Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Intellectual Property StrategistKickerSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

IP News

By Howard J. Shire and Joseph Mercadante
February 28, 2012

Eolas Web Patents Invalid: Texas Jury

A Texas jury brought a swift end to a trial involving two web browser patents asserted by Eolas Technologies, Inc., finding the asserted claims of both patents invalid in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-00446 (E.D. Tex. 2012). Judge Leonard Davis had split the dispute into four separate trials: the first focused on invalidity and inequitable conduct, and the remaining trials to focus on infringement and, if necessary, what damages to award Eolas. The jury agreed with the defendants' experts that a web browser called Viola disclosed the claimed inventions before September 1993.

Eolas' patent portfolio allegedly covered basic Internet functions, including a browser information retrieval system that uses audio and video. The Texas suit initially named 23 separate defendants, including tech companies such as Apple and Google, web hosting services such as The Go Daddy Group, financial services firms such as Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, and retailers such as J.C. Penney Company and Staples, among others.

Eolas, the exclusive licensee of the patents that are owned by the Regents of the University of California, previously won a $561 million verdict against Microsoft in 2003, although the Federal Circuit vacated the award and granted Microsoft a retrial, leading to the parties settling for a confidential amount.

Howard J. Shire is a partner and Joseph Mercadante is an associate in the New York office of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.

Eolas Web Patents Invalid: Texas Jury

A Texas jury brought a swift end to a trial involving two web browser patents asserted by Eolas Technologies, Inc., finding the asserted claims of both patents invalid in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 09-cv-00446 (E.D. Tex. 2012). Judge Leonard Davis had split the dispute into four separate trials: the first focused on invalidity and inequitable conduct, and the remaining trials to focus on infringement and, if necessary, what damages to award Eolas. The jury agreed with the defendants' experts that a web browser called Viola disclosed the claimed inventions before September 1993.

Eolas' patent portfolio allegedly covered basic Internet functions, including a browser information retrieval system that uses audio and video. The Texas suit initially named 23 separate defendants, including tech companies such as Apple and Google, web hosting services such as The Go Daddy Group, financial services firms such as Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, and retailers such as J.C. Penney Company and Staples, among others.

Eolas, the exclusive licensee of the patents that are owned by the Regents of the University of California, previously won a $561 million verdict against Microsoft in 2003, although the Federal Circuit vacated the award and granted Microsoft a retrial, leading to the parties settling for a confidential amount.

Howard J. Shire is a partner and Joseph Mercadante is an associate in the New York office of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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 Image

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? Image

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 Image

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.