AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Judgement as a matter of law jmol4/16/2023 simply because a plaintiff must prove that copying was not only unauthorized but also commercially immoral." Id. For example, the First Circuit observed that "a state law misappropriation claim will not escape preemption. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F.Supp. In contrast, the First Circuit noted that claims might be preempted whose extra elements are illusory, being "mere label attached to the same odious business conduct." Id. These additional elements of proof, according to the First Circuit, made the trade secret claim qualitatively different from a copyright claim. Beyond mere copying, that state law claim required proof of a trade secret and breach of a duty of confidentiality. The First Circuit held that the Copyright Act did not preempt the state law trade secret claim. In defense, Grumman argued that the Copyright Act preempted Data General's trade secret claim. Grumman obtained that software from Data General's customers and former employees who were bound by confidentiality agreements to refrain from disclosing the software. In Data General, Data General alleged that Grumman misappropriated its trade secret software. Nevertheless, "ot every `extra element' of a state law claim will establish a qualitative variance between the rights protected by federal copyright law and those protected by state law." Id. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir.1992) ("But if an `extra element' is `required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state-created cause of action, then the right does not lie "within the general scope of copyright," and there is no preemption.'") (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright § 1.01 at 1-15). The First Circuit does not interpret this language to require preemption as long as "a state cause of action requires an extra element, beyond mere copying, preparation of derivative works, performance, distribution or display." Data Gen. are governed exclusively by this title." 17 U.S.C. The Copyright Act provides that "all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright. 940 (1934) ("Equally fundamental with the private right is of the public to regulate in the common interest."). Nevertheless, at times, federal regulation may preempt private contract. 1999).Ĭourts respect freedom of contract and do not lightly set aside freely-entered agreements. Therefore, a district court properly may deny JMOL on these factual issues where substantial evidence supports the jury verdict. 684, 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966), premised on underlying factual determinations, Dennison Mfg. Obviousness is a question of law, Graham v. Infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. Insurers' Insolvency Fund, 80 F.3d 616, 619 (1st Cir.1996) (" federal preemption ruling presents a pure question of law subject to plenary review.").Ĭlaim construction is a question of law that this court reviews without deference. Further, the First Circuit treats federal preemption as a question of law and reviews it without deference. Nevertheless, in the First Circuit, a district court has authority to resolve whether damages awarded by a jury are duplicative, a determination that a court of appeals reviews for an abuse of discretion. The First Circuit will reduce or set aside a damage award only if it exceeds "any rational appraisal or estimate of the damages that could be based upon the evidence before the jury." Segal v. The First Circuit reviews the district court's denial of a motion for a new trial for manifest abuse of discretion. The inquiry is whether the evidence, when viewed from the perspective most favorable to the non-movant, would permit a reasonable jury to find in favor of that party on any permissible claim or theory. Under the law of the First Circuit, a court of appeals reviews without deference the district court's denial of JMOL.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |