Re: Daisy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Destruction
Roseline Dyba
Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) is usually diagnosed when >80% of the pancreatic beta-cells are destroyed by the immune system. The autoimmune destruction of these cells is slow, providing a potentially long lag of time to identify individuals at risk, and maybe prevent T1D development. We can predict T1D development through the determination of some islet autoantibodies. However, these antibodies appear fairly late in the course of T1D, not being ideal biomarkers of the initial destruction of beta-cells. Therefore, new biomarkers are needed to improve the identification of at risk-individuals. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are a class of small noncoding RNA molecules that negatively regulate gene expression by inducing target mRNA cleavage or by inhibiting protein translation. Changes in their expression were described in several pathological conditions, including autoimmune diseases. Circulating miRNAs are attractive biomarker candidates as they can be easily collected, are stable under different storage conditions and can be measured using specific assays.
Plaintiffs move under Rule 56, Fed.R. Civ.P., for summary judgment permanently enjoining defendant from further infringing their copyright, ordering the destruction of the accused fabric and awarding damages to be determined by a Special Master under Rule 53, Fed.R. Civ.P. Defendant cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs' copyright is invalid.
Daisy\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s Destruction
Download Zip https://urlgoal.com/2yVxj3
Defendant next contends that the copyright is invalid for lack of originality. It points to its expert's affidavit that plaintiff's design is similar to floral patterns used at the turn of the century. The similarities described, however, are limited solely to the daisylike features of plaintiffs' design and the designs used at the turn of the century.
Plaintiffs do not argue that a daisy or any reproduction of it or its features is original. Their argument is that "the juxtaposition of these flowers and their arrangement on the plain background * * * and the layout and combination of the separate features are completely original." The argument is supported by the affidavit of plaintiffs' designer. Plaintiffs' assertion of originality is not called into question by defendant's affidavit which is directed to an entirely different and irrelevant question. Moreover, the ordinary observer would easily discern that plaintiffs' design is completely different from the turn of the century patterns.
Defendant asserts that even if plaintiffs' copyright is valid, there is a question of fact concerning the similarity of defendant's design to plaintiffs' design. Defendant's daisy petals, for example, are said by its expert to be heart-shaped and uniform in dimension, whereas plaintiffs' petals are rounded and uniform in dimension. Again, defendant's emphasis on the flower portion of the design is misplaced because it is the *1369 juxtaposition and arrangement of the flowers which are critical.
Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment permanently enjoining defendant from further infringement of plaintiffs' copyright, ordering destruction of the infringing fabric still in defendant's possession, and appointing a Special Master for the determination of damages, including attorney's fees, pursuant to Rule 53, Fed.R.Civ.P., is granted.