Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
High Reversal Rate of Markman Decisions Weakens their Intended Value
In Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), the Supreme Court held that patent claim construction is an issue of law to be decided exclusively by the court rather than the jury. As a result, district court judges now routinely conduct what is referred to as pretrial Markman hearings in order to resolve disputes about the meaning of words or phrases in patent claims. Prior to Markman, claim construction took place at trial and was decided by the judge or the jury with appropriate instructions from the court.
In theory, placing claim construction solely in the province of the court was intended to simplify the trial and provide uniformity, predictability and reliability. In practice, Markman has provided a vehicle for the district court to avoid a lengthy trial by facilitating the grant of summary judgment of invalidity, noninfringement or infringement following a relatively short pretrial claim construction hearing. However, the practice frequently backfires because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reverses and remands a high percentage of these cases because of erroneous claim constructions. Thus, instead of cutting back on the amount of time and money expended on patent litigation, the Markman decision often has the opposite effect.
Has the Markman decision provided an all-too-easy escape route for district court judges who do not wish to endure lengthy and complex patent infringement trials? This article summarizes several recent cases in which the Federal Circuit reversed and remanded summary judgment decisions because of an erroneous claim construction at the district court level. Possible alternatives to this often inefficient procedure are suggested.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?