Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Jury Rules Against Microsoft in Patent Infringement Case
On August 11, 2003 a jury in the Northern District of Illinois awarded Eolas Technologies, Inc. $521 million in damages for patent infringement against Microsoft Corporation. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent 5,838,906, claims a method of sending interactive software applications over the Internet that makes “plug-ins” and “applets” possible. The suit, 99-CV-626, was filed in 1999 by Eolas, the exclusive licensee of the patent owned by the University of California. While at the University of California, Michael Doyle, founder of Eolas, helped develop the technology as a way of assisting medical students and practitioners to access inexpensive, high-resolution medical-image data over the Internet. The suit alleged that Microsoft began using the technology in its Web browser soon after the patent was filed and continued to use it after the patent issued in 1998. Eolas stated that a license had been offered to Microsoft, but the offer was declined.
Microsoft refuted the infringement claims and challenged the validity of Eolas' patent by claiming another had invented the technology earlier and that the patent described features the technology was not capable of performing. Eolas had initially requested $1.2 billion in damages, but the jury's special verdict awarded Eolas $521 million based on a reasonable royalty of $1.47 per unit of the more than 354 million copies of Microsoft's Windows Web-enabled operating system sold. Eolas has not yet sought an injunction against the sale of Windows, but is seeking to have the award increased. Microsoft has vowed to appeal the verdict. A decision from an inequitable conduct bench trial has yet to be rendered. Microsoft faces more than 30 other patent infringement suits.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?