Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Unreasonable Delay Results in Holding that Lemelson Patents are Unenforceable
In Symbol Techs, Inc. v. Lemelson Med. Educ., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1499 (D. Nev. 2004), the district court held that Lemelson's patents were unenforceable due to prosecution laches, where a patentee's right to claims can be forfeited if issued after an unreasonable delay in prosecution. The forfeit is possible even if a patentee complies with all of the statutes and rules. Patents invented by the late Jerome Lemelson are notorious for their length of prosecution time. In fact, Lemelson holds the top 13 positions for the longest patent prosecution time. The Lemelson patents at issue in the Symbol case were based on two applications filed in 1954 and 1956. Through continuation applications, filing delays and other prosecution delays, ranging in some cases from 18 to 39 years, the specification in the original application was modified to encompass practices used by the public. As a result, when the patents finally issued, Lemelson claimed that most of the practices in the bar code industry that previously had been freely practiced, infringed his patents. The court held that the delays in the prosecution were prejudicial to those in the industry, unexplained and unreasonable, and held that even though no laws were broken, the patents were unenforceable.
FTC Dismisses Rambus Antitrust Suit
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?