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 Clarifies Pleading Requirements for Patent Cases and Affirms Grant of Summary Judgment of Invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §101
On July 13, 2021, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Linn, and O'Malley issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge O'Malley, in Bot M8 LLC v. Sony Corp. of America, Case No. 2020-2218. The panel reversed the Northern District of California's finding that Bot M8's infringement allegations were insufficient with respect to two of the patents-in-suit, affirmed the district court's dismissal of Bot M8's claims as to two other patents-in-suit for failure to state a plausible claim of infringement, affirmed the district court's judgment of invalidity of one of the patents under 35 U.S.C. §101, and remanded for further proceedings. Slip Op. at 3-4.
Bot M8 LLC (Bot M8) sued Sony Corporation of America, et al. (Sony) for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,078,540 (the '540 patent); 8,095,990 (the '990 patent); 7,664,988 (the '988 patent); 8,112,670 (the '670 patent); and 7,338,363 (the '363 patent) (collectively, the asserted patents). Id. at 2. The asserted patents are directed generally to casino, arcade, and video games. Id. at 4. Bot M8 accused Sony's PlayStation 4 (PS4) video game consoles of infringing the '540, '990, '988, and '670 patents. Id. at 5. Bot M8 also accused certain PS4 videogames of infringing the '363 patent. Id.
Bot M8 filed a first amended complaint and Sony moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Id. at. 2-3. The district court granted dismissal as to the '540, '990, '988, and '670 patents. Id. The district court subsequently denied Bot M8's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and a motion for reconsideration of the same. Id. Sony also moved for summary judgment as to the '363 patent, arguing that claim 1 is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §101, which the district court granted. 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.