In Alexander v. Haley, plaintiff Margaret Walker Alexander sued author Alex Haley and his publisher Doubleday for copyright infringement and unfair competition, alleging that Haley's book Roots copied from her novel Jubilee (1966) and pamphlet How I Wrote Jubilee (1972). Both works blend historical facts about slavery with fiction and draw on the authors' family histories, but Roots spans a broader timeline including pre-U.S. African settings. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found access to Jubilee but not the pamphlet; however, it granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that any similarities involved unprotectable ideas, historical facts, common phrases, or general themes rather than original expression. The decision rested on the principle that copyright protects only specific expressive elements, not facts or ideas, with extensive comparison showing no actionable substantial similarity.
This case was a patent infringement suit filed by Janex Corporation against Bradley Time and other defendants over U.S. Patent No. 3,835,640, which covered a children's character alarm clock that played a spoken wake-up message. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that the patent was invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applying the factual inquiries set out in Graham v. John Deere Co., the court compared the patent claims to fourteen prior-art references, including the 1922 Pinto phonographic alarm clock patent, and determined that the differences were obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The court therefore granted summary judgment, holding the patent void.
Berkey Photo sued Eastman Kodak alleging antitrust violations through monopolization and attempts to monopolize markets for amateur cameras and related products. Kodak moved for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdicts after a trial that awarded Berkey over $37 million in damages, primarily tied to the surprise introduction of the 110 camera system that exploited Kodak's film monopoly. The court granted Kodak's motion in part and denied it in part, reducing the total award to approximately $27 million while upholding liability findings on the 110 camera claims. The reasoning centered on the principle that product introductions are not immune from antitrust scrutiny when deliberately designed to leverage monopoly power in one market to suddenly dominate another, as evidenced by Kodak's strategy of withholding predisclosure from competitors.
This case involved Xedit Corporation, a New York company, suing Harvel Industries and its division Fidelipac, along with an executive, all based in New Jersey and Illinois, for misappropriating trade secrets related to a flutter meter after initial business discussions. The defendants sought to dismiss the suit, arguing the New York court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The court examined whether the defendants had transacted business in New York under CPLR § 302(a)(1) and if the claim arose from that activity, noting a single trade show meeting in New York where the parties met but the secrets were shared later in New Jersey. Although the meeting qualified as transacting business, the court determined the misappropriation claim did not sufficiently arise from it due to the time, location, and nature of the subsequent events. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
This case involved a company's lawsuit seeking a refund of federal withholding and Social Security taxes it paid after discovering its accountant had embezzled the funds and failed to file returns from 1965 to 1972; the government counterclaimed for additional unpaid taxes from those years. The plaintiff argued that equitable defenses such as laches, estoppel, and negligence should bar collection because the IRS did not detect the nonpayment earlier and allegedly made oral assurances under an installment agreement. The court granted the government's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the refund claim and awarding judgment on the counterclaim. It reasoned that tax refund actions are governed by statute rather than general equitable principles, that 26 U.S.C. § 6501(c)(3) permits assessments at any time when no return is filed, and that estoppel cannot bind the United States in this context, especially where reliance was unreasonable and no legal duty existed for the IRS to detect the delinquency.
In United States v. King, defendants King and Boucher were convicted by a jury of multiple counts of fraud causing millions in investor losses and sentenced to prison terms of one year and seven months respectively, followed by probation. After his sentencing but before reporting to prison, King suffered a stroke causing lasting impairments and moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 to reduce his sentence to probation or to designate a prison facility equipped for his medical needs; Boucher filed a similar motion. The court denied both motions, reasoning that while King's condition warranted consideration, the sentences were not excessive, prison officials could adequately address medical requirements, and executive-branch remedies like furloughs remained available if needed. King's surrender was scheduled at a specific medical facility, but the original sentences were to be served.