Tennessee IP Law Blog

Compulife Software Inc. v. Newman , No. 18-12004, 2020 WL 2549505 (11th Cir. May 20, 2020) Topic:  Abstraction/Filtration Anaylsis & Burden Shifting Takeaway:  After an infringement plaintiff has demonstrated that he holds a valid copyright and that the defendant engaged in factual copying, the defendant bears the burden of proving—as part of the filtration analysis—that the elements he copied from a copyrighted work are unprotectable. Overall, this is a very in depth and complicated case that involves multiple aspects of IP law. As such, this post is limited to the issue of copyright infringement and protectability under the abstraction/filtration test. Check back next week for part 2 regarding the trade-secret issues! naaip.org/logo             compulife.com Background & Parties There’s nothing easy about this case. The facts are complicated, and the governing law is tangled. At its essence, it’s a case about high-tech corporate espionage. The very

Enchant Christmas Light Maze & Mkt. Ltd. v. Glowco, LLC , No. 19-6282, 2020 WL 2487598 (6th Cir. May 14, 2020) Topic: Copyrights for light sculptures of animals and nature & Preliminary Injunctions Takeaways: Light Sculptures of Animals in various natural poses enjoys thin copyright protection at best. Similarity of light sculptures of animals and ice were inherent in their subject. Preliminary Injunction not proper when there was little likelihood of success on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, the light show had already ended, and a future show was speculative. https://www.fox13news.com/video/628335   https://nashvillefunforfamilies.com/glow-holiday-nashville/ Holding Holiday-themed light show producer "Enchant" brought action for injunctive relief against competitor, alleging infringement of its copyrights in a number of holiday-themed light sculptures. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Te

Daniels v. Walt Disney Co. , 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4019 (9th Cir. May 4, 2020) Topic: Copyrightability of Graphically-Depicted Characters Literary and graphic characters—from James Bond to the Batmobile—capture our creative imagination. These characters also may enjoy copyright protection, subject to certain limitations. Here we consider whether certain anthropomorphized characters representing human emotions qualify for copyright protection. They do not. For guidance, we turn to DC Comics v. Towle, our court’s most recent explanation of the copyrightability of graphically-depicted characters. DC Comics v. Towle , 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015). Denise Daniels developed a line of anthropomorphic characters called The Moodsters, which she pitched to entertainment and toy companies around the country, including The Walt Disney Company. Under Towle, “lightly sketched” characters such as The Moodsters, which lack “consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes,” do not enj

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. , 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3636 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2020) Topic: Copyrightability of Statutory Code The Copyright Act grants monopoly protection for “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). Under the government edicts doctrine, officials empowered to speak with the force of law cannot be the authors of the works they create in the course of their official duties. The State of Georgia has one official code—the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA). That Code includes the text of every Georgia statute currently in force, as well as a set of non-binding annotations that appear beneath each statutory provision. The annotations typically include summaries of judicial opinions construing each provision, summaries of pertinent opinions of the state attorney general, and a list of related law review articles and other reference materials. The OCGA is assembled by the Code Revision Commission, a state entity composed mostly of legislators

Topic: Copyright Infringement - Music "Girl 6" Album Cover - www.princevault.com Plaintiff James Brandon owns the copyright for “Phone Sex,” a song created in 1993 by “GOMAD,” a musical group managed by Mr. Brandon. In 2015, Mr. Brandon brought an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the song “Girl 6”—performed by Prince for Spike Lee’s film of the same name—infringed on the copyright for Phone Sex. The Southern District of Florida dismissed that case with prejudice, holding that Mr. Brandon had failed to state a claim that Girl 6 infringed the copyright for Phone Sex. But Mr. Brandon did not get the message. Instead, he filed this action raising the same claims against a different set of defendants. Because the doctrine of collateral estoppel clearly bars Mr. Brandon from relitigating claims that were previously decided against him, this action, like its subject, is fruitless. Defendants’ motion to dismiss