Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Mandates More Patent Claim Clarity
In Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., No. 13-369, 572 U.S. __ (2014), a unanimous Supreme Court held that the test for patent claim definiteness in 35 U.S.C. '112, '2 (2006) “require[s] that a patent's claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Vacating a Federal Circuit opinion applying that court's test, the Supreme Court concluded that such test “lack[ed] the precision '112, '2 demands,” and could “breed lower court confusion.”
'Definiteness' Requirement For Patent Claims
The relevant text of 35 U.S.C. 112, '2 requires patent claims “particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” This provision had come to be known as the “definiteness” requirement for patent claims and those failing to meet the requirement are invalid as “indefinite.” 35 U.S.C. '282. The Federal Circuit had evolved a strict standard under which a claim was invalid as indefinite only if the claim was “not amenable to construction” or, if construed, remained “insolubly ambiguous.” Perhaps because the Federal Circuit's standard focused on construction of the claim term at issue, as a practical matter, district courts often substantively applied the definiteness standard in connection with claim construction proceedings, granting summary judgment of indefiniteness, if the claim failed to meet the standard during claim construction.
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.