Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>En Banc</i> Federal Circuit Revives Section 337 Induced Infringement
The Federal Circuit, in Suprema, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, No. 2012-1170, 2015 WL 4716604 (Aug. 10, 2015), overturned a 2013 divided panel decision and held that a Section 337 violation based on induced infringement is viable where the underlying direct infringement occurs after importation. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, performed a Chevron analysis and held that it was reasonable for the International Trade Commission (ITC) to interpret the phrase “articles that ' infringe” within 19 U.S.C. '1337(a)(1)(B)(i) to include goods that, after importation, were used to directly infringe by an importer at the inducement of a seller.
Background
Complainant Cross Match Technologies, Inc. is a domestic company that manufactures fingerprint scanners that it supplies to both the U.S. government and private industry, and is the assignee of several patents related to fingerprint imaging systems. In 2010, Cross Match filed a complaint against Suprema, Inc. and Mentalix, Inc. in the ITC, alleging violations of Section 337 based on the importation of goods that infringe its patents. Suprema is a Korean company that makes and imports fingerprint scanners and software development kits that allow its customers to create custom software to operate the scanners. Suprema also sells scanners to Mentalix, which imports Suprema's scanners into the U.S., integrates custom software that utilizes Suprema's software development kit, and sells the scanners along with the software.
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.