1. Martin worked for AMA, a firm that designs and administers retirement plans for 500 clients. The client list is confidential, but no agreement about that existed. When Martin left AMA after five years, he set up a competing firm and successfully solicited 15 AMA clients based on information of who they were from his memory. AMA sued for theft of trade secrets. The trial court awarded AMA damages for fees that it would have earned from the clients. Martin appealed. Is he liable? 

2. Lucky Break Wishbone designed, copyrighted, and produced wishbones. While they looked like a wishbone, they were thinner in the arms, more rounded on the edges, and made of graphite. Sears then produced similar wishbones for sale. Lucky Break sued for copyright infringement. Sears contended that the wishbones did not meet the elements needed to obtain a copyright. The trial court held that the copyright was valid, and the jury awarded Lucky Break $1.7 million in damages. Sears appealed. Do you think an imitation wishbone can be copyrighted?

3. A homebuilder registered a copyright for the floor plan of a house. Another builder built homes using the same layout of bedrooms and windows, so the homes had a very similar look. The copyright holder sued for infringement. Do you think this constitutes infringement?

4. Hormel is the maker of SPAMVR luncheon meat, trademarked since 1937. Hormel sued Jim Henson Productions for trademark infringement for using a Muppet character “Spa’am” in its Muppet Treasure Island movie. “Spa’am is the high priest of a tribe of wild boars that worships Miss Piggy as its Queen.… Henson hopes to poke a little fun at Hormel’s famous luncheon meat by associating its processed, gelatinous block with a humorously wild beast.” The district court denied Hormel’s request for an injunction against the name Spa’am. Do you think Hormel could win on appeal? Why? 

5. United States Gypsum developed a new putty to use on walls and ceilings to cover cracks. A key ingredient in the compound was a silicon product made by another company. The patent application did not list that as an ingredient in the putty. A competitor started to make and sell the same putty, and the two companies ended up in court. Could USG win for patent infringement?