You have no items in your shopping cart.
Search
Filters

California Business Litigation

Essential information for California business attorneys on substantive law and litigation strategies at both the federal and state levels. 

Essential information for California business attorneys on substantive law and litigation strategies at both the federal and state levels.  

    • Patent disputes: procedures and developing law
    • Unfair competition: remedies, litigation
    • Trade secrets and trademarks: governing law, litigation
    • Antitrust: basics of federal and California law, remedies
    • Copyright: sources of law, preliminary relief, defenses, trial strategies
    • Other claims: business torts, right of publicity, insurance bad faith, unlawful employment practices
    • Before litigating: client interview, costs, potential recovery, preliminary relief
OnLAW BU94560

Web access for one user.

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 405.00
Print BU33570

2 looseleaf volumes, updated 7/18

 

This book is out of stock through 11/1/2018.  Need immediate access?  OnLAW version is available now.

 

If you are signed in and a new attorney, your adjusted cost appears below.

$ 405.00
Add Forms CD to Print BU23572
$ 99.00
Add OnLAW to print BU94560(40)
$ 129.00

Essential information for California business attorneys on substantive law and litigation strategies at both the federal and state levels.  

    • Patent disputes: procedures and developing law
    • Unfair competition: remedies, litigation
    • Trade secrets and trademarks: governing law, litigation
    • Antitrust: basics of federal and California law, remedies
    • Copyright: sources of law, preliminary relief, defenses, trial strategies
    • Other claims: business torts, right of publicity, insurance bad faith, unlawful employment practices
    • Before litigating: client interview, costs, potential recovery, preliminary relief

1

Prelitigation Considerations

Allan Browne

Eric M. George

Marcy Railsback

  • I.  INITIAL CLIENT INTERVIEW
    • A.  Initial Reaction to Client  1.1
    • B.  Initial Reaction to Case  1.2
    • C.  Fact Analysis  1.3
    • D.  Explaining Litigation Facts to Client  1.4
    • E.  Advance Payment  1.5
    • F.  Fee Agreements  1.6
      • 1.  Hourly Rates  1.7
      • 2.  Contingent Fee Agreement  1.8
      • 3.  Combination Hourly and Contingent Fee Agreement  1.9
  • II.  EXPENSE OF LITIGATION
    • A.  Monetary Expense  1.10
      • 1.  Expense of Obtaining Preliminary Relief  1.11
      • 2.  Expense of Suit for Damages  1.12
    • B.  Time Expense
      • 1.  Time Required of Client’s Employees  1.13
      • 2.  Time Required of “Friendly” Third Parties  1.14
  • III.  EFFECT OF LITIGATION ON CLIENT’S BUSINESS  1.15
    • A.  Employee Morale  1.16
    • B.  Relationships With Third Parties  1.17
    • C.  Risk of Divulging Important Business Information to Competitors  1.18
    • D.  Effect of Filing Complaint on Continuing Unlawful Business Acts  1.19
    • E.  Alternative Preventive Approach  1.20
  • IV.  POTENTIAL RECOVERY
    • A.  Solvency of Defendants
      • 1.  Ability to Defend  1.21
      • 2.  Ability to Respond in Damages  1.22
    • B.  Right to Attorney Fees  1.23
    • C.  Right to Punitive or Treble Damages  1.24
  • V.  POTENTIAL CROSS-COMPLAINTS
    • A.  Risk That Cross-Complaint Will Be Filed  1.25
    • B.  Consequences of Cross-Complaint
      • 1.  Costs of Defending  1.26
      • 2.  Risk of Adverse Judgment  1.27
    • C.  Insurance
      • 1.  Coverage of Policy  1.28
      • 2.  Insurer’s Duties  1.29
      • 3.  Notice to Carrier  1.30
      • 4.  Use of Independent Counsel  1.31
  • VI.  FORUM
    • A.  State Court  1.32
    • B.  Federal Court  1.33
    • C.  Alternative Dispute Resolution  1.34
    • D.  Choice of Law Determining Forum  1.35
  • VII.  DEVELOPING THE CASE
    • A.  Discovery  1.36
    • B.  Reliance on Employees and Third Parties  1.37
    • C.  Extent of Documentation  1.38
  • VIII.  IMMEDIATE APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF  1.39
    • A.  Attorney Time Needed for Preparation  1.40
    • B.  Effect of Grant or Denial  1.41
    • C.  Priority of Trial Setting  1.42
  • IX.  SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITIES
    • A.  Demand Letter  1.43
    • B.  After Complaint Is Prepared  1.44
    • C.  After Seeking Preliminary Relief  1.45

2

Availability of Preliminary Relief

Allan Browne

Eric M. George

Marcy Railsback

  • I.  IMPORTANCE OF PRELIMINARY RELIEF  2.1
  • II.  RELIEF IN CALIFORNIA COURTS
    • A.  Statutory Authority  2.2
    • B.  Decision to Seek Relief  2.3
      • 1.  Facts and Statutory Criteria  2.4
      • 2.  Threatened Injury  2.5
      • 3.  Injunctive Relief
        • a.  Mandatory Versus Prohibitory Relief  2.6
        • b.  Breadth of Injunctive Order  2.7
      • 4.  Bond  2.8
      • 5.  Forms
        • a.  Form: Complaint for Injunctive Relief  2.9
        • b.  Form: Declaration Supporting Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction  2.10
        • c.  Form: Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order  2.11
        • d.  Form: Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction  2.12
        • e.  Form: Preliminary Injunction and Order for Undertaking  2.13
        • f.  Form: Undertaking by Individual Sureties on Preliminary Injunction  2.14
        • g.  Form: Declaration of Personal Surety’s Qualifications  2.15
        • h.  Form: Order Denying Preliminary Injunction  2.16
  • III.  FEDERAL PROCEDURE  2.17
    • A.  Consolidation of Hearing With Trial on Merits  2.18
    • B.  Temporary Restraining Orders
      • 1.  General Provisions  2.19
      • 2.  Local Requirements
        • a.  Necessity to Obtain Order to Show Cause  2.20
        • b.  Obtaining Presence of Declarants  2.21
    • C.  Duration of Order  2.22
    • D.  Jurisdiction  2.23
    • E.  Appeal  2.24
  • IV.  CHECKLIST: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION  2.25
  • V.  SAMPLE FORMS FOR PRELIMINARY RELIEF IN FEDERAL COURT
    • A.  Form: Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order  2.26
    • B.  Form: Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction  2.27
    • C.  Form: Order re Preliminary Injunction  2.28
    • D.  Form: Table of Contents for Memorandum in Support of Motion  2.29
    • E.  Form: Contents of Memorandum in Support of Motion: Summary of Plaintiff’s Contentions  2.30

3

Unfair Competition

Allan Browne

Hon. Robert B. Broadbelt

Ira G. Bibbero

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  The Unfair Competition Problem  3.1
    • B.  International News Service v Associated Press  3.2
    • C.  Preemption by Federal Patent and Copyright Laws: Sears-Compco Doctrine  3.3
    • D.  Kewanee: Retreat From Sears-Compco  3.4
    • E.  Preemption and Sears-Compco Today  3.5
      • 1.  Cases Finding Preemption  3.6
      • 2.  Cases Rejecting Preemption  3.7
    • F.  Preemption by Federal Bankruptcy Law  3.8
  • II.  BASIC CALIFORNIA STATUTES  3.9
    • A.  Covenants Not to Compete
      • 1.  General Rule  3.10
      • 2.  Exceptions Related to Transfer of Interest in Business  3.11
        • a.  Sale of Business or Shares in Corporation  3.12
        • b.  Sham Sales  3.13
        • c.  Partnerships  3.14
      • 3.  Form Versus Substance  3.15
      • 4.  Partial Restraints  3.16
      • 5.  Strict Construction  3.17
      • 6.  Choice of Law  3.18
      • 7.  Employee’s Refusal to Sign Unenforceable Covenant Not to Compete  3.19
      • 8.  Third Party Liability  3.19A
    • B.  Unfair Competition Law  3.20
      • 1.  Definitions
        • a.  Unfair Competition  3.21
        • b.  Unfair Business Practice  3.21A
        • c.  Fraudulent Business Practice  3.21B
        • d.  Misleading Advertising  3.21C
      • 2.  Who May Bring Unfair Competition Claim?  3.22
      • 3.  Notice to Attorney General of Appeals Involving Unfair Competition Law  3.23
      • 4.  Government Entities Cannot Be Sued for Unfair Competition  3.24
      • 5.  Conduct Sufficient for Unfair Competition Claim
        • a.  Single Act May Be Sufficient  3.25
        • b.  What Is Unfair  3.26
        • c.  Business Practice in Violation of Other Laws Gives Rise to Unfair Competition Claim  3.27
        • d.  Examples of Violations of Other Laws  3.28
      • 6.  Bar on Private Right of Action  3.29
      • 7.  Claim May Be Brought Unless Other Laws Bar Action or Permit Conduct  3.30
      • 8.  Remedies for Unfair Competition
        • a.  Restitution and Disgorgement  3.31
        • b.  Civil Penalties  3.32
        • c.  Attorney Fees  3.33
        • d.  Injunctive Relief  3.34
      • 9.  Insurance Coverage for Unfair Competition Claims  3.35
      • 10.  Claims Against Foreign Defendants for Acts Outside California  3.36
      • 11.  Statute of Limitations  3.37
      • 12.  Bus & P C §17200 Applied  3.38
    • C.  Criminal Sanctions for Theft of Trade Secrets  3.39
    • D.  Uniform Trade Secrets Act  3.40
    • E.  Common Law Misappropriation  3.41
    • F.  Consumer Affairs Act  3.42
    • G.  Consumers Legal Remedies Act  3.42A
    • H.  Cartwright Act  3.43
    • I.  Unfair Practices Act  3.44
  • III.  UNFAIR COMPETITION BY EMPLOYEES AND FORMER EMPLOYEES
    • A.  General Considerations  3.45
    • B.  Specific Activities
      • 1.  Solicitation of Business From Former Employer’s Customers  3.46
        • a.  What Constitutes Solicitation  3.47
        • b.  Permissible and Impermissible Solicitation  3.48
        • c.  Permissible and Impermissible Solicitation: Case Examples  3.48A
      • 2.  Accepting Competitive Employment  3.49
      • 3.  Solicitation of Competitor’s Employees  3.50
      • 4.  Solicitation of Fellow Employees for Competing Company  3.51
      • 5.  Organization of Competing Business  3.52
      • 6.  Concealment of Competitive Plans  3.53
      • 7.  Divulging Confidential Matters to Competitors on Termination of Employment  3.54
      • 8.  Acquisitions During Employment  3.55
  • IV.  UNFAIR COMPETITION AMONG MANUFACTURERS, AGENTS, AND DISTRIBUTORS
    • A.  Termination of Distributorship or Agency  3.56
    • B.  Defenses to Action for Wrongful Termination
      • 1.  Contract Terms Governing Termination  3.57
      • 2.  Valid Grounds for Termination  3.58
    • C.  Effect of Vested Interest on Termination  3.59
    • D.  Manufacturer’s Conduct Giving Rise to Unfair Competition  3.60
    • E.  No Duty to Renew Distributorship  3.61
    • F.  Fiduciary Duty  3.62
  • V.  PREVENTIVE LAW IN DRAFTING AGREEMENTS  3.63
    • A.  Examples of Permissible and Impermissible Restraints  3.64
    • B.  Duration of Enforcement  3.65
    • C.  Specific Covenants
      • 1.  Covenant Against Competitive Employment  3.66
      • 2.  Covenant Not to Compete  3.67
      • 3.  Consulting Contracts  3.68
      • 4.  Antisolicitation Covenants  3.69
      • 5.  Organizing Competitive Businesses  3.70
      • 6.  Joining Former Company Employees  3.71
      • 7.  Soliciting Company Employees  3.72
      • 8.  Preserving Trade Secrets  3.73
      • 9.  Retaining Company Materials  3.74
    • D.  Precise Drafting as Prerequisite to Injunctive Relief  3.75
  • VI.  IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING  3.76
  • VII.  REMEDIES
    • A.  Damages
      • 1.  Loss of Profits  3.77
      • 2.  Initial Expenses and Additional Overhead  3.78
      • 3.  Diminution in Value of Goodwill  3.79
      • 4.  Punitive Damages  3.80
      • 5.  Attorney Fees  3.81
        • a.  Attorney Fees Under “Tort of Another” Doctrine  3.82
        • b.  Attorney Fees Under Principles of Equity  3.83
      • 6.  Proof Problems
        • a.  Rule of Certainty  3.84
        • b.  Methods of Measuring Damages
          • (1)  Expert Testimony  3.85
          • (2)  “Before and After” and “Yardstick” Theories  3.86
    • B.  Permanent Injunctive Relief
      • 1.  When Granted  3.87
      • 2.  Enjoining Breach of Contract Versus Enjoining Unfair Competition  3.88
      • 3.  Classification of Injunctions  3.89
      • 4.  Duration  3.90
  • VIII.  CHECKLIST: GUIDELINES FOR PREVENTING “BUSINESS PIRACY”  3.91
  • IX.  FORM: EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT CONTAINING UNFAIR COMPETITION PROVISIONS  3.92

4

Trade Secrets

Allan Browne

Benjamin D. Scheibe

  • I.  INTRODUCTION TO TRADE SECRET PROTECTION  4.1
  • II.  OVERVIEW OF UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT  4.2
  • III.  OTHER STATUTORY PROTECTION  4.3
    • A.  Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016  4.3A
    • B.  Criminal Protection  4.4
    • C.  Protection Against Governmental “Taking” or Disclosure of Trade Secrets  4.5
    • D.  Trade Protection  4.5A
    • E.  Labor Code  4.6
    • F.  Evidentiary Protection  4.7
  • IV.  COMPARISON TO OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTIONS  4.8
    • A.  Trade Secrets and Copyright  4.9
      • 1.  Unpublished Trade Secrets  4.10
      • 2.  Published Trade Secrets  4.11
    • B.  Trade Secrets and Patents
      • 1.  Nonapplicability of Federal Preemption Doctrine  4.12
      • 2.  Distinction Between Trade Secrets and Patents  4.13
  • V.  LITIGATING TRADE SECRETS CASE  4.14
    • A.  Defining the Playing Field  4.15
    • B.  Pleading Considerations  4.16
    • C.  Identifying Trade Secrets: Requirement of CCP §2019.210  4.17
      • 1.  Split Among Federal Courts on Application of CCP §2019.210  4.17A
      • 2.  Penalties for Failure to Identify Trade Secret  4.17B
      • 3.  Required Specificity of Trade Secret Description  4.17C
    • D.  Form: Preliminary Designation of Trade Secrets  4.18
    • E.  Protective Orders  4.19
      • 1.  Essential Provisions in Protective Order  4.20
      • 2.  “Attorney’s Eyes Only” Demands and Protective Orders  4.21
      • 3.  Expert Witness Access and Protective Orders  4.22
    • F.  Protecting Appellate Record  4.23
    • G.  Problem of Inadvertent Disclosure  4.24
    • H.  Proving Trade Secret
      • 1.  What Is a Trade Secret?  4.25
        • a.  No Novelty Requirement  4.26
        • b.  Independent Economic Value  4.27
        • c.  Information Not Generally Known  4.28
        • d.  Reasonable Efforts to Maintain Secrecy  4.29
        • e.  Confidentiality Agreements  4.30
      • 2.  Examples of Trade Secrets
        • a.  Formulas and Processes  4.31
        • b.  Designs and Plans  4.32
        • c.  Computer Information  4.33
        • d.  “Know-How” Trade Secrets  4.34
        • e.  Confidential and Operational Information  4.35
        • f.  Customer Lists and Customer Information  4.36
        • g.  Customer Information: Case Examples  4.36A
        • h.  Social Media “Friends” and “Connections”  4.36B
    • I.  Proving Misappropriation or Misuse  4.37
      • 1.  Misappropriation Defined  4.38
      • 2.  Acquisition by Improper Means  4.39
      • 3.  Use/Misuse of Trade Secrets Lawfully Acquired  4.40
      • 4.  Solicitation Versus Announcement  4.41
      • 5.  Inevitable Disclosure
        • a.  Definition; California Law  4.42
        • b.  Law of Other Jurisdictions  4.42A
      • 6.  Misappropriation Through Litigation  4.43
      • 7.  Person Liable for Misuse  4.44
      • 8.  Misuse of Trade Secrets: Proof Issues  4.45
    • J.  Defending Trade Secret Case  4.46
      • 1.  Equitable Defenses  4.47
      • 2.  Statute of Limitations  4.48
        • a.  Accrual  4.48A
        • b.  “Discovery” Rule  4.48B
      • 3.  Disclosure of Trade Secret  4.49
        • a.  Publication, Sale, or Display  4.50
        • b.  Disclosure by Patent or Copyright  4.51
        • c.  Disclosure Required by Statute or Regulatory Body  4.52
      • 4.  Standing  4.52A
      • 5.  Other Defensive Strategies  4.53
      • 6.  Insurance Coverage  4.54
    • K.  Remedies  4.55
      • 1.  Injunctive Relief  4.56
        • a.  Preliminary Relief Pending Trial  4.57
        • b.  Permanent Injunction  4.58
        • c.  Types of Injunctions Available  4.59
          • (1)  “Use” Injunction and “Production” Injunction  4.60
          • (2)  Inspection Injunction  4.61
          • (3)  Inevitable Disclosure Injunction  4.62
          • (4)  Nonacceptance Injunction  4.63
      • 2.  Royalty in Place of Injunction  4.64
      • 3.  Monetary Recovery  4.65
        • a.  Compensatory Damages  4.66
        • b.  Reasonable Royalty in Place of Damages  4.67
        • c.  Punitive Damages  4.68
        • d.  Importance of Evidence to Support Any Claim for Monetary Recovery  4.69
        • e.  Attorney Fees and Costs  4.70
  • VI.  PREVENTION STEPS  4.71
    • A.  Nondisclosure Agreements  4.72
    • B.  Other Workplace Procedures  4.73
    • C.  Agreements to Assign Employee Invention  4.74
    • D.  Protecting Trade Secrets in Non–Trade Secret Case  4.75
  • VII.  COMMON LAW MISAPPROPRIATION  4.76

5

Antitrust

Allan Browne

Peter W. Ross

Donna L. Dutcher

N. Kemba Extavour

Nick J. G. Sanchez

  • I.  INTRODUCTION  5.1
  • II.  SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT §1
    • A.  Elements of Offense  5.2
      • 1.  Contract or Combination  5.3
      • 2.  Conspiracy  5.4
        • a.  Circumstantial Versus Direct Evidence of Conspiracy  5.5
        • b.  Doctrine of Conscious Parallelism  5.6
        • c.  Intracorporate Conspiracy  5.7
        • d.  Overlapping Board Memberships  5.7A
      • 3.  Copperweld Rule  5.8
      • 4.  Restraint Must Be Unreasonable  5.9
      • 5.  Interstate Trade or Commerce  5.10
        • a.  Trade  5.11
        • b.  Interstate Commerce  5.12
          • (1)  “In Commerce” Test  5.13
          • (2)  “Substantial Effect on Commerce” Test  5.14
          • (3)  “Foreign Commerce” Test  5.15
      • 6.  “Act of State” Doctrine and Antitrust Claims Against Foreign Sovereigns  5.16
      • 7.  Proximate Cause  5.17
      • 8.  Injury  5.18
      • 9.  Injury to Business or Property  5.19
      • 10.  Standing: Injury by Anything Forbidden by Antitrust Laws  5.20
      • 11.  Damages  5.21
        • a.  Treble Damages  5.22
        • b.  Prima Facie Evidence by Government Proceeding  5.23
        • c.  Measure of Damages  5.24
        • d.  Increased Charges, Payments, Costs, or Expenses  5.25
        • e.  Loss of Profits  5.26
    • B.  Defenses to Sherman Antitrust Act §1
      • 1.  Statute of Limitations  5.27
      • 2.  Action Under Cartwright Act; Res Judicata  5.28
      • 3.  Noerr-Pennington Doctrine  5.29
        • a.  Lobbying Activity Protected by Noerr-Pennington Immunity  5.30
        • b.  “Sham Exception” to Noerr-Pennington Immunity  5.31
        • c.  Other Exceptions to Noerr-Pennington Immunity  5.32
        • d.  Scope of Noerr-Pennington Immunity  5.33
      • 4.  Equally at Fault  5.34
      • 5.  Unclean Hands  5.35
      • 6.  “Passing-On”  5.36
        • a.  Control Exception  5.37
        • b.  Cost-Plus Exception  5.38
        • c.  Co-Conspirator Exception  5.39
        • d.  Other Issues  5.40
      • 7.  Standing to Sue  5.41
        • a.  Type of Injury Alleged  5.42
        • b.  Directness of Injury  5.43
        • c.  Price Umbrella Theory  5.44
      • 8.  Exemptions
        • a.  State Action Immunity  5.45
          • (1)  States  5.46
          • (2)  Municipalities  5.47
          • (3)  Private Parties  5.48
          • (4)  Deciding Which Category  5.49
        • b.  Implied Immunity Doctrine  5.50
        • c.  Professional Sports  5.51
        • d.  Learned Professions  5.52
        • e.  Statutory Exemptions  5.53
        • f.  Implied Exemption for Collective Bargaining Process  5.54
        • g.  Implied Exemption for Domestic Insurers  5.55
    • C.  Per Se Illegality
      • 1.  Definition and Effect  5.56
      • 2.  Specific Per Se Illegal Practices  5.57
      • 3.  Price-Fixing Agreements  5.58
        • a.  Horizontal Division of Customers or Geographical Markets  5.59
        • b.  Concerted Refusals to Deal  5.60
        • c.  Supplier-Customer Refusals  5.61
        • d.  Supplier-Distributor Refusals  5.62
        • e.  Trade Association Refusals  5.63
        • f.  Group Refusals  5.64
        • g.  Tying Agreements  5.65
    • D.  Rule of Reason Interpretation  5.66
  • III.  SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT §2
    • A.  Sherman Antitrust Act §§1–2: Basic Distinctions  5.67
    • B.  Elements of Monopolization  5.68
      • 1.  Monopoly Power  5.69
      • 2.  Relevant Market  5.70
        • a.  Product Market  5.71
        • b.  Examples of Relevant Product Markets  5.72
        • c.  Geographic Market  5.73
      • 3.  Purposeful Acquisition or Maintenance of Monopoly Power  5.74
      • 4.  Monopoly Leveraging  5.75
    • C.  Defenses to Monopolization  5.76
    • D.  Elements of Attempted Monopolization  5.77
      • 1.  Specific Intent  5.78
      • 2.  “Dangerous Probability” of Successful Monopolization  5.79
    • E.  Elements of Conspiracy and Combination to Monopolize  5.80
    • F.  Claims of Insurance Coverage for Antitrust Liability  5.81
    • G.  Remedies  5.81A
  • IV.  CLAYTON ANTITRUST ACT §3  5.82
    • A.  Sherman Antitrust Act §1 and Clayton Antitrust Act §3 Compared  5.83
    • B.  Common Types of Exclusive Dealing Arrangements  5.84
    • C.  Elements of Clayton Act §3 Offense
      • 1.  In Commerce  5.85
      • 2.  Applies Only to Lease or Sale of Commodities  5.86
      • 3.  Existence of Actual Exclusive Dealing Agreement  5.87
      • 4.  Effect of Exclusive Dealing Agreement  5.88
        • a.  Test of Quantitative Substantiality  5.89
        • b.  Test of Qualitative Substantiality  5.90
      • 5.  Classes of Plaintiffs  5.91
    • D.  Tying Arrangements  5.92
      • 1.  Elements of Tying Arrangements
        • a.  Distinct Products  5.93
        • b.  Sufficient Economic Power in Tying Market  5.94
        • c.  Not Insubstantial Amount of Commerce  5.95
        • d.  Three New Elements of Tying Arrangements  5.96
      • 2.  Special Defenses to Tying Arrangements  5.97
        • a.  Protection of Goodwill  5.98
        • b.  Entry Into New Market  5.99
  • V.  ROBINSON-PATMAN PRICE DISCRIMINATION ACT  5.100
    • A.  Relationship Between Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts  5.101
    • B.  Elements of §2(a) Price Discrimination Case
      • 1.  Interstate Commerce  5.102
      • 2.  Discrimination in Price  5.103
      • 3.  Commodities  5.104
      • 4.  Contemporaneous Sales  5.105
      • 5.  Sales Requirement  5.106
      • 6.  Same Seller  5.107
      • 7.  Different Purchasers  5.108
      • 8.  Like Grade and Quality  5.109
      • 9.  Injury to Competition  5.110
        • a.  Primary Line Injury  5.111
        • b.  Secondary Line Injury  5.112
        • c.  Third Line Injury  5.113
        • d.  Fourth Line Injury  5.114
      • 10.  Damages  5.115
    • C.  Classes of Plaintiffs  5.116
    • D.  Classes of Defendants  5.117
    • E.  Defenses to Price Discrimination  5.118
      • 1.  Meeting Competition Defense  5.119
      • 2.  Cost Justification Defense  5.120
      • 3.  Changing Conditions Defense  5.121
    • F.  Nonprofit Institution Exemption  5.122
      • 1.  Elements of §2(c) Brokerage Fee Action  5.123
      • 2.  Elements of §2(d) and (e) Promotional Allowances and Services Action  5.124
  • VI.  CALIFORNIA CARTWRIGHT ACT  5.125
    • A.  Preemption of Cartwright Act by Federal Law  5.126
    • B.  Types of Cartwright Act Violations; Standing  5.127
      • 1.  Trusts  5.128
      • 2.  Contracts or Agreements in Violation of Cartwright Act  5.129
      • 3.  Exclusive Dealing and Tying Arrangements  5.130
      • 4.  Injury to Business or Property  5.131
      • 5.  Damages [Deleted]  5.132
      • 6.  Per Se Violations Versus Rule of Reason Interpretation  5.133
      • 7.  Damages and Attorney Fees  5.134
    • C.  Defenses
      • 1.  Statute of Limitations  5.135
      • 2.  Agreements to Promote Competition  5.136
      • 3.  Federal Noerr-Pennington Analogy  5.137
      • 4.  Professions  5.138
      • 5.  State Action  5.139
      • 6.  Res Judicata  5.140
      • 7.  Collateral Estoppel Effect of Federal Actions on State Court Proceedings  5.141
  • VII.  CALIFORNIA UNFAIR PRACTICES ACT
    • A.  Legislative Goals  5.142
    • B.  Relationship to §2 of Robinson-Patman Act  5.143
    • C.  Elements of Locality Discrimination  5.144
    • D.  Defenses to Locality Discrimination
      • 1.  Good Faith Meeting Competition  5.145
      • 2.  Cost Justification  5.146
      • 3.  Functional Classification  5.147
    • E.  Elements of Sales Below Cost  5.148
      • 1.  Determination of Cost  5.149
      • 2.  Definition of Sell and Give  5.150
      • 3.  Definition of Article or Product  5.151
    • F.  Elements of Loss Leader Sales  5.152
    • G.  Elements of Secret Rebates  5.153
    • H.  Vicarious Liability  5.154
    • I.  General Defenses Under Unfair Practices Act  5.155
    • J.  Rights and Remedies Under Unfair Practices Act
      • 1.  Injunctions  5.156
      • 2.  Damages  5.157
      • 3.  Treble Damages and Attorney Fees  5.158
      • 4.  Statutory Presumptions of Intent to Injure  5.159
    • K.  Relationship to Sherman Act  5.160
    • L.  Statute of Limitations  5.161
  • VIII.  SAMPLE FORMS: PRIVATE FEDERAL ANTITRUST COMPLAINTS
    • A.  Form: Sample Complaint; Jury Demanded  5.162
    • B.  Form: Complaint; Other Allegations of Offenses  5.163
    • C.  Form: Complaint; Other Allegations of Injury  5.164
    • D.  Form: Pleading Related Government Action; Fraudulent Concealment  5.165

6

Trademarks

Allan Browne

Michael J. Olecki

Gregory L. Doll

Carl Alan Roth

  • I.  PROTECTABLE MARKS AND THEIR FUNCTION
    • A.  Trademarks  6.1
      • 1.  Copyrights Distinguished  6.2
      • 2.  Patents Distinguished  6.3
    • B.  Service Marks  6.4
    • C.  Collective Marks  6.5
    • D.  Certification Marks  6.6
    • E.  Trade Names  6.7
  • II.  STATUTORY SCHEME AND COMMON LAW PROTECTION
    • A.  Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)  6.8
      • 1.  Infringement  6.9
      • 2.  False Advertising and Unfair Competition  6.10
        • a.  Scope of Lanham Act §43(a)  6.11
        • b.  False Association  6.12
          • (1)  Use of Likeness  6.13
          • (2)  Trade Dress Infringement  6.14
        • c.  False Advertising  6.15
      • 3.  Dilution: The Federal Trademark Dilution Act (FTDA) and the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA)  6.16
        • a.  Scope of FTDA [Deleted]  6.17
        • b.  Cyber Piracy as Dilution  6.18
        • c.  Retroactive Application of FTDA  6.19
      • 4.  Preemption of Zoning Controls  6.20
      • 5.  Stauffer Doctrine  6.21
    • B.  California Trademark Law  6.22
      • 1.  Infringement  6.23
      • 2.  Dilution  6.24
    • C.  Common Law  6.25
  • III.  FEDERAL REGISTRATION OF MARK
    • A.  Benefits of Registration
      • 1.  Jurisdiction  6.26
      • 2.  Evidence of Bona Fide Trademark Rights  6.27
      • 3.  Constructive Notice  6.28
      • 4.  Incontestability  6.29
      • 5.  Bar to Importation of Infringing Goods  6.30
      • 6.  Principal Versus Supplemental Registration Rights  6.31
    • B.  Registrable Marks
      • 1.  Unqualified Bars to Registration  6.32
        • a.  Immoral, Deceptive, or Scandalous Matter  6.33
        • b.  Official Coat of Arms or Other Insignia  6.34
        • c.  Name, Portrait, or Signature  6.35
        • d.  Marks That Are Likely to Cause Confusion  6.36
      • 2.  Qualified Bars to Registration  6.37
        • a.  Merely Descriptive Marks  6.38
        • b.  Primarily Geographically Descriptive Marks  6.39
        • c.  Marks That Are Primarily Merely Surnames  6.40
        • d.  Use of Color as Trademark  6.41
    • C.  Prerequisites for Registration
      • 1.  Use of Trademarks  6.42
        • a.  On Goods  6.43
        • b.  On Displays Associated With Goods  6.44
      • 2.  Use of Service Marks  6.45
    • D.  Preregistration Searches  6.46
    • E.  Registration Procedure
      • 1.  Reserving Mark  6.47
      • 2.  Application for Registration  6.48
      • 3.  Concurrent-Use Proceedings  6.49
      • 4.  Review by Examiner  6.50
      • 5.  Appeal From Refusal to Register (Ex Parte)
        • a.  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board  6.51
        • b.  Petition to Director of United States Patent and Trademark Office  6.52
        • c.  U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit  6.53
        • d.  U.S. District Court  6.54
      • 6.  Opposition Proceedings  6.55
      • 7.  Issuance of Certificate of Registration  6.56
    • F.  Postregistration Procedure
      • 1.  Use of ® and TM  6.57
      • 2.  Cancellation Proceedings  6.58
      • 3.  Affidavit of Continuing Use  6.59
      • 4.  Expiration and Renewal  6.60
  • IV.  CALIFORNIA REGISTRATION PROCEDURE  6.61
  • V.  INFRINGEMENT ACTIONS
    • A.  Prelitigation Considerations
      • 1.  Defining Objectives  6.61A
      • 2.  Investigation  6.62
        • a.  Registrations  6.63
        • b.  Use of Mark  6.64
        • c.  Prior Litigation  6.65
        • d.  Evidence of Confusion  6.66
      • 3.  Defining Objectives [Deleted]  6.67
      • 4.  Analysis of Defenses and Counterclaims  6.68
      • 5.  Decision to File Action [Deleted]  6.69
    • B.  Action Regarding Federally Registered Mark
      • 1.  Federal Jurisdiction  6.70
        • a.  Lanham Act  6.71
          • (1)  Federal Trademark Infringement  6.72
          • (2)  Federal Unfair Competition  6.73
          • (3)  Cancellation of Registration  6.74
          • (4)  Damages for Wrongful Registration  6.75
        • b.  Related Unfair Competition Claims [Deleted]  6.76
        • c.  Declaratory Judgment Actions  6.77
      • 2.  Personal Jurisdiction  6.78
      • 3.  Venue  6.79
      • 4.  Likelihood of Confusion  6.80
        • a.  Multi-Factor Test  6.81
        • b.  Actual Confusion  6.82
        • c.  Initial Confusion  6.83
        • d.  Nominative Use  6.84
        • e.  Issue Preclusion  6.84A
      • 5.  Injunctive Relief  6.85
      • 6.  Monetary Relief  6.86
        • a.  Defendant’s Profits  6.87
        • b.  Plaintiff’s Damages  6.88
        • c.  Punitive Damages  6.89
      • 7.  Destruction of Infringing Articles  6.90
      • 8.  Attorney Fees  6.91
      • 9.  Demand for Jury Trial  6.92
      • 10.  Exhibits to Complaints  6.93
    • C.  Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)
      • 1.  Liability Under ACPA  6.94
        • a.  In Personam Proceedings  6.95
        • b.  In Rem Proceedings  6.96
      • 2.  Remedies Available Under ACPA  6.97
      • 3.  Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP)  6.98
      • 4.  California Cyber Piracy Provisions  6.99
    • D.  Action Regarding California Registered Mark
      • 1.  Infringement  6.100
      • 2.  Dilution  6.101
    • E.  Common Law Trademark Infringement  6.102
    • F.  False Designations Under Lanham Act: Non–Federally Registered Marks  6.103
    • G.  “Advertising Injury” Insurance Coverage for Trademark Infringement  6.104
    • H.  Settlement Agreements  6.105
    • I.  Internet-Related Issues  6.106
      • 1.  Federal Jurisdiction  6.107
      • 2.  Personal Jurisdiction  6.108
        • a.  Interactive Websites  6.109
        • b.  Passive Websites  6.110
          • (1)  Advertising and Solicitation on Website  6.111
          • (2)  Effects Doctrine  6.112
  • VI.  INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
    • A.  Preliminary Injunction  6.113
      • 1.  Plaintiff’s Probability of Success  6.114
      • 2.  Irreparable Injury  6.115
      • 3.  Balance of Hardships  6.116
      • 4.  Preserving Status Quo  6.117
    • B.  Injunction Against Threatened Infringement  6.118
    • C.  Injunctive Relief After Infringing Activity Ceases  6.119
    • D.  Requiring Affirmative Steps to Avoid Confusion  6.120
    • E.  Form of Injunction  6.121
      • 1.  Requisite Language  6.122
      • 2.  Persons Bound  6.123
    • F.  Modification of Injunction  6.124
    • G.  Enforcement of Injunction  6.125
  • VII.  DEFENDANT’S CONTENTIONS
    • A.  Procedural Objections  6.126
    • B.  No Standing to Sue  6.127
    • C.  Plaintiff’s Abandonment of Mark  6.128
    • D.  Defendant’s Use Not in Interstate Commerce  6.129
    • E.  Estoppel by Acquiescence  6.130
    • F.  Laches  6.131
    • G.  Unclean Hands  6.132
    • H.  Plaintiff’s Mark Is Generic  6.133
      • 1.  Generic Marks  6.134
      • 2.  Nongeneric Marks  6.135
    • I.  Plaintiff’s Mark Is Functional  6.136
      • 1.  Aesthetically Functional  6.137
      • 2.  Mechanically Functional  6.138
    • J.  No Likelihood of Confusion  6.139
    • K.  Lack of Secondary Meaning  6.140
    • L.  Fair Use  6.141
    • M.  Plaintiff Not Owner of Mark  6.142
    • N.  Fraud in Obtaining Trademark Registration  6.143
    • O.  Trademark Misuse  6.144
    • P.  First Amendment Protection  6.144A
  • VIII.  COUNTERCLAIMS
    • A.  Cancellation of Registration
      • 1.  Cancellation Procedure  6.145
      • 2.  Grounds for Cancellation  6.146
    • B.  Monopolization Through Use of Mark  6.147
      • 1.  Settlement Agreements  6.148
      • 2.  License Restrictions  6.149
      • 3.  Aggressive Use of Mark  6.150
      • 4.  Registration Obtained by Fraud  6.151
  • IX.  TRIAL PREPARATION AND CONDUCT
    • A.  Consolidation  6.152
    • B.  Judge or Jury Trial  6.153
    • C.  Survey Evidence  6.154
      • 1.  Likelihood of Confusion  6.155
      • 2.  Secondary Meaning  6.156
      • 3.  Generic Marks  6.157
    • D.  Summary Judgment Motion  6.158
    • E.  Jury Instructions  6.159
    • F.  Motions at Close of Trial  6.160
    • G.  Special Verdicts and Written Interrogatories  6.161
    • H.  Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law  6.162
  • X.  ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
    • A.  Contempt Proceedings  6.163
    • B.  Stay of Enforcement
      • 1.  Trial Court  6.164
      • 2.  Appellate Court  6.165

7

Copyrights

William T. Rintala

Melodie K. Larsen

Miles J. Feldman

  • I.  PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS  7.1
  • II.  SOURCES OF COPYRIGHT LAW
    • A.  Primary and Secondary Sources  7.2
    • B.  1909 Copyright Act  7.3
  • III.  SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHT
    • A.  Types of Work Protected Under Various Acts
      • 1.  Copyright Act of 1976  7.4
      • 2.  Semiconductor Chip Protection Act  7.5
      • 3.  Visual Artists Rights Act  7.6
      • 4.  Digital Millennium Copyright Act  7.7
      • 5.  Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act  7.8
      • 6.  Fairness in Music Licensing Act  7.9
      • 7.  Audio Home Recording Act  7.10
    • B.  Duration of Copyright  7.11
    • C.  Distinction Between “Expression” and “Idea”  7.12
      • 1.  Computer Programs  7.13
      • 2.  Literary Characters  7.14
      • 3.  Literary Titles  7.15
      • 4.  Sporting Events  7.16
    • D.  Originality  7.17
      • 1.  Designs  7.18
      • 2.  Compilations of Facts  7.19
      • 3.  Different Elements of Work  7.20
      • 4.  Typeface Designs  7.21
    • E.  Useful Articles  7.22
    • F.  Compilations and Derivative Works  7.23
      • 1.  Cases on Compilations and Collective Works  7.24
      • 2.  Cases on Derivative Works  7.25
      • 3.  Copies of Copyrighted Work  7.26
  • IV.  EFFECT OF COPYRIGHT LAW ON OTHER LAWS
    • A.  Preemption Effect  7.27
    • B.  Preemption Effect and State Law Claims  7.28
      • 1.  Claims for Unfair Competition  7.29
      • 2.  Claims Based on State Trade Secret Laws  7.30
      • 3.  Claims for Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage  7.31
      • 4.  Claims Based on Rights of Publicity  7.32
      • 5.  Contract Claims  7.33
      • 6.  Fraud Claims  7.34
      • 7.  Misappropriation Claims  7.35
    • C.  Protection for Ideas  7.36
      • 1.  Implied Contracts  7.37
        • a.  Implied-in-Fact Contracts  7.38
        • b.  Implied-in-Fact Contracts and Preemption  7.39
        • c.  Avoiding Preemption for Ideas in Tangible Form [Deleted]  7.40
        • d.  Implied-in-Law Contracts  7.41
      • 2.  Breach of Confidence  7.42
        • a.  Proving Breach of Confidence  7.43
        • b.  When Action Arises  7.44
    • D.  Protection for Literary Works  7.45
  • V.  OBTAINING COPYRIGHT PROTECTION
    • A.  When Copyright Protection Attaches  7.46
    • B.  Copyright Notice  7.47
      • 1.  Form of Notice  7.48
      • 2.  Omission of Notice
        • a.  Works Distributed Before March 1, 1989  7.49
        • b.  Works Distributed on or After March 1, 1989  7.50
    • C.  Registration  7.51
      • 1.  Application for Registration  7.52
      • 2.  List of Fees  7.53
      • 3.  Deposit Requirements
        • a.  Any Published Work  7.54
        • b.  Registration Applications  7.55
  • VI.  COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
    • A.  Ownership and Control of Copyrighted Works
      • 1.  Who Owns Copyright  7.56
        • a.  Works Made for Hire  7.57
        • b.  Co-Authors of Movie Scripts  7.58
      • 2.  Exclusive Rights of Owner  7.59
        • a.  Fair Use  7.60
          • (1)  Cases on Fair Use and Technology  7.61
          • (2)  Cases on Fair Use and Parodies  7.62
          • (3)  Cases on Fair Use in Other Commercial Contexts  7.63
        • b.  Other Limitations on Exclusive Rights  7.64
      • 3.  Transfer of Rights  7.65
    • B.  Elements of Infringement Action  7.66
      • 1.  Proving Ownership  7.67
      • 2.  Proving Copying  7.68
      • 3.  Substantial Similarity Test  7.69
        • a.  Extrinsic Test  7.70
        • b.  Intrinsic Test  7.71
    • C.  De Minimis Exception  7.71A
    • D.  Indirect Liability for Copyright Infringement  7.71B
  • VII.  REMEDIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
    • A.  Injunctions  7.72
    • B.  Impounding  7.73
    • C.  Actual Damages and Profits  7.74
      • 1.  Indirect Profits  7.75
      • 2.  Lost Profits on Noninfringed Items  7.76
      • 3.  License Fees  7.77
    • D.  Statutory Damages  7.78
    • E.  Costs, Attorney Fees, and Prejudgment Interest  7.79
    • F.  Criminal Prosecution  7.80
    • G.  Statutory and Common Law Rights Similar to Statutory Copyright  7.81
  • VIII.  INITIAL CLIENT INTERVIEW
    • A.  Scope of Interview  7.82
    • B.  Discussing Fees and Costs  7.83
    • C.  Checklist: Client Interview  7.84
  • IX.  INSTITUTING COPYRIGHT LITIGATION
    • A.  Cease and Desist Letter
      • 1.  Contents of Letter  7.85
      • 2.  Purpose of Letter  7.86
      • 3.  Determining Whether to Send Letter  7.87
      • 4.  Form: Sample Cease and Desist Letter  7.87A
    • B.  Complaint
      • 1.  Form: Complaint for Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition (Fed R Civ P Form 19)  7.88
      • 2.  Form: Complaint Damage Allegations  7.89
      • 3.  Exhibits to Complaint  7.90
      • 4.  Verification of Complaint  7.91
      • 5.  Necessary Additional Pleadings  7.92
    • C.  Jurisdiction and Venue
      • 1.  Subject Matter Jurisdiction  7.93
      • 2.  Venue  7.94
    • D.  Report of Copyright Action  7.95
    • E.  Demand for Jury Trial  7.96
  • X.  PRELIMINARY RELIEF
    • A.  Application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction
      • 1.  Showing Required for Preliminary Injunction  7.97
      • 2.  Showing Required for TRO  7.98
      • 3.  Checklist: Obtaining TRO  7.99
      • 4.  Declarations  7.100
      • 5.  Bond Requirement  7.101
      • 6.  Attorney’s Certificate on Notice Efforts  7.102
      • 7.  Memorandum in Support of Motion  7.103
    • B.  Writ of Seizure  7.104
    • C.  Defense Against Application for TRO and Preliminary Injunction
      • 1.  Defense Against TRO
        • a.  Obtaining and Reviewing Moving Papers  7.105
        • b.  Need for Immediate Relief  7.106
        • c.  Defenses on the Merits  7.107
        • d.  Scope of Relief Requested; Need for Discovery  7.108
        • e.  Alternatives to TRO  7.109
      • 2.  Defense Against Preliminary Injunction
        • a.  Guidelines for Defense Attorney  7.110
        • b.  Checklist: Opposing Preliminary Injunction  7.111
        • c.  Strategies for Argument at Hearing  7.112
        • d.  Interlocutory Appeals  7.113
    • D.  Negotiated Settlement  7.114
    • E.  Grant or Denial of Preliminary Injunction
      • 1.  Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law  7.115
      • 2.  Advising Defendant After Denial of Preliminary Relief  7.116
  • XI.  DEFENSE OF COPYRIGHT ACTION  7.117
    • A.  Procedural Defenses  7.118
    • B.  Technical Defenses  7.119
    • C.  Substantive Copyright Defenses  7.120
      • 1.  Lack of Access/Independent Creation  7.121
      • 2.  Lack of Ownership Due to Failure to Comply With Statutory Requirements for Works Made for Hire or Transfer of Copyright  7.122
      • 3.  Lack of Ownership Due to Failure to Comply With Copyright Statute of Frauds  7.123
      • 4.  License  7.124
      • 5.  First Sale Doctrine  7.125
      • 6.  Copyright Misuse  7.126
      • 7.  Statute of Limitations  7.127
      • 8.  Other Substantive Defenses  7.128
    • D.  Equitable Defenses  7.129
  • XII.  TRIAL OF COPYRIGHT ACTION  7.130
    • A.  Trial Preparation  7.131
      • 1.  Discovery
        • a.  Disclosure and Meeting Requirements  7.132
        • b.  Initial Discovery  7.133
        • c.  Depositions  7.134
      • 2.  Use of Experts  7.135
      • 3.  Settlement Conference  7.136
    • B.  Pretrial
      • 1.  Pretrial and Disclosure Requirements  7.137
      • 2.  Jury Instructions  7.138
      • 3.  Exhibits  7.139
    • C.  Trial
      • 1.  Judge’s Ground Rules  7.140
      • 2.  Jury Selection  7.141
      • 3.  Opening Statement  7.142
      • 4.  Motions During Trial  7.143
    • D.  Alternatives to Trial  7.144
    • E.  Posttrial
      • 1.  Entry of Judgment  7.145
      • 2.  Attorney Fees and Costs  7.146
      • 3.  Enforcement of Judgment  7.147
      • 4.  Indemnification  7.148
      • 5.  Appeal  7.149

8

Patents

Robert D. Fish

Laurence H. Pretty

  • I.  SCOPE OF CHAPTER  8.1
  • II.  SUBJECT MATTER PROTECTABLE BY PATENTS  8.2
    • A.  Subject Matter Eligibility in General  8.2A
    • B.  Utility Patents  8.3
      • 1.  Machine, Manufacture, and Composition of Matter  8.4
      • 2.  Processes  8.5
      • 3.  Business Methods  8.6
      • 4.  Patent Term
        • a.  Duration of Patent Term  8.7
        • b.  Adjustment of Patent Term  8.8
        • c.  Extension of Patent Term  8.9
    • C.  Design Patents  8.10
    • D.  Plant Patents  8.11
  • III.  RIGHTS AND REMEDIES AFFORDED BY PATENT
    • A.  Right to Exclude  8.12
    • B.  Remedies  8.13
      • 1.  Preliminary Relief
        • a.  Permanent Injunction  8.14
        • b.  TRO/Preliminary Injunction  8.15
          • (1)  Likelihood of Success  8.16
          • (2)  Irreparable Harm  8.17
          • (3)  Balance of Hardships  8.18
          • (4)  Public Interest  8.19
      • 2.  Exclusion Under ITC Proceedings  8.20
      • 3.  Damages  8.21
        • a.  Lost Profits Measure of Damages
          • (1)  Panduit Test for Lost Profits  8.22
            • (a)  Demand for Patented Product  8.23
            • (b)  Absence of Acceptable Noninfringing Substitute  8.24
            • (c)  Capacity  8.25
            • (d)  Quantum of Lost Profits  8.26
          • (2)  Alternatives to Panduit Test  8.27
        • b.  Types of Lost Profits Recoverable  8.28
          • (1)  Patented Products  8.29
          • (2)  Unpatented Products  8.30
          • (3)  Ancillary Products  8.31
          • (4)  Price Erosion  8.32
        • c.  Reasonable Royalty Measure of Recovery
          • (1)  Hypothetical Pre-Infringement Negotiations  8.33
            • (a)  Fraction of Patentee’s Lost Profits  8.34
            • (b)  Fraction of Infringer’s Anticipated Profit  8.35
            • (c)  Reasonable Royalty Limited by Differential Cost of Using Alternative Noninfringing Technology  8.36
            • (d)  Reasonable Royalty Based on Flat Fee or Milestone Payments  8.37
          • (2)  Georgia-Pacific Factors  8.38
        • d.  Blended Damages Award of Lost Profits and Reasonable Royalty Based on Market Share  8.39
        • e.  Proving Amount of Damages
          • (1)  Foundational Fact Evidence of Damages  8.40
            • (a)  Sales and Marketing Witnesses  8.41
            • (b)  Adverse Witnesses Employed by Infringer  8.42
            • (c)  Licensing Witnesses  8.43
            • (d)  Capacity Witnesses  8.44
          • (2)  Use of Damages Expert  8.45
        • f.  Effect of Bifurcation on Trial of Damages  8.46
        • g.  Demonstrative Exhibits  8.47
        • h.  Prejudgment Interest  8.48
        • i.  Increased Damages and Attorney Fees  8.48A
          • (1)  Willfulness   8.49
          • (2)  What Degree of Knowledge Is Needed  8.50
          • (3)  Judicial Discretion and Extent of Enhancement  8.51
      • 4.  Award of Attorney Fees  8.52
      • 5.  Time Limitations on Damages
        • a.  Start and End of Patent Term  8.53
        • b.  Start and End of Infringement  8.54
        • c.  Six-Year Precomplaint Limitation  8.55
        • d.  Limitations Imposed by Patent Marking Statute  8.56
  • IV.  REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENTABILITY  8.57
    • A.  Originated by Named Inventor  8.58
    • B.  Claim as Defining Protected Invention  8.59
    • C.  Utility  8.60
    • D.  Novelty of Claimed Invention  8.61
      • 1.  First-to-File System  8.61A
      • 2.  Assessing Novelty Under the First-to-Invent System  8.62
      • 3.  Assessing Novelty Under the First-to-File System  8.62A
        • a.  Applicant’s Date of Invention [Deleted]  8.63
        • b.  One Year Before Application’s Filing Date [Deleted]  8.64
      • 4.  Types of Prior Art [Deleted]  8.65
        • a.  Public Knowledge [Deleted]  8.66
        • b.  Earlier Patents  8.67
        • c.  Published Patent Applications [Deleted]  8.68
        • d.  Printed Publication  8.69
        • e.  Expanded Definition of Prior Art [Deleted]  8.69A
        • f.  In Public Use  8.69B
        • g.  On Sale
          • (1)  Definition of On Sale  8.70
          • (2)  Experimental Use Exception  8.71
        • h.  Public Use in This Country [Deleted]  8.72
        • i.  Otherwise Available  8.72A
        • j.  Prior Invention by Another Who Has Not Abandoned, Suppressed, or Concealed It  8.73
      • 5.  Finding Relevant Prior Art  8.74
    • E.  Nonobviousness of Claimed Invention
      • 1.  Three-Step Analysis  8.75
      • 2.  Secondary Considerations  8.76
      • 3.  Person of Ordinary Skill  8.77
      • 4.  Nonobviousness in Design Patents  8.78
    • F.  Invention Must Not Have Been Abandoned  8.79
  • V.  PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN PATENT
    • A.  From Application to Patent Generally  8.80
      • 1.  Accelerated Examination  8.80A
      • 2.  Prioritized Examination (Track 1)  8.80B
      • 3.  Patent Prosecution Highways (PPH)  8.80C
      • 4.  Special Cases  8.80D
    • B.  Rejection on Prior Art and Response  8.81
    • C.  Sufficiency of Disclosure: Enablement, Best Mode, Written Description  8.82
      • 1.  Best Mode Description for Software Inventions  8.83
      • 2.  Best Mode Description for Design Patent  8.84
      • 3.  Best Mode Description for Plant Patent  8.85
    • D.  Double Patenting and Terminal Disclaimers  8.86
    • E.  Types of Applications and Right to Earlier Filing Date  8.87
      • 1.  United States Applications  8.88
        • a.  Continuation Application  8.89
        • b.  Continuation-in-Part Application  8.90
        • c.  Divisional Application  8.91
        • d.  Provisional Application  8.92
        • e.  Request for Continued Examination  8.93
      • 2.  Foreign Applications  8.94
    • F.  Postgrant Proceedings in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office   8.94A
      • 1.  Reissue  8.95
      • 2.  Supplemental Examination  8.95A
      • 3.  Ex Parte Reexamination/Review  8.95B
      • 4.  Inter Partes Review (IPR)  8.95C
      • 5.  Postgrant Review (PGR)  8.95D
      • 6.  Covered Business Method (CBM) Review  8.95E
      • 7.  Defense to Infringement Based on Prior Commercial Use  8.95F
      • 8.  Derivation Proceedings  8.96
      • 9.  Appeals To and From PTAB  8.97
    • G.  Maintenance Fees  8.98
    • H.  Representation of Inventors Before USPTO  8.99
  • VI.  TRANSFER OF PATENT RIGHTS
    • A.  Assignment of Patent  8.100
    • B.  Licensing  8.101
      • 1.  Finding Licensee  8.102
      • 2.  Exclusive Versus Nonexclusive License  8.103
      • 3.  Separately Licensable Nature of Patent Rights  8.104
      • 4.  Label Licenses  8.105
        • a.  Form: Label Notice for Patented Product  8.106
        • b.  Form: Label Notice for Unpatented Product Used in Patented Process  8.107
      • 5.  Royalty Provisions  8.108
      • 6.  Non-Royalty Provisions  8.109
      • 7.  Abrogation of Licensee Estoppel  8.110
      • 8.  Other Items to Consider in Drafting License Agreement  8.111
      • 9.  Avoiding License Terms That Create Patent Misuse or Antitrust Claims  8.112
  • VII.  INFRINGEMENT  8.113
    • A.  Steps of Infringement Analysis  8.114
    • B.  Literal Infringement
      • 1.  Claim Construction  8.115
      • 2.  Application of Claims to Accused Product or Process  8.116
      • 3.  Claims With “Means-Plus-Function” Element  8.117
    • C.  Infringement Under Doctrine of Equivalents  8.118
      • 1.  All Limitations Rule  8.119
      • 2.  Prosecution History Estoppel  8.120
      • 3.  Prior Art as Limitation on Equivalents  8.121
    • D.  Indirect Infringement
      • 1.  Inducement of Infringement  8.122
      • 2.  Contributory Infringement  8.123
    • E.  False Marking  8.123A
  • VIII.  MAKING AND REACTING TO A CHARGE OF INFRINGEMENT
    • A.  Adequate Investigation  8.124
    • B.  Charging Infringement
      • 1.  Contacting Infringer
        • a.  Immediate Filing of Suit  8.125
        • b.  Warning Letter  8.126
        • c.  Cease and Desist Letter  8.127
        • d.  Adequate Notice  8.128
      • 2.  Choosing Potential Defendants  8.129
      • 3.  Naming Plaintiffs  8.130
    • C.  Reacting to Charge of Infringement
      • 1.  Obtaining Opinion of Patent Counsel  8.131
        • a.  Format and Contents of Opinion  8.132
        • b.  When to Obtain Opinion  8.133
        • c.  Postopinion Reliance on Opinion  8.134
      • 2.  Considering “Design Around”  8.135
      • 3.  Seeking License or Ceasing Production  8.136
  • IX.  PATENT LITIGATION  8.137
    • A.  Jurisdiction
      • 1.  Patent Actions in United States District Courts  8.138
      • 2.  Jurisdiction of Other Actions Involving Patents  8.139
      • 3.  Jurisdiction of Patent Claims Against United States Government  8.140
      • 4.  Declaratory Judgment Actions  8.141
    • B.  Venue  8.142
    • C.  Elements of Patentee’s Case for Infringement  8.143
      • 1.  Title or Standing to Assert Patent
        • a.  Sole or Joint Patent Owner  8.144
        • b.  Licensee or Assignee  8.145
      • 2.  Infringement
        • a.  Infringing Versus Noninfringing Use  8.146
        • b.  Burden of Proof of Infringement  8.147
        • c.  Claim Construction Procedure  8.148
        • d.  Comparing Construed Patent Claims to Accused Product or Process  8.149
      • 3.  Overcoming Defendant’s Attack on Validity  8.150
      • 4.  Damages  8.151
    • D.  Complaint for Patent Infringement
      • 1.  Form of Complaint  8.152
      • 2.  Jury Demand  8.153
      • 3.  Service of Complaint  8.154
    • E.  Defendant’s Case
      • 1.  Initial Reaction to Complaint  8.155
      • 2.  Preparation of Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims  8.156
      • 3.  Statutory Defenses  8.157
        • a.  Noninfringement  8.158
        • b.  Invalidity
          • (1)  Burden of Proof to Overcome Presumption of Validity  8.159
          • (2)  Invalidity Based on Prior Art  8.160
        • c.  Inadequate Disclosure or Claiming Under 35 USC §112  8.161
        • d.  Intervening Rights Concerning Reissue, Reexamination, or Restored Patents  8.162
        • e.  Prior Use Defense  8.162A
      • 4.  Unenforceability Defenses  8.163
        • a.  Inequitable Conduct and Unclean Hands  8.164
          • (1)  Burden of Proof for Inequitable Conduct  8.165
          • (2)  To Whom Duty of Disclosure Applies  8.166
          • (3)  Materiality  8.167
          • (4)  Intent to Deceive  8.168
          • (5)  Consequences of Inequitable Conduct  8.169
        • b.  Laches  8.170
        • c.  Equitable Estoppel  8.171
        • d.  Prosecution Laches  8.172
        • e.  Patent Misuse  8.173
      • 5.  Sovereign Immunity  8.173A
      • 6.  Exhaustion  8.173B
      • 7.  Collateral Estoppel  8.174
      • 8.  Restriction on Defenses: Assignor Estoppel and Finality of Judgments  8.175
    • F.  Tying Arrangements  8.175A
    • G.  Motions Common in Patent Litigation
      • 1.  Motions Relevant to Venue and Transfer  8.176
      • 2.  Motions to Dismiss or Stay  8.177
      • 3.  Motion for Preliminary Injunction  8.178
      • 4.  Motions for Summary Judgment
        • a.  Invalidity and Unenforceability  8.179
        • b.  Noninfringement  8.180
        • c.  Inequitable Conduct  8.181
      • 5.  Bifurcation Motion  8.182
      • 6.  Markman Motions  8.183
      • 7.  In Limine Motions  8.184
    • H.  Privilege and Counsel Disqualification Issues Related to Willfulness  8.185
    • I.  Trial Themes, Witnesses, and Evidence Presentation
      • 1.  Themes  8.186
      • 2.  Special Witnesses in Patent Trial  8.187
      • 3.  Evidence Presentation  8.188
    • J.  Jury Instructions and Verdict Form  8.189
    • K.  Appeal from Court Decisions   8.190

9

Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition on the Internet

Hon. Robert B. Broadbelt

  • I.  FOCUS OF CHAPTER  9.1
  • II.  THE INTERNET  9.2
  • III.  PERSONAL JURISDICTION BASED ON INTERNET USE  9.3
    • A.  Traditional Tests for Personal Jurisdiction  9.4
      • 1.  General Jurisdiction  9.5
      • 2.  Specific Jurisdiction  9.6
    • B.  Business Transactions Conducted Over the Internet  9.7
    • C.  E-Mail Communications  9.8
    • D.  Advertising Over the Internet  9.9
    • E.  Passive Websites  9.10
    • F.  Interactive Websites  9.11
    • G.  Defamation and Other Intentional Torts on the Internet  9.12
    • H.  Cyberpiracy
      • 1.  In Rem Actions Under Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)  9.13
      • 2.  California Cyberpiracy Law  9.14
    • I.  Other Internet Uses  9.15
    • J.  Service of Process in Internet Cases  9.16
  • IV.  MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS OVER THE INTERNET
    • A.  Using the Internet to Misappropriate Trade Secrets  9.17
    • B.  Using the Internet to Destroy Trade Secrets  9.18
  • V.  ACCESSING COMPUTER FILES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION
    • A.  Federal Claims
      • 1.  Wiretap Act  9.19
        • a.  Defenses  9.20
        • b.  Remedies  9.21
      • 2.  Stored Communications Act  9.22
        • a.  Unauthorized Access  9.22A
        • b.  Unauthorized Disclosure  9.22B
        • c.  Exceptions  9.22C
        • d.  Defenses  9.23
        • e.  Remedies  9.24
      • 3.  Computer Fraud and Abuse Act  9.24A
    • B.  State Claims
      • 1.  California Pen C §502  9.25
        • a.  Defenses  9.26
        • b.  Remedies  9.27
      • 2.  California Disclosure of Corporate Security Breach Law  9.27A
      • 3.  California Unfair Competition Law  9.28
      • 4.  California Constitutional Right of Privacy  9.28A
  • VI.  CYBERPIRACY OR CYBERSQUATTING
    • A.  Relation to Domain Name; Domain Name Defined  9.29
    • B.  Federal Claims
      • 1.  Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA)  9.30
        • a.  In Personam Civil Actions Under ACPA
          • (1)  Elements  9.31
          • (2)  Proving Bad Faith  9.32
          • (3)  Defenses  9.33
          • (4)  Remedies  9.34
        • b.  In Rem Civil Actions Under ACPA
          • (1)  When Appropriate  9.35
          • (2)  Elements  9.36
          • (3)  Proving Bad Faith  9.37
          • (4)  Remedies  9.38
      • 2.  Cyberpiracy Law Protecting Individuals
        • a.  Elements  9.39
        • b.  Remedies  9.40
    • C.  State Claims
      • 1.  California Cyberpiracy Law
        • a.  Elements  9.41
        • b.  Proving Bad Faith  9.42
        • c.  Remedies  9.43
      • 2.  California Unfair Competition Law  9.44
      • 3.  California Common Law Tort of Conversion  9.44A
  • VII.  IMPERSONATING ANOTHER PERSON ON THE INTERNET  9.44B
  • VIII.  TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT ON THE INTERNET
    • A.  Trademark Infringement and Dilution in Domain Names  9.45
    • B.  Trademark Infringement in Metatags and Source Code
      • 1.  Metatags and Source Code Defined  9.46
      • 2.  Liability for Using Another’s Trademark in Metatags and Source Code  9.47
    • C.  Other Trademark Infringement on the Internet  9.48
  • IX.  COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ON THE INTERNET  9.49
    • A.  Direct Infringement  9.50
    • B.  Contributory Infringement  9.51
    • C.  Vicarious Infringement  9.51A
    • D.  Pleading Requirements  9.52
    • E.  Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
      • 1.  Copyright Infringement Protections for Internet Service Providers Under DMCA  9.53
      • 2.  Definition of Internet Service Providers Under DMCA  9.54
      • 3.  How Internet Service Providers May Qualify for Protection Under DMCA  9.55
      • 4.  DMCA Remedies for Copyright Infringement
        • a.  Takedown Notice  9.55A
        • b.  Form: Takedown Notice for Online Copyright Infringement  9.55B
        • c.  Subpoena to Identify Infringer  9.55C
  • X.  UNAUTHORIZED E-MAIL TRANSMISSIONS
    • A.  Unsolicited E-Mail Advertisements
      • 1.  Federal Law  9.56
      • 2.  State Law  9.56A
    • B.  Unauthorized E-Mail  9.56B
  • XI.  WEBSITE PRIVACY POLICIES  9.56C
  • XII.  TORT CLAIMS FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PRIVACY  9.56D
  • XIII.  APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO E-MAILS  9.56E
  • XIV.  COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT—IMMUNITY FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS  9.56F
    • A.  Elements Required for Immunity  9.56G
    • B.  Distinguishing “Interactive Computer Service” and “Information Content Provider”  9.56H
    • C.  Federal Case Examples  9.56I
    • D.  California Courts’ Interpretation of CDA  9.56J
    • E.  CDA and Other Claims  9.56K
  • XV.  APPLICATION OF THE SINGLE-PUBLICATION RULE TO THE INTERNET  9.56L
  • XVI.  ANTI-SLAPP MOTIONS AND WEBSITES  9.56M
  • XVII.  DISCOVERY OF COMPUTER EVIDENCE
    • A.  Discovery of Identity of Cybersquatters and Persons Posting Information on the Internet  9.57
    • B.  Discovery of E-Mail and Instant Messaging  9.58
    • C.  Discovery and Recovery of Data Stored Electronically
      • 1.  California Statutory Rule: CCP §2031.280  9.59
      • 2.  Provisions Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  9.59A
    • D.  Preserving Computer Evidence  9.60
    • E.  Seizure Orders  9.61
    • F.  Sanctions for Despoliation of Computer Evidence  9.62
  • XVIII.  AUTHENTICATING EVIDENCE FROM THE INTERNET  9.63

10

Right of Publicity

Keith Wesley

  • I.  RIGHT OF PUBLICITY: ORIGINS AND DEFINITION  10.1
    • A.  No Requirement of Fame  10.2
    • B.  Distinguishing Right of Privacy From Right of Publicity  10.3
  • II.  CALIFORNIA COMMON LAW RIGHT OF PUBLICITY  10.4
    • A.  Theft of Identity Under Common Law  10.5
    • B.  Lifetime Exploitation Requirement  10.6
    • C.  Common Law Remedies  10.7
  • III.  CALIFORNIA STATUTORY RIGHT OF PUBLICITY  10.8
    • A.  Elements of Statutory Claim  10.9
    • B.  Knowing Use Requirement  10.10
    • C.  Statutory Remedies  10.11
  • IV.  DEFENSES TO RIGHT OF PUBLICITY CLAIMS
    • A.  Reporting Factual Information, News, and Matters of Public Interest  10.11A
    • B.  First Amendment  10.12
      • 1.  Magazine Articles  10.13
      • 2.  Documentaries and Dramatized Biographies  10.14
      • 3.  Advertising Catalogs  10.15
    • C.  Copyright Preemption  10.16
      • 1.  Name, Image, and Likeness Not Copyrightable  10.17
      • 2.  Rights of Performers in Copyrighted Works  10.18
    • D.  Statute of Limitations  10.19
  • V.  POSTMORTEM RIGHT OF PUBLICITY  10.20
    • A.  Deceased Personality Defined  10.21
    • B.  Obtaining Postmortem Publicity Rights  10.22
    • C.  Choice of Law Issues  10.23
  • VI.  OTHER CLAIMS: FALSE ENDORSEMENT AND RIGHT OF PUBLICITY  10.24
    • A.  Element of Sponsorship  10.25
    • B.  Use of Internet Domain Names  10.26
  • VII.  INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR RIGHT OF PUBLICITY CLAIMS  10.27
    • A.  California Statutory and Common Law Claims  10.28
    • B.  Lanham Act Claims  10.29

11

Business-Related Torts

John A. Sturgeon

  • I.  OVERVIEW OF BUSINESS-RELATED TORTS
    • A.  Scope of Chapter  11.1
    • B.  Checklist: Elements of Business-Related Torts  11.2
  • II.  INDUCING BREACH OF CONTRACT AND INTERFERENCE WITH PROSPECTIVE ADVANTAGE
    • A.  Nature of Torts  11.3
    • B.  Analysis of Specific Torts
      • 1.  Inducing Breach of Contract
        • a.  Elements of Cause of Action  11.4
          • (1)  Existence of Valid Contract  11.5
          • (2)  Knowledge and Intent  11.6
          • (3)  Actual Breach of Contract  11.7
          • (4)  Causation  11.8
          • (5)  Actual Damages  11.9
        • b.  Case Examples  11.10
      • 2.  Intentional Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage
        • a.  Elements of Cause of Action  11.11
          • (1)  Existence of Prospective Advantage  11.12
          • (2)  Knowledge and Intent  11.13
          • (3)  Interference or Disruption  11.14
          • (4)  Causation  11.15
          • (5)  Actual Damages  11.16
        • b.  Case Examples  11.17
      • 3.  Negligent Interference With Prospective Economic Advantage  11.18
        • a.  Conflict With Federal Product Liability Law  11.19
        • b.  Conduct of Third Parties  11.20
    • C.  Affirmative Defenses
      • 1.  Justification  11.21
      • 2.  Privilege  11.22
        • a.  Competition  11.23
        • b.  Confidential Relationship  11.24
        • c.  Official Proceeding  11.25
        • d.  Peer Review  11.26
        • e.  Financial Interest  11.27
        • f.  Privilege Under First Amendment  11.28
        • g.  Labor Objective  11.29
      • 3.  Other Defenses  11.30
    • D.  Remedies  11.31
    • E.  Liability of Party to Contract  11.32
    • F.  Jurisdiction  11.33
  • III.  INVASION OF PRIVACY
    • A.  Basic Principles
      • 1.  Nature of Torts  11.34
      • 2.  Sources of Right of Privacy  11.35
      • 3.  Balance of Interests  11.36
        • a.  Public’s Interest in Newsworthy Facts  11.37
        • b.  State’s Interest in Ascertaining Truth in Legal Proceedings  11.38
        • c.  Disclosure of Government Records  11.39
      • 4.  Distinguished From Other Torts  11.40
    • B.  Causes of Action
      • 1.  Intrusion Into Person’s Seclusion  11.41
        • a.  Nature of Intrusion  11.42
        • b.  Objectionable Actions and Reasonable Expectations of Privacy  11.43
        • c.  Special Cases: Privacy of Medical Records  11.44
      • 2.  Public Disclosure of Private Facts  11.45
        • a.  Forms of Disclosure  11.46
        • b.  Private Versus Public Facts  11.47
        • c.  Offensive to Reasonable Person  11.48
      • 3.  Placing Plaintiff in False Light  11.49
        • a.  Distinguished From Defamation  11.50
        • b.  Offensive to Reasonable Person  11.51
        • c.  Necessity of Demand for Retraction  11.52
      • 4.  Exploitation of Name, Photograph, or Likeness
        • a.  Common Law Cause of Action  11.53
        • b.  Statutory Cause of Action  11.54
      • 5.  Violations of California Invasion of Privacy Act  11.55
    • C.  Limitation: Personal Right of Action  11.56
    • D.  Affirmative Defenses
      • 1.  Waiver or Consent
        • a.  Waiver  11.57
        • b.  Consent by Operation of Law  11.57A
        • c.  Public Figures  11.57B
      • 2.  Statute of Limitations  11.58
    • E.  Remedies
      • 1.  Damages  11.59
      • 2.  Injunctive Relief  11.60
  • IV.  INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
    • A.  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
      • 1.  Nature of Tort  11.61
      • 2.  Elements of Cause of Action  11.62
        • a.  Outrageous Conduct  11.63
        • b.  Intentional or Reckless Act  11.64
        • c.  Severe Emotional Distress  11.65
        • d.  Causation  11.66
      • 3.  Affirmative Defenses
        • a.  Privilege  11.67
        • b.  Statute of Limitations  11.68
      • 4.  Case Examples
        • a.  Debt Collections  11.69
        • b.  Sexual Orientation  11.70
        • c.  Evictions  11.71
        • d.  Business Transactions  11.72
        • e.  Drug Testing  11.73
        • f.  Employment Relationships  11.74
          • (1)  Effect of Workers’ Compensation Law on Court Actions by Employees  11.75
          • (2)  Preemption by ERISA  11.76
        • g.  Insurance Claims
          • (1)  Improper Settlement  11.77
          • (2)  Effect of Workers’ Compensation Law on Court Actions by Insureds  11.78
          • (3)  Insurance Coverage for Emotional and Physical Distress  11.79
      • 5.  Remedies  11.80
    • B.  Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress  11.81
      • 1.  Direct Victim Theory  11.82
      • 2.  Bystander Theory  11.83
      • 3.  Legal Negligence  11.84
      • 4.  Medical Negligence  11.85
    • C.  Product Liability and Infliction of Emotional Distress  11.86
    • D.  Damages for Emotional Distress Resulting From Other Tortious Actions  11.87
  • V.  TRADE LIBEL
    • A.  Nature of Tort  11.88
    • B.  Elements  11.89
      • 1.  Publication of False and Disparaging Statement  11.90
      • 2.  Defendant’s Knowledge or Reckless Disregard of Statement’s Falsity  11.91
      • 3.  Pecuniary Loss  11.92
    • C.  Alternative Causes of Action  11.93
    • D.  Affirmative Defenses
      • 1.  Privilege  11.94
      • 2.  Statute of Limitations  11.95
    • E.  Remedies
      • 1.  Damages  11.96
      • 2.  Injunctive Relief  11.97
    • F.  Trade Libel and Insurance  11.98
  • VI.  TORTIOUS BREACH OF CONTRACT
    • A.  General Principles  11.99
    • B.  Case Examples
      • 1.  Insurance Contracts  11.100
      • 2.  Commercial Contracts  11.101
      • 3.  Employment Relationships  11.102
        • a.  Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy  11.103
        • b.  Tortious Discharge  11.104
        • c.  Discharge of Whistleblower  11.105
        • d.  Third Party Interests  11.106
    • C.  Affirmative Defenses
      • 1.  Comparative Bad Faith  11.107
      • 2.  Statute of Limitations  11.108
      • 3.  Exclusivity of Workers’ Compensation Law  11.109
    • D.  Bad Faith Denial of Existence of Contract  11.110
  • VII.  DEFAMATION
    • A.  Libel and Slander  11.111
      • 1.  Definition of Libel and Slander  11.112
      • 2.  Elements of Libel
        • a.  Publication  11.113
          • (1)  Form of Publication  11.114
          • (2)  Uniform Single Publication Act  11.115
          • (3)  Distributor Liability  11.116
        • b.  Applicability to Plaintiff  11.117
          • (1)  Persons  11.118
          • (2)  Entities  11.119
        • c.  Falsity  11.120
          • (1)  Understanding of Average Reader  11.121
          • (2)  Statements of Opinion  11.122
          • (3)  Distinguishing Fact From Opinion  11.123
        • d.  Malice and Intent
          • (1)  In General  11.124
          • (2)  Wanton Disregard of Fact  11.125
          • (3)  Public Figures  11.126
          • (4)  Matters of Public Concern  11.127
          • (5)  Jury Instructions  11.128
        • e.  Libel Per Se  11.129
          • (1)  Definition  11.130
          • (2)  Jury Instructions  11.131
      • 3.  Elements of Slander  11.132
      • 4.  Damages  11.133
        • a.  Compensatory Damages  11.134
        • b.  Punitive Damages  11.135
    • B.  Defenses
      • 1.  Truth  11.136
      • 2.  Opinion  11.137
      • 3.  Privileges  11.138
        • a.  Absolute Privileges  11.139
          • (1)  Litigation Privileges  11.140
          • (2)  Quasi-Judicial Proceedings  11.141
          • (3)  Legislative Proceedings  11.142
          • (4)  Boards and Commissions  11.143
          • (5)  Inapplicability to Malicious Prosecution  11.144
        • b.  Qualified Privileges  11.145
          • (1)  Employee Evaluations and References  11.146
          • (2)  Other Illustrations  11.147
      • 4.  Fair Comment  11.148
      • 5.  Report of Crime  11.149
      • 6.  Retraction  11.150
      • 7.  Constitutional Defense  11.151

12

Bad Faith Insurance Claims

John A. Sturgeon

  • I.  IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING  12.1
    • A.  Limited Scope  12.2
    • B.  Definition of Tortious Breach  12.3
    • C.  Factors in Determination of “Bad Faith”  12.4
    • D.  First Party and Third Party Claims  12.5
    • E.  Other Tort Remedies  12.6
  • II.  PROPER PARTIES: PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS
    • A.  Single and Joint Insureds  12.7
    • B.  Assignees of Insured  12.8
  • III.  BREACH OF DUTY TO DEFEND
    • A.  Duty to Defend and Consequences of Failure to Defend  12.9
    • B.  Factors Involved in Determining Unreasonable Refusal to Defend  12.10
    • C.  Rights of Insured on Refusal to Defend  12.11
    • D.  Insurer’s Declaratory Relief Action  12.12
    • E.  Damages Recoverable by Insured  12.13
  • IV.  BREACH OF DUTY TO SETTLE  12.14
    • A.  Standards Applicable to Duty to Settle  12.15
    • B.  Reasonable Settlement Demand  12.16
    • C.  When Demand of Plaintiff Exceeds Policy Limits  12.17
    • D.  Duty of Insurer to Investigate Claims  12.18
    • E.  Timely Settlement of Claim  12.19
    • F.  Case Examples
      • 1.  Unreasonable Refusal to Settle  12.20
      • 2.  Reasonable Refusal to Settle  12.21
    • G.  Damages Recoverable by Insured  12.22
  • V.  ASSIGNMENT OF INSURED’S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER  12.23
    • A.  Limitations on Assignments  12.24
    • B.  Exclusion of Insurance Agents, Brokers, and Independent Contractors as Defendants  12.25
  • VI.  DEFENSES
    • A.  Breach of Insurance Contract by Insured  12.26
    • B.  Statute of Limitations  12.27
    • C.  Advice of Counsel  12.28
    • D.  Federal and State Preemption  12.29

13

Unlawful Employment Practices

Sylvia P. Lardiere

Sonia Y. Lee

  • I.  INTRODUCTION
    • A.  At-Will Doctrine  13.1
    • B.  Exceptions to At-Will Doctrine  13.2
  • II.  STATE COMMON LAW WRONGFUL TERMINATION CLAIMS
    • A.  Contract Claims
      • 1.  Express Contracts  13.3
      • 2.  Implied-in-Fact Contracts  13.4
      • 3.  Claims Based on Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing  13.5
    • B.  Tort Claims for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy  13.6
    • C.  Constructive Discharge  13.7
    • D.  Damages for Common Law Claims
      • 1.  Contract Claims  13.8
      • 2.  Tort Claims  13.9
    • E.  After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine  13.10
  • III.  STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON EMPLOYER’S RIGHT TO TERMINATE AND PROHIBITIONS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION
    • A.  Title VII and FEHA  13.11
      • 1.  Types of Discrimination Prohibited  13.12
      • 2.  “Employers” Covered by Title VII and FEHA  13.13
      • 3.  Differences in Coverage Under Title VII and FEHA  13.14
      • 4.  Title VII Decisions Provide Guidance  13.15
      • 5.  Proving Discrimination Under Title VII and FEHA  13.16
        • a.  Disparate Treatment: Intentional Discrimination  13.17
        • b.  Disparate Impact: Facially Neutral Policies Having Discriminatory Effect  13.18
        • c.  “Same-Actor” Rule  13.18A
      • 6.  Accommodation Required
        • a.  Religion  13.19
        • b.  Pregnancy  13.20
      • 7.  Retaliation Prohibited  13.21
      • 8.  BFOQ as Defense to Title VII and FEHA Discrimination Claims  13.22
      • 9.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  13.23
        • a.  Under Title VII  13.24
        • b.  Under FEHA  13.25
      • 10.  Remedies for Discrimination Under Title VII and FEHA  13.26
    • B.  Age Discrimination  13.27
      • 1.  Federal Law: ADEA  13.28
        • a.  Disparate Treatment  13.29
        • b.  Disparate Impact  13.30
        • c.  Mixed Motive Age Discrimination Claim Not Authorized Under ADEA  13.30A
        • d.  Defenses to Age Discrimination Claims
          • (1)  Waiver  13.31
          • (2)  Arbitration  13.32
          • (3)  After-Acquired Evidence Doctrine  13.33
          • (4)  Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)  13.34
          • (5)  Bona Fide Seniority System  13.35
          • (6)  Bona Fide Employee Benefit or Early Retirement Plans  13.36
        • e.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  13.37
        • f.  Remedies for Age Discrimination Under ADEA  13.38
      • 2.  State Law: FEHA  13.39
        • a.  Disparate Treatment Age Discrimination  13.40
        • b.  Disparate Impact Age Discrimination Under FEHA  13.41
        • c.  Evidence of Age Discrimination Under FEHA  13.42
        • d.  Defenses to Age Discrimination Claims Under FEHA  13.43
        • e.  Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies  13.44
        • f.  Remedies for Age Discrimination Claims Under FEHA  13.45
        • g.  FEHA Does Not Preempt Common Law Claims  13.46
        • h.  FEHA Violation as Basis for Unfair Competition Claim  13.46A
    • C.  Prohibitions Against Disability Discrimination  13.47
      • 1.  Americans With Disabilities Act  13.48
        • a.  “Employer” Defined  13.49
        • b.  “Employee” Defined  13.49A
        • c.  “Disability” Defined  13.50
        • d.  “Qualified Individual” Defined  13.51
        • e.  “Major Life Activities” Defined  13.52
        • f.  “Substantially Limited in a Major Life Activity” Defined  13.53
        • g.  “Reasonable Accommodation”  13.54
        • h.  “Undue Hardship”  13.55
        • i.  Impairments That Can Be Controlled or Mitigated  13.56
        • j.  When Individual Is Not Disabled  13.57
        • k.  Retaliation and Coercion Prohibited  13.58
        • l.  Harassment Prohibited  13.59
        • m.  Defenses  13.60
          • (1)  Business Necessity  13.61
          • (2)  Direct Threat to Health or Safety of Others  13.62
          • (3)  Threat to Self  13.63
          • (4)  Undue Hardship  13.64
        • n.  Remedies  13.65
      • 2.  FEHA’s Prohibitions Against Disability Discrimination
        • a.  Prohibited Conduct
          • (1)  Discrimination  13.66
          • (2)  Failure to Accommodate  13.67
          • (3)  Failure to Engage in Interactive Process  13.68
          • (4)  Harassment  13.69
          • (5)  Retaliation  13.70
          • (6)  FEHA More Protective Than ADA  13.71
        • b.  Definitions
          • (1)  “Medical Condition” Defined  13.72
          • (2)  “Mental Disability” Defined  13.73
          • (3)  “Physical Disability” Defined  13.74
        • c.  Prima Facie Case  13.75
        • d.  Reasonable Accommodation  13.76
        • e.  “Undue Hardship” Defined  13.77
        • f.  Defenses  13.78
        • g.  Remedies  13.79
    • D.  Arbitrability of Employment Discrimination Claims  13.79A
  • IV.  SEXUAL HARASSMENT
    • A.  Scope of Coverage  13.80
    • B.  Federal and State Law Prohibiting Sexual Harassment
      • 1.  Title VII  13.81
      • 2.  State Law  13.82
    • C.  Differences Between Title VII and FEHA Protection  13.83
    • D.  Persons Covered by Title VII and FEHA
      • 1.  Entities Subject to Title VII  13.84
      • 2.  Entities Subject to FEHA  13.85
      • 3.  Persons Protected Under Title VII  13.86
      • 4.  Persons Protected Under FEHA  13.87
      • 5.  Types of Sexual Harassment  13.88
      • 6.  Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment  13.89
        • a.  Unwanted Sexual Advances  13.90
        • b.  Supervisor Liability  13.91
        • c.  Harassment Because of Sex  13.92
        • d.  Conditions of Employment Affected  13.93
      • 7.  “Hostile Environment” Sexual Harassment  13.94
        • a.  Who Can Create Hostile Environment  13.95
        • b.  “Severe” or “Pervasive” Conduct  13.96
          • (1)  Frequency, Severity, and Nature of Conduct  13.97
          • (2)  Reasonableness of Interference  13.98
        • c.  Subjective and Objective Standards  13.99
    • E.  Employer Liability and Defenses
      • 1.  Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment Claims  13.100
      • 2.  “Hostile Environment” Sexual Harassment
        • a.  Employer Liability for “Hostile Environment” Sexual Harassment by Supervisor  13.101
          • (1)  Reasonable Care to Prevent and Correct Harassment  13.102
          • (2)  Failure to Take Advantage of Reporting Procedure  13.103
          • (3)  Ellerth-Faragher Defense Is Not Available Under FEHA  13.104
        • b.  Employer Liability for “Hostile Environment” Sexual Harassment by Co-Workers  13.105
        • c.  Individual Liability for “Hostile Environment” Sexual Harassment  13.106
  • V.  WAGE AND HOUR LAWS: OVERTIME COMPENSATION
    • A.  Introduction  13.107
    • B.  Federal and State Wage and Hour Laws  13.108
      • 1.  FLSA  13.109
      • 2.  California Labor Code  13.110
      • 3.  Calculating Overtime Payment Due  13.111
        • a.  Workweek  13.112
        • b.  Number of Hours “Worked”  13.113
        • c.  Regular Rate of Pay  13.114
      • 4.  Employers Covered Under FLSA and California Law  13.115
      • 5.  Employees Covered Under FLSA and California Law  13.116
        • a.  FLSA  13.117
        • b.  California Labor Code  13.118
        • c.  Employees Exempt From Overtime Requirements Under FLSA  13.119
          • (1)  Executive Employees  13.120
          • (2)  Administrative Employees  13.121
          • (3)  Professional Employees  13.122
          • (4)  Employees Exempt Under California Law  13.123
      • 6.  Note About Class Actions  13.124

 

CALIFORNIA BUSINESS LITIGATION

(1st Edition)

July 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

File Name

Book Section

Title

CH02

Chapter 2

Availability of Preliminary Relief

02-009

§2.9

Complaint for Injunctive Relief

02-010

§2.10

Declaration Supporting Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction

02-011

§2.11

Order to Show Cause and Temporary Restraining Order

02-012

§2.12

Notice of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

02-013

§2.13

Preliminary Injunction and Order for Undertaking

02-014

§2.14

Undertaking by Individual Sureties on Preliminary Injunction

02-015

§2.15

Declaration of Personal Surety’s Qualifications

02-016

§2.16

Order Denying Preliminary Injunction

02-025

§2.25

Checklist: Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunction

02-026

§2.26

Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order

02-027

§2.27

Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction

02-028

§2.28

Order re Preliminary Injunction

02-029

§2.29

Table of Contents for Memorandum in Support of Motion

02-030

§2.30

Contents of Memorandum in Support of Motion: Summary of Plaintiff’s Contentions

CH03

Chapter 3

Unfair Competition

03-091

§3.91

Checklist: Guidelines For Preventing “Business Piracy”

03-092

§3.92

Form: Employment Agreement Containing Unfair Competition Provisions

CH04

Chapter 4

Trade Secrets

04-018

§4.18

Preliminary Designation of Trade Secrets

CH05

Chapter 5

Antitrust

05-162

§5.162

Sample Complaint; Jury Demanded

05-163

§5.163

Complaint; Other Allegations of Offenses

05-164

§5.164

Complaint; Other Allegations of Injury

05-165

§5.165

Pleading Related Government Action; Fraudulent Concealment

CH07

Chapter 7

Copyrights

07-084

§7.84

Checklist: Client Interview

07-087A

§7.87A

Sample Cease and Desist Letter

07-088

§7.88

Complaint for Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition (Fed R Civ P Form 19)

07-089

§7.89

Complaint Damage Allegations

07-099

§7.99

Checklist: Obtaining TRO

07-111

§7.111

Checklist: Opposing Preliminary Injunction

CH08

Chapter 8

Patents

08-106

§8.106

Label Notice for Patented Product

08-107

§8.107

Label Notice for Unpatented Product Used in Patented Process

CH09

Chapter 9

Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition on the Internet

09-055B

§9.55B

Takedown Notice for Online Copyright Infringement

CH11

Chapter 11

Business-Related Torts

11-002

§11.2

Checklist: Elements of Business-Related Torts

 

Selected Developments

July 2018 Update

The California Supreme Court approved revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, effective November 1, 2018. Among other changes, the rules have been renumbered, and the new numbers have been added to citations in this book. See https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/supreme-court-approves-first-comprehensive-revision-to-attorney-rules-of-professional-conduct-in-twenty-nine-years. See also §§1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 3.14, 7.1, 7.80, 7.83, 11.67, 11.94.

A district court’s “protective order” prohibiting the defendants in a trademark case from making public statements prior to and during trial on the merits of their case or from posting on social media was an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech that posed no clear and present danger or imminent threat to the plaintiffs’ interests in a fair trial. Dan Farr Prods. v U.S. District Court (9th Cir 2017) 874 F3d 590. See §2.7.

The California Supreme Court found that an Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim premised on Cal/OSHA violations was not preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, because the violations were of standards in a state plan approved by the federal government. Solus Indus. Innovations, LLC v Superior Court (2018) 4 C5th 316. See §3.7.

The California Legislature enacted Lab C §925, which, for contracts made on or after January 1, 2017, prohibits an employer from requiring a California-based employee either to agree to adjudicate disputes outside of the state or to give up the “substantive protection” of California law. See §3.18.

In People v Overstock.com, Inc. (2017) 12 CA5th 1064, the court held that the 4-year statute of limitations of the UCL governs a district attorney’s action for penalties under the statute, notwithstanding the 1-year period in CCP §340(b) for governmental penalty actions in general. See §3.37.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) does not apply retroactively to misappropriations that occurred before its effective date of May 11, 2016. Agilysys, Inc. v Hall (ND Ga 2017) 258 F Supp 3d 1331. See §4.3A.

Several courts have recently found that the DTSA may apply to misappropriations that began before its effective date and continued thereafter. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v Sandhu (ED Pa 2018) 2018 291 F Supp 3d 659; AllCells, LLC v Zhai (ND Cal, March 27, 2017, No. 16-CV-07323-EMC) 2017 US Dist Lexis 44808; Brand Energy & Infrastructure Servs., Inc. v Irex Contracting Grp. (ED Pa, March 24, 2017, No. CV 16-2499) 2017 US Dist Lexis 43497; VIA Techs., Inc. v ASUS Computer Int’l (ND Cal Feb. 7, 2017, No. 14-cv-03586-BLF) 2017 US Dist Lexis 17384. Other courts have found that it does not. Space Data Corp. v X (ND Cal 2017) 123 USPQ2d 1514; Avago Technols. U.S. Inc. v NanoPrecision Prods., Inc. (ND Cal, Jan. 31, 2017, No. 16-cv-03737-JCS) 2017 US Dist Lexis 13484. See §4.3A.

A defendant who enticed a plaintiff to disclose confidential information to the defendant and third parties at a meeting by misrepresenting the real purpose of meeting could not rely on the plaintiff’s disclosure to those third parties to argue that the plaintiff failed to take reasonable precautions to protect a trade secret. BladeRoom Group Ltd. v Facebook, Inc. (ND Cal 2017) 219 F Supp 3d 984. See §§4.39, 4.52.

Merely convincing a trial court that a claim of trade secret misappropriation has sufficient merit to survive a summary judgment motion does not preclude a subsequent finding that the claim was made in bad faith. Parrish v Latham & Watkins (2017) 3 C5th 767. See §4.70.

A Northern California federal district court dismissed a UCL claim as preempted because the plaintiff had not distinguished in its pleading between trade secret and non-trade secret information and could not use the UCL claim as a fallback for any information that failed to qualify for trade secret protection. Waymo LLC v Uber Technols., Inc. (ND Cal 2017) 256 F Supp 3d 1059. See §4.76.

In an antitrust case brought under Clayton Act §4, the Ninth Circuit held that because the defendant was a distributor of smartphone apps who sold them directly to purchasers through its app store, the plaintiffs had standing to sue the defendant for attempting to monopolize the sale of the apps. Pepper v Apple Inc. (In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig.) (9th Cir 2017) 846 F3d 313. See §5.20.

In a antitrust case alleging tying agreements, the Tenth Circuit noted a circuit split over whether a tying case examined under a rule of reason analysis presents a situation in which a specific and detailed showing of market power may not be necessary and listed cases on both sides of the split. Suture Express, Inc. v Owens & Minor Distrib. (10th Cir 2017) 851 F3d 1029, n5, cert denied (2017) 138 S Ct 146. See §5.65.

In In re Lipitor Antritrust Litig. (3d Cir 2017) 855 F3d 126, the Third Circuit discussed the components of a Walker Process claim in an antitrust case involving a monopoly position in the relevant market, as set forth in Walker Process Equip. v Food Mach. & Chem. Corp. (1965) 382 US 172, 86 S Ct 347. See §§5.74, 8.112, 8.138, 8.139.

In a trademark action under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), the court held that reverse confusion is not a separate claim that must be specifically pleaded. Marketquest Group, Inc. v BIC Corp. (9th Cir 2017) 862 F3d 927. See §6.9.

The yellow color of a Cheerios cereal box is not entitled to trademark protection. General Mills IP Holdings II, LLC (TTAB 2017) 124 USPQ2d 1016. See §6.41.

In Matal v Tam (2017) 582 US ___, 137 S Ct 1744, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the “disparagement provision” of Lanham Act §2(a), which barred registration of trademarks that may disparage or create contempt for any person, living or dead. See §6.33.

The Lanham Act applies extraterritorily if the alleged violations create some effect on American foreign commerce, the effect presents a cognizable injury to the plaintiffs, and the interest of American foreign commerce with the other nation is strong. Updateme Inc. v Axel Springer SE (ND Cal, Mar. 7, 2018, No. 17-CV-05054-SI) 2018 US Dist Lexis 37592. See §6.72.

An action under the Lanham Act requires that the defendant acted within the state sufficiently to give rise to personal jurisdiction under state law. Ariel Invs., LLC v Ariel Capital Advisors LLC (7th Cir 2018) 881 F3d 520. See §6.78.

In a trademark action, a plaintiff’s actual damages include (1) profits lost on trade diverted to the infringer; (2) profits lost on sales made at reduced prices in response to competition by the infringer; (3) harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and good will; and (4) the cost of advertising needed to prevent or dispel customer confusion. Yah Kai World Wide Enters. v Napper (D DC, Feb. 21, 2018, No. 11–CV-2174 (KBJ)) 2018 US Dist Lexis 27646. See §6.86.

Under Lanham Act §35(a), reasonable attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in a trademark action in exceptional cases. Tobinick v Novella (11th Cir 2018) 884 F3d 1110; Sazerac Co. v Fetzer Vineyards, Inc. (ND Cal, Dec. 7, 2017, No. 3:15-CV-04618-WHO) 2017 US Dist Lexis 201909; Direct Fitness Solutions, LLC v Direct Fitness Solutions, LLC (ND Ill 2017) 281 F Supp 3d 697; Abbey Dental Ctr., Inc. v Consumer Opinion LLC (D Nev, Aug. 10, 2017, No. 2:15-CV-2069-GMN-PAL) 2017 US Dist Lexis 126776; Hamdan v Tiger Bros. Food Mart Inc. (MD La, July 14, 2017, No. CV 15-412-BAJ-EWD) 2017 US Dist Lexis 109542. See §6.91.

The AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) establishes civil liability for cyberpiracy when a plaintiff proves that the defendant registered, trafficked in, or used a domain name; the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark owned by the plaintiff; and the defendant acted with bad faith intent to profit from that mark. Go Daddy Operating Co. v Ghaznavi (ND Cal, Feb. 28, 2018, No. 17-CV-06545-PJH) 2018 US Dist Lexis 33002. See §6.94.

In Disney Enters. v VidAngel, Inc. (9th Cir 2017) 869 F3d 848, the Ninth Circuit found that the defendant violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) when it purchased discs containing copyrighted movies, copied them, and resold versions of them to customers. See §§6.113, 7.7, 7.97, 8.14, 8.17.

Nonuse of a trademark for 3 consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment under the Lanham Act. Fabick Inc. v Fabco Equip., Inc. (WD Wis, Nov. 8, 2017, No. 16-CV-172-WMC) 2017 US Dist Lexis 185446. See §6.128.

The Ninth Circuit found that the public’s use of the word “google” to mean “search the internet” has not reached a sufficient level of generic use to support cancellation of the trademark. Elliot v Google, Inc. (9th Cir 2017) 860 F3d 1151. See §6.135.

The Ninth Circuit also found that the Copyright Act of 1909 governed an infringement case over a song composed before January 1, 1978, and affirmed the jury’s finding on appeal that the defendants’ song infringed on the copyrighted song with respect to several elements involving the style and feel of the song. Williams v Gaye (9th Cir 2018) 885 F3d 1150. See §§7.3, 7.69.

A pornographic video website was entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because the operators had no knowledge that their site included infringing video clips. Ventura Content, Ltd v Motherless, Inc. (9th Cir 2018) 885 F3d 597. See §7.7.

An Internet-based retransmission service that captured copyrighted works broadcast over the air and then retransmitted them to paying subscribers through the Internet without the consent of copyright holders was not a “cable system” eligible for a “compulsory license” under 17 CFR §111. Fox TV Stations, Inc. v Aereokiller, LLC (9th Cir 2017) 851 F3d 1002. See §7.8.

The Ninth Circuit found that publicity rights claims challenging the display, reproduction, and distribution of copyright photographs fell within the subject matter of copyright law and were preempted by it. Maloney v T3Media, Inc. (9th Cir 2017) 853 F3d 1004. See §7.32.

The Eleventh Circuit found that copyright registration of works being prepared for commercial distribution is not effective until the registrar takes action on the application. Fourth Estate Pub. Ben. Corp. v Wall-Street.com, LLC (11th Cir 2017) 856 F3d 1338. See §7.51.

The Ninth Circuit found that a monkey owned “selfies” it had allegedly taken of itself and thus had constitutional standing to bring a lawsuit for infringement, but that the animal lacked statutory standing to do so. Naruto v Slater (9th Cir, Apr. 23, 2018, No. 16–15469) 2018 US App Lexis 10129. See §7.56.

Of the two elements of an infringement action, ownership and unauthorized copying, the second element has two distinct aspects: (1) copying and (2) unlawful appropriation. Rentmeester v Nike, Inc. (9th Cir, Feb. 27, 2018, No. 15–35509) 2018 US App Lexis 4817. See §§7.66, 7.68, 7.69, 7.70, 7.71.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a rare summary judgment for the plaintiff when it found that the district court had correctly applied the subjective intrinsic test for substantial similarity in a copyright case by detailing various objective factors and elements that were common between plaintiff’s fabric design and defendant’s dress, including complex patterns with nearly identical orientation, spacing, and grouping of complicated florets and feathers, and, despite slight variations in colors, use of similar shades and use of colors in similar ways for highlight and contrast). Unicolors, Inc. v Urban Outfitters, Inc (9th Cir 2017) 853 F3d 980. See §7.71.

A United Kingdom company’s mailing of a copyright infringing newsletter to ten California residents did not subject the company to personal jurisdiction in California. Axiom Foods, Inc. v Acerchem Int’l, Inc. (9th Cir 2017) 874 F3d 1064. See §7.118.

In 2017, utility patents comprised 90.7 percent of the issued patents. Reissued patents were 0.1 percent; design patents were 8.8 percent; and plant patents were 0.4 percent. See §8.2.

In Return Mail, Inc. v US Postal Serv. (Fed Cir 2017) 868 F3d 1350, the Federal Circuit held that claims were ineligible for patent protection when they recited only routine, conventional activities, such as identifying undeliverable mail items, decoding data on those mail items, and creating output data. See §§8.2A, 8.20, 8.95E, 8.95F.

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its 2018 guidance, which includes links to six sets of examples of subject-matter eligibility for patent protection. https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility. See §8.2A.

To recover lost profits, a patentee bears the burden of proof to show a reasonable probability that, “but for” the infringement, it would have made the sales that were made by the infringer. Presidio Components, Inc. v American Tech. Ceramics Corp. (Fed Cir 2017) 875 F3d 1369. See §8.22.

As of March 1, 2018, the fee for requesting supplemental examination of a patent is $4400 for large entities, with additional fees for any reexamination ordered as a result of the supplemental examination. See §8.95A.

As of March 1, 2018, base fees for requesting nonstreamlined ex parte reexamination of a patent application is $12,000 for large entities. The fee for a streamlined ex parte reexamination is half that amount. 37 CFR §1.20(c)(1). Additional claims can raise the fees significantly, but the usual 50 percent and 75 percent discounts are available for small and micro entities. Third-party filers are not eligible for the micro entity fee. See §8.95B.

In an inter partes review of a patent under 35 USC §§311–318, the petitioner has the burden of proving all propositions of unpatentability, including invalidity of any amended claims. Aqua Prods., Inc. v Matal (Fed Cir 2017) 872 F3d 1290. See §8.95C.

In two cases decided by the United States Supreme Court in April 2018, the Court held that inter partes review of patent claims does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, and that once the USPTO institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all the claims the petitioner has challenged. Oil States Energy Servs., LLV v Greenes Energy Group, LLC (Apr. 24, 2018, No. 16–712) 2018 US Lexis 2630; SAS Institute Inc. v Iancu (Apr. 24, 2018, No. 16969) 2018 US Lexis 2629. See §8.95C.

For purposes of venue under 28 USC §1400 for a patent infringement action, a domestic corporation “resides” in the state of incorporation. TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC (2017) ___ US ___, 137 S Ct 1514. See §8.142.

When a person who has anonymously posted statements on the Internet files a motion to quash a plaintiff’s subpoena seeking his or her identity, the plaintiff is required to make a prima facie showing of the elements of the plaintiff’s claim. ZL Technols., Inc. v Does 1–7 (2017) 13 CA5th 603. See §§9.57, 11.120.

An employer could not compel a third-party publisher’s disclosure of an anonymous online poster’s identity absent a prima facie showing that the poster had breached the parties’ nondisclosure agreement. Glassdoor, Inc. v Superior Court (2017) 9 CA5th 623. See §9.57.

Federal copyright law preempts a right of publicity claim if a photograph is exploited in a noncommercial manner. Maloney v T3Media, Inc. (9th Cir 2017) 853 F3d 1004. See §10.18.

In Roy Allan Slurry Seal, Inc. v American Asphalt South, Inc. (2017) 2 C5th 505, in which contractors alleged that they had submitted the second lowest bid on a public contract and would have been successful but for the low bidder’s wrongful conduct, the court determined the complaint did not state a claim for intentional interference with prospective advantage since there was no existing economic relationship. See §11.12.

The Seventh Circuit held that a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) (42 USC §§2000e—2000e–17). Hively v Ivy Tech Community College of Ind. (7th Cir 2017) 853 F3d 339. See §13.14.

The California Legislature has revised discrimination protections of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Govt C §§12900–12996) slightly to provide that religious dress practice and religious grooming practice include certain elements of dress and grooming that are part of an individual observing a religious creed. Govt C §12926(q). See §13.19.

The Ninth Circuit held that an employee could bring an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (29 USC §§201–219) against his employer’s attorney for attempting to have him deported in retaliation for filing a workplace violation claim against the employer, because the FLSA’s retaliation provisions do not require that a defendant be the plaintiff’s employer. Arias v Raimondo (9th Cir 2017) 860 F3d 1185. See §13.21.

The California Supreme Court held that a predispute arbitration agreement that waives the right to seek public injunctive relief under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus & P C §§17200–17210) and false advertising law in any forum is against California public policy and unenforceable under California law. McGill v Citibank, N.A. (2017) 2 C5th 945. See §13.79A.

About the Authors

IRA G. BIBBERO is an associate with Browne George Ross LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Bibbero earned B.S. and M.S. degrees in computer engineering from Case Western Reserve University and a J.D. degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. He served as an appellate court attorney for Justice Norman Epstein of the California Court of Appeal. Mr. Bibbero is experienced in business litigation, Indian law, and appellate practice. He is one of the authors of chapter 3 (Unfair Competition).

HON. ROBERT B. BROADBELT is a Superior Court Judge in Los Angeles County. Prior to his 2012 appointment to the court by Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., he was a partner in Browne Woods George LLP for 24 years, and then of counsel to Leader Counsel LLP, in Los Angeles. Judge Broadbelt earned a B.A. degree in 1981 from the University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D. degree in 1984 from the University of Southern California Law School. As a practicing attorney he specialized in complex business litigation, including Internet law, unfair competition, trade secrets, noncompete agreements, interference with business relations, defamation, and First Amendment and other constitutional issues. He also represented the California State Senate and individual State Senators in redistricting, voting rights, and other litigation.

ALLAN BROWNE is a senior partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Browne earned a B.A. degree in 1960 from the University of California, Los Angeles, and an LL.B. degree in 1963 from the University of Southern California, where he was a member of the Board of Editors and Editor in Chief of the Southern California Law Review. He was the founder and first President of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He is a past member of the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and a past member of the Board of Governors of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. He has also served as a Judge Pro Tem of the Beverly Hills Municipal Court and as an arbitrator for the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Mr. Browne was the planner, editor, and contributing author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. His practice specialties are complex business litigation, unfair competitive business practices, insurance bad faith, and legal malpractice. He has written extensively on a wide range of litigation and business law topics.

GREGORY L. DOLL is an associate with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Doll earned a B.A. degree in 1993 from the University of California, Los Angeles, where he graduated summa cum laude, and a J.D. degree in 1997 from the University of Southern California, where he was Editor of the Southern California Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif. During law school, Mr. Doll served as a judicial extern for the Hon. Robert M. Takasugi in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He has litigated numerous cases involving intellectual property, unfair competition, tort, contract, environmental, entertainment, civil liberties, and constitutional issues.

DONNA L. DUTCHER is an associate with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Ms. Dutcher earned a B.S. degree in 1993 from Pittsburg State University, where she graduated summa cum laude, and a J.D. degree in 1999 from Harvard Law School, where she was an Editor, Deputy Editor in Chief, and Editor in Chief of the Harvard Negotiation Law Review.

N. KEMBA EXTAVOUR is an associate with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Ms. Extavour earned a B.A. degree from Stanford University in 1993 and a J.D. degree in 1996 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. Her specialty is business litigation.

MILES J. FELDMAN is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Feldman earned a B.A. with honors and distinction from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1989, and a J.D. degree in 1994 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where he was a member of the Moot Court Board and an Editor of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Mr. Feldman also served as a judicial extern for the Hon. D. Lowell Jensen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He dedicates his practice to litigating business, entertainment, and intellectual property disputes. Mr. Feldman frequently lectures and contributes to legal journals and books on copyrights, rights of publicity, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, unfair competition, California’s Talent Agency Act, and the litigation of entertainment industry transactions. He was a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation.

ROBERT D. FISH, principal and founding partner of Fish & Associates, PC, Irvine, specializes in patent prosecution, intellectual property litigation, trademark filings, and patent enforcement, including licensing and arbitration. Mr. Fish received his B.A. degree in 1974 from the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. degree, cum laude, in 1990 from the California Western School of Law. He oversees numerous active patent and trademark matters, including extensive foreign filings. He has litigated in state and federal courts throughout the United States, has overseen cases in several European countries, and has successfully appealed before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. He is a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of California, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, the Orange County Bar Association, and the Orange County Technology Alliance. Mr. Fish is the author of several books, including Cost Effective Patenting (2004), Strategic Patenting (2007), White Space Patenting (2011), and Green Fields Patenting (2011).

ERIC M. GEORGE is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. George earned an A.B. degree with honors in 1990 from Georgetown University and a J.D. degree with honors in 1993 from Georgetown University Law Center. He served as a law clerk for the Hon. D. Lowell Jensen in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and as Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary to California Governor Pete Wilson. From 1999 to 2000, Mr. George also served as Counsel to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.

SYLVIA P. LARDIERE is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Ms. Lardiere earned a B.A. degree in 1979 from the University of California, Berkeley, where she graduated summa cum laude, and a J.D. degree in 1982 from the University of Pennsylvania. She specializes in business and employment related litigation.

MELODIE K. LARSEN is a partner with the firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP in Los Angeles. Ms. Larsen earned a B.A. degree in 1978 from California State University at Los Angeles and a J.D. degree in 1983 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she was an Associate Editor of the Industrial Relations Law Journal. She also served as a judicial extern for the Hon. Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. She has been an update author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. Ms. Larsen is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Women in Cable and Communications, and Women Lawyers of Los Angeles. She has a broad litigation and employment practice, and has litigated disputes involving wrongful discharge, discrimination, sexual harassment, wage and hour, copyright, trademark, idea submission, unfair competition, cable television, and other general business disputes. Ms. Larsen was one of the attorneys successfully representing Quality King Distributors, Inc. in the action leading to the Supreme Court decision entitled Quality King Distribs., Inc. v L’Anza Research Int’l, Inc. (1998) 523 US 135, 118 S Ct 1125, which clarified the application of the copyright first sale doctrine to products sold for export.

SONIA Y. LEE is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Ms. Lee earned a B.A. degree in 1992 from the University of California, Berkeley, and a J.D. degree in 1997 from Loyola Marymount University, where she was a member of the St. Thomas More Law Honor Society and Articles Editor of the Loyola Law Review. Her specialty is civil litigation.

MICHAEL J. OLECKI is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Olecki earned a B.A. degree in 1981 from Haverford College and a J.D. degree in 1986 from the University of Virginia, where he was Notes Editor for the University of Virginia Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif. He served as a law clerk for the Hon. Edward N. Cahn in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Mr. Olecki is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and an arbitrator listed with the Los Angeles Superior Court Arbitration Panel. He is a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. He has lectured on the use of mock juries in preparing for trial; the California summary judgment statute; preparing witnesses for videotaped depositions; insurer recoupment of monetary contributions from additional policy sources; and on an insurer’s obligation to defend all causes of action brought against the insured. He has a highly successful litigation practice, with experience in a wide range of areas, including trademark and trade secret disputes.

LAURENCE H. PRETTY is a partner with the firm Hogan & Hartson in Los Angeles. He earned a B.S. degree in Engineering with honors in 1958 from London University and a J.D. degree with honors in 1968 from George Washington University, where he graduated Order of the Coif. Following graduation, he was a law clerk for the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. He has served as Chair of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of California and as a Council member of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the American Bar Association. Mr. Pretty was also a member of the Board of Directors of the American Intellectual Property Law Association and has served as President of both the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association and the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He is an Adjunct Lecturer in patent and trademark law at the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. Mr. Pretty has written extensively for a variety of publications about patent litigation issues. He is the editor and co-author of the book Patent Litigation, published by the Practising Law Institute, and for over 10 years, served as Chair of the Practising Law Institute’s program on “Patent Litigation.” He is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

MARCY RAILSBACK is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Ms. Railsback earned a B.A. degree with high honors in 1974 from San Diego State University, where she was a member of the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society, and a J.D. degree in 1978 from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, where she was a member of the Thurston Society, Associate Research Editor of the Hastings Law Journal, and graduated Order of the Coif. Ms. Railsback is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, and was a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. She primarily practices in the areas of business and real estate litigation, unfair competition, and defamation.

WILLIAM T. RINTALA is a partner with the firm Rintala, Smoot, Jaenicke & Rees in Los Angeles. Mr. Rintala earned a B.A. degree in 1961 from Stanford University and a J.D. degree in 1967 from the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where he was Executive Director of the California Law Review and graduated Order of the Coif. Following law school, he was law clerk for the Hon. Murray Draper, First Appellate District, Division 3 of the California Court of Appeal. Mr. Rintala has served as a member of the Board of Directors and as Chair of the Amicus Brief Committee of the Beverly Hills Bar Association. He is also a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He is presently a member of the Board of Directors of the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, and formerly served as a member of the Board of Directors of Public Counsel. Mr. Rintala was a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. He also authored chapters in the second and third editions of California Civil Appellate Practice (3d ed Cal CEB 1996). He has lectured on copyright issues for both CEB and the Practising Law Institute. He has handled copyright, trademark, and unfair competition cases for Warner Bros., Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, CBS, William Morris Agency, and Host Marriott Corporation and was co-counsel for the heirs of Margaret Mitchell in a successful suit to establish ownership of the motion picture sequel rights to “Gone With The Wind.” He has also litigated a wide range of business disputes, including trade secrets, franchise issues, Uniform Commercial Code, wrongful termination, breach of contract, and talent agency disputes.

PETER W. ROSS is a partner with the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Ross earned a B.A. degree in 1980 from Carleton College, where he graduated magna cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, and a J.D. degree in 1983 from Stanford Law School. He was a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation, and has lectured on a variety of subjects involving competitive business practices at programs presented by CEB, CJER, and others. Mr. Ross regularly litigates in both state and federal court. His practice covers the spectrum of business litigation, ranging from theft of trade secrets, unfair business practices, intellectual property problems, partnership disputes, advertising and First Amendment issues, professional malpractice and employment issues to environmental problems.

CARL ALAN ROTH is an associate with Brown George Ross LLP in Los Angeles. He is one of the authors of chapter 6 (Trademarks). Mr. Roth earned his A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1986 and his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1990. His practice involves a wide range of large-scale and complex sports, media, banking, insurance, intellectual property, and securities disputes, and he has litigated in state and federal appellate and trial courts.

NICK J. G. SANCHEZ is an associate with the firm Browne Woods & George in Los Angeles. Mr. Sanchez earned his B.A. degree in 1995 from Yale University, where he played quarterback for the Bulldogs’ varsity football team. He obtained his J.D. degree in 2000 from the University of Southern California, where he co-founded “Project Peers,” a nonprofit organization providing college preparatory training for economically disadvantaged high school students. During law school, Mr. Sanchez also served as a law clerk in the California Governor’s Office, Legal Affairs Unit. His areas of specialty are civil litigation, government, and legislative practice.

BENJAMIN D. SCHEIBE is a founding member and partner of the firm Browne Woods & George LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Scheibe was awarded a B.A. degree in 1978 from the University of California, Berkeley, where he was a member of Psi Chi, the National Honor Society in Psychology, and a J.D. degree in 1981 from the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law, where he graduated Order of the Coif and was a member of the UCLA Law Review. He has served as both the Chair and Vice-Chair of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Intellectual Property, Tort and Insurance Practice Section. He is also an active participant in the Association of Business Trial Lawyers and the California State Bar’s Committee on Trade Secrets. Mr. Scheibe was a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. He has written extensively on various business litigation-related issues, including trade secrets, insurance coverage for business disputes, and the First Amendment. He is a business litigator and trial attorney who concentrates his practice in the areas of business disputes, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, intellectual property rights, elections law, and First Amendment issues.

JOHN A. STURGEON is a partner with the firm White & Case in Los Angeles. Mr. Sturgeon earned an A.B. degree with honors in 1957 from Stanford University and a J.D. degree in 1962 from Stanford Law School. Mr. Sturgeon was a co-founder of the 1000-member Association of Business Trial Lawyers and has served on its Board of Governors. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Fellow of the American Bar Association. He is also a member of the Los Angeles County Superior Court Arbitration Panel. In 1995, he was selected as one of the 100 most prominent Los Angeles business lawyers by the Los Angeles Business Journal. Mr. Sturgeon was a co-author of Competitive Business Practices (2d ed Cal CEB 1991), the predecessor of California Business Litigation. He has represented several banks, including Bank of America, Northern Trust Bank, and Wells Fargo Bank, in major lender liability cases and in cases involving general banking issues. His practice also includes trade secret and unfair competition cases, defense of securities class actions, real property disputes, trust and probate litigation, business torts, and disputes among partners and shareholders. Active in public issues, Mr. Sturgeon represented 70 California cities challenging the constitutionality of the Legislature’s allocation of property tax revenue. He also represented the California Republican Party in reapportionment litigation before the California Supreme Court. He has handled over 40 appellate proceedings before the California Court of Appeals, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the California Supreme Court.

KEITH WESLEY is a partner with Browne George Ross LLP in Los Angeles. Mr. Wesley earned an undergraduate degree magna cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University and a J.D. degree with high honors from George Washington University Law School. Prior to joining Browne George Ross, Mr. Wesley served as an extern for the Honorable Patricia Hemann, United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, and as a law clerk for the Honorable Ferdinand F. Fernandez, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His practice encompasses all facets of business litigation, and he has particular expertise in the areas of trademark, trade dress, copyright, trade secrets, false advertising, unfair competition, insurance, and class actions. He is the author of chapter 10 (Right of Publicity).

About the 2018 Update Authors

MARIBETH ANNAGUEY is a partner with the firm of Browne George Ross LLP located in Los Angeles. Her practice involves class action defense, real estate disputes, entertainment disputes, and matters involving breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, securities violations, and defamation. Ms. Annaguey has experience in all aspects of litigation in federal, appellate and state courts, and has also represented clients before the California Labor Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and in arbitrations before tribunals in California and Texas, including JAMS, ADR Services, the American Arbitration Association, and the Independent Film & Television Alliance. She received her B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley, and her J.D. in 2003 from the University of Southern California. She speaks frequently on defamation, entertainment law, and related topics. She was named a Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine in 2007-2008 and 2010-2017 and was named as one of the Up-and-Coming 50 Women by Southern California Super Lawyers in 2015 and 2017. She is an update author of chapter 6, “Trademarks.”

JEFFREY C. BERMAN is an associate with Browne George Ross LLP in Los Angeles. He litigates a wide variety of disputes, including intellectual property, real estate, contract, and entertainment cases. Mr. Berman earned his B.A. magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania, and his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar and Articles Editor of the Journal of Law & Social Problems. After law school, he clerked for the Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, District Judge for the Southern District of New York. Mr. Berman is a lecturer-in-law at UCLA School of Law, where he teaches Legal Research, Writing and Analysis. He is the update author of chapter 1, “Prelitigation Considerations” and chapter 2, “Availability of Preliminary Relief.”

IRA G. BIBBERO the update author of chapter 3, “Unfair Competition.” See his biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

ROBERT D. FISH is the update author of chapter 8, “Patents.” See his biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

KATHRYN L. McCANN is a partner with the firm of Browne George Ross LLP in Los Angeles. Her practice focuses on general business matters, real estate litigation, contracts, and entertainment. She received her B.A. from Florida State University, magna cum laude, and her J.D. in 2006 from Loyola Law School. She has been named a Southern California Super Lawyers Rising Star every year since 2012, and is a member of the Public Counsel Associate Leadership Board and the Board of the Irish American Bar Association. She is an update author of Chapter 6, “Trademarks.”

CARL ALAN ROTH is an update author of chapter 6, “Trademarks.” See his biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

BENJAMIN D. SCHEIBE is the update author of chapter 4, “Trade Secrets.” See his biography in the About the Authors section of this book.

KEITH WESLEY is the update author of chapter 10, “Right of Publicity.” See his biography in the About the Authors section.

OnLAW System Requirements:
Desktop: Windows XP, 7 or 8, Mac OS 10.8
Mobile: iOS6, iOS7, Android 4.2
Firefox, Chrome, IE and Safari browsers

Note: OnLAW may work with some devices running older versions of these Operating Systems or Windows RT; however, functionality is not guaranteed.

Please see FAQs for more details.
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Business Law
Products specifications
PRODUCT GROUP Publication
PRACTICE AREA Business Law