Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
PTAB Did Not Deny Procedural Due Process By Adopting a Claim Construction not Offered by the Parties During IPR
On May 8, 2017, Federal Circuit Judges Reyna, Wallach, and Chen issued a unanimous decision, authored by Judge Reyna, in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Ericsson Inc., Case Nos. 2016-1739, 2016-1740, and 2016-1741. The panel affirmed a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) invalidating Intellectual Ventures II LLC's (IV) patents in Nos. IPR2014-00915, IPR2014-00919, and IPR2014-01031.
In 2014, the Board granted two IPR petitions by Ericsson Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson and one IPR petition by Google, Inc. The petitions challenged claims which disclosed a method for efficiently synchronizing cellphone base stations on a selected frequency. IV argued before the Board that the term “an indication of an operating bandwidth” referred to a particular operating bandwidth. Ericsson argued that IV's construction was unduly narrow, and Google argued that the plain and ordinary meaning should control. The Board adopted a claim construction that no party had argued for, which required “that the first signal portion contains sufficient information” such that “the receiver is able to configure itself to receive the data portion of the signal” at “approximately the same frequency range or bandwidth at which it will be transmitted by the transmitter.”
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.