Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
On Feb. 26, 2016, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost and Circuit Judges Dyk and Reyna issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Dyk, in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case Nos. 2015-1171, 2015-1195, and 2015-1994. This is the third appeal of the case heard by the Federal Circuit. In this appeal, the Federal Circuit confronts the core infringement and invalidity issues. The panel reversed the district court's denial of JMOL of non-infringement of Apple's '647 patent, reversed the district court's denial of JMOL of invalidity of Apple's '721 and '172 patents, affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement of Apple's '959 and '414 patents, affirmed the district court's judgment of infringement of Samsung's '449 patent, and affirmed the district court's judgment of non-infringement of Samsung's '239 patent.
The Apple '647 Patent
Apple asserted claim 9 of the '647 patent, and the jury found that Samsung infringed, awarding Apple $98,690,625. Samsung moved for JMOL of non-infringement, which was denied. Claim 9 of the Apple '647 patent depends on claim 1, which “discloses a system for recognizing certain structures (such as a telephone number) on a touchscreen and then linking certain actions (such as calling the telephone number) to the structure.” Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Motorola).
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.