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 Narrows Grounds for Rebutting Presumption of Prosecution History Estoppel
In Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2006-1602 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2008), the Federal Circuit held that Honeywell did not rebut the presumption of prosecution history estoppel arising from its rewriting of dependent claims into independent form coupled with the cancellation of the original independent claims during prosecution.
The asserted claims related to a system (and method for utilizing the same) for controlling unwanted airflow surges through aircraft gas turbine engines. Prior art systems provided wide safety margins by drawing more air than required into the engine's compressor, but were inefficient. Honeywell's patent relates to the use of inlet guide valves ('IGVs'), which operate like Venetian blinds to regulate the air drawn into the compressor. The invention compares actual airflow to a 'set point,' which represents the desired flow conditions and makes adjustments accordingly. The set point in Honeywell's invention is a function of the position of the IGVs. During prosecution, Honeywell cancelled three independent claims in response to an obviousness rejection and rewrote claims depending from the same into independent form. The rewritten dependent claims each contained additional limitations related to IGVs and their position that were not present in the original cancelled independent claims.
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?