reebmmm - Slashdot User

Submission + - Appeals court: You can infringe a patent even if you didn't do all the steps (uscourts.gov) 1

Submitted by reebmmm on Friday August 31, 2012 @08:09PM

reebmmm writes: In a much anticipated patent law case, an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit overturned existing law and came out in favor a new rule for indirect infringement: you can still be liable for infringing even if no single person does all the infringement.

This case consolidated two different cases involving internet patents. In McKesson v. Epic, a lower court found that Epic did not infringe a patent about a patient portal because one of the steps was performed by the patient accessing the portal. In Akamai v. Limelight, the lower court found that Limelight did not infringe because its customers, not the company itself, tagged content.

This is likely headed for the Supreme Court.

Submission + - Judge Posner to Apple & Motorola, Go Home (scribd.com)

Submitted by reebmmm on Friday June 08, 2012 @05:30PM

reebmmm writes: Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner, voluntarily sitting as a district court judge, in the patent infringement dispute between Apple and Motorola has, tentatively, dismissed the case on the eve of trial. In this hilariously short order, Judge Posner states, "I have tentatively decided that the case should be dismissed with prejudice because neither party can establish a right to relief."

Because it is "with prejudice" the parties cannot refile their case. The parties are likely to appeal the order (when it's finalized).

Submission + - WARF and Intel settle patent suit over Core 2 Duo (google.com)

Submitted by reebmmm on Monday October 05, 2009 @01:44PM

reebmmm writes: The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and Intel have settled their patent suit over technology developed by Gurindar Sohi, a computer science professor at the University of Wisconsin — Madison.

Professor Sohi developed technology that was ultimately patented by WARF using money he received from Intel. Last month, Judge Barbara Crabb found that the funding agreement was ambiguous, but that e-mails revealed that the money was an unrestricted gift and carried with it no obligation to license or assign any inventions to Intel.

Trial was scheduled to begin today. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed.

At issue is the 5,781,752. A copy of WARF's original complaint is here.

Slashdot Top Deals