finding that the direct similarity of at least seven scenes in novels did not support finding of substantial similarity because "such a scattershot approach . . . fails to address the underlying issue: whether a lay observer would consider the works as a whole substantially similar to one another"
Summary of this case from Blakeman v. Walt Disney CompanyNo. 84-1149.
March 18, 1985, OCTOBER TERM 1984.
C.A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 736 F. 2d 1352.
finding that the direct similarity of at least seven scenes in novels did not support finding of substantial similarity because "such a scattershot approach . . . fails to address the underlying issue: whether a lay observer would consider the works as a whole substantially similar to one another"
Summary of this case from Blakeman v. Walt Disney Companynoting that a "trial judge has broad discretion to organize or limit the use of evidence to refresh recollection"
Summary of this case from Isaac v. N.Ydiscussing prison cases
Summary of this case from Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Dept. of Human Servicesdiscussing prison cases
Summary of this case from T.M. ex rel. R.T. v. CarsonFull title:LITCHFIELD v. SPIELBERG ET AL
Court:U.S.
Date published: Mar 18, 1985
Forfeiture is mandatory. United States v. Kravitz, 738 F.2d 102, 104 (3d Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S.…
Worlds of Wonder v. Veritel Learning Sys.To prove infringement, the party claiming infringement must show substantial similarity. Litchfield v.…