Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
No Injunction In Video-on-Demand Litigation
The digital content era has moved patent issues to the forefront for the entertainment industry. In one recent case, even after winning a patent infringement case, a video-on-demand company still may not get an injunction prohibiting ongoing infringement by defendant Verizon Communications. In ActiveVideo Networks Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc., 2011-1538 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit further explained why that is, illustrated how various factors should be weighed to determine whether to issue an injunction and offered guidance concerning how to calculate an appropriate royalty in the event an injunction does not issue.
A jury found that Verizon's FiOS-TV service infringed ActiveVideo's method patents pertaining to video-on-demand technology, but the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by imposing a permanent injunction prohibiting future use. The Federal Circuit vacated the injunction and remanded the case for the district court to determine the royalty Verizon should pay. The case illustrates the real world impact of the Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in eBay v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), that injunctions should not automatically issue in patent infringement cases.
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.
Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
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.
Supreme Court Rules Rejection of Trademark License Does Not Rescind Rights of Licensee
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC The question is whether a debtor's rejection of its agreement granting a license "terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor's breach under applicable nonbankruptcy law."