Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those for improper venue. It also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants.
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions filed under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those filed under 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) for improper venue. In re: HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit further closed a potential venue loophole created by TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514, and clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants. In re: HTC, at 1357.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Beyond Language: How Multimodal AI Sees the Bigger Picture
By Matthew R. Carey
The possibilities for patenting innovative applications of multimodal models across industries are endless.
Protecting Technology-Assisted Works and Inventions: Where Does AI Begin?
By Ed Lanquist, Jr. and Dominic Rota
Just like any new technology, efforts to protect and enforce intellectual property on AI-based technologies are likely to be hampered by a lack of both a unified governing framework and a common understanding of the technology.
Content-Licensing Payment Dispute Turns On Existence of Fiduciary Relationship
By Stan Soocher
A recent New York federal court decision in a dispute between a broker that sublicenses program content and a broadcaster that sublicensed content from the broker considered the interaction of contract language and extra-contractual elements of the parties’ relationship to determine whether a fiduciary relationship existed.
Federal Judge Blasts Patent Trolls
By Rob Maier
A recent order from Chief Judge Colm Connolly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware may serve as a warning for “patent trolls” — the derogatory term used to describe companies whose sole function is to acquire and then assert patents, often in cases that are questionable on the merits — against filing cases in Delaware going forward.