Moody v. Morris, PBS, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
In 1993 and 1994 Kyle Morris and William Kirksley filed several patent applications all directed toward animated captioning “coordinated with oral-word utterances.” The idea was to actually see the words coming from the mouth of the speaker in a movie or television program. The patents were assigned to their new company ReadSpeak. Morris brought-in Don Moody to help develop a new children's television show. However, after a falling-out, Moody left and started the successful Word World show that was broadcast on PBS beginning in 2007. Word World does not use captions streaming from the mouths of actors. Rather, objects and characters in the television show are made-up of word-objects. As the district court explained “in the Word World universe, a 'bee' consists of the word 'bee' shaped like the object that it names; the character 'CAT' is made up of the letters 'C-A-T.'” The image below shows an ear of corn, a pie, a pot, and a pig.
In the lawsuit, Morris alleged both patent and copyright infringement. The district court rejected both allegations on a 12(b)(6) motion-to-dismiss.
On patents, the court held that the word-objects found in Word World could not satisfy “word utterance” limitation of the patent claims.
On copyright, Morris argued that he owned a copyright on the phrase “where words come alive” that Word World uses as its slogan as well as a copyright in the “teaching methodology” that he had developed. The district court rejected both of these arguments: first holding that the phrase “where words come alive” could not be protected by copyright because it is merely a short phrase or slogan; then holding that the “teaching methodology” could not be protected by copyright because copyright does not “extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, [or] method of operation . . . regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied . . . “ 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).
On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.
The most interesting aspect of the appeal was lead-in by Judge Gajarsa where he warned the lawyers to remain civil:
The court has a few words to say on civility in the courtroom. I think that it is very very important for attorneys who happen to be officers of the court to conduct themselves in such a manner that at least the record would reflect that they accept each other in the courtroom and outside of the courtroom. A confrontational basis should not exist and should not be part of the record. And, if we read this record, there are a number of issues that could be confrontational and very much out of order with respect to the treatment of the attorneys with each other. You can represent your clients to the best of your abilities . . . . but you don't have to have difficulties among yourselves. I think that it is very very important to maintain civility in our practices. Especially since lawyers are officers of the court.
Documents:
there is a woman. And behind every unsuccessful man， there are two.
Sounds a little like Morris filed this suit more as an expression of hurt feelings and/or vitriol than for any other reason. Sometimes patent litigation is so high school … but that’s no excuse for the parties’ attorneys to bicker like middle-schoolers themselves.
Beautiful sarah – well stated – now live it (from both sides now).
Take those that need Braces and Brace them,
Take those that need Love and embrace them,
Take all that you Teach, don’t erase them
And we will survive
dearest sarah
you sent a POA when he was not your attorney.
you need to own up to your mistake. Its OK – we all make them. And this is a relatively minor one.
we need to ahve a contest… Let’s all name Genes little dog. I say lets call him FOS
Uh oooh 6 maybe now you may be called down too? The letter I have received is an OFFICIAL LETTER. And if may I be so kind as to repeat myself. It says my POA is moot. An obviously moot, because I was not the one that had hired him way before I sent the POA in! And the email I have proves the whole oops big word here. CONSPIRACY. Can you spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y.
Oh man, this is hilarious, Sarah is a real person who has real apps pending. She’s been bugging the heck outta Gene and he won’t represent her, but she put him down as the attorney anyway lol.
The funniest thing is that when I read his article initially I thought it sounded a lot like something someone like Sarah might do.
How do those amounts compare to the time billed by some law student at plaintiff’s firm for “watching children’s TV program, no, honestly, I swear it’s relevant to my job”?
Did you watch “Harry’s Law” on Monday?
My advice is to be patient. Things will quiet down after the Sarah and Michael personalities integrate.
“Andrew listen to what CJ Rader and Judges Lourie, Bryson, Dyk and Moore have to say to attorneys who take unreasonable positions at the podium.”
Seriously, someone apparently hasn’t heard the Ariad oral arguments.
Andrew listen to what CJ Rader and Judges Lourie, Bryson, Dyk and Moore have to say to attorneys who take unreasonable positions at the podium.
Please review the facts and holding in the recent “toolbar pop up” case.
There is no coddling here, and if you’re upset about the absence of sanctions, lobby for changes to Rule 11. The very demanding standard of Rule 11 isn’t the CAFC’s fault.
Very demanding standard of Rule 11? Nothing in the rule itself would suggest that there’s a “very demanding standard.” Where did the “very demanding standard” come from?
Gajarsa: The court has a few “words” to say on civility in the courtroom.
OK, we get the joke. (“The idea was to actually see the words coming from the mouth of the speaker.”, “Word World”, etc.)
“For one thing, a lot of those “ordinary” lawyers have recast themselves as IP lawyers.”
More along the lines of this thought at:
link to ipwatchdog.com
I think the word “intellectual” in “I.P.” tends to have a softening and enhancing effect.
I think that people conflate it with “cerebral”, with all of its non-combative, conflict-avoiding connotations.
Plus, in a black-and-white world, there would by necessary implication be “non-intellectual property”, certainly perceived as a less worthy, more base form of property, above which floats “intellectual” property.
Finally, the term “intellectual” may be mistaken as a modifier for “property law(er)”, rather than both “intellectual” and “property” being modifiers of “law”, or or “lawyer”.
So that makes it sound like one is an “intellectual lawyer” who focuses on property.
Again, obviously superior to the necessarily-implied “non-intellectual lawyer”. Smarter. More worthy.
Better branding.
Registrar, the status of “attorney” is inseparable from the status of “officer of the court”.
When one passes a state bar exam and goes through the interviews, one is sworn in before a court, takes an oath of office, and then is recognized to practice in that court, and is permitted to use the title “attorney”, or “lawyer”, etc..
Your status as attorney, or court officer, enables you to perform particular functions within the occasion known as “court”–in particular, you can represent people by making personal appearances, and by filing documents with the court. Similarly, you are permitted to seek the invocation of certain powers of the court that may aid in the furtherance of justice.
Those who are not attorneys (officers of the court) are generally not permitted to do this, unless they are admitted by special exception for limited purposes, for very particular reasons.
The duties that come along with these abilities are those spelled out in the particular ethical canons, as well as some particular court rules of practice.
That is the general picture, I’m sure I’ve left out some stuff that Holmes can fill in if she wants.
If you ever go to law school or become a lawyer, you may understand these things better. Now please go away.
When I was a newly minted lawyer, er, I mean officer of the court, I used to regularly hear the partners boast of how civil IP lawyers are to each other compared with “ordinary” lawyers. At least in any given region of the US, they all knew each other and came up against each other from time to time. How times have changed. For one thing, a lot of those “ordinary” lawyers have recast themselves as IP lawyers.
I think the general idea is that one should be both an officer and a gentleman.
Mr. Hutz–
Same question: Can YOU tell us precisely what privileges and duties arise as the particular result of the status of “officer of the court”, and not from some other status, such as representative or attorney?
As far as I can tell, the ONLY effect is that of possible recognition as a representative of a party.
mdtvet: What could the damages possibly be for one fleeting depiction of an infringing act? What are the lost profits or reasonable royalty?
How do those amounts compare to the time billed by some law student at plaintiff’s firm for “watching children’s TV program, no, honestly, I swear it’s relevant to my job”?
“Mr. Mooney, if this is your sense for the sensibilities of CAFC judges, you are misinformed.”
Oh where to begin on what “Mr. Mooney” is misinformed about?!
Lulz
Registrar,
Must you wear your ignorance as a badge. The lawyers representing the plaintiffs and defendants are a legal part of the trial process and have responsibilities and roles to play. Anyone who is a legal part of the trial process is an officers of the court.
How dense are you?
Remember the Alamo!
And the statement made by Ping… The Jokes on you.
Did any of you listen to the plaintiff’s oral argument? Gibberish. Apologizing for their weak arguments, the plaintiff’s attorney blames his sciatica and the defendant’s attorney blames his broken a tooth that morning. Did they get in a fight outside the door prompting the admonition?
Apart from that, why on earth would anyone spend the money to patent something that is impossible to enforce against anyone who has any money? You are going to sue PBS? Read the claims and tell me who would you sue.
In this case, there is only one alleged infringing act of Claim 1 of the ‘136 patent- the burping pig. What could the damages possibly be for one fleeting depiction of an infringing act? What are the lost profits or reasonable royalty? So what if it is enjoined.
Take a look at the claims of the four patents. Why do they satisfy 101? Even if they do, what good are they in the real world?
Can you smell what the Rock is cooking?
Instructive?
Of what?
Why don’t YOU tell us precisely what privileges and duties arise as the particular result of the status of “officer of the court”, and not from some other status, such as representative or attorney?
Oh, that’s right–because you CANNOT,
“J. Holmes, Orificer of the Court”.
Holmes,
Stop coddling the Registrar. Sunshine’s gettin so jealous, he be besides himself.
Cy,
Any number of “different” posters here are available for your fine attention.
Lovely sarah,
“and sent in a POA” – Why?
“the small a seems to be sticking” – ahah proof that someone be messin with your messages, as here it appears that your large Y be stickin.
Id say Iza like to go there, but I respects your marriage.
Imagine this though for a minute. Sarah messes with the Eskimo in a big way, personally like, and no word of being banned, yet 6 is still banned. O the chuckles.
As proof of your level of understanding, witness your direction to sources of content other than your own.
My good sir, since we are simply trying to address your admission that you don’t know what “officer of the court” means, I submit that my citations to instructive references were perfectly appropriate. It seemed clear that you didn’t have access to a copy of Black’s, but I’m a little surprised you find Wikipedia inaccessible as well.
You might want to keep those remedial CLE classes in mind. Or are those not “authoritative” enough for you?
Case dismissed.
The most important thing is that none of these childish millionaires got sanctioned a couple thousand dollars, which would be the worst thing ever.
Mr. Mooney, if this is your sense for the sensibilities of CAFC judges, you are misinformed. Listen to oral arguments — they’re free and often fun. In particular, listen to what CJ Rader and Judges Lourie, Bryson, Dyk and Moore have to say to attorneys who take unreasonable positions at the podium.
There is no coddling here, and if you’re upset about the absence of sanctions, lobby for changes to Rule 11. The very demanding standard of Rule 11 isn’t the CAFC’s fault.
To be fair, GQ also needs help – he can probably afford it.
You can bet that Justice Holmes’ healthy ego has caused him to overestimate his own level of understanding, which is actually below the “pretty fair” level he self-assessed.
I never knew there were degrees of “fairness of understanding”.
Holmes must be “moderately fair”, or below.
Isn’t “fair” the lowest possible grade of coin condition?
Sarah – you need help. If you cannot afford help, help will be provided for you. No, wait, sorry, you live in the USA, the land of Help Yourself.
Good luck
sorry about my spelling the small a seems to be sticking.
I was just over on Gene Quinns site. He wrote a thred about being hired by someone. That some he wrote about is me. He was hired by the rolling rock, and he claims it was me. I only asked him to represent me and sent in a POA. Then I immediately retracted it. and even apologized. Recently i have received aletter stating I had fired Gene but that it was Moot. It was moot becuse I never hired Gene. He was already listed as atty. of record on my case well before I asked him…. well anyway he continues to ignore my posts because he claims he is afraid to look at the files he has alredy seen LOL. He needs help, can anyone show him the private pair button? Anyway today being thursday may be Moot also.
Gene by the way, I have many Atty. of Record sheets showing you were Atty. on my case WAYYYYY, WAYYYYYYY before I asked you. You crack me up.LOL
You guys totally crack me up.
Bro! Crack me up!
duuuurh
Bitter much?
Not at all. Just keeping note of the Federal Circuit’s tendency to coddle the elite practitioners who appear before it to peddle their bullshirt.
That was a pretty fair post, Holmes.
You have a “pretty fair idea”, do you Holmes?
With that description, your understanding must lie south of “a good idea”, and somewhere just barely north of “basically no idea”.
As proof of your level of understanding, witness your direction to sources of content other than your own.
One of which is the authoritative Wikipedia.
I say, good show!
WordWorld is a fantastic show. I don’t really have any comment on the legal outcome, I just wanted to mention that.
“The most important thing is that none of these childish millionaires got sanctioned a couple thousand dollars, which would be the worst thing ever.”
Bitter much?
The oral arguments are pretty entertaining. My favorite part is where plaintiff’s counsel throws his co-counsel (who is sitting right there) under the bus, acknowledging that the amended complaint was a mess.
”
link to mlive.com
”
I support those badges.
The most interesting aspect of the appeal was lead-in by Judge Gajarsa where he warned the lawyers to remain civil
OOooo, a sternly-worded letter!
That’ll work.
The most important thing is that none of these childish millionaires got sanctioned a couple thousand dollars, which would be the worst thing ever.
Iza like how this topic pops up afterz I post this beauty at:
link to patentlyo.com
“No matter the client, one is not the client, and the client’s demeanor has absolutely no bearing on how one should behave (Oh Behave).
This is not a matter of “tempering anyone’s enthusiasm”, it is a manner of ethical behavior.
No Excuses. F the prisoner’s dilemma.
Posted by: ping | Jan 20, 2011 at 01:03 PM ”
Me quoting me and the Big D followin my observations.
Does it get any better folk?
Holmes,
I see you have no idea, either.
Actually, I’ve got a pretty fair idea. The concept really isn’t that hard, at least as applied to advocates in a court proceeding. Black’s dictionary is a great place to start, but Wikipedia also has a pretty good definition. I’m sure your state bar association also offers some basic ethics classes that cover this topic.
Oficer of the Court
link to mlive.com
Obviously, that’s not cherry pie.
Holmes,
I see you have no idea, either.
“Officers of the Court”
Whatever THAT means, exactly.
If you don’t know, then you shouldn’t be practicing law.
“Officers of the Court”
Whatever THAT means, exactly.
Sure, a pig is just a pig, but they were taking a pretty big chance spelling “P-O-T” on a children’s program where words turn into objects. At the risk of raising the degree of difficulty, I’d have gone with a visually safer option like “skillet” or “saucepan”.
Comments are closed.