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.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 11-20 of 53

DMCA safe harbor analysis now the same in both Ninth and Second Circuits

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has withdrawn its 2011 opinion applying the "safe harbor" provision of the Digital Millennium

Second Circuit revives copyright infringement suit against non-resident for uploading copyrighted material online

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 30 2011

Employing the standard set out by the New York Court of Appeals in internet copyright infringement cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has revived a copyright infringement suit brought by a New York resident against a non-resident based upon defendant’s alleged uploading of copyrighted materials onto the internet

Fifth Circuit speaks out again on venue transfers

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2009

The Fifth Circuit denied a petition for writ of mandamus to direct transfer of a case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, notwithstanding a forum selection clause between the parties that designated California

Web-linking is not necessarily copying

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 28 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has determined that an entity that provides a link to copyrighted material should not be held liable as a contributory copyright infringer if users of the site bookmarked, but did not upload, the copyrighted material to the site servers

Vicarious copyright infringement requires a showing of supervision or control

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2013

In an opinion that elaborates on the degree of third-party supervision required in order to attach vicarious copyright infringement liability, the U.S

KSR obviousness and BMC joint infringement revisited

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 30 2008

Taking the opportunity to speak to a pair of patent doctrines that were the subject of “disruptive” opinions last year (and that are still in the process of being fully fleshed out), a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a jury verdict finding infringement and validity, rejecting the theory of joint infringement absent a single party exercising “control or direction” over the infringement and found claims directed to a method of using the internet to conduct a bond auction to be obvious under KSR

Nothing non-obvious about applying pre-existing technology to the Internet

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2013

Addressing the issue of obviousness of patents directed to Internet-based software, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a

Hotels and online travel companies move to throw out class action suit

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 24 2013

Last week, a group of hotels and online travel companies moved to dismiss an amended class action complaint alleging that they engaged in a

No “safe harbor” for BitTorrent website operator

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced

Counterfeits beyond Canal StreetSecond Circuit updates personal jurisdiction in the internet commerce context

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

In a victory to trademark owners battling online counterfeiters, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the sale and shipment into New York of one counterfeit product, coupled with defendant’s interactive website selling counterfeit goods, was sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the defendants in the trademark owner’s home state of New York