During these challenging times, Severson & Werson remains open and in full operation, consistent with the firm’s previously established contingency planning. While many of our attorneys and staff will be working remotely, as a firm, we continue in full operation. We are here to help, as always.

Intellectual Property

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

Under 17 USC 411(b), a certificate of registration of a copyright is effective and satisfies the registration-before-suit requirement of 411(a) even if the certificate contains inaccurate information unless the applicant submitted the information with knowledge it was inaccurate and Register of Copyrights would have refused registration had it known of the inaccuracy.  Reversing the Ninth Circuit (Gold Value Int'l Textile,… Read More

Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its misappropriation of trade secrets claim, but continued to prosecute six other causes of action against defendant.  Defendant moved unsuccessfully for an attorney fee award under Civ. Code 3426.4 which allows fee awards for trade secrets claims brought in bad faith.  Defendant's appeal from the order denying its fee motion was dismissed.  The order was not a… Read More

The de minimis copying test in a copyright infringement action relates only to the degree of copying, not to the extent of the infringement by minimum use of a copyrighted work.  So, here, defendant could  not raise a de minimis defence since it had completely copied plaintiff's copyrighted photograph of the Indianapolis skyline.  Its copying was total, not de minimis. … Read More

This decision refuses to overrule the assignor estoppel doctrine which prevents the assignor of a patent from challenging the patent's validity if doing so would contradict the assignor's express or implied warranty that the patent was good at the time the assignor sold it.  However, the estoppel does not apply when the assignment is made before a patent application is… Read More

Oracle breached its contract with HP by announcing that its next product releases would not be compatible with HP's Itanium computers.  Following the first phase of trial in this case, the trial court concluded that the parties' contract required Oracle to offer Itanium-compatible versions of its product releases.  Oracle then announced that it would release Itanium-compatible versions, but also announced… Read More

1 2 3 5