Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Rejects Theory of Infringement Based on Oversimplified Claim Interpretation and Finds That the ITC Correctly Required Proof of Substantial Non-infringing Use Based on Real-World Evidence
On May 28, 2021, a Federal Circuit panel consisting of Judges Newman, Lourie and Dyk issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge Lourie, in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. ITC, Case Nos. 2020-1475 and 2020-1605. Bio-Rad appealed from a United States International Trade Commission's (ITC) determination of non-infringement with respect to certain devices imported by 10X Genomics (10X). 10X appealed from the ITC's determination of infringement with respect to certain other devices. Because the ITC's opinion is free from alleged legal errors and its underlying factual findings are supported by substantial evidence, the panel affirmed. Slip Op. at 29.
Bio-Rad's ITC complaint alleged infringement of several patents by the 10X's importation of certain microfluidic chip products. Id. at 10. In an initial determination, the ITC's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that: 1) 10X's GEM Chips and their use directly infringe certain claims of several patents; 2) 10X induces and contributes to its customers' direct infringement of certain patents while using GEM Chips, and 3) 10X's Chip GB does not infringe certain claims of a patent. Id. at 11. The ITC adopted the ALJ's initial determination in all respects that are relevant to the consolidated appeal. Id.
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.