Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
You've Made Your Bed, Now Lie In It – Binding Settlement Agreement Defeats A Post-Settlement Judgment
Holding that the parties' executed agreement mooted the issues in the case, the Federal Circuit recently reversed a district court's decision to grant summary judgment of non-infringement despite the parties' agreement. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., 950 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The decision builds upon prior Federal Circuit case law giving effect to settlement agreements. It also highlights strategic issues to consider when engaging in settlement negotiations while dispositive motions are pending.
Background
Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and Dreamwell, Ltd. (together Serta Simmons) sued Casper Sleep Inc. (Casper) in September 2017 in the Southern District of New York. Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC v. Casper Sleep Inc., Case No. 1-17-cv-07468 (S.D.N.Y.). Serta Simmons alleged infringement of three patents directed to mattresses that include a channel, and methods for creating those channels. The channels allow insertion of various types of reinforcement, allowing the mattresses to have varying areas of firmness.
On May 18, 2018, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. Casper filed three motions for summary judgment of non-infringement based on the court's revised claim construction. On June 18, after opposition briefs were filed (but before reply briefs were due), the parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion to stay the litigation.
The settlement agreement required that Casper pay Serta Simmons $300,000 by June 28. The agreement further specified that, within five days of that payment, the parties would file appropriate dismissal papers. Other terms required that Casper cease manufacturing the accused products by July 15, substantially discontinue marketing and advertising the accused products by August 15, and cease selling inventory by other specified dates.
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?