Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
CSIRO v. Buffalo Tech. : A Permanent Injunction Trump Card for Patent Trolls?
The recent CSIRO v. Buffalo Technology, Inc. case just might have been the trump card for which a traditional patent troll was waiting so that it could finally visit the promised land of a permanent injunction. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43832 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 15, 2007). Unfortunately for the trolls, however, the impact of this opinion will not be as far reaching and applicable to their business model as they might hope.
Background: eBay v. MercExchange
The patent injunction issue has been widely discussed since the Supreme Court considered it last year. In eBay v. MercExchange, 126 S.Ct. 1837 (2006), Merc- Exchange was a patent-holding and non-manufacturing entity that held a business-method patent for an electronic market designed to facilitate the sale of goods between consumers. In this case, the Supreme Court ultimately decided that a patent litigation is no different from any other case in which a permanent injunction is sought, and as a result, held that a permanent injunction's propriety should be judged according to the well-established principles of equity. Thus, the following four factors must be satisfied before a permanent injunction will issue after a finding of patent infringement: 1) the plaintiff has suffered an irreparable injury; 2) remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for this injury; 3) an equitable remedy is warranted, given the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and the defendant; and 4) the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. eBay, 126 S.Ct. at 1839.
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.