About the Outline

Purchase this product now and earn 20 Points!

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OUTLINE
PROF. SAWICKI
• THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS 5
• LOCKE’S THEORY OF PROPERTY: LABOR-MIXING THEORY 5
• RADIN’S THEORY OF PROPERTY: PERSONAL V. FUNGIBLE PROPERTY 5
• UTILITARIAN ECONOMIC THEORY OF IP: CREATION OF INFORMATIONAL GOODS (2 PIECES) 6
• PHILOSOPHICAL PERSPECTIVES OF EACH SCHEME 7
o TRADE SECRETS THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 7
o PATENTS THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 7
o COPYRIGHT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 7
o TRADEMARK THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE 8
• TRADE SECRETS 9
• OVERALL GOALS 9
• ELEMENTS OF T.S. PROTECTION 9
o SUBJECT MATTER MUST QUALIFY 9
• Metallurgical Industries Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc. – 1986 (pp. 39) 9
o REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO PREVENT DISCLOSURE 10
• Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV –1991 (pp. 49) 10
• Disclosure of Trade Secrets 11
• Data General v. Digital Computer Controls –1972 (pp. 58) 11
o ACTUAL MISAPPROPRIATION PP 65-83 12
• Misappropriation through deception, skullduggery, or outright theft 12
• E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher – 1970 (pp. 66) 12
• Obtained through breach of confidence/duty 13
• Smith v. Dravo Corp. – 1953 (pp. 70) 13
• Arrows Information Paradox 14
• Reverse Engineering/Independent Discovery (Not Improper) 14
• Kadant, Inc. v. Seeley Machine, Inc. – 2003 (pp. 76) 14
• PATENT 16
• KEY POINTS (THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO DRE) (RED TEXT HE SAID) 16
• OVERALL GOALS 16
• OVERVIEW OF PROCESS 17
• THE ELEMENTS OF PATENT INFRINGEMENT 17
o WHAT IS PATENTED: INTERPRETING CLAIMS 17
• Markman v. Westview Instruments 517 U.S. 370 (1996) 17
• Construction of the Claim; Sources of Construction, Evidence and Canons 18
• Philips v. AWH Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2005); “Baffles” Case 18
• Ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term 18
• Categories of useful evidence in claim interpretation 19
• Canons of Claim Interpretation 19
o IS THE PATENT VALID? 20
• Subject Matter 20
• “Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter” 20
o Diamond v. Chakarabarty – 1980 (pp. 132) 20
• “Invents or Discovers” 21
o Parke-Davis & Co. v. H.K. Mulford Co. – 1911 (pp. 139) 21
• Patchwork of Rules for Living things 22
• Cannot Patent: Laws of Nature, Phys. Phenomena, & Abstract Ideas 22
o Bilski v. Kappos (Fed. Cir. 2008) – Abstract Idea Case (p. 159) 22
• Process vs. Product Patents | Patenting Natural Law and Ideas? 23
o Diehr and Flook; Mayo v. Prometheus – 2012 (pp. 144) 23
• Novelty — Patent Law’s Requirement that an invention be “New” 24
• Rosaire v. National Lead Co. – 1955 (228) 25
• Prior Art Class Notes 26
• Nonobviousness 26
• Graham v. John Deere Co. – 1966 (pp. 257) 27
• Combining References 27
o KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. (U.S. 2007) 27
• In re Kubin (Fed. Cir. 2009) (p. 278) 28
o DIRECT INFRINGEMENT ANALYSIS (323-354) 28
• Literal Infringement 28
• Larami Corp. v. Amron, (E.D. Pa. 1993) Supersoaker Case 29
• The Doctrine of Equivalents — Non-Literal Infringement 29
• All Elements Rule (All Limitations) 30
• Prosecution History Estoppel 30
o Festo Corp. v. Skoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo (U.S. 2002) 30
• Doctrine of Dedication to the Public Domain 31
o Johnson & Johnston (Fed. Cir. 2002) 31
• After Arising Technologies (p. 350) 31
o OTHER TYPES OF INFRINGEMENT: 32
• Indirect Infringement = Contributory or Inducement 32
• Contributory Infringement 32
o C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Adv. Cardiovascular Systems (Fed. Cir. 1990) 32
• Inducement 33
o Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. (U.S. 2011) 33
• Joint Infringement 33
• COPYRIGHT © 34
• ELEMENTS OF COPYRIGHT 36
o OWNERSHIP OF VALID COPYRIGHT 36
• Original Works of Authorship 37
• Facts and Compilations 37
o Feist vs. Rural Telephone Svce. (U.S. 1991) – (Phonebook; 440) 37
• More Facts, Created Facts: 38
• Fixation in a Tangible Medium of Expression 39
o SUBJECT MATTER “EXCLUSION PROVISION:” 40
• Idea vs. Expression of an Idea (Dichotomy) 40
• BAKER V. SELDEN (U.S. 1879) (Seminal) (461); “Copying for Use” 40
• THE MERGER RULE 41
o MORRISEY V. PROCTER & GAMBLE (1st Cir. 1967) 41
• The Useful Article Doctrine [maybe not covered] § 101 of Copyright Act 41
• “METHODS OF OPERATION” 42
• LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. V. Borland (1st Cir. 1996) 42
o ACTUAL OWNERSHIP 42
• WORKS MADE FOR HIRE; What constitutes an Employee? 42
• Comm. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid – (US 1989) (p. 507) 43
• JOINT WORKS 44
• Aalmuhammed v. Lee – (9th Cir. 2000) (p. 515) 44
• COLLECTIVE WORKS 45
• DURATION and Renewal 45
• Division, Transfer, and Reclaiming of Copyrights 45
o REPRODUCTION RIGHTS 46
• The Right to Prepare DERIVATIVE WORKS 47
• Anderson v. Stallone (pp. 574) C.D. Cal. 1989 47
o ACTUAL COPYING 49
o IMPROPER APPROPRIATION – SEMINAL CASE ON POINT 50
• Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corporation 2d. Cir. (1930); p. 545 50
o OTHER RIGHTS 50
• The Right to DISTRIBUTION 50
• PUBLIC PERFORMANCE and DISPLAY Rights §106(4),(5) 51
• MORAL RIGHTS (Theory) 51
• DEFENSES 51
o FAIR USE 51
• Harper & Row Publishers v. Nation – (U.S. 1985) (pp. 610) 52
• Parody (type of fair use) 54
• Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. – 1994 SCOTUS (pp. 640) 55
• TRADEMARK™ 57
• OVERALL GOALS + HISTORY 57
• ELEMENTS OF INFRINGEMENT 58
o A LEGALLY PROTECTED MARK 58
• Protectable Subject Matter and the Doctrine of Functionality 59
• Zatarain’s, Inc. v. Oak Grove Smokehouse, Inc. – 1983 5th Cir. (pp. 782) 61
• Genericide – terms can become generic over time 63
o Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep – 1989 2d Cir. (pp. 794) 63
• Trade Dress vs. Product Design & Distinctiveness 64
o Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana (pp. 804) 1992 SCOTUS 64
o Separating Trade Dress from Product Design 65
o Wal-Mart Stores v. Samara Brothers (pp. 810) 1992 SCOTUS 65
• Trademark Priority Rule: Timing of “Use” and Priority to the mark 67
• Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal S.A. (pp. 829) 1992 2nd Cir. 67
o INFRINGER USE IN COMMERCE 68
• Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. (pp. 868) 2009 2d Cir. 68
o LIKELY TO CAUSE CONSUMER CONFUSION 70
• AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats (pp. 876) 9th Cir. 1979 70
• Types of Confusion 72
• INCONTESTABILITY 72
o PARK ‘N FLY V. DOLLAR PARK (PP. 861) SCOTUS 1985 73
• DEFENSES 74
o ABANDONMENT (NOBODY LIKES TO BE ABANDONED) 74
• MLB v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd. (pp. 953) SDNY 1993 74
o UNSUPERVISED LICENSES – ™ 74
• Dawn Donut Company, Inc. v. Hart’s Food (pp. 960) 2d. Cir. 1959 75
• EXHAUSTION/FIRST SALE; REPACKAGING; REPAIR: 75

Add to wish list

Reviews

You must log in and be a buyer of this outline to submit a review.