Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In AlexSam, Inc. v. MasterCard International Incorporated, No. 2021-1785, 2022 WL 621374, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court for the Eastern District of New York's finding that AlexSam, Inc. took an inconsistent position in litigation. The appellate court held that the district court abused its discretion by invoking judicial estoppel based on an erroneous fact unsupported by the record.
Background
In this case, AlexSam, Inc. (AlexSam) owned U.S. Patent Nos. 6,000,608 and 6,189,787 (collectively, the Licensed Patents), which covers pre-paid cards "that can be used with point-of sale devices." AlexSam later sued MasterCard International Incorporated (MasterCard) for breach of contract seeking unpaid royalties under a non-exclusive license agreement permitting MasterCard to process transactions using the Licensed Patents. MasterCard filed counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that the Licensed Patents were invalid, and alternatively argued that MasterCard did not infringe the Licensed Patents. In response, AlexSam moved to dismiss MasterCard's declaratory judgment counterclaims arguing that a covenant not to sue in the license agreement "stripped MasterCard of standing to sue for declaratory relief." The district court denied AlexSam's motion due to a question of fact of whether declaratory relief claims fell under the covenant not to sue in the license agreement. A few years later, MasterCard petitioned for a covered business method (CBM) review of the Licensed Patents, and AlexSam responded by arguing MasterCard did not meet the "sued for infringement" requirement under 37 C.F.R. §42.302(a). Specifically, AlexSam argued that AlexSam did not sue MasterCard for patent infringement or charged MasterCard with patent infringement, because the license agreement contained the covenant not to sue, which prevented AlexSam from doing so. Thus, AlexSam only sued MasterCard for breach of contract to seek unpaid royalties under the license agreement. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) agreed that AlexSam only sued under a breach of contract claim and held that the "sued for infringement" requirement did not encompass a breach of contract claim for unpaid royalties.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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?
The copyright for the original versions of Winnie the Pooh and Mickey Mouse have expired. Now, members of the public can create — and are busy creating — their own works based on these beloved characters. Suppose, though, we want to tell stories using Batman for which the copyright does not expire until 2035. We'll review five hypothetical works inspired by the original Batman comic and analyze them under fair use.