Researching Intellectual Property Lawsuits

Name of Case Description of Case Comments on Case

S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros.
Entertainment Inc.
Tyson’s tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill I just think that it’s dumb that they are
filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. fighting over a tattoo people might not see
Entertainment on April 28, just weeks in the movie
before the movie’s May 26 opening. Since
he obtained a copyright for the eight-year-
old “artwork on 3-D” on April 19, he
claimed that the use of his design in the
movie and in advertisements without his
consent was copyright infringement.
Warner Bros., of course, saw it as a
parody falling under “fair use.”

Phoenix v. DIRECTV Represented DIRECTV in a patent I never heard of Phoenix also I never
infringement suit filed in the Central heard them having a IVR but it would be
District of California. The accused cool if DirectTV had it, just imagine
technology involved the Interactive Voice watching tv and the tv talks back
Response (IVR) system that answers
customer questions. Plaintiff Phoenix
Solutions claimed over $40 million in
damages. After a Markman hearing and
discovery, DIRECTV moved for
summary judgment on the ground that it
outsourced its IVR to a third-party vendor
and therefore could not be liable for direct
infringement. The district court agreed,
holding that DIRECTV "is not liable for
an infringing 'use' of the asserted claims
because it does not exercise the requisite
direction or control over the way that [the
vendors] configure and operate the
 Accused Technology." Phoenix appealed.
Two days after oral argument, the Federal
Circuit Court of Appeals issued a per
curium decision affirming summary
judgment for DIRECTV. DirecTV Didn't
Infringe Recognition IP.
Napster Napster did not own the rights to the They could have been the “Spotify” or
music that people were uploading to its “Apple Music” and make lot of money but
servers, where the music was stored and now they are just like soundcloud
ultimately shared. The rights were owned
by the recording artists and recording
studios. The RIAA sued Napster and won,
causing Napster to close its doors—or its
servers, as the case may be. Napster now
operates as a fee-based music download
site and pays licensing fees for the music
it sells.
The Da Vinci Code Case In the famous Da Vinci Code court I don’t really get this case
case of Michael Baigent and Richard
Leigh vs. The Random House Group
Limited, Baigent and Leigh alleged that
Dan Brown, author of the bestselling Da
Vinci Code, infringed on the copyright of
their non-fiction work, Holy Blood, Holy
Grail. Because Brown had not copied the
text of the earlier book, the claim was
based on "non-literal" copying—Baigent
and Leigh asserted that Brown told his
story in the same "manner" in which they
had expressed historical facts in their
book.
Bratz Dolls vs. Barbie Carter Bryant, designer of the Bratz doll, I have seen so many cases like this when
was an employee of Mattel, but also an employee creates a product on their
working as a consultant for MGA when he during working for someone then leaves
designed the doll. A few years after MGA so they can sell the product, I just hate
began selling Bratz, Mattel sued both that the organizations always win because
Bryant and MGA alleging copyright their technically under their contract
infringement. Because Bryant was on the
Mattel payroll when he created the doll,
the Bratz name and design are considered
trade secrets. The courts sided with Mattel
and ordered MGA to pay $100 million in
damages.