copyright validity created by the certificate. See Serv. & Training, Inc. v. Data Gen. Corp., 963 F.2d 680, 688 (4th Cir.1992) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 410(c); M. Kramer Mfg. Co. v. Andrews, 783 F.2d 421, 434 (4th Cir.1986)). Defendant’s only apparent argument in this regard is that “a large part of the alleged infringement relates to the copying of references to ‘useful articles,’ ... the generic purpose of the splints, ... and/or the medical conditions that are treated by such products, ... which cannot be copyrighted.” (Def.’s Resp. 10.) That useful articles and medical conditions cannot themselves be copyrighted, however, does not mean that original expression referring to such things is likewise uncopyrightable. See, e.g., Bouchat v. Balt. Ravens, Inc., 241 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). If Defendant’s argument were accepted, the
holding that where some radio scripts from aradio show had entered the public domain and others were protected by copyright plaintiff was entitled to use the public domain material without a license holding that a drawing containing several uncopyrightable public domain elements was entitled to copyright protection because the elements were selected coordinated and arranged in such a way as to render the work original recognizing that patent protection extends to elements not protected adequately by copyright holding prior publication must not only disclose all elements of the claim within the four corners of the document but must also disclose those elements arranged as in the claim internal citations omitted holding that the two elements of a copyright infringement claim are 1 the plaintiff owns a valid copyright right and 2 the defendants copied constituent elements of the work that are original