Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit: Even If Experts on Both Sides Agreed on an Altered Claim Construction During Trial, Relying on That More Detailed Claim Interpretation During JMOL Is an Impermissible Reconstruction
On Jan. 8, 2016, a Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Reyna, Wallach, and Hughes issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Reyna, in Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 2014-1437, -1485. The panel affirmed the district court's denial of JMOL of non-infringement, but reversed the district court's grant of JMOL of no invalidity.
Wi-LAN first sued Apple in district court, along with a handful of other technology companies, asserting that its patent was embodied in several wireless communication standards, which Apple's products complied with. The district court held a Markman hearing and construed “first computing means” as “element 12 of Figures 1 and 4, columns 2:6'10, 2:36'40, 2:58'62, 4:2'12, and 4:35'44, and equivalents thereof.” Slip Op. at 6. The parties agreed on this construction, which was the same construction used in a related previous litigation. During claim construction in the previous litigation, Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., No. 2:07-CV-473-TJW, Dkt. No. 469 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2010), the court had refused to include the “complex randomizer” as part of the “first computing means” structure, and Wi-LAN did not argue for the inclusion of a complex randomizer in this case. Id.
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?