Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent Cross-Licenses: A Financial Asset Hedge
In today's age of strong patent rights, enhanced visibility and budgetary clout are the norm for intellectual property professionals ' and are generally regarded as good things. With the creation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) in 1982, we have seen a number of distinct pro-patent trends. These have included a robust presumption of patent validity, higher damage awards for acts of infringement, more flexible approval standards introduced by the PTO, and an increasingly granted right on the part of patent holders to seek injunctive relief to stop the production of infringing products. Prior to the creation of the unitary CAFC, patent rights were less certain to be enforced through either the award of high monetary damages or sweeping injunctive relief.
“Strong patent rights” as a phrase has a vigorous, unequivocally healthy sound to it. Weak patent rights would not be desirable. A potentially less loaded and more descriptive phrase may be: “patent value inflation.” To say that we live in an era of inflating patent values suggests something of the planning challenges that inflation of any core asset or commodity invariably delivers.
It is not surprising that economists have found a more elegant label for this problem. A classic 1968 article by Hardin in Science diagnosed the “tragedy of the commons” in which the phenomenon of too many owners of a common resource, with attendant rights of use, can lead to overuse (and depletion) of the resource. More recently, patent value inflation has been identified as fueling the tragedy of the “anti-commons” in which too many owners with the right to exclude others from a resource ultimately leads to under-use of the resource. Economists have, of late, devoted a very considerable amount of effort to examining this dilemma. Some have even argued that the pooling or cross-licensing of complementary patents should be distinguished from the pooling or cross-licensing of substitutes as a pro-competitive pathway out of the “patent thicket.”
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.