Recent Supreme Court Decisions of Note

Originally published by Steven Callahan.

Here are four relatively recent Supreme Court decisions of note to federal court and IP practitioners:

• American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aero: the Supreme Court held that Aero infringes copyright owners’ exclusive right “to perform the copyrighted work publicly” by “by selling [Aero’s] subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air.” (Decision available here.)

• B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries: the Supreme Court held that the district court should have applied issue preclusion to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“TTAB”) decision that a mark was confusingly similar to another mark: “[C]onsistent with principles of law that apply ininnumerable contexts, we hold that a court should give preclusive effect to TTAB decisions if the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met.” (Decision available here.)

• POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola: the Supreme Court held that the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not preempt a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act: “Competitors, in their own interest, may bring Lanham Act claims like POM’s that challenge food and beverage labels that are regulated by the FDCA.” (Decision available here.)

• Johnson v. City of Shelby: the Supreme Court summarily reversed the Fifth Circuit’s dismissal of a case where the plaintiffs failed to invoke 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their complaint. (Decision available here.) Rule 8 does “not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.” “In particular, no heightened pleading rule requires plaintiffs seeking damages for violations of constitutional rights to invoke §1983 expressly in order to state a claim.” Perhaps most importantly, the Supreme Court stated that “[o]ur decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U. S. 662 (2009), are not in point, for they concern the factual allegations a complaint must contain to survive a motion to dismiss. A plaintiff, they instruct, must plead facts sufficient to show that her claim has substantive plausibility. Petitioners’ complaint was not deficient in that regard.” (emphasis in original).

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1JbPBGx
via Abogado Aly Website