Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Limited Applicability of the 'Tangential Relation' Exception
In Cross Medical Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., No. 05-1415, the alleged infringer appealed a district court ruling that it infringed claim 5 of U.S. Patent 5,474,555 ('the '555 patent') under the doctrine of equivalents even though the patentee narrowed the claim during prosecution.
In 2003, Cross Medical sued Medtronic for infringement of the '555 patent, which is directed to polyaxial screws for the internal fixation of the spine. Following the district court's grant of Cross Medical's motions for partial summary judgment on validity and infringement of claim 5, Medtronic immediately appealed, despite ongoing proceedings at the district court. While the first appeal was pending, Medtronic redesigned its polyaxial screws in an attempt to avoid infringement. Specifically, Medtronic relied on a narrowing amendment made during prosecution.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?