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
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Coverage Issues Stemming from Dry Cleaner Contamination Suits
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
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?
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
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.