We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 204

$160 million jury verdict against Microsoft stands after unsuccessful challenge

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 28 2007

Letting stand a $160 million judgment against Microsoft, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently affirmed a jury verdict finding that Microsoft willfully infringed Z4 Technologies’ patents relating to methods for preventing computer software piracy

More open source litigation, as predicted

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

This article serves to alert any person in any company that distributes computer software or devices which contain software: your software may be susceptible to a copyright infringement lawsuit

RFID: deployment continues amid regulatory challenges

  • Venable LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2007

In late 2004early 2005, radiofrequency identification (RFID) was apparently poised for rapid growth due to, among other things, mandates from leading retailers and the Department of Defense (DoD) that their suppliers implement RFID in their supply chains, and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) recommendation that pharmaceutical companies use RFID to create electronic pedigrees (e-pedigrees) to prevent drug counterfeiting

District Court holds software transfer not a license, okays downstream eBay auction under first sale doctrine

  • Fenwick & West LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 15 2008

Rejecting the authority of a trio of more recent Ninth Circuit cases on the ground that their holdings could not be reconciled with an earlier Ninth Circuit decision, a Washington District Court has held a transfer of computer software to represent a sale, not a license

New cyber-policies in the marketplace

  • Lowenstein Sandler PC
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 23 2008

Most companies have either limited or no coverage for advertising-related claims, intellectual property infringement and invasion of privacy claims

Infringement for copying less than 1 of a software program’s code?

  • Bereskin & Parr LLP
  • -
  • Canada, USA
  • -
  • July 30 2008

It is not unusual for software developers to re-use or “cut and paste” snippets of code from other programs

Patent was not indefinite under the correct claim construction and was not invalid for failing to satisfy the best mode requirement because the alleged undisclosed best mode fell outside the scope of the claim

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc., No. 06-1440 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 12, 2007), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of SJ in favor of Nuance Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) that AllVoice Computing PLC’s (“AllVoice”) U.S. Patent No. 5,799,273 (“the ’273 patent”) was invalid as indefinite and for failure to satisfy best mode

Substantial evidence supported the jury’s verdict of infringement, validity, and a $115 million damages award

  • Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2007

In z4 Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 06-1638 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 16, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Microsoft Corporation’s (“Microsoft”) motion for JMOL following a jury trial in which the jury found that Microsoft infringed z4 Technologies, Inc.’s (“z4”) U.S. Patent Nos. 6,044,471 (“the ’471 patent”) and 6,785,825 (“the ’825 patent”), and had failed to prove these patents invalid

FM Industries, Inc. v. Citicorp Credit Services, Inc., et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 23 2008

The plaintiff claimed to own the copyright in debt-collection software that it licensed to the defendants

Supreme Court holds that 35 USC 271(f) does not apply to “golden master” disks

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 23 2007

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

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy