Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Affirms District Court in Lemelson Case
In Symbol Techs., Inc., v. Lemelson Med., Educ. & Research Found., LP, No. 04-1451, 2005 WL 2173572 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 9, 2005), the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that the patents-in-suit are unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches. The district court had found that Lemelson Foundation's asserted patent claims were invalid for lack of enablement, unenforceable under the doctrine of prosecution laches, and not infringed by Symbol's products.
The late Jerome H. Lemelson filed a patent application in 1954 that disclosed methods and an apparatus for performing the inspection and measurement of objects. In 1956, Lemelson filed a second application, which issued as U.S. Patent 3,081,379 (the '379 patent). Also in 1963, but before the '379 patent issued, Lemelson filed a continuation-in-part application from the 1954 and 1956 applications, adding drawings and text. In 1972, he filed another continuation-in-part that eventually became the basis for 16 additional patent applications filed between 1977 and 1993. Defendant Lemelson Medical, Education & Research Foundation, LP (“Lemelson Foundation”) is the assignee of approximately 185 unexpired patents and patent applications of Lemelson. This patent portfolio has generated license agreements from more than 1000 companies for royalties upwards of $1.5 billion.
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?