Tag Archives: contracts

What’s in the box? Not a valid agreement to arbitrate!

Posted on January 24, 2017 by rtushnet

Norcia v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, — F.3d —-, 2017 WL 218027, No. 14–16994 (9th Cir. Jan. 19, 2017) Norcia brought a putative class action bringing the usual California claims against Samsung, alleging that Samsung made misrepresentations as to the … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Spy Phone v. spy phone: Google loses motion to dismiss TM and other claims

Posted on October 18, 2016 by rtushnet

Spy Phone Labs LLC. v. Google Inc., No. 15-cv-03756, 2016 WL 6025469 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2016) The plaintiff here, an app maker with a registered mark for Spy Phone for a monitoring app, squeaks past dismissal of its trademark … Continue reading →

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

IPSC First Plenary Session

Posted on August 11, 2016 by rtushnet

Scarcity of Attention in a World without IP Jake Linford We impose artificial scarcity so authors can pick up sunk costs. But costs of creation have fallen; perhaps © should be narrowed as a result.  Wrinkle: attention scarcity. Cheaper dissemination … Continue reading →

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

Notre Dame Deception Roundtable, part 4

Posted on May 20, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 4 – Contracts and Securities Discussion Leaders: Greg Klass, Ann Lipton, Andrea Matwyshyn   Matwyshyn: there’s a duty to perform in good faith in the US, but no duty to negotiate in good faith. If you have an integration … Continue reading →

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

Private Law & IP, Licensing II

Posted on March 11, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 4: Licensing II Moderator: David J. Kappos   Karen Sandrik, “Empowering Inventors”: Reformers must understand the law they are planning to reform before trying to reform it. Stephen Smith, Contract Theory.  Shiffrin, Divergence of Contract & Promise: two sets … Continue reading →

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

Private Law and IP: Licensing I

Posted on March 11, 2016 by rtushnet

Session 3: Licensing I Moderator: Yonathan Arbel Jonathan M. Barnett, “Why is Everyone Afraid of IP Licensing?”: Conventional view—be wary of encroachment on public domain from licensing transactions.  Medley of limitations lay minefield for construction of transactions w/minimum legal risk.  … Continue reading →

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

is “this video has been removed for violating the ToS” commercial advertising?

Posted on December 7, 2015 by rtushnet

Darnaa, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2015 WL 7753406, No. 15-cv-03221 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015)   Darnaa posted a music video, Cowgirl, to YouTube.  At one point, YouTube removed the video from its original location, later reposting it at a … Continue reading →

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

When does “no contract” mean “mandatory arbitration contract”?

Posted on November 4, 2015 by rtushnet

Barraza v. Cricket Wireless LLC, 2015 WL 6689396, No. C 15-02471 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015)   Cricket advertised a “No Contract” wireless phone plan with an arbitration clause in its purported contract terms.  As Omri Ben-Shahar pointed out, advertising … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Notice and Notice Failure at BU, Panel 4

Posted on September 25, 2015 by rtushnet

Orly Lobel – Enforceability TBD: From Status to Contract in IP and Human Capital Law   Noncompete agreements: used to blur lines of IP regimes, make it harder to tell what is owned/ownable.  Trade secret lawsuits are used in anticompetitive … Continue reading →

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

IPSC: Copyright again

Posted on August 7, 2015 by rtushnet

Copyright History Shyam Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Law School The Questionable Origins of the Copyright Infringement Analysis   Jerome Frank’s infamous/canonical © infringement test from Arnstein v. Porter, influential across the country. Step 1: actual copying, dissection allowed, expert testimony … Continue reading →

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