Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Muniauction v. Thomson
In Muniauction, Inc. v. Thomson Corp., 532 F.3d 1318 (Fed.Cir. 2008), Muniauction asserted a patent covering a method for conducting electronic auctions of financial instruments, such as municipal bonds. A jury found the claims were not obvious, that Thomson had willfully infringed, and that Muniauction was entitled to lost profits damages, which the court set at $77 million. Thomson moved for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial. The district court denied the motion, finding substantial evidence in favor of the jury's verdict upholding the validity of the claims.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed, finding certain of the claims obvious and the remainder not infringed. The opinion illustrates the Federal Circuit's application of the Supreme Court's decision on obviousness in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007) and confirms the Federal Circuit's own decision on “joint or divided” infringement in BMC Resources, Inc. v. Paymentech, L.P., 498 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The KSR ruling makes it easier to establish obviousness invalidity when the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the application of the test from BMC Resources, holding that a party which did not itself perform all of the steps of the claimed method could be a direct infringer, liable not only for its own acts but for those who performed the balance of the steps, only if it directed or controlled the other actors.
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
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.
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.
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.
Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow!
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
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.