Intellectual Property Legal Presentation

Bruce L. Beal, Esq.

 

Background

More economic growth in the United States comes from intellectual property-based businesses than from any other sector.  In today's highly competitive global economy, a company's success depends not only on its ability to develop and manage a valuable intellectual property (IP) portfolio internally, but also on its ability to legally develop, exploit, and protect its IP.

Basic Types of IP

The law recognizes the business value of intangible assets, mostly such as IP, and four general areas of IP protection have developed:

Financial Value of IP

A patent, trademark, or copyright can be licensed to others to provide a steady stream of income, much as real property may be leased to third parties.  IP may also be sold outright to others.  In both cases, ownership is a critical issue, as discussed herein.

Lawyer’s Role

CAVEAT#1: Each type of IP has different legal rights associated with it, and one must know the nature of those rights before advising a client with respect to any proposed transaction.  Different types of IP will raise different considerations.

CAVEAT#2: Due to the business and financial risks of IP infringement, proper IP due diligence is very important when acquiring IP.

CAVEAT#3: IP transactions are similar to transactions containing environmental liabilities, whereby one can inherit liabilities much greater than the value of the property purchased.

From the very beginning of a company, its very existence may well depend upon IP transactions entered.   For this reason, your client’s management needs to know to bring you in, as general counsel, as well as appropriate IP counsel, when considering the best approach to a proposed IP transaction.

OWNERSHIP ISSUES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Example: A new company wants to exploit a new patent.  Ownership of IP assets is one area in which it pays to do it right the first time.  See, Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. (Fed Cir 2009) 583 F3d 832, 841.  In view of the findings in this case, employment or consulting agreements should be in writing and signed by all persons who may contribute to an invention.  Such agreements should include language expressing an actual assignment of ownership, e.g., "hereby assigns," as opposed to "hereby agrees to assign."  (Example gained from of The Regents of the University of California (CEB) publication entitled “Intellectual Property in Business Transactions”.)

Uncertainty of Ownership

KEY POINTS regarding ownership issues for corporate counsel and their clients:

HINT: Even individual inventors or "garage partnerships" should not wait until the founding of their company to start documenting their efforts.

Consequently, uncertainty of ownership can lead to expensive and protracted litigation and even disrupted operations.  The 2006 RIM/NTP patent dispute that threatened to shut down BlackBerry service across the U.S. (see Krazit & Broache, BlackBerry saved (CNET.com, Mar. 3, 2006), available at http://www.news.com/BlackBerry-saved/2100-1047_3-6045880.html) is but one example of how misjudgments about ownership (whether innocent or calculated) may have huge practical implications.

Patent Ownership in Particular

Your clients particularly need to identify which employees or consultants make inventive contributions to a particular patent application.  Failure to properly name the correct inventors is a ground for patent invalidity in the United States. See 35 USC §282(2).  

Patent prosecution counsel need to have an accurate list of all the people who may have contributed to the invention provided to them.  All employees should be instructed and encouraged to give credit to all who participate in the invention.  The patent attorneys, not you, need to narrow down the list of inventors to the legally appropriate people.

Trademark Ownership in Particular

Again, ownership is critical, especially where the work has been produced by a group of employees or by one or more independent contractors (ICs).  Each contributor is a co-owner of the copyright to the work.

Employers retain ownership of works produced by employees; however, startups have a common practice of using ICs.  ICs generally retain such ownership absent a transfer of such ownership by the IC agreement.  

CAVEAT#1:  The issue becomes even more critical when a company uses contractors located outside of the United States.  In these cases, counsel should obtain advice from local counsel to ensure agreements used will be effective and enforceable in the jurisdiction of the IC.

Caveat#2: Trademarks, unlike patents and copyrights, are subject to both federal and state law.

CAVEAT#3: Trademarks are not assignable unless the assignment includes the goodwill of the business with which the mark is associated.  15 USC §1060(a).  

CAVEAT#4: Any assignment of a registered mark must be recorded in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to afford constructive notice to bona fide purchasers for value.

International Hint: Trademark protection is available in other nations’ laws, but the laws and level of protection vary and present special challenges in international due diligence transactions.  Local foreign IP counsel is indicated.

INTERNATIONAL Resource:  Watts, International Trademark Protection: An Overview of the Options, 22 CEB Cal Bus L Prac 1 (Winter 2007).

 Trade Secret Ownership in Particular

Trade secrets consist of commercial or technical information that is used in a business and offers an advantage over competitors who do not know or use such information.  Trade secrets are protected from misappropriation under state law (e.g. in California, see generally Civil Code §§3426-3426.11).  Theft or misappropriation of trade secrets is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, $250,000 fine for persons and $5 million fines for corporations.  These all double, if for the benefit of any foreign government, instrumentality, or agent.  See, U.S. Economic Espionage Act of 1996.

KEY POINT#1: Secrecy is critical to legally protecting trade secrets, and corporate counsel should assist to protect the client in its efforts to maintain secrecy, to prevent inadvertent disclosure, or reverse engineering of the trade secret by business partners.

              KEY POINT#2: No registration requirement is typical for obvious reasons.

In regards to maintaining secrecy, you can recommend to your client and assist to:

(1) draft company policies on information restrictions and trade secret protection;

(2) draft nondisclosure agreements with current and departing employees and anyone else given access to the trade secret information;

(3) recommend physical security of company facilities, documents, and files; and

(4) recommend the use of firewalls and encryption for electronically stored data.  

Due Diligence Hint: The methods used by a target company for protection of its trade secrets are another important aspect of due diligence, especially if trade secrets hold key value in the business.

Computer Software in Particular

IP rights in software are not a separate type of IP.  However, all forms of IP law, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret law can apply and make for a very complex legal situation.

Patent Ownership in Software:

International Hint: Software may be protected by patent in the United States, but not necessarily outside of the United States.

NATIONAL HINT: Under US patent law, software can be protected more broadly as a process or apparatus patent.  This approach has the value of being more precise as well as more protective of the functional elements of the program, but the patent prosecution process is also more costly and demanding, in part because of the burden of researching the prior art.  See 17 USC §101; AT&T Corp. v Excel Communications, Inc. (Fed Cir 1999) 172 F3d 1352, cert denied (1999) 528 US 946, abrogated on other grounds in In re Bilski (Fed Cir 2008) 545 F3d 943, 960 n19.

CAVEAT: Be careful of business method patents, which have been the subject to abuse and were significantly cut back by the Bilski v Kappos Supreme Court opinion that the claims in question were attempts to patent abstract ideas, and not by using the machine-or-transformation test, which the USPTO has adopted as a “safe harbor” test for business method patents.

Trademark Ownership in Software:

As is true of all trademarks, you can use words, phrases, symbols or designs, or combination of same, to identify and distinguish your software from others. 

HINT#1: A mark is protected even before filing a federal application for registration, as “first in use is first in right,” however, you should think about registering it as soon as possible.  If you are not yet selling your software, you can file an intent to use application, until you commence selling it.

Hint#2: Determine whether other software similar to yours uses marks similar to your mark.  If so, you will probably be denied the trademark, and you will lose all of your USPTO filing fees.  Find another mark to use in order to avoid an infringement claim down the line!

Copyright Ownership in Software:

Copyright protection extends to all the copyrightable expression embodied in the computer program.  Copyright protection is not available for the ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts. 

              HINT#1: Patent protection may be available for the non-copyrightable features.

Hint#2: Because copyrighted works cannot be infringed by independent creations, many sophisticated software developers now use "clean rooms" to produce software that can be verified as independent from preexisting software while offering substantially the same functionality.  Also, reverse engineering of software to enable compatibility is generally considered fair use.  See 17 USC §1201(f).

Trade Secret Ownership in Software:

Many software developers protect the proprietary nature of their software by maintaining the source code as a trade secret either alone or in addition to patent, trademark and copyright laws.  It is critical to supply only the executable binary code version, but not the source code, which will be kept secret.

More companies are now subscribing to open source models, making their software available to others under the terms of an open source form of license agreement, deciding for whatever reasons that the company's business is not dependent on maintaining the source code as a trade secret.

Caveat: The introduction of open source code into your otherwise trade secret code may "taint" your code, and under the terms of the applicable open source license terms, you may be forced to disclose your trade secret code.  As a result of this possibility, it is essential that counsel fully determine if open source code exists in otherwise trade secret code, if the trade secret is considered valuable.

Due Diligence Hint#1: Proper due diligence is essential to clarifying ownership of the rights as well as the potential considerable exposure to liability for infringement.  A single piece of software may have involved many creators who contributed to its development.  

Due Diligence Hint#2: Ensure that licenses have been secured for all software portions, and that ownership rights have been assigned for all work done by contractors and employees within the company.


 

STRUCTURING ISSUES IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

IP and non-IP transactions have much in common.  Both should sufficiently define the terms and conditions by which the parties will transact.  We can easily purchase common retail software through standard nonexclusive end-user license agreements. 

However, in the cases we are likely to confront, the IP aspects in a transaction ordinarily raise more complicated and unique issues when negotiating and drafting the transaction.  Your clients need to know that lawyers are definitely indicated, if this is a new type of transaction for you or an international transaction, especially involving IP.

Hopefully the following will help you spot major potential IP transactional issues.

Control Issues – Exclusivity vs. Non-exclusivity

Control is determined by the extent of ownership and the extent of exclusivity desired by the client.

Complete ownership provides a substantial level of control over IP rights, which makes it more easily valued, transferred and converted into money.  Non-exclusive rights are usually difficult to value and less transferrable.

CAVEAT: Exclusive rights are significantly more expensive to buy than non-exclusive rights.

HINT: The need for exclusivity will generally be determined by the threat level posed by potential competitors and/or where ownership of the IP rights are less clear cut.

Structural Options for Intellectual property Transactions

These options are arranged in terms of less control to more control:

Why License?

Why not License?

License Financial Considerations

HINT#1: Lower advance fee means higher royalties and vice versa.

HINT#2: Licensor counsel needs to be alert to royalty limitation amounts and periods and needs to know the current market for similar licenses, using outside valuation experts.

HINT#3: Licensee counsel should provide that if the audit does not show a difference of more than say 5%, then the Licensor should pay for the audit, not the Licensee.

HINT#4: Licensee counsel should ensure that licensee obligations “flow down” to sub-licensees to prevent royalty dilution and legal issues.

Why Collaborate in Strategic Alliances (such as joint IP agreements, cross-licensing, joint ventures, etc.)?

Why not Collaborate?

Important Counsel Considerations

·       Ownership of what in whom?

·       Sharing of specific costs, rewards and risks, including defense in infringement

·       Responsibilities during development

·       Specific uses of shared IP rights, e.g. licensing or other transfer?

·       Procedures for differing levels of dispute resolution

·       Well thought out termination rights

·       Structured either as straight profit-sharing, royalty payments, or perhaps a simple cross-license.

·       Chains of decision making and dispute resolution

·       How success is assessed

Partial Asset Acquisitions or Sales

These are transactions where a company may wish to buy or sell a limited set of specific assets, in our case today, IP. 

Caveat: These transactions involve the actual transfer of title of the IP assets.  Ensure early in due diligence that the seller has clear title to the IP rights, as discussed previously.  Search especially for IP burdened by license agreements and/or security interests, which reduce the value of the IP being acquired.

Advantages

Disadvantages

HINT#1: Seller should try to retain a nonexclusive license expressing solely needed to avoid inadvertent infringement of the IP rights that it just sold, not competition.

CAVEAT#1: Buyer may unintentionally take on seller infringement liabilities, even if not disclosed to the buyer in advance!

HINT#2: Buyer should look closely at any expressly included Seller liabilities as transferred liabilities, buyers normally try to avoid in partial asset sales.

CAVEAT#2: Itemize and describe precisely what is being acquired in schedules.

CAVEAT#3: Collateral documents such as IP assignments are needed for filing with IP registrars, otherwise loss of bona fide purchaser status.

Mergers and Acquisitions

Mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is a substantial and complicated area of law, normally involving tax, securities, antitrust, and other regulatory issues.  Taxation may well be the most important factor in selecting a merger structure.  There are straight mergers, forward triangular mergers, reverse triangular mergers, and more.  We will not get involved in these for our purposes!

Advantages

·       If the buyer wishes to acquire all or substantially all of the target company, including its IP, its customer base, its market share, and its employees.

Caveat#1: Buyer will also be buying all of the liabilities, including undisclosed or unknown of seller.

HINT: Complete due diligence should be done to assure that the buyer knows exactly what it is getting and that risks have been allocated in a fair manner between the parties.

·       Expert and skilled IP employees may be one of the most valuable assets of the seller. M&A allows the acquirer to acquire such employees rather than having to hire away or develop new employees.

CAVEAT#2: Buyer should require that certain key IP employees accept offers of employment prior to execution.

·       M&A allows more seamless movement and utilization of acquired brands.  Buyer may incorporate seller’s IP under its own or a new brand, thus acquiring a new customer base and/or eliminating a competitor.

Disadvantages

CAVEAT#1:  Even IP assets with clear title in the US are subject to infringement in countries where IP rights are not adequately protected by law.

CAVEAT#2: M&A involves antitrust consideration when buying significant market share.

Counsel Considerations

Secured Transactions

If you are the attorney for the lender of the seller, or buyer of an agreement, including IP assets, you will be involved in the complicated laws of secured transactions, which involves many thorny IP issues, including protecting trade secrets, which discussion is beyond the scope of this presentation.

International IP Transactions ~ Additional Considerations

As stated previously, the laws and level of IP protection vary among different jurisdictions and present special challenges in international transactions.  Attorneys for both parties should seriously consider engaging applicable local foreign counsel to ensure that the agreement complies with local law, especially if the choice of law in the agreement is the other jurisdiction’s laws.  This will also directly influence your choice of legal structure for the deal. 

CAVEAT: Choice of law, choice of forum, the language of the agreement, and provisions for dispute resolution may make the difference in success and failure in the transaction, if disputes arise.   

Dangerous IP Infringement areas in the World (“Red Flags”)

Dispute Resolution

If disputes arise, nothing is worse for you than responding in the other’s party foreign jurisdiction, in the other party’s language, and with the other party’s law!  The costs and effort of doing so often will outweigh your dispute value, and your negotiation leverage is nil.  As counsel, you need to educate your client not to take these issues, discussed below lightly, and to negotiate strongly for provisions more favorable to your client.  It is difficult when you are dealing with “Big Gorillas,” but even they have become more sophisticated in the English language, rational dispute resolution provisions, and the like.

HINT#1: Negotiate vigorously for use of your client’s choice of law, choice of forum for disputes, and language for the agreement.

HINT#2: The best form of dispute resolution, especially if you are the “outsider,” is a graduated and progressive step dispute resolution, whereby the parties are required to take each step at a time, and, if they don’t, they lose all rights to obtaining their attorneys’ fees.  Each step involves greater cost and effort, but is likely to resolve the dispute before the last step.  The steps commence with requiring the highest management face-to-face meetings, then require mediation, then require either arbitration (best for international transactions in neutral jurisdictions) or litigation.  See my example form of ADR Protocol attached behind this page.


 

Alternative Dispute Resolution Protocol (“ADR”)

International Transactions

Creator: Bruce Leonard Beal, Esq.

In the event of a dispute arising out of this Agreement, each Party shall use the following progressive procedures as a condition precedent to that Party pursuing the next or later stated procedure:

1.  A Party who believes a dispute exists shall put the dispute in writing to the other Party.  This writing shall clearly, though as briefly as practicable, state the substance and scope of the dispute, the disputing Party’s position relative thereto, including legal and factual justifications therefor, the remedy sought, any other pertinent matters, and clearly indicate that this ADR protocol is being initiated.

2.  The responding Party shall respond in writing to the disputing Party within ten days.  Such writing shall clearly, though as briefly as practicable, state each responding Party’s response to each of the items included in the disputing Party’s writing, and any other pertinent matters.  A meeting shall be held within ten days at a mutually agreed neutral place and attended by each Party regarding the dispute to attempt in good faith to negotiate a resolution of the dispute.

3.  If the Parties have not succeeded in negotiating a resolution of the dispute within ten days after such meeting, the Parties shall jointly appoint a mutually acceptable neutral person to act as a mediator, or if they have been unable to agree upon such appointment within ten days, then the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), or another mutually agreed-upon organization shall appoint such mediator.  The fees of and authorized costs of the mediator shall be paid equally by the Parties, and the Parties shall each bear their own costs relating to the mediation and their own attorneys fees, subject to a later determination of an arbitrator, if any, using applicable legal principles and arbitration rules.  In consultation with the mediator, the Parties shall each reasonably attempt to resolve the dispute through mediation, and agree to a time and place for the mediation to be held, with the mediator making the decision as to any such matters, if the Parties have been unable to agree thereon within ten days after initial consultation with the mediator.  The Parties agree to participate in good faith in the mediation for a minimum period of ten days from the commencement of the actual mediation consultation procedure.

4.  If the Parties are not successful in resolving the dispute through mediation, then the dispute shall be settled by arbitration.  Any arbitration shall be submitted by each Party to ICC under its current Comprehensive Arbitration Rules and Procedures.  The fees and authorized costs of the arbitrator shall be paid equally by the Parties, and the Parties shall each bear their own costs relating to the arbitration and their own attorneys fees, subject to a later determination of the arbitrator, using applicable legal principles and arbitration rules. 

Arbitration shall be held at the ICC offices most equally nearest both Parties’ office addresses, except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the Parties, provided that it is also located in a country that is a party to the New York Convention. 

Judgment upon the award rendered by the arbitrator shall be final and non-appealable and may be entered in any court of competent jurisdiction.  Arbitration shall be the exclusive final remedy for resolving any claims covered by this Agreement, instead of any court or jury action, which is hereby expressly waived.

5.  Notwithstanding any other provision herein, the Parties agree that each of them may resort to courts of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of seeking necessary provisional remedies.

6.  Subject to arbitration rules and procedures, the Parties agree that any proceeding hereunder is a compromise negotiation for purposes any applicable rules of evidence to the greatest extent possible, including the following:  The entire proceedings will be confidential.  All conduct, statements, promises, offers, views and opinions, whether oral or written, made in the course of any proceeding by any of the Parties, their agents, employees, representatives or other invitees to the proceedings and by the neutral, who is the Parties’ joint agent for purposes of these compromise negotiations, are confidential and shall, in addition and where appropriate, be deemed to be work product and privileged.  Such conduct, statements, promises, offers, views and opinions shall not be discoverable or admissible for any purposes, including impeachment, in any litigation or other proceeding involving the Parties and shall not be disclosed to anyone not an agent, employee, expert, witness, or representative for any of the Parties.  Evidence otherwise discoverable or admissible is not excluded from discovery or admission as a result of its use in these proceedings.

7.  A Party must give reasonably sufficient written notice of each claim to the other Parties within the time prescribed by any applicable legal statute of limitations for each claim being made.

8.  The Parties may mutually agree to extend any of the time periods stated herein, except those time periods stated in paragraph 7.

9.  If one Party fails to follow the time periods specified herein, and exceeds any otherwise mutually agreed time period, the other Party may disregard this protocol and file immediately and directly in any appropriate legal forum.

10.  Any provision ruled invalid here shall be modified so as to most closely and validly meet the Parties’ intentions, as expressed herein.

 

 

 

 


 

Table of Cases for Intellectual Property Issues Pertinent to this Presentation

(Courtesy of The Regents of the University of California (CEB)

publication entitled “Intellectual Property in Business Transactions.  Section numbers correspond to the above publication.)

 

A

AT&T Corp. v Excel Communications, Inc. (Fed Cir 1999) 172 F3d 1352, cert denied (1999) 528 US 946, abrogated on other grounds in In re Bilski (Fed Cir 2008) 545 F3d 943: §3.8

ABBA Rubber Co. v Seaquist (1991) 235 CA3d 1, 286 CR 518: §4.31

Access Beyond Technols., Inc., In re (Bankr D Del 1999) 237 BR 32: §§12.70-12.71

Actuate Corp. v Aon Corp. (ND Cal, May 30, 2012, No. C 10-05750 WHA) 2012 US Dist Lexis 75034 *13: §§3.44, 7.19

Adelphia Communications Corp., In re (Bankr SD NY 2007) 359 BR 65: §12.67

Aerobox Composite Structures, LLC, In re (Bankr D NM 2007) 373 BR 135: §§12.67, 12.76

Aerocon Eng'g Inc. v Silicon Valley Bank (In re World Auxiliary Power Co.) (Bankr ND Cal 1999) 244 BR 149, aff'd (9th Cir 2002) 303 F3d 1120: §9.54

Aerocon Eng'g Inc. v Silicon Valley Bank (In re World Auxiliary Power Co.) (9th Cir 2002) 303 F3d 1120: §§9.39, 9.51-9.53, 9.56, 9.86, 9.120, 12.49

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Superior Court (1993) 19 CA4th 320, 23 CR2d 442: §6.36

Aiken Indus. v Comm'r (1971) 56 TC 925: §10.52

Allegheny Energy, Inc. v DQE, Inc. (WD Pa 1999) 74 F Supp 2d 482: §7.13

Alltech Plastics, In re (WD Tenn 1987) 71 BR 686: §12.70

American Type Founders v Dexter Folder Co. (SD NY 1943) 53 F Supp 602: §12.50

Apple, Inc. v Spansion, Inc. (In re Spansion, Inc.) (D Del, July 28, 2011, No. 09-1069) 2011 US Dist Lexis 82829 (unpublished), aff'd In re Spansion, Inc. (3d Cir, Dec. 21, 2012, Nos. 11-3323, 11-3324) 2012 US App Lexis 26131 (unpublished): §12.20

Application Group v Hunter Group (1998) 61 CA4th 881, 72 CR2d 73: §11.10

Arntz Builders v Superior Court (2004) 122 CA4th 1195, 19 CR3d 346: §11.17

Atari v Ernst & Winney (9th Cir 1992) 981 F2d 1025: §7.9

Auckerman Co. v Chaides Constr. Co. (ND Cal 1993) 29 USPQ2d 1054: §11.41

Avalon Software Inc., In re (Bankr D Ariz 1997) 209 BR 517: §§9.52, 9.56

B

B & W Enters., In re (9th Cir 1983) 713 F2d 534: §12.4

Baize v Eastridge Cos., LLC (2006) 142 CA4th 293, 47 CR3d 763: §6.5

Baldwin Enters., Inc. v Retail Ventures, Inc. (SD Ill, Feb. 18, 2010, No. 09 Civ 0159) 2010 US Dist Lexis 13977 at *15: §7.19

Bank of the West v Commercial Credit Fin. Servs., Inc. (9th Cir 1988) 852 F2d 1162: §9.73

Batchelder v Kawamoto (9th Cir 1998) 147 F3d 915: §11.11

Bausch & Lomb v Comm'r (1989) 92 TC 525, aff'd (2d Cir 1991) 923 F2d 1084: §10.68

Bayer AG v Comm'n (CFI 2000) Case T-41/96, 2000 ECR II-3383: §11.54

Bell Int'l Corp. v U.S. (Ct Cl 1967) 381 F2d 1004: §10.5

Bilski, In re (2010) ___US ___, 177 L Ed 2d 792, 130 S Ct 3218: §4.17

Bilski, In re (Fed Cir 2008) 545 F3d 943: §4.17

Binder v Bristol-Myers Squibb, Co. (ND Ill 2001) 184 F Supp 2d 762: §7.19

Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. (2011) ___ US ___, 180 L Ed 2d 1, 131 S Ct 2188: §§1.13, 9.22

Bobbs-Merrill Co. v Straus (1908) 210 US 339, 52 L Ed 1086, 28 S Ct 722: §9.55

Bonneville Power Admin. v Mirant Corp. (In re Mirant Corp.) (5th Cir 2006) 440 F3d 238: §§12.16, 12.62, 12.66-12.67

Boudreau v Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. (9th Cir 1980) 616 F2d 1077: §9.140

Boulez v Comm'r (1984) 83 TC 584: §§10.2-10.3

Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co. (1972) 407 US 1, 32 L Ed 2d 513, 92 S Ct 1907: §§11.8, 11.17

Brescia v Angelin (2009) 172 CA4th 133, 90 CR3d 842: §9.12

Broadcast Music, Inc. v Hirsch (9th Cir 1997) 104 F3d 1163: §9.56

Burgess v Gilman (9th Cir 2008) 316 Fed Appx 542: §9.32

C

C.A. Norgren Co. v U.S. (D Colo 1967) 268 F Supp 816: §10.3

CH20, Inc. v Bernier (WD Wash, Apr. 18, 2011, No. C11-5153RJB) 2011 US Dist Lexis 42025: §11.9

CRS Recovery, Inc. v Laxton (9th Cir 2010) 600 F3d 1138: §9.8A

Cadsoft Corp. v Riverdeep, LLC (ND Cal 2007) 2007 US Dist Lexis 39559: §12.72

Calder v Jones (1984) 465 US 783, 79 L Ed 2d 804, 104 S Ct 1482: §11.4

Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v Shute (1991) 499 US 585, 113 L Ed 2d 622, 111 S Ct 1522: §11.9

Carroll v Tri-Growth Centre City, Ltd. (In re Carroll) (9th Cir 1990) 903 F2d 1266: §12.5

Carruthers, U.S. v (9th Cir 1955) 219 F2d 21: §10.4

Centrafarm BV v Sterling Drug (ECR 1974) Case 15-74, 1974 ECJ Celex Lexis 110: §11.54

Central Mut. Ins. Co. v StunFence, Inc. (ED Ill 2003) 292 F Supp 2d 1072: §6.36

Cincom Sys., Inc. v Novelis Corp. (6th Cir 2009) 581 F3d 431: §7.17

City Bank & Trust Co. v Otto Fabric, Inc. (D Kan 1988) 83 BR 780: §12.50

City of Jamestown v James Cable Partners LP (In re James Cable Partners) (11th Cir 1994) 27 F3d 534: §12.66

Clayton X-Ray Co. v Professional Sys. Corp. (Mo App 1991) 812 SW2d 565: §9.142

Clorox Co. v Chemical Bank (TTAB 1996) 40 USPQ2d 1098: §§9.8, 9.32

Cohen v Ste Punto, JCP E 2002: §11.28

Coldwave Sys., LLC, In re (Bankr D Mass 2007) 368 BR 91: §9.37

Commercial Solvents Corp. v Comm'r (1964) 42 TC 455: §10.5

Computer Communications, Inc. v Codex Corp. (In re Computer Communications, Inc.) (9th Cir 1987) 824 F2d 725: §§12.5, 12.61

Constant v Advanced Micro-Devices (9th Cir, Dec. 3, 1993, Nos. 92-55465, 92-56220, 92-56475, disposition not appropriate for publication) 1993 US App Lexis 31939: §9.130

Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v IAC/Interactivecorp (9th Cir 2010) 606 F3d 612, cert denied (2010) ___ US ___, 178 L Ed 2d 479, 131 S Ct 686: §8.34

Courtesy Temporary Serv. v Camacho (1990) 222 CA3d 1278, 272 CR 352: §6.31

Credit Managers Assoc. v Federal Co. (CD Cal 1985) 629 F Supp 175: §12.47

Creditors' Comm. of TR-3 Indus., Inc. v Capital Bank (In re TR-3 Indus.) (Bankr CD Cal 1984) 41 BR 128: §§9.57, 12.51

Cybernetic Servs., Inc., In re (9th Cir 2001) 252 F3d 1039: §9.81

Cybersource Corp. v Retail Decisions, Inc. (Fed Cir 2011) 654 F3d 1366: §4.17

D

David Orgell, Inc., In re (Bankr CD Cal 1990) 117 BR 574: §12.10

Delta Computer Corp. v Walter J. Frank (5th Cir 1999) 196 F3d 589: §6.36

Desilu Prods., Inc., TC Memo 1965-307: §10.17

Diamond v Diehr (1981) 450 US 175, 67 L Ed 2d 155, 101 S Ct 1048: §4.17

Diamond Z Trailer, Inc. v JZ LLC (In re JZ LLC) (BAP 9th Cir 2007) 371 BR 412: §12.75

DigiGAN, Inc. v iValidate, Inc. (SD NY 2004) 71 USPQ2d 1455: §9.141

Diodes, Inc. v Franzen (1968) 260 CA2d 244, 67 CR 19: §9.12

DISH Network Corp. v Arch Specialty Ins. Co. (10th Cir 2011) 659 F3d 1010: §6.36

Durkin v Benedor Corp. (In re G.I. Indus.) (9th Cir 2000) 204 F3d 1276: §12.11

E

E. & J. Gallo Winery v Gallo Cattle Co. (9th Cir 1992) 967 F2d 1280: §§8.8, 9.8, 9.32

E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v U.S. (Ct Cl 1973) 471 F2d 1211: §10.37

EI Int'l, In re (Bankr D Ida 1991) 123 BR 64: §12.43

Eickmeyer v U.S. (Cl Ct 1986) 10 Cl Ct 598: §10.5

Electrical Constructors, LLP v Tower Tech, Inc. (In re Tower Tech, Inc.) (10th Cir 2003) 67 Fed Appx 521, 524 (unpublished opinion): §9.141

Emplexx Software Corp. v AGI Software (In re AGI Software, Inc.) (Bankr D NJ 1995) 199 BR 850: §12.60

Encino Bus. Mgmt., Inc. v Prize Frize, Inc. (In re Prize Frize, Inc.) (9th Cir 1994) 32 F3d 426: §§12.18, 12.25

Engel Indus., Inc. v Lockformer Co. (Fed Cir 1996) 96 F3d 1398: §11.41

Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., In re (SD Tex 2002) 235 F Supp 2d 549, dismissed in part on other grounds sub nom Newby v Lay (In re Enron Corp. Sec.) (SD Tex 2003) 258 F Supp 2d 576: §4.62C

Ernst & Ernst v Hochfelder (1976) 425 US 185, 47 L Ed 2d 668, 96 S Ct 1375: §4.61

Estate of Presley v Russen (D NJ 1981) 513 F Supp 1339: §12.51

Europemballage Corp. & Continental Can Co., Inc. v Comm'n, Case 6/72, 1973 ECR 215: §11.3

Etablissements Consten S.a.R.L & Grundig-Verkaufs-GmbH v Comm'n (Consten and Grundig) Joined Cases 56 and 58-64, 1966 ECJ CELEX Lexis 8: §11.56

Everex Sys., Inc. v Cadtrak Corp. (In re CFLC, Inc.) (9th Cir 1996) 89 F3d 673: §§9.148, 12.8, 12.70

Executive Technol. Data Sys., In re (Bankr ED Mich 1987) 79 BR 276: §12.9

Exide Technols., In re (Bankr D Del 2006) 340 BR 222, rev'd on other grounds (3d Cir 2010) 607 F3d 957: §§12.10, 12.29

Exide Technols., In re (3d Cir 2010) 607 F3d 957, cert denied (2011) ___ US ___, 179 L Ed 2d 299, 131 S Ct 1470: §§12.8, 12.29

F

Farmland Irrig. Co. v Dopplmaier (1957) 48 C2d 208, 308 P2d 732: §9.148

Fenix Cattle Co. v Silver (In re Select-A-Seat Corp.) (9th Cir 1980) 625 F2d 290: §§12.18, 12.40

Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Ltd. v UMG Recordings, Inc. (SD NY 2010) 99 USPQ2d 1735: §9.6

FileNet Corp. v Chubb Corp. (NJ App 1999) 735 A2d 1170: §6.36

Filmtec Corp. v Allied-Signal Inc. (Fed Cir 1991) 939 F2d 1568: §§9.22, 9.78

Footstar, Inc., In re (Bankr SD NY 2005) 323 BR 566: §§12.66-12.67

Ford Motor Credit Co. v Solway (7th Cir 1987) 825 F2d 1213: §9.145

Fortune Finans AB v Andersson (Sup Ct 1993) 600 NYS2d 460: §9.54

Four Star Music Co., In re (Bankr MD Tenn 1979) 2 BR 454, 29 UCC Rep Serv 343: §9.149

Frontier Oil Corp. v Holly Corp. (Del Ch, Apr. 29, 2005, No. 20502) 2005 Del Ch Lexis 57: §7.13

FutureSource LLC v Reuters Ltd. (7th Cir 2002) 312 F3d 281: §12.39

G

Gardner v Nike, Inc. (9th Cir 2002) 279 F3d 774: §§9.148, 9.150, 12.72

Gasser Chair Co. v Infanti Chair Mfg. Corp. (ED NY 2006) 2006 US Dist Lexis 13402: §9.22

Gencor Indus., Inc. v Wausau Underwriters Ins. Co. (MD Fla 1994) 857 F Supp 1560: §6.36

Global Home Prods., LLC, In re (D Del 2007) 369 BR 770: §12.73

Glow Indus., Inc. v Lopez (CD Cal 2003) 273 F Supp 2d 1095: §9.32

Golden Books Family Entertainment, Inc., In re (Bankr D Del 2001) 269 BR 300: §§9.150, 12.40, 12.72

Gott, In re (Bankr ED Cal 1990) 114 BR 708: §§9.37, 9.145

Gottschalk v Benson (1972) 409 US 63, 34 L Ed 2d 273, 93 S Ct 253: §4.17

Greene v Brooks (1965) 235 CA2d 161, 45 CR 99: §6.74

Gruber, People v (Sept. 22, 2006, F047525; not certified for publication) 2006 Cal App Unpub Lexis 8448: §9.129

H

H.B. Zachry Co. (1967) 49 TC 73: §10.37

HQ Global Holdings, Inc., In re (Bankr D Del 2003) 290 BR 507: §§12.8, 12.29

Harris v Emus Records Corp. (9th Cir 1984) 734 F2d 1329: §12.72

Hernandez, In re (Bankr D Ariz 2002) 287 BR 795: §§12.12, 12.75

Hernandez, In re (Bankr D Ariz 2002) 285 BR 435: §§9.148, 12.71, 12.76

Herring v Teradyne, Inc. (SD Cal 2002) 256 F Supp 2d 1118, aff'd in part and rev'd in part (9th Cir 2007) 242 Fed Appx 469 (unpublished): §7.6

Hill Med. Corp. v Wycoff (2001) 86 CA4th 895, 103 CR2d 779: §11.9

Hinesley v Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 CA4th 289, 37 CR3d 364: §4.68B

Hoffman-La Roche v Comm'n, Case 102/77, 1978 ECJ Celex Lexis 104: §11.72

Holland Am. Line, Inc. v Wartsila N. Am., Inc. (9th Cir 2007) 485 F3d 450: §11.17

Holt v U.S. (D DC 1973) 73-2 USTC ¶9680, 32 AFTR2d 5744: §9.45

I

IBP, Inc. v Tyson Foods (Del Ch 2001) 789 A2d 14: §7.13

Iconix, Inc. v Tokuda (ND Cal 2006) 457 F Supp 2d 969: §8.15

Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd. v Comm'n, Case 48/69, 1972 ECR 00619, 1972 ECJ CELEX Lexis 2: §§11.3, 11.52

In re ______ (see name of party)

In the Matter of Gateway Learning Corp., FTC File No. 042-3047: §11.40

Independent Am. Real Estate, Inc., In re (Bankr ND Tex 1992) 146 BR 546: §12.43

Ingwersen v Planet Group, Inc. (D Neb, Apr. 21, 2011, Nos. 8:09CV249, 8:09CV263, 8:10CV453) 2011 US Dist Lexis 43490: §7.6

Institut Pasteur v Cambridge Biotech Corp. (1st Cir 1997) 104 F3d 489: §§12.66, 12.70

IpVenture, Inc. v Prostar Computer, Inc. (Fed Cir 2007) 503 F3d 1324: §9.22

Istituto Chemioterapico Italiano S.p.A. & Commercial Solvents Corp. v Commission, Joined Cases 6 and 7-73, 1974 ECJ CELEX Lexis 33: §11.72

J

JHW Greentree Capital, L.P. v Whittier Trust Company (SD NY 2005) 2005 US Dist Lexis 27156: §7.8

Jacobsen v Katzer (Fed Cir 2008) 535 F3d 1373: §8.31

James Armour, Inc. v Comm'r (1964) 43 TC 295: §10.33

Jefferson-Pilot Corp. v Commissioner (1992) 98 TC 435, aff'd 995 F.2d 530 (4th Cir 1993): §2.22

Joseph v 1200 Valencia, Inc. (In re 199Z, Inc.) (Bankr CD Cal 1992) 137 BR 778: §§9.57, 9.94, 9.145, 12.51

JustMed, Inc. v Byce (9th Cir 2010) 600 F3d 1118: §8.15

K

Karfakis, In re (Bankr ED Pa 1993) 162 BR 719: §12.10

Kaufmann v LVA Holdings, Inc. (D Colo, Oct. 22, 2008, No. 05-cv-02140) 2006 US Dist Lexis 49499 at *2: §7.18

Kingsrow Enters., Inc. v Metromedia, Inc. (SD NY 1978) 203 USPQ 489: §9.149

Kmart Corp., In re (Bankr ND Ill 2003) 290 BR 614: §§12.5, 12.8, 12.12

Kmart Corp., In re (7th Cir 2004) 359 F3d 866, cert denied (2004) 543 US 1056: §12.4

Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GMBH v Dana Corp. (Fed Cir 2004) 383 F3d 1337: §4.26

Koninklijke Numico N.V. v KEP Enterprises LP, (D Del 2003) 2003 US Dist Lexis 5135: §7.3

Krafsur v UOP (In re El Paso Refinery, LP) (Bankr WD Tex 1996) 196 BR 58: §12.12

Krantz v BT Visual Images (2001) 89 CA4th 164, 107 CR2d 209: §6.74

Kremen v Cohen (9th Cir 2003) 337 F3d 1024: §9.8A

L

LSG-Gesellschaft zur Wahrnehmung von Leistungsschutzrechten GmbH v Tele2 Telecommunication GmbH (Feb. 19, 2009): §11.40

Lamar v Granger (WD Pa 1951) 99 F Supp 17: §12.50

Las Vegas Monorail Co., In re (Bankr D Nev 2010) 429 BR 317: §9.17

Learning Publications, In re (Bankr MD Fla 1988) 94 BR 763: §12.8

Leasing Serv. Corp. v First Tennessee Bank Nat'l Ass'n (6th Cir 1987) 826 F2d 434: §12.9

Leegin Creative Leather Prods., Inc. v PSKS, Inc. (2007) 551 US 877, 168 L Ed 2d 623, 127 S Ct 2705: §5.24

Lewis Bros. Bakeries Inc. v Interstate Brands Corp. (In re Interstate Bakeries Corp.) (8th Cir 2012) 690 F3d 1069: §12.8

LICRA & UEJF v Yahoo! Inc. & Societe Yahoo! France (Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, Nov. 20, 2000): §11.4

Lubrizol Enters. v Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc. (In re Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc.) (4th Cir 1985) 756 F2d 1043, cert denied (1986) 475 US 1057: §§12.9, 12.11, 12.18, 12.29, 12.40

M

MCEG Sterling, Inc. v Phillips Nizer Benjamin Krim & Ballon (Sup Ct 1996) 646 NYS2d 778: §9.56

MDY Indus., LLC v Blizzqard Entertainment, Inc. (9th Cir 2010) 629 F3d 928: §§5.2, 5.102A

MacDonald v Comm'r (1971) 55 TC 840: §10.4

Mail Boxes, Etc., USA, Inc. v Considine (9th Cir, July 11, 2000, No. 99-35901) 2000 US App Lexis 16185 (unpublished opinion): §11.11

Marco v Comm'r (1955) 25 TC 544: §10.6

Martin Bros. Toolmakers, Inc. v Industrial Dev. Bd. (In re Martin Bros. Toolmakers, Inc.) (11th Cir 1986) 796 F2d 1435: §12.7

Matek v Murat (9th Cir 1988) 862 F2d 720: §6.15

Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. v Siracusano (2011) ___ US ___, 179 L Ed 2d 398, 131 S Ct 1309: §4.60

McClean Indus., Inc. v Medical Lab. Automation, Inc. (In re McLean Indus., Inc.) (Bankr SD NY 1989) 96 BR 440: §12.63

McDermott v Comm'r (1963) 41 TC 50: §10.5

Medical Instrument Dev. Labs. v Alcon Labs. (ND Cal, Aug. 10, 2005, No. C-05-1138 MJJ) 2005 US Dist Lexis 41411: §11.14

MedImmune, Inc. v Genentech, Inc. (2007) 549 US 118, 166 L Ed 2d 604, 127 S Ct 764: §5.32

Mesler v Bragg Mgmt. Co. (1985) 39 C3d 290, 216 CR 443: §6.5

Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC v Roche Diagnostics GmbH (Del Ch, Apr. 8, 2011, C.A. No. 5589-VCP) 2011 Del Ch Lexis 61: §3.44

Metropole Television v Comm'n (CFI 2001) Case T-112/99, 2001 ECR II-02459: §11.58

Microsoft Corp. v Comm'n, Case T-201/04 (2007): §11.72

Microsoft Corp. v DAK Indus. (In re DAK Indus., Inc.) (9th Cir 1995) 66 F3d 1091: §12.8

Miller v Glenn Miller Prods., Inc. (9th Cir 2006) 454 F3d 975: §9.152

Moffatt v Comm'r (1964) 42 TC 558, aff'd (9th Cir 1966) 363 F2d 262: §10.33

Moldo v Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.) (9th Cir 2001) 252 F3d 1039, cert denied (2002) 534 US 1130: §§9.19, 9.39, 9.44-9.45, 9.74, 9.78, 9.85, 12.50

Molnar v Comm'r (1946) 156 F2d 924: §10.53

Moody v Security Pacific Business Credit (3d Cir 1992) 971 F2d 1056: §12.47

Morgan v Powe Timber Co. (SD Miss 2005) 367 F Supp 2d 1032: §7.19

Murphy v C & W Ltd. (In re Murphy) (8th Cir 1982) 694 F2d 172: §12.9

Murray v Franke-Misal Technols. Group, LLC (In re Supernatural Foods, LLC) (Bankr MD La 2001) 268 BR 759: §§12.20, 12.71, 12.76

N

N.C.P. Mktg. Group, Inc. v Blanks (In re N.C.P. Mktg. Group, Inc.) (D Nev 2005) 337 BR 230, aff'd (9th Cir 2008) 279 Fed Appx 571: §12.73

NLRB v Bildisco & Bildisco (1984) 465 US 513, 79 L Ed 2d 482, 104 S Ct 1188: §12.11

NLRB v Northeastern Land Servs., Ltd. (1st Cir 2011) 645 F3d 475: §8.15

National Peregrine, Inc. v Capitol Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n (In re Peregrine Entertainment, Ltd.) (CD Cal 1990) 116 BR 194: §§9.39, 9.52, 9.56, 9.120, 9.149, 12.49

Nedlloyd Lines B.V. v Superior Court (1992) 3 C4th 459, 11 CR2d 330: §§11.8-11.9, 11.11

Network Publ'g Corp. v Jerome Shapiro (2d Cir 1990) 895 F2d 97: §7.7

Network Solutions Inc. v Umbro Int'l Inc. (Va 2000) 529 SE2d 80: §9.8A

Nobel Farms, Inc. v Pasero (2003) 106 CA4th 654, 130 CR2d 881: §11.17

Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v Comm'r (1995) 105 TC 341: §10.52

Nungesser v Comm'n, Case 258/78, 1982 ECJ CELEX Lexis 8: §11.56

O

Official Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v Zenith Prods., Ltd. (In re AEG Acquisition Corp.) (Bankr CD Cal 1991) 127 BR 34, aff'd (BAP 9th Cir 1993) 161 BR 50: §9.52

Old Carco LLC, In re (Bankr SD NY 2009) 406 BR 180: §12.29

Orton v Virtual Fonlink, Inc. (Nov. 18, 2004, G032862; not certified for publication) 2004 Cal App Unpub Lexis 10566: §§9.100-9.101

P

PG&E v State Energy Resources Conserv. & Dev. Comm'n (1983) 461 US 190, 75 L Ed 2d 752, 103 S Ct 1713: §9.39

PPG Indus., Inc. v Guardian Indus. Corp. (6th Cir 1979) 597 F2d 1090, cert denied (1979) 444 US 930: §12.70

Paracor Fin., Inc. v General Elec. Capital Corp. (9th Cir 1996) 96 F3d 1151: §11.14

Parker v Flook (1978) 437 US 584, 57 L Ed 2d 451, 98 S Ct 2522: §4.17

Patient Educ. Media, Inc., In re (Bankr SD NY 1997) 210 BR 237: §§7.17, 12.72

Patrick Collins, Inc. v Doe (ED Pa 2011) 843 F Supp 2d 565: §8.34

Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v Steinbeck (2d Cir 2008) 537 F3d 193: §9.6

People v Gruber (Sept. 22, 2006, F047525; not certified for publication) 2006 Cal App Unpub Lexis 8448: §9.129

Perlman v Catapult Entertainment (In re Catapult Entertainment) (9th Cir 1999) 165 F3d 747: §§12.66, 12.68, 12.70-12.71

Peterson, U.S. v (9th Cir 1987) 812 F2d 486: §11.6

Petur U.S.A Instrument Co., In re (Bankr WD Wash 1983) 35 BR 561: §12.11

Pickren v U.S. (5th Cir 1967) 378 F2d 595: §10.5

Postal Instant Press, Inc. v Kaswa Corp. (2008) 162 CA4th 1510, 77 CR3d 96: §6.5

Precision Indus., Inc. v Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC (In re Qualitech Steel Corp.) (7th Cir 2003) 327 F3d 537: §12.39

Presley, Estate of v Russen (D NJ 1981) 513 F Supp 1339: §12.51

Pronuptia de Paris v Schillgalis, Case 161/84, (1986) ECR 353, 1986 ECJ Celex Lexis 89: §11.28

Proteotech, Inc. v Unicity Int'l, Inc. (WD Wash 2008) 542 F Supp 2d 1216: §12.71

Public Serv. Co. of N.H. v New Hampshire Elec. Coop., Inc. (In re Public Serv. Co. of N.H.) (1st Cir 1989) 884 F2d 11: §12.12

Purdue Research Found. v Sanofi-Synthelabo, S.A. (7th Cir 2003) 338 F3d 773: §11.4

Q

Quanta Computer, Inc. v LG Electronics, Inc. (2008) 553 US 617, 170 L Ed 2d 996, 128 S Ct 2109: §5.24

Quantegy, In re (Bankr MD Ala 2005) 326 BR 467: §12.76

R

RCI Technol. Corp. v Sunterra Corp. (In re Sunterra Corp.) (4th Cir 2004) 361 F3d 257: §§12.66, 12.68, 12.76

Raima UK Ltd v Centura Software Corp. (In re Centura Software Corp.) (ND Cal 2002) 281 BR 660: §12.29

Reeves v Hanlon (2004) 33 C4th 1140, 17 CR3d 289: §6.31

Renoir v Redstar Corp. (2004) 123 CA4th 1145, 20 CR3d 603: §11.3

Republic Pictures Corp. v Security-First Nat'l Bank of Los Angeles (9th Cir 1952) 197 F2d 767: §9.130

Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v DeKalb Genetics Corp. (Fed Cir 2002) 284 F3d 1323, cert denied (2003) 539 US 957: §§9.22, 9.44, 9.74

Richards v Lloyd's of London (9th Cir 1998) 135 F3d 1289: §§11.8-11.9

Richardson v La Rancherita of La Jolla (1979) 98 CA3d 73, 159 CR 285: §7.15

Rieser v Dayton Country Club Co. (In re Magness) (6th Cir 1992) 972 F2d 689: §12.66

Roman Cleanser Co. v National Acceptance Co. (In re Roman Cleanser Co.) (Bankr ED Mich 1984) 43 BR 940, aff'd (6th Cir 1986) 802 F2d 207: §§9.19, 9.39, 12.51

Ron Matusalem, In re (Bankr SD Fla 1993) 158 BR 514: §§12.29, 12.38

Rooster, In re (Bankr ED Pa 1989) 100 BR 228: §12.73

Rouverol v Comm'r (1964) 42 TC 186, nonacq 1965-2 Cum Bull 7: §10.6

Ruckelshaus v Monsanto (1984) 467 US 986, 81 L Ed 2d 815, 104 S Ct 2862: §9.9

S

S.A. Empresa de Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense v Boeing Co. (9th Cir 1981) 641 F2d 746: §11.10

SDI Netherlands B.V. v Comm'r (1996) 107 TC 161: §10.52

SEC v Goldfield Deep Mines Co. (9th Cir 1985) 758 F2d 459: §4.63

SQL Solutions v Oracle Corp. (ND Cal, Dec. 18, 1991, No. C-91-1079MHP) 1991 US Dist Lexis 21097: §§3.44, 7.19

Saginaw Prop., LLC v Value City Dep't Stores, LLC (ED Mich, Oct 30, 2009, No. 08 Civ 13782) 2009 US Dist Lexis 101232 at *23: §7.19

Sandoz Prodotti Farmaceutici SpA v Comm'n (ECJ 1990), Case C-277/87, 1990 ECR I-00045: §11.54

Santa Monica Pictures, LLC, TC Memo 2005-104: §2.8

Scott v Snelling & Snelling, Inc. (ND Cal 1990) 732 F Supp 1034: §11.9

Seagate Technol., LLC, In re (Fed Cir 2007) 497 F3d 1360, cert denied sub nom Convolve, Inc. v Seagate Technol., LLC (2008) 552 US 1230, 128 S Ct 1445, 170 L Ed 2d 275: §§4.24, 4.26

Sengoku Works Ltd. v RMC Int'l, Ltd. (9th Cir 1996) 96 F3d 1217, cert denied (1997) 521 US 1103: §6.22

Sharon Steel Corp. v National Fuel Gas Distrib. Corp. (3d Cir 1989) 872 F2d 36: §12.10

Sherwood Partners, Inc. v Lycos, Inc. (9th Cir 2005) 394 F3d 1198: §9.39

Silicon Graphics Securities Litig., In re (9th Cir 1999) 183 F3d 970: §4.61

Sky Technols. LLC v SAP AG (Fed Cir 2009) 576 F3d 1374: §9.44

Smith v Comm'r (1936) 34 BTA 702: §10.33

Smith v Iron & Glass Bank (In re: SSE Int'l Corp.) (Bankr WD Pa 1996) 198 BR 667: §§9.62-9.63

Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v Superior Court (1976) 17 C3d 491, 131 CR 374: §11.17

Smothers v U.S. (5th Cir 1981) 642 F2d 894: §10.33

Software Toolworks Inc., In re v Painewebber Inc. (9th Cir 1994) 50 F3d 615: §4.61

Stafford, U.S. v (11th Cir 1984) 727 F2d 1043: §§10.37-10.38

State St. Bank & Trust Co. v Signature Fin. Group (1998) 149 F3d 1368, cert denied (1999) 525 US 1093: §4.17

Ste. Pierre Smirnoff, Fls., Inc. v Hirsch (SD Cal 1952) 109 F Supp 10: §12.51

Steinbeck v McIntosh & Otis, Inc. (SD NY 2006) 433 F Supp 2d 395: §9.6

Stokes v Dole Nut Co. (1995) 41 CA4th 285, 48 CR2d 673: §6.43

Storm Technol., Inc., In re (Bankr ND Cal 2001) 260 BR 152: §§9.24, 12.37

Stumpf v McGee (In re O'Connor) (5th Cir 2001) 258 F3d 392: §§12.12, 12.75

Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v Chicago Am. Mfg., LLC (7th Cir 2012) 686 F3d 372, cert denied (2012) 184 L Ed 2d 596: §§12.1, 12.9, 12.18, 12.21, 12.23-12.24, 12.29, 12.37

Superbrace, Inc. v Tidwell (2004) 124 CA4th 388, 21 CR3d 404: §§9.148, 12.71

Superior Toy & Mfg. Co., In re (7th Cir 1996) 78 F3d 1169: §12.73

Sutter Homes Winery, Inc. v Vintage Selections, Ltd. (9th Cir 1992) 971 F2d 401: §11.14

Swanson v U.S. (9th Cir 1973) 479 F2d 539: §10.33

Synopsys, Inc. v Ricoh Co. (ND Cal 2006) 2006 US Dist Lexis 64270: §4.26

Szilagyi v Chicago Am. Mfg., LLC (In re Lakewood Eng'g & Mfg. Co.) (Bankr ND Ill, 2011) 459 BR 306: §§12.29, 12.37

Szombathy v Controlled Shredders, Inc. (ND Ill 1997) 1997 US Dist Lexis 5168: §§12.32-12.33

T

TSC Indus., Inc. v Northway, Inc. (1976) 426 US 438, 48 L Ed 2d 757, 96 S Ct 2126: §4.60

Tally-Ho, Inc. v Coast Community College Dist. (11th Cir 1989) 889 F2d 1018: §4.29

Tap Publications, Inc. v Chinese Yellow Pages (NY), Inc. (SD NY 1996) 925 F Supp 212: §12.73

Taylor-Winfield Corp. v Comm'r (1971) 57 TC 205, aff'd (6th Cir 1972) 467 F2d 483: §10.5

Top Rank, Inc. v Ortiz (In re Ortiz) (CD Cal 2009) 400 BR 755: §12.39

Total Containment Inc. v Buffalo Envt'l Prods. Corp. (ED Va 1995) 35 USPQ2d 1385: §4.22

Transamerican Natural Gas Corp., In re (Bankr SD Tex 1987) 79 BR 663: §12.43

Transportation Design & Technol., Inc., In re (Bankr SD Cal 1985) 48 BR 635: §12.50

Travelot Co., In re (Bankr SD Ga 2002) 286 BR 447: §12.73

Tronox, Inc. Sec. Litig., In re (SD NY, June 28, 2010, No. 09 Civ 6220 (SAS)) 2010 US Dist Lexis 67664 at *65: §7.18

Turbinator, Inc. v Superior Court (1995) 33 CA4th 443, 39 CR2d 342: §9.36

Two Pesos, Inc. v Taco Cabana, Inc. (1992) 505 US 763, 120 L Ed 2d 615, 112 S Ct 2753: §1.24

U

UMG Recordings, Inc. v Augusto (9th Cir 2011) 628 F3d 1175: §§5.2, 9.55

United States Cellular Inv. Co. of L.A., Inc. v GTE Mobilnet, Inc. (9th Cir 2002) 281 F3d 929: §7.15

University Hill Found. v Goldman, Sachs & Co. (SD NY 1976) 422 F Supp 879: §4.62C

Unsecured Creditors' Comm. v Southmark Corp. (In re Robert L. Helms Constr. & Dev. Co.) (9th Cir 1998) 139 F3d 702: §§12.7, 12.40

V

V-Formation, Inc. v Benetton Group SpA (D Colo, Mar. 10, 2006, No. 02-cv-02259-PSF-CBS) 2006 US Dist Lexis 13352: §§9.78, 9.81

VantagePoint Venture Partners 1996 v Examen, Inc. (Del 2005) 871 A2d 1108: §6.8

Vernor v Autodesk, Inc. (9th Cir 2010) 621 F3d 1102, cert denied (2011) ___ US ___, 181 L Ed 2d 32, 132 S Ct 105: §§5.2, 5.102A, 9.55

Verson Corp. v Verson Int'l Group PLC (ND Ill 1995) 899 F Supp 358: §12.74

Viho v Comm'n, Case C-73/95 P, 1996 ECR I-5457: §11.54

W

Waltrip v Kimberlin (2008) 164 CA4th 517, 79 CR3d 460: §9.35

Warnaco, Inc. v Farkas (2d Cir 1989) 872 F2d 539: §9.130

Washington Mut. Bank v Superior Court (2001) 24 C4th 906, 103 CR2d 320: §§11.8-11.10

Watson v U.S. (10th Cir 1955) 222 F2d 689: §10.4

Weiner v Fleischman (1991) 54 C3d 476, 286 CR 40: §6.45

Wellington Vision, Inc. v Perle Vision, Inc. (In re Wellington Vision, Inc.) (SD Fla 2007) 364 BR 129: §§12.73, 12.76

West Electronics Inc., In re (3d Cir 1988) 852 F2d 79: §12.66

Western Filter Corp. v Argan, Inc. (9th Cir 2008) 540 F3d 947: §7.6

Westinghouse Elec. Corp., U.S. v (ND Cal 1978) 471 F Supp 532, aff'd in part and re'vd in part on other grounds (9th Cir 1981) 648 F2d 642: §11.41

Windsurfing International v Comm'n, Case 193/83, 1986 ECR 611: §11.56

Winklevoss Consultants, Inc. v Federal Ins. Co. (ND Ill 1998) 991 F Supp 1024: §6.36

Woodpulp, Case C-89/85 [ECJ 1993]: §11.52

Worldcom, Inc. Sec. Litig., In re (SD NY 2004) 346 F Supp 2d 628: §§4.61, 4.62A

X

XMH Corp., In re (7th Cir 2011) 647 F3d 690: §§9.152, 12.73

Xilinx Inc. v Commissioner (2005) 125 TC 37: §10.67

Xilinx, Inc. v Commissioner (9th Cir 2010) 598 F3d 1191: §10.67

Y

Yahoo! Inc. v La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (9th Cir 2006) 433 F3d 1199: §11.4

Z

Zenith Radio Corp. v Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969) 395 US 100, 89 S Ct 1562, 23 L Ed 2d 129: §11.41

Zhi Yong Guo, U.S. v (9th Cir 2011) 634 F3d 1119: §11.32