Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Again Addresses Patent-Eligibility Of Internet-Centric Claims
On Dec. 5, 2014, a divided Federal Circuit panel held that claims directed to systems and methods of generating a composite Web page combining certain visual elements of a “host” website with content of a third-party merchant were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” and, therefore, were patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. '101. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., Docket No. 13-1505. However, the court cautioned that not all claims addressing Internet-centric challenges are patent-eligible. Further, Judge Mayer, dissenting, argued that the claims “simply describe an abstract concept ' that an online merchant's sales can be increased if two web pages have the same 'look and feel' ' and apply that concept using a generic computer.” Accordingly, the patent-eligibility of Internet-centric claims remains unsettled.
Technology At Issue
Prior art systems allow third-party merchants to “lure the [host website's] visitor traffic away” from the host website because visitors would be taken to the third-party website when they clicked on an advertisement on the host site. The patents-in-suit provided the following solution: On activating a hyperlink on a host website ' e.g. , an advertisement for a third-party merchant ' instead of taking the visitor to the merchant's website, the system generates and directs the visitor to a composite Web page displaying product information from the merchant, but retaining the host website's “look and feel.” This allows the host website to display a third-party's products, but retains its visitor traffic by displaying this product information from within a generated Web page that “gives the viewer of the page the impression that she is viewing pages served by the host” website.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?
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.