Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NTP v. RIM: Developments in Infringement Liability Where a Significant Component Is Located Outside the U.S.
Companies involved with technologies that use components located both within and outside the United States will be interested in a recent decision in the patent infringement action brought by NTP, Inc. (“NTP”) against Research In Motion, Ltd. (“RIM”). In August 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit distinguished between infringement of “system” and “method” patent claims in “out of country” situations. The Federal Circuit held that if a component is located outside the United States, a system claim would be infringed if there is beneficial use of the patented system in the United States, while a method claim would not be infringed.
The hotly contested litigation between NTP and RIM has been closely watched by those interested in patents relating to the now ubiquitous wireless e-mail technology. The dispute has been the subject of numerous articles, many focusing on the impact of the litigation on the high-profile Blackberry' handheld device manufactured by RIM.
NTP is a Virginia-based patent holding company that sued RIM for infringement of five patents related to integrating existing e-mail systems with wireless communications systems. Each of NTP's patents-in-suit originated from a single “parent” patent application and together include more than 1900 patent claims directed to systems and methods for wireless e-mail technology. Such claims include those that recite systems for transmitting information between electronic mail systems over a wireless network using an interface switch and methods for transmitting information between electronic mail systems over a wireless network via an interface.
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?