Even if the patent is val D would have a free non exclusive right to use the

Even if the patent is val d would have a free non

  • University of Texas
  • LEB 320F
  • Notes
  • PresidentHackerWhale10275
  • 5
  • 80% (10) 8 out of 10 people found this document helpful

This preview shows page 4 - 5 out of 5 pages.

D, so an “experimental” use argument would be unsuccessful. Even if the patent is valid, D would have a free, nonexclusive right to use the device because P was not hired or directed to invent. Correct answer to #3: (b) Even if D’s carelessness is the “actual” cause of Marion’s injuries (“but for” D’s carelessness, Marion would not have been injured as she was), it must also be the “proximate” cause (whether Marion’s injuries were reasonably foreseeable/within the realm of risks created by D’s carelessness). Based on this foreseeability test, D can be held liable for Marion’s hip injury, but not for her burns (a plane crashing nearby and injuring Marion was an intervening event that was not reasonably foreseeable). Correct answer to #4: (b)The statute was enacted to prevent death due to fire, not to protect against economic loss caused by flooding. Tim’s “negligence per se” argument will fail because he is not within the class of persons that the lawmakers intend to protect and he has not suffered the type of injury that the statute is designed to address. To prove the second element of his negligence lawsuit, therefore, Tim must establish Larry’s unreasonableness (failing to maintain the sprinkler system as a reasonably careful landlord would have). Correct answer to #5: (b)D did not have a legal duty to help Brooke or otherwise act as a Good Samaritan. There is no indication of a special relationship between D and Brooke that would give rise to such a duty. Correct answer to #6: (a) Because Kroger repeatedly failed to check P’s story with the pharmacy, it failed to act reasonably. Therefore, P recovered on a false imprisonment claim, and the shopkeeper’s privilege defense was rejected. Correct answer to #7: (b)It is unlikely that consumers will really think that the car company is now selling health food, so no likelihood of confusion and no trademark infringement. Also, this is a
Image of page 4
premium trail mix sold at an upscale store, so there is no tarnishment of the “Volkswagen” mark. There is, however, whittling away of the distinctiveness of the mark because it will not be as strongly connected to cars if it can be used by other companies to sell trail mix or other products (pencils, hair brushes, cat food, etc.).
Image of page 5

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture