Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit Affirms Anticipation of Claims
On Oct. 19, 2015, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Newman, and Judge O'Malley issued a majority opinion, authored by Chief Judge Prost, in In re Steve Morsa, Case No. 2015-1107. The majority held that certain claims of the Morsa patent application were anticipated by a prior art reference, Peter Martin Associates Press Release (PMA reference), and affirmed the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) decision invalidating the claims at issue. Judge Newman wrote a separate opinion, dissenting.
A prior Federal Circuit panel decision (Morsa I) had affirmed the PTAB's rejection of certain claims of the Morsa patent application, but had vacated and remanded the decision to invalidate other claims as anticipated under “an incorrect enablement analysis.” Slip op. at 3. On remand the PTAB again found the claims anticipated by the PMA reference.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?