Yuvienco v. Vilsack

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “New York law requires that an idea be original or novel in order for it to be protected as property”
• acknowledging that while novel ideas may “combine elements that are themselves not novel,” when “an idea consists . . . of nothing more than a variation on a basic theme,” a finding of novelty is not supported
• “In assessing whether an idea is in the public domain, the central issue is the uniqueness of the creation.”
• fact that NBC had never televised a show embodying plaintiffs idea did not mean that plaintiffs idea was novel
• “where, as here, an idea consists in essence of nothing more than a variation on a basic theme ... novelty cannot be found to exist”
• “[I]deas that reflect ‘genuine novelty and invention’ are fully protected against unauthorized use[, but those] that are not novel ‘are in the public domain and may freely be used by anyone with impunity.’ ” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).