Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Intellectual Property Law Briefs

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    I need help writing two court case briefs; one involving real properties (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-712.ZS.html) and one involving intellectual properties http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZO.html.

    Each court brief should be approximately 500 words.
    Title each of the sections with the:
    Minority Rationale(s)

    Follow-Up Questions
    Why is the title to real property permanent whereas some intellectual property is limited in the time that it is protected?
    ? Owning real property does not mean that all rights are protected. Provide two examples where rights are limited in the ownership of land or personal property.
    ? What are some similarities and differences between the legal protections available for real and intellectual properties?
    ? What is the difference between copyrights, trademarks, and patents?
    ? How do servitudes and easements get put into place?
    ? How can servitudes and easements be protected?
    ? Why are servitudes and easements important?

    In addition please include a response to the follow-up to the questions.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 9, 2019, 10:42 pm ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    Title each of the sections with the: LINCOLN PROPERTY CO. et al. v. ROCHE et ux. No. 04-712. Argued October 11, 2005-Decided November 29, 2005
    Juanita Roche and Christopher Roche had leased an apartment in the State of Virginia that was managed by Lincoln Property. Then Roche sued Lincoln that there was toxic mould in their apartment and they had suffered several problems because of the toxic mould. In the suit Roche had identified Lincoln as a Texas company but Roche sued them in the state court. Lincoln Properties alleged that there was a diversity of citizenship and so moved the suit to a federal district court. Roche maintained that, the court be shifted back to the state court because one of the subsidiaries of Lincoln had a partner residing in Virginia. This contention of Roche was refused by the District court and the suit went to appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
    Should the defendants be allowed to move the litigation to a federal district court, on the basis of diversity of citizenship, when opposing parties are from different states and the none of the defendants was from the forum state?
    It was held that defendants should be allowed to move the litigation to a federal district court if there was complete diversity, that is all the plaintiffs that were named and all defendants that were named were of different states and no defendant was a citizen of the forum state.
    However, in this case of Lincoln it was not able to show complete diversity of citizenship because it had an entity in Virginia and one of the partners resided in Virginia.
    What matters according to the Supreme Court is the named party. In this case the defendant. There is no need according to the Supreme Court to join an entity not named in the petition to be deemed to be the real party, whose interest will destroy diversity jurisdiction. According the justices, as Lincoln accepted that it had managed the said properties, it was fully responsible for any claims made by Roche. Since, all the parties named by Roche in their petition were from outside Virginia, there was diversity of citizenship and the defendants have the right to remove the action from state court to a federal court.
    Minority Rationale(s)
    There was a unanimous decision.
    If a person wants to sue another it should select a forum that applies to the suit. If the named party also is a citizen of the state then the suit should be ...

    Solution Summary

    This explanation provides you a comprehensive argument relating to Intellectual Property Law