October 12, 2006
Read the full article →
In Cambridge Literary Properties, Inc. v. W. Goebel Porzellanfabrik Magistrate Judith Dein issued an extensive Report and Recommendation (adopted by Judge Nancy Gertner) on issues relating to the statute of limitations as a bar to a claim of copyright infringement. The case involves facts going back as far as 1931 which involved the drawings of Berta Hummel, and is a valuable primer on the defense of statute of limitations in copyright actions. District court Judge Gorton has issued a decision in Echomail, Inc. v. American Express denying IBM’s (a co-defendant) motion to dismiss claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition and violation of M.G.L. c. 93A. In T-Peg, Inc. v. Vermont Timber Works, Inc. the First Circuit applied the Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act for the first time in this circuit. Reversing summary judgment for the defendant and remanding for trial, the court not only recapped the legal standard for substantial similarity (the test by which infringement is judged under copyright law), but clarified its position on expert testimony in copyright cases, making clear that there is no per se rule against expert testimony, and that whether or not it is appropriate depends on the complexity of the subject matter at issue.
March 27, 2006
Read the full article →
Trade Secrets, Procedure. Warning: if you’re seeking discovery in a trade secret case in the Suffolk Business Litigation Session make sure that you have (a) provided the court with a detailed description of your trade secrets, and (b) filed a protective order that strictly complies with the Uniform Rules of of Impoundment. For a recent decision making these points, written by Judge Allan Van Gestel in the Suffolk Business Litigation Session, click [here]. The decision, Tourtellotte Solutions, Inc. v. Tradestone Software, Inc., was featured on the front page of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly last October. In a nutshell, the plaintiff asked for expedited discovery (in other words, the right to take discovery on a schedule faster than allowed in the ordinary course by the rules of civil procedure), so that the plaintiff could obtain evidence necessary to bring a preliminary injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff’s basic claim was that the defendant had engaged in “software misappropriation,” a term that Judge Van Gestel stated “sounds very much like trade secret misappropriation.” The judge denied the motion, stating: “a detailed description of what is claimed to be a trade secret must be provided and a protective order of some sort needs to be worked out.” Neither conclusion is surprising in the least. Many decisions in trade secret cases have held that the plaintiff must identify its trade secrets with particularity. The courts…