Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Muniauction v. Thomson
In Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2008), Muniauction asserted a patent covering a method for conducting electronic auctions of financial instruments, such as municipal bonds. A jury found the claims were not obvious, that Thomson had willfully infringed, and that Muniauction was entitled to lost profits damages, which the court set at $77 million. Thomson moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The district court denied the motion, finding substantial evidence in favor of the jury's verdict upholding the validity of the claims.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, finding certain of the claims obvious and the remainder not infringed. The opinion illustrates the Federal Circuit's application of the Supreme Court's decision on obviousness in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) and confirms the Federal Circuit's own decision on “joint or divided” infringement in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The KSR ruling makes it easier to establish obviousness invalidity when the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the application of the test from BMC Resources, holding that a party which did not itself perform all of the steps of the claimed method could be a direct infringer, liable not only for its own acts but for those who performed the balance of the steps, only if it directed or controlled the other actors.
This premium content is locked for LJN Newsletters 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
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Compliance Officers: Recent Regulatory Guidance and Enforcement Actions and Mitigating the Risk of Personal Liability
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.