B o n e

Intellectual Property Outline Alexandra Fulcher

Fall 14

IP, Bone 2014

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5 Policy Framework ................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Copyright Law.......................................................................................................................... 7 Summary of Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Overview ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Original Work of Authorship Requirement .................................................................................................................. 8

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991) ............................................................................................................... 8 Fixation in a Tangible Medium of Expression ............................................................................................................. 9 Formalities ............................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Limitations on Copyrightability ....................................................................................................................................... 11

Idea-Expression Dichotomy - §102(b) .................................................................................................................... 11 Baker v. Selden (1879) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International (1996) .................................................................................................. 12 Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble (1967) ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Useful Article Doctrine - §101, 102 ........................................................................................................................... 13 Brandir International, Inc. v. Cascade Pacific Lumber Co. (1987) .................................................................................... 14

Domain and Scope of Copyright Protection ................................................................................................................ 14 §106 Rights, Duration, and Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 16

Initial Ownership of Copyrights ................................................................................................................................. 16 Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid (1989) ............................................................................................................. 17 Aalmuhammed v. Lee (2000) .............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Traditional Rights of Copyright Owners – 17 USC §106 .................................................................................. 18 Anderson v. Stallone (1989) ................................................................................................................................................................ 21

Infringement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 22 Bright Tunes Music Corp. v. Harrisongs Music, LTD. (1976) ................................................................................................ 23 Computer Associate International v. Altai, Inc. (1992) .......................................................................................................... 23

Indirect Liability ............................................................................................................................................................... 24 Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. ................................................................................................. 24 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 24

Fair Use Doctrine .............................................................................................................................................................. 25 Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City ........................................................................................................................... 25 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. .................................................................................................................................................... 26 Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. ........................................................................................................................ 26 Blanch v. Koons ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Perfect10, Inc. v. Google, Inc. ............................................................................................................................................................... 27

Trademark ............................................................................................................................. 28 Summary of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 28 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................... 28 Policy Arguments ................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Qualitex v. Jacobson Products (1995) ............................................................................................................................................. 32 Requirements for TM Rights/Protection ..................................................................................................................... 32

Distinctiveness .................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Zatarain’s v. Oak Grove Smokehouse (1983) ............................................................................................................................... 33

Genericness: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep Systems (1989) .......................................................................................................... 34

Priority §1051, 1127 ....................................................................................................................................................... 35

IP, Bone 2014

3

Zazu Designs v. L’Oreal, S.A. (1992) ................................................................................................................................................. 36 Logos ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Trade Dress .............................................................................................................................................................................. 37

Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992) .......................................................................................................................................... 38 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. (2000) ........................................................................................................... 38

Functionality ...................................................................................................................................................................... 39 TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays (2001) ............................................................................................................................ 40

Registration .............................................................................................................................................................................. 40 In re Nantucket, Inc. (1982) ................................................................................................................................................................ 42

Infringement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 44 AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats (1979) ................................................................................................................................................. 45 Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC (2007) ........................................................................................... 47 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc. (2009) .......................................................................................................................................... 48 Tiffany Inc. v. eBay Inc. (2010) .......................................................................................................................................................... 49

Licensing ................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Defenses .................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Abandonment: ................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Major League baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet (1993) .......................................................................................... 51

Expressive Uses: Trademarks and the First Amendment ............................................................................... 51 Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records (2002) .................................................................................................................................................. 52

Remedies ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 International Issues .............................................................................................................................................................. 53

Trade Secret .......................................................................................................................... 54 Summary of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 54 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................... 54 Basic Requirements .............................................................................................................................................................. 55

Actual Secrecy and Competitive Value .................................................................................................................... 55 Metallurgical Industries, Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc. .............................................................................................................................. 56

Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Secrecy ................................................................................................................. 56 Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc. ............................................................................................................ 56

Ways to Disclose a Secret that Destroys its Secrecy .......................................................................................... 57 Infringement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 58

E.I. DuPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher (1970) ................................................................................................................ 58 Remedies ................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

Patent ................................................................................................................................... 61 Summary of Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................ 61 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Subject Matter Eligibility .................................................................................................................................................... 63

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) ....................................................................................................................................................... 64 Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (2012) .......................................................................... 64 Bilski v. Kappos (2010) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 65

Utility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 Describing and Enabling ..................................................................................................................................................... 66

Procedures for Obtaining a Patent ............................................................................................................................ 66 Description of Claims ...................................................................................................................................................... 66 Enablement - § 112, ¶ 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 67

The Incandescent Lamp Patent (1895) ......................................................................................................................................... 67 Written Description ......................................................................................................................................................... 68

Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (2010) ............................................................................................................... 69

IP, Bone 2014

4

Novelty and Statutory Bars ............................................................................................................................................... 69 Novelty .................................................................................................................................................................................. 69

Rosaire v. National Lead Co. (1955) ............................................................................................................................................... 70 Statutory Bars .................................................................................................................................................................... 71

Egbert v. Lippmann (1881) ................................................................................................................................................................. 71 Experiment Use Exception ........................................................................................................................................... 72

City of Elizabeth v. Pavement Company (1877) ........................................................................................................................ 72 Priority - §102(g)(1), (2) ............................................................................................................................................... 73

Griffith v. Kanamaru (1987) ............................................................................................................................................................... 73 Nonobviousness ..................................................................................................................................................................... 74

Steps of Analysis (under Graham): ........................................................................................................................... 74 Graham v. John Deere (1996) ............................................................................................................................................................ 74 KSR International Co. v. Telefex Inc. (2007) ................................................................................................................................ 75

Infringement ............................................................................................................................................................................ 76 Phillips v. AWH Corporation (2005) ............................................................................................................................................... 76 Laramie Corp. v. Amron (1993) ........................................................................................................................................................ 77

Doctrine of Equivalents ................................................................................................................................................. 77 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods., Inc. (1950): ........................................................................................................ 77 Warner-Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. (1997): ........................................................................................................ 78 Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1998): ............................................................................................................. 78

Prosecution History Estoppel: .................................................................................................................................... 78 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. (2002): ................................................................................. 78

Remedies ................................................................................................................................................................................... 78

IP, Bone 2014

5

Introduction What is intellectual property?

Legal protection given to information and information products. Categories:

o Artistic/literary/musical works – federal copyright law o Technological and scientific information – federal patent law o Product-related information – federal trademark law o Everything else

Not all information receives legal protection. Congress’ Power to Regulate Article I, Section 8

Copyright and patent law: clause 8 – power to grant rights for limited times in “writings and discoveries”

Trademark: clause 3 – commerce clause 3 Major Federal Statutes:

Copyright Act of 1978 Patent Act Lanham Trademark Act of 1946

Policy Framework Reasons for IP:

Ex post: if a novel is copied, the author can’t recoup on investment – natural right/moral argument (Locke)

Ex ante: might inhibit future work – utilitarian argument: we want optimal product and maximize aggregate social welfare. We need special legal rights to encourage creation because without rights, no socially optimal amount of creative information.

Information is a public good – Features of public goods: o Non-excludability o Non-rivalrous o Cumulative

Economic/Utilitarian Justifications for Protecting Information:

Property law only protects physical things, not their content (books, etc.) We need protection so that the creators can recoup their fixed costs. Social benefits:

o Incentives to create- ex ante argument (copyright & patent) o Incentives to develop and exploit for public benefit (copyright & patent) o Incentives to make information available to the public (patent) o Trademark benefits:

Reducing consumer search costs Generating incentives to maintain and improve product quality

Social costs:

IP, Bone 2014

6

o Monopoly costs exclusive property rights can confer market power & give owners the ability to exclude competitors & raise prices above competitive level

o Chilling further innovation Restriction on access and use by others for future innovation. Less relevant to trademark.

o Administrative costs social costs of administering an IP system (cost of reviewing applications, cost of enforcing rights)

Ex ante argument- not protecting information might inhibit future work The goal of this approach is to maximize aggregate social welfare balance social

benefits of legal protection against social costs. Fairness/Nonutilitarian Perspective:

You created it, so you should be entitled to have it protected Natural rights theory: Lockean, labor-desert

o We all own our bodies & labor and what we mix our labor with in the world is also part of us. The fruits of your labor are also your property.

o Ex post theory: if novel you wrote is copied, you can’t recoup your investment.

Personhood/personality theory o Some creations are so tied to the person of their creator that creator should

be able to prevent others from using the creation in a way that offends the integrity of the creator

o Underlies “moral rights”- right to prevent mutilation of an artistic work. The goal of this approach is to respect each individual’s rights and to treat each

individual fairly must be done even if that leads to a net reduction in social welfare.

Unjust enrichment

Prevention of free riding! not always bad though.

IP, Bone 2014

7

Copyright Law

Summary of Analysis I. Does P have a valid copyright in the work?

a. Original work of authorship (OWA)? i. Modicum of creativity

1. First ask: is the portion that D has copied original? ii. Independent creation

b. Fixed? c. Formalities satisfied?

i. Notice ii. Registration

d. Excluded by copyright act? i. Idea – expression and merger

ii. Design of a Useful Article iii. Government Works

e. Plaintiff owns Copyright f. Copyright has not expired

II. Does D Prima facie infringe Plaintiff’s copyright? a. §106 Rights

i. Some limitations and exclusions – first sale, §114, 115 b. Infringement of §106 rights

ii. Actual copying (access and similarities) AND iii. Unlawful appropriation (substantial similarity)

c. Moral Rights - §106A d. Indirect Liability

III. Does D have an affirmative defense? a. Fair Use - §107

IV. Remedies

Overview Elements of Copyright

Copyrightable subject matter: author’s expression of the idea. Threshold for protection: modicum of originality + fixed in tangible medium of

expression. Formalities: registration required for suit. Authorship and ownership: must have been created or contracted. Duration: life of the author + 70 years

Rights Granted by Copyright

Reproduction (exclusive copying) Derivative works (works based on original) Distribution (control first sale and distribution) Performance & display (control public display) Anti-circumvention (no encryption)

IP, Bone 2014

8

Moral rights (prevent modification to work) Limitations

Fair Use Doctrine (criticism, news reporting, teaching, etc.) Compulsory License (music, cable, some exceptions) Safe Harbor (online service providers) Identical but independent development is okay Copyright protects the work, NOT the material object that the work is fixed in §202 Copyright protects artistic expression, NOT facts/ideas

Background

Copyright law was really born in censorship (materials governed by church and government)

Statute of Anne (1709): laid foundation for copyright law U.S. Statutes: over time, broader range of subject matter covered + longer

length/term of protection. o Copyright Act of 1790 o 1909 Act o 1976 Act o Berne Convention Accession (1989) o Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998

Original Work of Authorship Requirement 17 USC 102(a), 101 Need: independent creation + modicum of creativity

Independent creation = author did not copy work from another source; no requirement of unique/aesthetic merit.

Work is not defined. NO Copyright for:

Words/short phrases – e.g., names, titles, slogans Ideas and facts Purposeful errors

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service (1991)

Protectability of “sweat work.” Everyone gave Feist permission to use their information except for Rural, so Feist just took it.

o Precedent existed to allow Feist to escape liability if they used their own sweat of the brow to make their telephone book: still some work, not just free riding.

Does Rural have a copyright in its work?

IP, Bone 2014

9

o Original work of authorship? No. Alphabetizing people’s information isn’t creative. Advertisements in the book are creative, but the companies advertising own the © there.

o Some parts of Rural’s directory are original, but what Feist took was not. Bare facts are not copyrightable. There can be non-original things in a work that, as a whole, is original.

Court: there is nothing original about the arrangement or selection of facts to include. The book as a whole is an original work of authorship, but what ∆ took aren’t original components. Thus, ∆ not an infringer.

Facts are Not Copyrightable

Dire consequences for “fact works” like history books whose value is in the factual content, not the expression.

Congress cannot change the Copyright Act to protect facts there’s an authorship requirement and facts were never authored by anyone.

o Feist: the originality requirement is not just statutory, it’s constitutional. Mason v. Montgomery dealt with a map that was deemed original because there was

sufficient creativity in selection & arrangement and the graphic artistry of the map was sufficiently original.

Fixation in a Tangible Medium of Expression 17 USC 102(a), 101 Needs fixation that is sufficiently permanent/stable that work can be perceived/reproduced/otherwise communicated.

Work must be embodied in a material object with the creator’s authorization. o “Material object” can be a:

Copy objects without fixed sounds UNLESS it’s music accompanying a motion picture

Phonorecord object with fixed sounds Ex: Bone lecturing in class- it’s not fixed, so there’s no © protection

o He has notes for the class, so some of it is fixed, but most of it isn’t. o If you get authorization to write down Bone’s lecture verbatim or record it,

your fixation of his work can be used as fixation if Bone ever wanted to ©. 1909 act copyright attached after a work was public; before publication, state law

was the only protection. 1976 act critical point at which federal copyright attaches is at fixation. Wildflower garden example: not fixed because the flowers change all the time. Note: I write a novel (literary work) that’s fixed in a material object (copy)

o Copy material objects other than phonorecords o Phonorecord anything with sounds fixed in it other than a motion picture

You can only get © rights on something that is fixed for more than a “transitory duration”

o This is NOT a constitutional requirement

IP, Bone 2014

10

Formalities Need: fixed work BUT registration required for suit; largely voluntary requirements Notice

Hypo: Bone writes a novel, publishes it, and doesn’t put notice on it. o Under 1909 act forfeiture of federal © rights. Publication triggered

protection, but then if you didn’t attach notice, you forfeit that protection o Under the 1976 act pre-Berne ’89 you could still forfeit © by not putting

the proper notice on publicly distributed copies, but that can be remedied. o Today, post-Berne no forfeiture at all if you leave notice off.

Note: these rules are NOT RETROACTIVE. Whatever was in effect when the work was published is what matters and what applies.

Also note: once you lose your federal copyright rights, you never get them back Publication

1909: o Protection = triggered by publication of work (publication ≠ defined) o Act of publication eliminated state common law © o Public performance ≠ publication unless tangible copies

1976: o Protection = triggered by creating work fixed in TME o Publication = distributing copies (not public performance)

1978: o Publication still relevant because:

Registration of © MUST occur w/in first 5 years of publication to establish prima facie evidence of valid © - § 410(c)

Statutory damages & attorney fees are available for published works only if registered - § 412

If published MUST deposit at Library of Congress - § 407 Published works of foreign authors = protected under certain

conditions - § 104(b) Protection: 95 years from publication (works-for-hire); 120 years

from creation for unpublished works - §302(c) Termination of transfers - § 203(a)(3) Certain performance rights - § 110(9), 118(b), (d)

Registration

1909:

o Required registration by 28th year to renew ©

o Registration = prerequisite for infringement suit

1976:

o Registration = entirely optional for protection Congress still encourages

registration through incentives

o Registration = required for infringement suit

o Registration = prima facie evidence of © validity

IP, Bone 2014

11

1978:

o Eliminated registration required for Berne foreign works

o Still should register as early as possible for max damage relief

Registration still required before suit for non-Berne nations

o Need only fix work for more than transitory period to get protection

Mailing yourself a copy helps to establish creation date for evidentiary

purposes

Deposit

1909: o § 407 requires 2 copies of work w/in 3 months of publication to Library of

Congress; if not, forfeiture 1976:

o Deposit requirement doesn’t affect validity/right to sue if not, fine & incomplete registration process

Separate deposit required for © registration under § 408 Restoration of Foreign Copyright Works

Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 o Met minimum criteria but didn’t apply retrospectively o Congress added section to © Act to protect foreign works from Berne nations

that lost protection because non-compliance Derivative works can continue on paying reasonable compensation

Limitations on Copyrightability

Idea-Expression Dichotomy - §102(b) Rule: © doesn’t extend to idea, procedure, process, system, etc.

Prevents direct © protection of idea Merger Doctrine: when there is only one or few ways of expressing an idea, idea merges with expression thus, work is NOT copyrightable

Protecting expression implies protecting idea merger doc prevent indirect © protection of idea

Indirect monopoly problem – solutions:

No © o Prevents monopoly o Encourages creation of uniform standard

Thin © o Incentivizes further innovation o Creates incentives

Distinguishing idea from expression:

Lowest level of abstraction of the work = © - e.g. entire novel Higher levels of abstraction creep towards ideas ≠ © – e.g. theme

IP, Bone 2014

12

Somewhere along, line is drawn between idea and expression (around plot and characters)

Judge Hand’s Abstractions Test (p. 547): o “Upon any work, and especially upon a play, a great number of patterns of

increasing generality will fit equally well, as more and more of the incident is left out. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about, and at times might consist only of its title; but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected, since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his ‘ideas,’ to which, apart from their expression, his property is never extended. Nobody has ever been able to fix that boundary, and nobody ever can.”

Baker v. Selden (1879)

P writes and publishes book about a new accounting system, includes forms to use the system at the end of the book. ∆ only takes the forms from the back and slightly rearranges them

Court: ∆ is not an infringer o He took the idea (the accounting system) and copied the forms. o If you can’t copy the system without permission, what is the point of sharing

the system with others? This is more of a patent issue. The system is protectable by patent, not

copyright. o As for copying the forms: see merger doctrine. Protecting the forms as

expression would indirectly protect the accounting system as well in copyright, and that isn’t fair.

Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International (1996)

∆’s program used P’s menu command hierarchy: none of the code, just the look and feel. But Lotus still felt this was infringement and sued.

Menu command hierarchy deemed a method of operation so NOT copyrightable o ∆ wins.

Court: o The “idea” here is the particular menu command hierarchy and exactly the

way P designed it. Bone: this should actually be called an idea in a specific form of

expression, not a method of operation. o Concurrence: this should be copyrightable, but mostly from a policy

perspective- it would be so inefficient to expect people to learn a different menu for every program they use.

Morrissey v. Procter & Gamble (1967)

∆ copies P’s “Rule #1” in sweepstakes contest and says that it’s not copyrightable. The subject matter is so narrow that there are only a limited number of expressions,

so saying that P has © would give them an effective monopoly over sweepstakes- merger problem