Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<i>Cuozzo</i> Upholds PTAB Authority
In June, in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446 (June 20, 2016), the Supreme Court upheld the prior Federal Circuit decision that a patent owner cannot, in most circumstances, appeal the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review (IPR). The Supreme Court further found that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reasonably exercised its rulemaking authority in applying a “broadest reasonable construction” (BRC) standard to IPR claim constructions. Federal courts apply a narrower standard set forth in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005), construing claims to have the ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Background of Cuozzo
Cuozzo Speed Technologies (Cuozzo) sued several automakers and GPS device companies for infringement of its patent covering a speedometer that can display the local speed limit. Defendant Garmin, a GPS producer, filed an IPR petition asserting that claim 17 of the patent was invalid as obvious over prior art cited in the petition. The PTAB instituted review not only as to claim 17, but also as to claims 10 and 14. The PTAB evaluated the broadest reasonable construction of the claim term “integrally attached” in claim 10, and upon which claims 14 and 17 depended, and found all three claims obvious over the cited prior art.
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.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?