace computer-use policies by employees with authorized access, absent evidence of hacking or code-based circumvention. Second, it held that passwords protecting proprietary business information do not, by themselves, constitute trade secrets under federal or Pennsylvania law. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the state-law tort claims. View "NRA Group LLC v. Durenleau" on Justia Law

Oregon enacted a law requiring prescription drug manufacturers to report detailed information about certain drugs, including pricing, costs, and factors contributing to price increases, to the state’s Department of Consumer and Business Services. The law also directs the agency to post most of this information online, but prohibits public disclosure of information designated as a trade secret unless the agency determines that disclosure is in the public interest. Since the law’s enactment, manufacturers have claimed thousands of trade secrets, but the agency has not publicly disclosed any such information.A trade association representing pharmaceutical manufacturers sued the director of the Oregon agency in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, raising several facial constitutional challenges. The district court granted summary judgment for the association on two claims: that the reporting requirement violated the First Amendment by compelling speech, and that any use of the public-interest exception to disclose trade secrets would constitute an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment. The court declared the entire reporting requirement unconstitutional and held that any disclosure of trade secrets under the public-interest exception would violate the Takings Clause unless just compensation was provided.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case. It reversed the district court’s summary judgment for the association on both the First and Fifth Amendment claims. The Ninth Circuit held that the reporting requirement compels commercial speech and survives intermediate scrutiny under the First Amendment, as it directly advances substantial state interests in transparency and market efficiency and is not more extensive than necessary. On the takings claim, the court found the association’s challenge justiciable but concluded that, under the Penn Central regulatory takings framework, none of the factors supported a facial claim that every disclosure under the public-interest exception would constitute a taking. The court remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the state on these claims. View "Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. Stolfi" on Justia Law

Ripple Analytics Inc. operated a software platform for human resources functions and originally owned the federal trademark for the word “RIPPLE®” in connection with its software. In April 2018, Ripple assigned all rights, title, and interest in its intellectual property, including the trademark, to its Chairman and CEO, Noah Pusey. Meanwhile, People Center, Inc. began using the name “RIPPLING” for similar software, though it abandoned its own trademark registration effort. Ripple later sued People Center for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming ownership of the RIPPLE® mark.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the case. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement showing that Pusey, not Ripple, owned the trademark. People Center moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, arguing Ripple was not the real party in interest. The district court dismissed Ripple’s trademark infringement claim with prejudice, dismissed its unfair competition claims without prejudice for lack of standing, and denied Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, finding the proposed amendment futile because it did not resolve the standing issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Ripple was not the real party in interest for the trademark infringement claim, as ownership had been assigned to Pusey, who failed to ratify or join the action. The court also held that Ripple lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claims under federal and state law, as it no longer had a commercial interest in the trademark. The denial of Ripple’s motion to amend was upheld because the amendment would not cure the standing defect. The court further found that the district court’s interlocutory order allowing People Center to amend its answer was not properly before it on appeal. View "Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc." on Justia Law

Global Health Solutions LLC and Marc Selner each filed patent applications in August 2017 for a method of preparing a wound treatment ointment containing nanodroplets of an aqueous biocide suspended in petrolatum jelly without emulsifiers. Selner filed his application four days before GHS, making him the first-filer under the America Invents Act (AIA) “first-inventor-to-file” system. GHS alleged that its founder, Bradley Burnam, conceived the invention and communicated it to Selner, who then derived the invention and filed first. Both parties agreed that their applications claimed the same invention, and the dispute centered on who conceived the invention and when.The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) instituted a derivation proceeding. After reviewing evidence, including contemporaneous emails, the Board found that Burnam communicated the invention to Selner by 4:04 p.m. on February 14, 2014, but also found that Selner had independently conceived the invention earlier that same day, by 12:55 p.m. The Board determined that Selner did not derive the invention from Burnam and ruled in favor of Selner. GHS appealed, arguing that the Board erred in its evidentiary rulings, burden of proof allocation, and failure to require reduction to practice for conception, and also requested that Burnam be named a co-inventor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reviewed the Board’s legal conclusions de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. The court held that the Board’s focus on “first-to-invent” was harmless error, as Selner’s independent conception was dispositive under the AIA. The court found no reversible error in the Board’s evidentiary rulings, burden allocation, or treatment of reduction to practice. The court also held that GHS failed to properly preserve its request for correction of inventorship. The Board’s judgment for Selner was affirmed. View "GLOBAL HEALTH SOLUTIONS LLC v. SELNER " on Justia Law