Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Refuses to Review the PTAB's Decision to Institute IPR
In its first-ever ruling in an appeal from a final decision in an inter partes review (IPR) under the America Invents Act (AIA), the Federal Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) rulemaking for conducting IPR proceedings. In re Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC, Appeal No. 2014-1301 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2015). The court held: 1) that it lacked jurisdiction to review PTAB decisions instituting IPR; and 2) that the PTAB was correct to apply the broadest reasonable interpretation standard in claim construction rather than the narrower standard used in district court litigation involving validity challenges. The Federal Circuit's decision leaves in place IPR rules that increase the likelihood of invalidating patents and solidifies IPR as an attractive alternative to district court litigation. Circuit Judge Dyk delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Senior Circuit Judge Clevenger. Circuit Judge Newman dissented.
Cuozzo Speed Technologies (Cuozzo) is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,778,074 (the '074 patent), which discloses an interface that displays a vehicle's current speed as well as the speed limit. In one embodiment, a red filter is superimposed on a speedometer when the vehicle, as tracked by GPS, is travelling faster than the speed limit at the vehicle's location. The patent also teaches that the display may be a color liquid crystal display. (slip op. at 2.) Claim 10 of the '074 patent, at issue on appeal, recites:
10. A speed limit indicator comprising:
a global positioning system receiver;
a display controller connected to said global positioning system receiver, wherein said display controller adjusts a colored display in response to signals from said global positioning system receiver to continuously update the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a vehicle's present location; and
a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.
(Emphasis added). Dependent claim 14 further limits the “colored display” of claim 10 to a “colored filter.” Claim 17 of the '074 patent depends on claim 14 and includes the additional limitation “wherein said display controller rotates said colored filter independently of said speedometer to continuously update the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a vehicle's present location.” Id. at 3.
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.
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?