From our private database of 37,200+ case briefs...
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. v. Carabio
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
203 U.S.P.Q. 124 (1979)
Facts
Kepner-Tregoe, Inc. (K-T) (plaintiff) was a company that provided problem-solving training programs based on original materials created by K-T. Michael J. Carabio and Lawrence E. Padlo (defendants) were former employees of K-T who became familiar with K-T’s materials while employed. After Padlo left K-T, he formed Businesses Processes, Inc. (BPI) (defendant), a company that also provided problem-solving training programs using materials very similar to those of K-T, which Padlo compiled based partly on his personal notes related to K-T’s materials and his knowledge of K-T’s materials. A couple of the case studies in BPI’s materials were virtually identical to those used by K-T. Carabio subsequently joined BPI following his resignation from K-T. Due to the similarity of BPI’s materials to K-T’s materials, K-T sued BPI, Padlo, and Carabio for copyright infringement. K-T argued that BPI had directly copied a substantial amount of K-T’s materials based on the many similarities. BPI acknowledged that there were indeed many similarities between the companies’ materials but alleged that the similarities were due to the fact that the ideas taught by K-T could only be expressed in a limited number of ways, as evidenced by the similarities between K-T’s materials and those of other competitors. BPI alleged that K-T’s materials were therefore not copyrightable.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning
What to do next…
Here's why 630,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,200 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.