Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Licensor Lacks Standing to Sue Where No Rights in Patent Were Retained
On Nov. 6, 2014, a divided Federal Circuit panel of Judges Reyna, Mayer, and Chen issued an opinion, filed by Judge Chen, and a dissent-in-part, filed by Mayer, in Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, Case No. 2013-1459. The majority affirmed the lower court's finding that one plaintiff lacked standing, but reversed construction of the claim term “MAC address,” and vacated the summary judgment of noninfringement and remanded.
The patent-in-suit “describes a network for wireless communications between a central hub device and a number of surrounding peripheral devices in close proximity with the hub device.” Slip op. at 3. Azure, a company located in the Eastern District of Texas, acquired the patent-in-suit, and sought a local charity to join in its patent enforcement activities. Azure found one such charity, and they eventually partnered and formed Tri-County, a Texas nonprofit. In 2010 Azure donated the patent-in-suit, along with other patents and applications, to Tri-County. A few weeks later, Azure and Tri-County entered into a licensing agreement, whereby Tri-County granted Azure the exclusive, worldwide, transferable right to practice the patent, as well as the full right to enforce or sublicense the patent. Azure also had the exclusive right, but not obligation, to maintain, enforce, or defend the patent. Tri-County retained the right to receive a portion of the proceeds from Azure's licensing or litigation activities, as well as the personal right to practice the patent. In addition, Tri-County was obligated to participate in litigation at Azure's request and in Azure's sole discretion.
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.