Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Weighs in on a Lower Standard For Attorney Fee Awards
The Federal Circuit recently clarified the standard for an award of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. '285 in Oplus Technologies, Ltd. v. Vizio, Inc. , Case No. 2014-1297 (Fed. Cir. April 10, 2015), holding that the record in the district court did not support a denial of attorney fees. The attorney fee inquiry under '285 requires: 1) a finding of litigation misconduct or that the case was objectively baseless; and 2) a determination as to whether an award of fees is appropriate and, if so, the amount of any award. Appellee Oplus did not challenge the district court's finding of litigation misconduct, leaving the determination of appropriateness as the sole issue on appeal.
Background
Plaintiff Oplus, represented by Niro, Haller & Niro (Niro), filed a patent infringement suit against defendant Vizio in the Northern District of Illinois. Oplus alleged that Vizio distributed, and co-defendant Sears Holding Co. sold, televisions with video processing chips using the claimed methods of video signal processing. The court granted Vizio's motion to transfer the action to the Central District of California. The court then stayed the pending case against Sears, a retailer of Vizio televisions, until the completion of the case against Vizio. Following transfer, Oplus petitioned the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to send the case back to the Northern District of Illinois. The JPML denied plaintiff's petition.
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?