Legal Opinion
Fonar Corp. v. Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 27, 1996No. 93 Civ. 2220PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MOTLEY, District Judge.
In the instant case the court is asked to rule upon the degree of specificity with which a plaintiff seeking to enforce a copyright for computer software must describe that work. As the following discussion shows, plaintiff has failed to describe its purportedly copyrighted material in such a way that would reveal the substance of the protected work. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs copyright claims under federal law, as well as the supplemental state law claims of unfair competition,…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Fonar Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant v. Robert Domenick, Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1997
- Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1998
- Fonar Corp. v. Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Churchill Livingstone, Inc. v. Williams & WilkinsDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- Fonar Corp. v. Magnetic Resonance Plus, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1996
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.