Alcatel Usa, Inc., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dgi Technologies, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that plaintiffs unfair competition by misappropriation claim was preempted by the Copyright Act when plaintiff alleged defendant stole its software, used it to make microprocessors, and then distributed the microprocessors in competition with plaintiff
• noting that one factor favoring the application of the de minimis exception is the trial court’s reservation of its decision on the motion until later
• holding that plaintiff’s claim of unfair competition by misappropriation was preempted by the Copyright Act when plaintiff alleged defendant stole its software, used it to make microprocessors, and distributed the microprocessors in competition with plaintiff
• finding that the fact that little evidence was presented between when the Rule 50(b) motion was made and closing favored application of the de minimis exception
• acknowledging that substantial similarity is required in establishing copyright infringement but primarily discussing the distinction between direct and contributory copyright infringement
• holding that where a jury demand has been made, an issue is submitted to the jury without objection, and “the possibility that the jury’s findings might be advisory was never mentioned until after the verdict was returned,” the verdict is binding under Rule 39(c)(2)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).