A Minnesota court required a patent owner to provide the accused infringer with documents relating to an agreement after finding that the agreement
A new season is under way and some of the rules have changed.
Congratulations! You just won a major victory against your competitor: after years of a hotly contested court battle, the jury found that your competitor’s product infringes your patent, and your competitor’s attack on the patent’s validity failed.
The expression "bad facts make bad law" comes to mind when reading the news reports about Righthaven LLC and the Las Vegas Review-Journal ("Las Vegas Review").
In a copyright infringement suit involving a movie soundtrack, court holds (1) a nonexclusive license can be oral; (2) where the dispute turns on whether there is a license at all, the burden is on the alleged infringer to prove the existence of the license; (3) absent consideration, a nonexclusive license is revocable; and (4) by instituting a copyright infringement action, plaintiff revoked any license that may have existed between the parties.
The Federal Circuit’s August 20, 2007 unanimous en banc decision in In re Seagate Technology, LLC has raised the bar to prove willful patent infringement: the patent owner must now prove recklessness by the infringer.
In a recent and unanimous en banc decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed its long-standing rule requiring that an accused patent infringer exercise an affirmative duty of due care to determine whether or not he is infringing to avoid a finding of willful infringement.