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 158

$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

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

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

The legend of the golden master lives on Supreme Court limits the reach of 271 (f)

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 30 2007

Continuing a string of reversals of Federal Circuit decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court once again reversed the Federal Circuit in holding that under 35 U.S.C. 271 (f) software per se does not qualify as a “component” and that software copies created outside the United States from a master disk exported from the United States are “supplied” from the United States

Supreme Court reverses Federal Circuit in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp

  • Venable LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 29 2007

On April 30, 2007, the Supreme Court declared Microsoft victorious in a case that AT&T brought, in which AT&T alleged that Microsoft was liable for infringement of its patents by overseas sales of the Windows operating system

California court orders preservation of RAM data

  • Duane Morris LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 25 2007

In early June, the federal court for the Central District of California, in Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Bunnell, Case No. CV 06-1093, issued a ruling requiring a company to store its random access memory ("RAM") data

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea

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