Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
On June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Reyna issued its opinion in Precision Links, Inc. v. USA Products Group, Inc., No. 2012-1461, vacating an award of $250,395 that had been awarded to the defendants due to plaintiff's alleged litigation misconduct.' The district court had held that Precision's ultimately unsuccessful construction of claim 1 of the asserted patent was objectively baseless and had been brought tin bad faith.' Slip Op. at 3.' The district court also took issue with several of Precision's other actions, including a theory that defendants' products were manufactured of a cheap and inferior material that could cause harm to consumers, which was used to support a theory of irreparable harm.' Id.'
The Federal Circuit determined that Precision's claim construction position was not frivolous, and that 'Precision's infringement theory was not objectively baseless and that it was improper for the district court to conclude that the infringement allegations as to claim 1 were brought in bad faith.” Id. at 6.' The Federal Circuit did agree with the defendants and the district court, however, that indirect infringement claims related to other asserted claims were baseless and that a mere allegation that the defendants offered to sell multiple accused products together 'falls far short of the kind of showing required for indirect infringement.” Id. at 9.' The fee award was vacated, and the proceedings were remanded for further consideration as to whether the case was exceptional.
On June 7, 2013, the Federal Circuit panel of Judges Dyk, Bryson, and Reyna issued its opinion in Precision Links, Inc. v. USA Products Group, Inc., No. 2012-1461, vacating an award of $250,395 that had been awarded to the defendants due to plaintiff's alleged litigation misconduct.' The district court had held that Precision's ultimately unsuccessful construction of claim 1 of the asserted patent was objectively baseless and had been brought tin bad faith.' Slip Op. at 3.' The district court also took issue with several of Precision's other actions, including a theory that defendants' products were manufactured of a cheap and inferior material that could cause harm to consumers, which was used to support a theory of irreparable harm.' Id.'
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
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.