Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
District Court's Decision Retroactively Excusing Failure to Mark Patented Products Vacated By Federal Circuit
On April 19, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judge Taranto, Judge Chen and Judge Stoll issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Stoll, Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 2016-1729. Samsung appealed from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The panel affirmed the district court's claim construction and denial of Samsung's motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on obviousness and damages, but vacated and remanded the district court's denial of Samsung's motion to limit damages.
Rembrandt Wireless sued Samsung for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,023,580 (the '580 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 8,457,228, which include claims directed to “a system and method of communication in which multiple modulation methods are used to facilitate communication among a plurality of modems in a network.” Slip Op. at 3 (quoting the '580 patent). The jury found in favor of Rembrandt on infringement and validity. Samsung filed post-trial JMOLs on obviousness and damages, which were denied, as was Samsung's pre-trial motion to limit damages. Samsung appealed the district court's: 1) claim construction; 2) denial of Samsung's JMOL on obviousness; 3) denial of Samsung's JMOL on damages; and 4) denial of Samsung's motion to limit damages.
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.