Matthew Becker, Norman F. Hainer Jr.
&
David K. Ludwig
This two-part article aims to deconstruct the new joint infringement standard, provide insight into how the standard might be interpreted and provide practice tips for prosecution and litigation. Part 1 chronicles the <i>Akamai</i> cases that ultimately resulted in a new standard for joint infringement and explores the potential interpretations of that standard.
John S. Artz, Franklin M. Smith
&
Brandon L. Debus
<b><i>Rotten for Apple</b></i><p>On Dec. 6, 2017, the United States Supreme Court, hearing its first design patent case in over 120 years, unanimously threw away a $400 million award that Apple won against Samsung Electronics. In doing so, the justices interpreted an 1887 statute providing that it is unlawful to manufacture or sell an "article of manufacture" that a patented design or colorable imitation has been applied.
In a win for the tech industry, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 14 to hear a case that could move patent cases out of the Eastern District of Texas.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of Samsung Electronics on Dec. 6 in its titanic patent dispute with Apple Inc. over design features copied from Apple iPhones.
The Federal Circuit's <i>en banc</i> decision in <i>Williamson v. Citrix Online</i> expanded the potential application of 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6, making it more likely that functional claim language will be construed as a means-plus-function limitation even in the absence of the word "means." This article discusses recent decisions applying <i>Williamson</i> and provides practical insights and strategies for patent owners and accused infringers to consider when addressing the expanded application of §112, ¶6.
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 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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?
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.
