INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE
|
|
- Luke Griffith
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May Hogan & Hartson LLP INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE Supreme Court Holds That 35 U.S.C. 271(f) Does Not Apply To Golden Master Disks In a decision handed down April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, which extends patent infringement liability to the export of components of patented inventions assembled in a foreign country. Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., No , Slip Op. (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007). In a 7-1 decision (Chief Justice Roberts did not participate), the Court held that a golden master disk containing software does not qualify as a component within the meaning of Section 271(f), and, hence, foreign sales of copies created abroad from the golden master do not infringe a U.S. patent. Microsoft is unlikely to have the impact of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., No , Slip Op. (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007), handed down the same day; however, the decision arguably resolves the first of many unsettled questions regarding the patenting of software. The Microsoft Decision AT&T sued Microsoft for infringement of its U.S. reissue patent No. 32,580. AT&T claimed that Microsoft s Windows operating system infringed AT&T s patent directed to speech codecs 1 with respect to U.S. sales of Windows. However, AT&T also requested damages for foreign sales of Windows under Title 35 of the United States Code, Section 271(f). Section 271(f) includes in the definition of patent infringement the export of components for a patented invention for assembly abroad. Microsoft exports Windows by first creating a golden master disk. The golden master is used abroad to make CD-ROM copies of Windows, which are then installed on personal computer systems. Both the District Court for the Southern District of New York and the Court of Appeals for 1 Codec is short for coder/decoder. Codecs are used to compress a media stream at one computer and then decompress the media stream at another computer in order to reduce the number of bits (0s and 1s) that must be transmitted. Different types of media streams have different idiosyncrasies, and different techniques of compression are used, for example, for audio and video. A speech codec allows compression and decompression of a media stream containing human speech, as in Internet phone calls (Voice over IP).
2 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May the Federal Circuit held that the export of a golden master was covered by Section 271(f), and thus Microsoft was liable for all copies of Windows sold abroad that infringed AT&T s patent, in addition to liability for U.S. sales. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, and held that export of a golden master disk (or transmission of the same information) that was used in a foreign country to replicate copies of infringing software is not included in Section 271(f). Microsoft has stipulated that Windows does infringe AT&T s patent. However, as a result of the Supreme Court s decision, Microsoft is only liable for infringing sales in the United States, and not for sales of Windows abroad. Section 271(f) of the Patent Act and Software Patents Section 271(f) is an exception to the general rule that a product made and sold outside the United States cannot infringe a U.S. patent. Section 271(f) was enacted in 1984 in response to the decision in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. 2 Laitram held a patent for a shrimp deveining machine. Deepsouth manufactured a deveining machine that infringed Laitram s patent, but, in order to avoid liability, Deepsouth sold the machine abroad by shipping the components of a machine in three separate boxes, from which a machine could be assembled in less than an hour. The Supreme Court held in Deepsouth that this was not infringement of the U.S. patent, because the whole machine was never actually put together or used in the United States. Congress enacted Section 271(f) to close this potential loophole. Section 271(f) includes as an infringer one who supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention in order to either induce infringement or contribute to infringement of a U.S. patent through the combination of components outside the United States. The patentability of software has engendered a great deal of debate in the United States and around the world. The European Patent Convention, for example, expressly excludes computer programs from its definition of patentable subject matter. In the United States, the Patent Act is silent with respect to the patentability of software, and the Supreme Court has not addressed the issue. Although current Federal Circuit precedent supports the patentability of software, there are several cases pending that could change the definition of what is patentable. As a practical matter, software is patented, both in the United States and abroad, through creative techniques of patent claim drafting. For example, AT&T s patent did not claim software itself, but rather claimed a method for processing a speech pattern, an apparatus for encoding a speech pattern, a speech processor, and a method for producing a speech message. Because software sitting in a box does not perform a method and is not by itself an apparatus that can perform any function, a CD-ROM containing Windows could not, by itself, infringe AT&T s patent. 3 AT&T s patent is only infringed when Windows is installed onto a personal computer, creating an infringing apparatus U.S. 518 (1972). 3 As explained below, there are patent claiming strategies that might have avoided AT&T s problem. This case highlights the importance of careful planning in drafting patents for software.
3 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May Even if a CD-ROM containing Windows could be considered a component under Section 271(f), a golden master for producing CD-ROMs is one step further removed. The Federal Circuit held in Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. 4 that a golden master for Windows is a component under Section 271(f), but did not reach the question of whether its shipment abroad constituted suppl[ying] or caus[ing] to be supplied a component under Section 271(f). 5 Factual and Procedural Background An International Telecommunications Union (ITU) standard, G.723.1, for a speech codec was issued in 1996 to support standardization of speech transmission over computer networks. A number of electronic meeting and communication products, including Microsoft NetMeeting 2.0, complied with the G standard. AT&T notified Microsoft in 1999 that NetMeeting 2.0 violated U.S. reissue patent No. 32,580 owned by AT&T, because any product that complied with G necessarily infringed its patent. 6 In 2001, AT&T filed suit against Microsoft for patent infringement. AT&T and Microsoft eventually settled the patent infringement suit with a stipulation that Microsoft could appeal the trial court s ruling on the Section 271(f) issue. The parties further agreed that the amount of Microsoft s payment to AT&T was dependent on the eventual result of the resolution of the Section 271(f) issues. 7 The Supreme Court s Legal Analysis Justice Ginsberg, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Breyer, and Alito, found that a golden master is not a component and shipping a golden master abroad for the purpose of replicating copies of software is not suppl[ying] a component under Section 271(f). 8 First, the Court examined whether a golden master is a component under Section 271(f). The Court reasoned first that software must be encoded on some medium in order to be a component. AT&T had urged that software in the abstract 9 be considered a component, but the Court rejected this interpretation. The statute uses the word combination, and the Court held that the use of this word requires that a component must be combinable with other components. It is only when object code is written on some medium, such as a CD-ROM, that is capable of being combined with a computer that object code can be a component. Further, because it is individual copies of software that are sold to consumers not abstract object code the Court reasoned that a golden master, which is never used to directly copy object code onto a computer, is not a component. The Court F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 5 Interestingly, Judge Rader authored the majority opinion in Eolas as well as the dissent in the Federal Circuit decision in Microsoft, where he reasoned that even though a golden master was a component under Section 271(f), shipping the golden master abroad was not suppl[ying] a component. 6 AT&T s patent expired in Justice Scalia noted this agreement at oral argument, questioning whether such an agreement made the case moot. 8 Justices Thomas, Breyer, and Alito declined to join footnote 14 of the majority opinion, which states that the court did not reach the issue of whether a disk shipped from the United States, and used to install Windows directly on a foreign computer, would [] give rise to liability under 271(f) if the disk were removed after installation. 9 Software in the abstract is the term used by the Court to refer to object code, i.e., the sequence of 0s and 1s encoding software, regardless of whether the object code is recorded on a medium. Under AT&T s interpretation, shipping or transmitting the object code in any form is supplying a component under Section 271(f).
4 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May was not persuaded by the fact that it is easy and cheap to make copies from the golden master. Without the ability to directly combine with a computer through installation, there is no component. Second, the Court considered whether shipping a golden master abroad is supplying a component under Section 271(f). Following its earlier reasoning, the Court found that no components were supplied, because the copies that were actually installed on computers abroad were created abroad. Even though the golden master made it easy to produce those copies, sending a master from which duplicates can be made is not suppl[ying] or caus[ing] to be supplied components under Section 271(f). 10 Third, the Court observed that there is a general presumption against U.S. laws having extraterritorial effect. This presumption applied, because U.S. patent law expressly covers only conduct in the United States, and Section 271(f) is an exception. As a result, the Court construed terms of the statute narrowly, leaving it to Congress to be clear that a broader meaning was intended. As the Court noted, several statutes bearing on software have been passed since 1984, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, so Congress has dealt with software issues. If it wished to be clear that Section 271(f) applied to software, Congress knew how to do so. Congress is free to clarify the law later, but the Court would not read this section expansively. In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Breyer, went further with respect to the issue of whether software can be a component under Section 271(f). Justice Alito found that component requires physical combination. A disk or CD-ROM containing an installable copy of software is unchanged by installation of the software, and thus is not combined in the sense of Section 271(f). Under Justice Alito s reasoning, even shipping CD-ROMs containing Microsoft Windows would not infringe under Section 271(f). Import of the Decision The decision allows software manufacturers to ship masters abroad for replication outside the United States, while avoiding liability for infringement. That is, Section 271(f) may now have little effect on software manufacturers, although the Court did leave the possibility open for liability for shipping installable copies abroad. Had the Court ruled the other way, a software manufacturer could not avoid liability for foreign sales, short of developing the software outside the United States. The decision makes clear that patentees in the software industry must continue to be careful in drafting patent claims. For example, a claim directed to a computer-readable medium containing a program (known as a Beauregard or program-product claim) may enable a patentee to sue for infringement for the production of any medium containing infringing software, including a golden master. Assuming such a claim was upheld and found infringed by the production of a golden master, it is an open question whether damages would include the value of copies replicated from the golden master and sold abroad. 10 Justice Stevens, in dissent, found that the golden master was like a warehouse for copies. That is, shipping the golden master was equivalent to shipping the actual copies, and thus should be considered infringement under Section 271(f).
5 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY UPDATE May From the perspective of software patent owners, there are now additional potential complications for enforcing their rights. Even though AT&T held foreign patents on its speech codec, it chose to bring suit in U.S. court on its U.S. patent, using Section 271(f) to address foreign sales. That approach is no longer possible. In light of a recent Federal Circuit decision, Voda v. Cordis, 11 a U.S. patentee may not sue on a foreign patent in U.S. court. Assuming Voda is not overturned, this forces patentees into foreign court to enforce their foreign patent rights. As foreign countries are generally not as sympathetic to patenting software, it may be more difficult for software patentees to protect their rights abroad. Microsoft is generally viewed as a victory for software manufacturers. It remains to be seen if Congress will step in and reverse the Court s interpretation of Section 271(f). But barring Congressional reversal, the decision represents a reining in of the scope of software patent rights. About the Intellectual Property Update For more information about the matters discussed in this Update, please contact the Hogan & Hartson LLP lawyer with whom you work or one of the attorneys listed below. If you are interested in viewing any of our other publications, please go to: Update Author: MATTHEW A. "MATT" LEVY mlevy@hhlaw.com Washington, D.C. Intellectual Property Update Editors: TIMOTHY J. LYDEN tjlyden@hhlaw.com Northern Virginia ARUN CHANDRA achandra@hhlaw.com New York This Update is for informational purposes only and is not intended as basis for decisions in specific situations. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Copyright 2007 Hogan & Hartson LLP. All rights reserved. Hogan & Hartson LLP is a District of Columbia limited liability partnership with offices across the United States and around the world. Some of the offices outside of the United States are operated through affiliated partnerships, all of which are referred to herein collectively as Hogan & Hartson or the firm F.3d 887 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Weak Overseas Protection for American Software Patents: The Need for a Congressional Response to Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp.
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 5 9-1-2008 Weak Overseas Protection for American Software Patents: The Need for a Congressional Response to Microsoft Corp. v. AT
More informationIn re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review Issues for AIA Reviews
CLIENT MEMORANDUM In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies: Federal Circuit Decides Appeal Jurisdiction and Standard of Review February 5, 2015 AUTHORS Michael W. Johnson Tara L. Thieme THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS
More informationApril 2, 2015 CLIENT MEMORANDUM AUTHORS. Thomas J. Meloro Kim A. Walker Meghan Hungate
CLIENT MEMORANDUM Supreme Court s Decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis Finds That TTAB Rulings Can Have a Preclusive Effect on Later Federal Court Trademark Infringement Proceedings April 2, 2015 AUTHORS
More information# # # # # Issue and Decision of the United States Supreme Court
Article for Minnesota Chiefs of Police Magazine: New Legal Requirements for GPS Tracking Devices By Peter Ivy and Peter Orput, MCPA Co-Counsel February, 2012 # # # # # Issue and Decision of the United
More informationPatent Reissue. Frequently Asked Questions
Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions Patent Reissue Frequently Asked Questions 1 Table of Contents 1. WHAT IS A REISSUE PATENT APPLICATION?...2 2. WHAT TYPES OF SITUATIONS CALL FOR A REISSUED PATENT?...2
More informationDefensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot
Defensive Strategies in False Marking Suits After Stauffer and Pequignot Contributed by Angie M. Hankins, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP Many companies inadvertently mark their products with expired patents.
More informationSupreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Applicable to False Claims Act Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors
Supreme Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations Applicable to False Claims Act Whistleblower Suits Against Government Contractors In Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., et al. v. United States ex rel.
More informationSettlement Traps for the Unwary
Settlement Traps for the Unwary Orange County Bar Association Intellectual Property/Technology Law August 21, 2006 Steve Comer Jae Hong Lee, MD, MPH 2005 Morrison & Foerster LLP All Rights Reserved 3 Cases
More informationCLIENT MEMORANDUM. I. The Basics. June 18, 2013
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FTC v. Actavis: Supreme Court Rejects Bright Line Tests for Reverse Payment Settlements; Complex Questions Remain in Structuring Pharmaceutical Patent Infringement Settlements June 18,
More informationTeva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation
January 28, 2015 Practice Group(s): IP Litigation IP Procurement and Portfolio Management Teva and Its Potential Impact on Patent Litigation By Michael J. Abernathy, Suzanne E. Konrad, Rebecca M. Cavin
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2014 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationKing v. Burwell: Supreme Court Rules that ACA Tax Subsidies Are Available Through Federal Exchanges
If you have questions, please contact your regular Groom attorney or one of the attorneys listed below: Jon W. Breyfogle jbreyfogle@groom.com (202) 861-6641 Lisa M. Campbell lcampbell@groom.com (202) 861-6612
More informationINVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER: US DECISION PLACES MIXED CLAIMS IN JEOPARDY. by Christopher J. Palermo (Foreign Member)
Christopher J. Palermo Hickman Palermo Truong & Becker LLP 2055 Gateway Place Suite 550 San Jose, California 95110 USA Tel. +1-408-414-1202 - cpalermo@hptb-law.com 1,800 words INVALID LIKE OIL AND WATER:
More informationEqual Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Religious Accommodation in the Workplace
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.: Supreme Court Clarifies that an Employer Can Be Liable for Failing To Accommodate a Religious Practice that the Employer Suspects,
More informationCalifornia Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees
APRIL 13, 2012 CALIFORNIA EMPLOYMENT & LABOR UPDATE California Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Brinker Clarifying Employers Duty to Provide Meal and Rest Breaks to Hourly Employees In one of the most anticipated
More informationFEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS
CLIENT MEMORANDUM FEDERAL CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT HEIGHTENED PLEADING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO FALSE MARKING ACTIONS In a decision that will likely reduce the number of false marking cases, the Federal Circuit
More informationPerez v. Mortgage Bankers Association
Supreme Court Holds that Agencies Can Amend or Repeal Interpretive Rules Without Notice-and-Comment Procedures SUMMARY The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday held that agencies are not required to follow notice-and-comment
More informationCase 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:04-cv-01787-MJG Document 142 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND DR. MARC L. KOZAM * d/b/a MLK SOFTWARE, et al. * Plaintiffs * vs. CIVIL
More informationGovernment Contract. Andrews Litigation Reporter. Intellectual Property Rights In Government Contracting. Expert Analysis
Government Contract Andrews Litigation Reporter VOLUME 23 h ISSUE 6 h July 27, 2009 Expert Analysis Commentary Intellectual Property Rights In Government Contracting By William C. Bergmann, Esq., and Bukola
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2006-1612 TOSHIBA CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Thomas
More informationCASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG)
CASE 0:05-cv-01578-JMR-JJG Document 59 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 05-CV-1578(JMR/JJG) State of Minnesota ) ) v. ) ORDER ) Robert B. Beale, Rebecca S.
More informationCOMMENTARY. Supreme Court Affirms Narrow Scope of Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, Interprets False Claims Act First to File Rule.
JUNE 2015 COMMENTARY Supreme Court Affirms Narrow Scope of Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act, Interprets False Claims Act First to File Rule In a unanimous decision issued on May 26, 2015, the United
More informationAsbestos Liability Unlikely For Replacement Parts
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com Asbestos Liability Unlikely For Replacement
More informationSummary of the Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Summary of the Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Prepared by Harvard Law School s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation The Patient Protection and
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 14-3109 Sprint Communications Company, L.P. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. 1 Elizabeth S. Jacobs; Geri D. Huser; Nick Wagner, in
More informationExtraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law: Has the Federal Circuit Gone Too Far?
Extraterritorial Reach of U.S. Patent Law: Has the Federal Circuit Gone Too Far? Robert W. Pierson, Jr. INTRODUCTION...652 I. BACKGROUND...654 A. PRESUMPTION AGAINST EXTRATERRITORIAL EFFECT...655 B. INFRINGEMENT
More informationWorld Shipping Council. Federal Maritime Commission
Comments of the World Shipping Council Submitted to the Federal Maritime Commission In the Matter of Organization and Functions; Rules of Practice and Procedure; Attorney Fees Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
More informationA Disclaimed Claim Is Not Always Treated As If It Had Never Existed! What Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc.
A Disclaimed Claim Is Not Always Treated As If It Had Never Existed! By Charles L. Gholz 1 What Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. Said In Genetics Institute, LLC v. Novartis
More informationThe Rise in Qui Tam False Patent Marking Litigation
The Rise in Qui Tam False Patent Marking Litigation September 13, 2010 Jason C. White 1 Issues Addressed False Patent Marking Background Forest Group v. Bon Tool Decision Increase in False Marking Lawsuits
More informationMark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson Sheldon, Richard D. Holzheimer, Reed Smith LLP, Falls Church, VA, for Plaintiffs.
United States District Court, D. Maryland. Dr. Marc L. KOZAM d/b/a MLK Software, et al, Plaintiffs. v. PHASE FORWARD INCORPORATED, et al, Defendants. Aug. 29, 2005. Mark W. Wasserman, Matthew Robertson
More informationWhistleblower Activity Heating Up All Over
Whistleblower Activity Heating Up All Over By Brian E. Casey Barnes & Thornburg Commercial Litigation Update, December 2014 Fiscal year 2014 has been a banner year for whistleblowers. Recent developments
More informationNinth Circuit Interprets DMCA Safe Harbor in Favor of Service Providers Like Veoh. By Yuo-Fong C. Amato, Associate
Ninth Circuit Interprets DMCA Safe Harbor in Favor of Service Providers Like Veoh By Yuo-Fong C. Amato, Associate The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment and a Rule 12(b)(6)
More informationINTERNET USAGE AND THE POTENTIAL EFFECT IN YOUR MANAGEMENT OF YOUR PATENT PROGRAM. Steven D. Hemminger. Lyon & Lyon, LLP
INTERNET USAGE AND THE POTENTIAL EFFECT IN YOUR MANAGEMENT OF YOUR PATENT PROGRAM Steven D. Hemminger Lyon & Lyon, LLP {1} Much has been written and said about the Internet and the benefits for a company
More informationDetermining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases
Determining Jurisdiction for Patent Law Malpractice Cases This article originally appeared in The Legal Intelligencer on May 1, 2013 As an intellectual property attorney, the federal jurisdiction of patent-related
More informationLaura Etlinger, for appellants. Ekaterina Schoenefeld, pro se. Michael H. Ansell et al.; Ronald McGuire, amici curiae.
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
ORLANDO COMMUNICATIONS LLC, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:14-cv-1022-Orl-22KRS SPRINT SPECTRUM, L.P. and SPRINT CORPORATION, Defendants.
More informationThe US Supreme Court s Aereo decision online television streaming, the Optus TV Now decision and cloud computing
The US Supreme Court s Aereo decision online television streaming, the Optus TV Now decision and cloud computing Anna Spies KING & WOOD MALLESONS Key points The decision of the Supreme Court of the United
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar. Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD.
Case: 14-11987 Date Filed: 10/21/2014 Page: 1 of 11 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 14-11987 Non-Argument Calendar Docket No. 1:13-cv-02128-WSD PIEDMONT OFFICE
More informationCase: 09-1166 Document: 00319804259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2009 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No.
Case: 09-1166 Document: 00319804259 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/09/2009 PER CURIAM. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 09-1166 LOU MARRA HOGG S, Appellant v. NOT PRECEDENTIAL STATE OF
More informationSupreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions
Supreme Court Decision Affirming Judicial Right to Review EEOC Actions The Supreme Court Holds That EEOC s Conciliation Efforts Are Subject to Judicial Review, Albeit Narrow SUMMARY A unanimous Supreme
More informationcauses of actions based on Travelers own tortious conduct and not directly related to the Manville insurance policies.[12]
Portfolio Media, Inc. 648 Broadway, Suite 200 New York, NY 10012 www.law360.com Phone: +1 212 537 6331 Fax: +1 212 537 6371 customerservice@portfoliomedia.com The Significance Of Travelers V. Bailey Law360,
More informationORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE. BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.'s and
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS... FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA DALLAS DIVISION GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, FEB 2 1 2012 CLERK, U.S. rustr1ct COURT By /n T. Deputy CIV.
More informationAre State Preference Laws Preempted by the United States Bankruptcy Code? Not Necessarily! By: Bruce S. Nathan & Scott Cargill
Reprinted from: "The Credit and Financial Management Review, A Journal for Credit and Financial Administrators"; Volume 13, Number 4 Fourth Quarter 2007. All Rights Reserved. Are State Preference Laws
More informationACCOUNTANTS LIABILITY UPDATE
JULY 14, 2010 ACCOUNTANTS LIABILITY UPDATE Accountants Liability Practice With highly skilled and experienced lawyers in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., we are able
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND IN RE APPLICATION OF THE : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR AN ORDER PURSUANT TO : Misc. No. 01-189 (Magistrate Judge Bredar) 18 U.S.C. 2703(d)
More informationClient Alert: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in ABC v. Aereo Internet Streaming Case (Report from the Courtroom)
Client Alert: Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in ABC v. Aereo Internet Streaming Case (Report from the Courtroom) This morning, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in ABC v. Aereo, a
More informationSarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision
U.S. Supreme Court Significantly Expands Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Provision to Include Employees of Non-Public Contractors and Subcontractors of Public Companies SUMMARY In Lawson v. FMR LLC, No. 12-3
More informationAPPLYING THE ENTIRE MARKET VALUE RULE AFTER LUCENT. AUTHOR: Leslie M. Spencer, Associate, Ropes & Gray LLP
APPLYING THE ENTIRE MARKET VALUE RULE AFTER LUCENT AUTHOR: Leslie M. Spencer, Associate, Ropes & Gray LLP INTRODUCTION: This paper has been created for the Intellectual Property Owners Association Software
More informationRECENT PATENT LAW CASES IN THE UNITED STATES: FESTO S EFFECT ON PATENT ACQUISITION PRACTICES. Randall R. Rader
RECENT PATENT LAW CASES IN THE UNITED STATES: FESTO S EFFECT ON PATENT ACQUISITION PRACTICES Randall R. Rader Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Adjunct Professor, George
More informationSEC update. SEC Approves PCAOB Rules on Auditor Independence and Tax Services. June 2, 2006. Background
SEC update SEC Approves PCAOB Rules on Auditor Independence and Tax Services June 2, 2006 The SEC recently approved, in Release No. 34-53677, auditor independence and ethics rules proposed by the Public
More informationTrials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Trials@uspto.gov Paper 32 571-272-7822 Date: March 8, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD MICROSOFT CORPORATION Petitioner v. PROXYCONN, INC. Patent
More informationFEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION
FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION Sughrue Mion, PLLC Abraham J. Rosner May 2014 I. BACKGROUND In the U.S., each party to litigation ordinarily pays its own attorney fees regardless of the outcome (called
More informationFederal Circuit Review
Federal Circuit Review Infringement Volume One Issue Six March 2009 In This Issue: g Direct and Indirect Infringement g Joint Infringement g Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor and Research Tools g Infringing Use
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 03-16188. D. C. Docket No. 03-80717-CV-DTKH BKCY No. 02-03168-BKC-SH.
[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 03-16188 D. C. Docket No. 03-80717-CV-DTKH BKCY No. 02-03168-BKC-SH FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT June 25, 2004
More informationWashington v. Oregon Insurance Law
Washington v. Oregon Insurance Law Pacific Northwest Chapter of the CPCU Society November 6, 2014 Meeting About Us Misty Edmundson edmundson@sohalang.com (206) 654-6604 Paul Rosner rosner@sohalang.com
More information42 Bankruptcy Code provision, 11 U.S.C. 526(a)(4), alleging that the provision s prohibition on debt
07-1853-cv Adams v. Zelotes 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 4 5 6 August Term, 2008 7 8 (Argued: October 10, 2008 Decided: May 18, 2010) 9 10 Docket No. 07-1853-cv 11 12 13
More informationMEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NUMBER 171-13-63
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE COLORADO JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE NUMBER 171-13-63 A. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION 1. The United States Department of
More informationALI-ABA Topical Courses False Patent Marking: Crafting Your Defense As the Law Evolves October 27, 2010 Telephone Seminar/Audio Webcast
1 ALI-ABA Topical Courses False Patent Marking: Crafting Your Defense As the Law Evolves October 27, 2010 Telephone Seminar/Audio Webcast Select 2010 N.D. Illinois False Patent Marking Opinions and Orders
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED DEC 29 2010 AC HOUSTON LUMBER COMPANY EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN, v. Plaintiff - Appellee, WILLIAM L. BERG; BERG INJURY LAWYERS,
More informationA New Headache For Employers: Whistleblower Claims Under the Affordable Care Act
March 2013 A New Headache For Employers: Whistleblower Claims Under the Affordable Care Act BY STEPHEN H. HARRIS, MELINDA A. GORDON & MARC E. BERNSTEIN INTRODUCTION On February 22, 2013, the United States
More informationThe Latest Intellectual Property News
The Latest Intellectual Property News From Lowe Hauptman & Ham, LLP VOL. 5, NO. 2 MARCH 2014 Hello from everyone in Lowe Hauptman & Ham, LLP, and welcome to The Latest Intellectual Property News, a newsletter
More informationStern v. Marshall Shaking Bankruptcy Jurisdiction to Its Core? July/August 2011. Benjamin Rosenblum Scott J. Friedman
Stern v. Marshall Shaking Bankruptcy Jurisdiction to Its Core? July/August 2011 Benjamin Rosenblum Scott J. Friedman In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a.k.a.
More informationElectronic Check Deposit User Agreement
Electronic Check Deposit User Agreement These terms (Electronic Check Deposit Terms) will govern your use of LGE Community Credit Union Electronic Check Deposit (Electronic Check Deposit), and are incorporated
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PLANET BINGO, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VKGS LLC (doing business as Video King), Defendant-Appellee.
More informationCase 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-01378-RLY-TAB Document 25 Filed 01/27/2006 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION VICKIE THORNBURG, Plaintiff, vs. STRYKER CORPORATION,
More informationBefore the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DECLARATORY RULING
Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Westfax, Inc. Petition for Consideration and Clarification Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer
More informationPresent Situation of IP Disputes in Japan
Present Situation of IP Disputes in Japan Feb 19, 2014 Chief Judge Toshiaki Iimura 1 1 IP High Court established -Apr.1.2005- l Appeal cases related to patent rights etc. from district courts nationwide
More informationCorporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Corporate Counsel Beware: Limits Of 'No Contact Rule'
More informationFederal Circuit Clears the Way for Large False Patent Marking Fines. by Corina Tanasa January 27, 2010
Federal Circuit Clears the Way for Large False Patent Marking Fines by Corina Tanasa January 27, 2010 PATENT MARKING By statute, each patented product must be marked to collect maximum patent damages.
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA64 Court of Appeals No. 14CA0732 Larimer County District Court No. 14CV17 Honorable C. Michelle Brinegar, Judge Kirk Williams, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Crop Production Services,
More informationWhistleblower Claims: Are You Covered?
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Whistleblower Claims: Are You Covered? Law360, New
More informationVerizon v. Vonage and Sprint v. Vonage: A Tale of Two Patent Infringement Cases and Their Impact on the VoIP Industry
Verizon v. Vonage and Sprint v. Vonage: A Tale of Two Patent Infringement Cases and Their Impact on the VoIP Industry By Kristie D. Prinz, Founder The Prinz Law Office State Bar of California Annual Meeting
More informationPresent: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice NORTHBROOK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD. GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD 69 M.S.P.R. 299 Docket Number DC-0752-92-0316-A-1 GARNETT F. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Agency. Date: January 22,1996 Peter B.
More informationObtaining and Using Opinions of Counsel
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Obtaining and Using Opinions of Counsel Presentation to: Ryuka IP Law Firm April 19, 2013 Disclaimer These materials are public information and have
More informationTHE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. 53 rd ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
THE JOHN MARSHALL LAW SCHOOL CENTER FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW 53 rd ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE ON DEVELOPMENTS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW Strategies Regarding Patent Exhaustion After Quanta Timothy C.
More informationCase: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 5:10-cv-01912-DAP Doc #: 21 Filed: 03/14/11 1 of 8. PageID #: 358 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNIQUE PRODUCT SOLUTIONS, LTD., ) Case No. 5:10-CV-1912 )
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-611 In the Supreme Court of the United States FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER v. FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES
More informationCOPYRIGHT, PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING AND DMCA SUBPOENAS
1 of 6 8/16/2007 9:16 AM TOPIC: COPYRIGHT, PEER-TO-PEER FILE SHARING AND DMCA SUBPOENAS INTRODUCTION: This past summer saw developments relating to peer-to-peer ( P2P ) music file sharing. Of most significance,
More informationTRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET
TRADEMARKS AND THE INTERNET TRADEMARK LAW A trademark or service mark is a word, name, symbol or device used to identify goods or services and distinguish them from others. Trademarks and service marks
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-5155, -5156 CLINTWOOD ELKHORN MINING COMPANY, GATLIFF COAL COMPANY, and PREMIER ELKHORN COAL COMPANY, v. Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNITED STATES,
More informationVerizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP and the Scope of Antitrust Protection for Telecommunications
Todd Lindquist Student Fellow, Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD Expected 2005 The controversy in Trinko involved the interplay between the Telecommunications
More information[J-9A-2015 and J-9B-2015] [MO:Todd, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
[J-9A-2015 and J-9B-2015] [MOTodd, J.] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, INC., Cross
More informationMinors First Amendment Rights:
FEATURE All materials in this journal subject to copyright by the American Library Association Minors First Amendment Rights: CIPA ANd School libraries 16 Knowledge Quest Intellectual Freedom Online Volume
More informationUNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 14-1944
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1944 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff Appellant, PORTAL HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant Appellee.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JPM NETWORKS, LLC, ) d/b/a KWIKBOOST ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. ) 3:14-cv-1507 JCM FIRST VENTURE, LLC )
More informationChina Publishes Draft Rules on Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights
China Publishes Draft Rules on Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights 1 China Publishes Draft Rules on Protection of Information Network Dissemination Rights On 22 April, 2012, the Supreme
More informationDecision. Matter of: Mine Safety and Health Administration Disposition of National Coal Mine Rescue Contest Registration Fees.
441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Decision Matter of: Mine Safety and Health Administration Disposition of National Coal Mine Rescue Contest Registration Fees File: B-325396 Date: February 23, 2015 DIGEST
More informationCivil Antitrust Litigation in the United States: Implications for Ireland and the European Community
Civil Antitrust Litigation in the United States: Implications for Ireland and the European Community Joseph T. McLaughlin Heller Ehrman, LLP Prepared with the assistance of: August T. Horvath Daniel Sheridan
More informationDEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224 April 27, 2000 GL-607849-99 Number: 200027045 CC:EL:GL:B1 Release Date: 7/7/2000 UILC 20.02.03-00 9999.98-00 MEMORANDUM FOR VIRGINIA-WEST
More informationIntellectual Property Protection for Computer Software in the United States
Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software in the United States How can you protect what you or your client considers novel aspects of your computer software in the United States? What options
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *
Case :0-cv-0-RLH -PAL Document Filed 0// Page of 0 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * RIGHTHAVEN, LLC, a Nevada limitedliability company, Plaintiff, vs. THOMAS A. DIBIASE, an individual,
More informationCriminal Defense and Investigations
Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 SUMMARY On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 ( FERA ), a statute intended to strengthen the federal
More informationPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 13-1594
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1594 STEVEN LINCOLN, Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; CERES MARINE
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 16, 2009; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2007-CA-002008-MR OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR AND WATERPROOFING, D/B/A OLSHAN FOUNDATION REPAIR CO. OF
More informationEnd-User Software License Agreement
End-User Software License Agreement This End-User Software License Agreement (the Agreement ) is a license agreement between you (the Licensee ) and IMSWorkX, Inc. ( IMSWorkX ), a Delaware corporation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 12-13210. D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL. versus
Case: 12-13210 Date Filed: 03/27/2014 Page: 1 of 12 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-13210 D.C. Docket No. 4:08-cv-00167-HL AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Appellant v. GOOGLE, INC., Appellee 2014-1351 Appeal from the United States Patent
More informationkaiser medicaid and the uninsured commission on September 2011
P O L I C Y B R I E F kaiser commission on medicaid and the uninsured September 2011 Explaining Douglas v. Independent Living Center: Questions about the Upcoming United States Supreme Court Case Regarding
More information