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: ITC Did Not Err In Finding Violation of Section 337
On Jan. 19, 2024, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Hughes, and Stoll found in an opinion authored by Judge Hughes that the International Trade Commission did not err in affirming the administrative law judge's finding that Roku, Inc. violated 19 U.S.C. §1337 (Section 337). Roku, Inc., v. ITC, Case No. 22-1386. The case was initiated when Universal Electronics Inc. filed a complaint with the ITC alleging that Roku imported TV products that infringed Universal's U.S. Patent No. 10,593,196 (the '196 patent). The Commission upheld the administrative law judge's finding that Roku violated Section 337 by importing infringing TV products, specifically finding that: 1) Universal had ownership rights over the '196 patent; 2) Universal satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337; and 3) Roku failed to show that the '196 was obvious. Slip Op. at 1. The Federal Circuit reviewed these three findings.
First, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Commission's finding that an agreement made in 2012 conveyed rights to the '196 patent to Universal. Id. at 10. This finding was not challenged by Roku. Id.
Second, the Federal Circuit affirmed that Universal met the domestic industry requirement of Section 337. In order to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement of Section 337, a complainant must show they have an economic domestic industry under one of 19 U.S.C. §1337(a)(3)(A)–(C). Universal asserted economic domestic industry under paragraph (C), which states there is an industry in the United States if there is substantial investment in the intellectual property at issue. Universal asserted that it satisfied this requirement through research and development of its technology "Quickset," which they alleged practiced the '196 patent. Id.at 5. The '196 patent claims a device that connects different types of media devices, such as a DVD player and a television. The Commission affirmed the administrative judge's finding that because QuickSet involves software that results in practicing '196 patent and because Universal's R&D in QuickSet was directed to enabling it to practice the '196 patent, Universal satisfied the domestic industry requirement. Id. at 11. The Federal Circuit affirmed this finding. 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
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.
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.
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?