Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Vacates Noninfringement Decision Finding a Genuine Dispute as to Divided Infringement
On Dec. 19, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Lourie, O'Malley, and Taranto issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Judge O'Malley, in Travel Sentry, Inc. v. David A. Tropp, Case Nos. 2016-2386, 2016-2387, 2016-2714, and 2017-1025. The panel vacated the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement, finding a genuine factual dispute as to whether Travel Sentry directs or controls the performance of certain steps of the claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,021,537 (the '537 patent) and 7,036,728 (the '728 patent) issued to appellant David A. Tropp.
The Federal Circuit identified claim 1 of the '537 patent as representative. This claim recites a four step method of improving airline luggage inspection by a luggage screening entity, comprising:
[a] making available to consumers [luggage with] a special lock having a combination lock portion and a … master key lock portion for receiving a master key …, the special lock also having an identification structure … that matches an identification structure previously provided to the luggage screening entity …, [b] marketing the special lock to the consumers …, [c] the identification structure signaling to a … luggage screening entity … that [it] has agreed to subject the special lock [to a] special procedure …, and [d] the luggage screening entity acting pursuant to a prior agreement to look for the identification structure while screening luggage and …, to use the master key … to, if necessary, open the … luggage.
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.