Author Archives: rtushnet

Call for Papers: Yale/Stanford/Harvard Junior Faculty Forum

2020 Junior Faculty Forum Hosted by Stanford, Harvard, and Yale Law Schools Request for Submissions Stanford, Yale, and Harvard Law Schools announce the 21st session of the Junior Faculty Forum to be held at Stanford Law School on June 1-2, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

post-complaint changes prevent finding of irreparable harm

Pegasystems, Inc. v. Appian Corp., 2020 WL 137301, No. 19-11461-PBS (D. Mass. Jan. 13, 2020) Following on its denial of a motion to dismiss, the court denied a motion for preliminary injunction in this false advertising case. Because the alleged … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

labeling grandfathered drug in standard format doesn’t misrepresent it as FDA-approved

Belcher Pharms., LLC v. Hospira, Inc., — F. Supp. 3d –, No. 8:17-cv-2353-T-30AAS, 2020 WL 102744 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2020) “Epinephrine—a drug that is a medical necessity—has been in short supply on and off for nearly a decade.” Hospira … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reading list: Pam Samuelson on legal writing

Pamela Samuelson, Good Legal Writing: of Orwell and WindowPanes  From the archives: Excellent short piece on legal writing, for students and other legal writers of all kinds.  In itself, interesting to see how a groundbreaking female academic framed things in … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

confusion is not irreparable harm in false advertising case

AMETEK CTS US, Inc. v. Advanced Test Equipment Corp., No.19-cv-02348-H-AHG, 2020 WL 133888 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2020) The parties operate in the market for “sophisticated electronic instruments in the automotive, telecommunications, energy, aerospace, power, research, medical and industrial markets.” … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Amicus brief in Booking.com

Joined by a number of able trademark scholars, I filed this amicus brief in Booking.com in support of neither party, arguing that (1) genericness standards need to take into account the risks of overassertion/overprotection, and (2) unfair competition doctrine provides … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Amicus brief in Google v. Oracle

Like everyone else, I filed an amicus, this one on behalf of copyright scholars, focused on fair use. Other currently submitted briefs are here. from Blogger https://ift.tt/35MOKNd

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Reading list: disclosures as compelled commercial speech

Reading list: Aaron Stenz, Note: The Controversial Demise of Zauderer: Revitalizing Zauderer Post-NIFLA, 104 Minn. L. Rev. 553 (2019). The First Amendment broadly stands for the idea that government attempts to curtail the right of the American people to both … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Malwarebytes: same result, new puzzles on remand for 230 immunity

Enigma Software Group USA, LLC v. Malwarebytes, Inc., — F.3d —-, 2019 WL 7373959, No. 17-17351 (9th Cir. Dec. 31, 2019) New opinion, same result; no rehearing en banc. Because the parties are competitors, §230 does not provide Malwarebytes with … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

another timeshare exit company can be sued under state law, but not Lanham Act

Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Reed Hein & Assoc., LLC, 2019 WL 7423517, No: 6:17-cv-1542-Orl-78DCI (M.D. Fla. Oct. 4, 2019) Another timeshare case, this one kicking out Lanham Act claims but not FDUTPA deceptive practices claims on proximate cause. … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment