Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Equity In Broad and Flexible Fashion
A dispute between the two titans in the poultry processing equipment market led the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to construe the term "protection of investments" in 35 U.S.C. §252. John Bean Techs. Corp. v. Morris & Assocs., Inc., No. 2020-1090, 2021 WL 641987 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 19, 2021). This section outlines the boundaries of the court's equitable powers to absolve liability from infringement for substantively altered patents. The court affirmed the summary judgment decision by the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas that granted equitable intervening rights to Morris & Associate Inc.'s (Morris) against John Bean Technologies Corporation's (John Bean) infringement claims based on its reissued patent. Rejecting John Bean's argument that "protection of investment" is limited to monetary investments made and recouped before the reissue certificate, the Federal Circuit determined that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by considering factors other than money invested before the reissue and granting Morris the defense of equitable intervening rights.
Two Poultry Chilling Equipment Manufacturing Giants
This case is about two bitter rivals. John Bean is an equipment manufacturer that makes poultry and seafood processing machines. At the core of the controversy is the auger-type poultry chiller, a formidable machine that processes poultry in large scale. John Bean's U.S. Patent No. 6,397,622 (the '622 patent) covers this particular invention. Morris is John Bean's only U.S. competition in the industrial poultry chiller market.
A demand letter in the summer of 2002 was the seed of this near-decade long battle — leading to two trips to the Federal Circuit. In that letter, Morris asserted that John Bean's '622 patent was invalid in view of prior art. John Bean did not respond. Morris thereafter developed poultry chillers that incorporate features of the '622 patent and has been selling them since, with success.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?