all - Opinion Summaries

A&M RECORDS, INC. v. NAPSTER, INC.

Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property
While plaintiffs have shown that the digital file sharing service is likely to contribute to infringement of their copyrights, and defendant has shown...

MONON CORP. v. STOUGHTON TRAILERS, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Evidence that a patentee's sale of a product prior to the critical date of its patent was primarily experimental, and thus was not "commercial sale"...

AFG INDUS., INC. v. CARDINAL IG CO., INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
While the words "composed of" in claim may generally be synonymous with "consisting of," there may be circumstances where a broader meaning is more...

WENGER MFG, INC. v. COATING MACH. SYS, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
The district court erred in interpreting the "air circulation means" limitation as requiring structure capable of recirculating air because the...

LITTON SYS., INC. v. HONEYWELL, INC.

Injury & Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Patent
Even though the district court correctly found non-infringement based on the doctrine of equivalents, a jury should have decided the factual elements...

ALS SCAN, INC. v. REMARQ COMMUNITIES, INC.

Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property
When a letter provides notice equivalent to a list of representative works that can be easily identified by the Internet service provider, the notice...

FLEX-FOOT, INC. v. CRP, INC.

Intellectual Property, Patent
Patent law does not necessarily require that an arbitrator set forth the full scope of claim terms in claims construction, and public policy...

THE HOOVER CO. v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MG. CO.

Intellectual Property
There is no likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act where substantial evidence supported the Trademark Trial and Appeal...

VEECK v. S. BLDG CODE CONG. INT'L INC.

Administrative Law, Intellectual Property
Copyright may attach to regulatory codes that, although drafted by private industry groups, have subsequently been enacted into law.

THE HOOVER CO. v. ROYAL APPLIANCE MFG. CO.

Intellectual Property
Where the original mark was not inherently distinctive and had not acquired distinctiveness, and the proposed registration mark is not deceptive or...