Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Re-examination: The Tail that Wags the Dog
IP litigators appear to have blinders on when it comes to patent re-examination. All eyes are focused on winning the big event, the courtroom victory. To have the verdict upheld on appeal garners the ultimate win. While chasing the big dog of litigation, parties may be overlooking the power that can be wielded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in a re-examination proceeding.
The $500 million verdict in the Eolas v. Microsoft case is threatened by a USPTO re-examination of the patent-in-suit. A similar cloud hangs over the $55 million verdict in the NTP v. Research in Motion case involving the Blackberry handheld device. When it comes to patent litigation, the USPTO should not be overlooked. This is not new. On Nov. 6, 1989, Gencor Industries, Inc. appealed a jury's award of $6 million for patent infringement damages. At the time of the appeal, the patent-in-suit was the subject of a re-examination proceeding in the USPTO. By May of 1991, the Board of Patent Appeals upheld a rejection of the claims. The Federal Circuit offered to consider staying the litigation in view of the re-examination. Both parties declined the invitation.
On Dec. 31, 1991, the Federal Circuit affirmed the verdict of infringement and validity on behalf of patent owner Standard Havens Products, Inc., but remanded the damages award. Gencor, having failed to eliminate the patent infringement claim in the appeal, then moved to stay the permanent injunction and the damages proceeding in view of the re-examination then pending on appeal. The district court denied the stay. However, the Federal Circuit reversed, stating that “contrary to the assumption of the trial court, the re-examination proceeding “would control” the infringement suit.” Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc., 996 F. 2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (unpublished). If claims are cancelled in re-examination, a court cannot enforce those claims.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.