A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Archive for the ‘Jurisdiction’ Category

Deference to Plaintiff Trumps Convenience to Parties in Recent Transfer of Infringement Cases
By Insue Kim – Edited by Elise Young

The Federal Circuit upheld the transfer of venue of Elcommerce, from the Eastern District of Texas, emphasizing that there is “‘no requirement under § 1404(a) that a transferee court have jurisdiction over the plaintiff . . . [as long as] the transferee court ha[s] jurisdiction over the defendants in the transferred complaint.’” However, in Barnes & Noble and Apple, district court decisions to deny transfer were upheld on grounds that they were not “clearly and indisputably incorrect . . . .”

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 11 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Flash Digest: News In Brief
By Gea Kang

Facebook looks to provide Internet access viadrones

Michael Jordan emerges victorious in commercial speech case

Apple wins patent for transparent wraparound phone screen

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 9 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Flash Digest: News In Brief
By Ken Winterbottom

Theft drives former Bitcoin giant Mt. Gox into bankruptcy

Lessig v. Liberation Music Settlement

“Google Tax” scrapped in Italy

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 3 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Expert Testimony May Be Required to Determine if Patent Specification Adequately Supports Means-Plus-Function Claim
By Geng Chen – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s finding that the system claims in elcommerce’s patent were invalid. The court held that, in order to properly determine if a specification adequately supported a means-plus-function claim, a district court may require expert testimony so that the specification can be understood from the perspective of a person with ordinary skill in the art.

Read More...

Posted On Mar - 2 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Foreseeability Does Not Preclude Application of the Doctrine of Equivalents
By Mengyi Wang – Edited by Elise Young

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington’s grant of summary judgment, finding that Ring & Pinion Service Inc.’s (“R&P”) Ziplocker product did not infringe ARB Corporation Ltd.’s (“ARB”) U.S. Patent No. 5,591,098 (“the ’098 patent”). Ring & Pinion Service Inc., slip op. at 2.

Read More...

Posted On Feb - 27 - 2014 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Television

District Court Holds

By Anne Woodworth – Edited by Henry Thomas Order: Fox Television ...

Neiman Marcus

Data Breach Victims,

By Brittany Doyle – Edited by Ariane Moss Remijas v. Neiman ...

Magnifying Glass

How Far Can Law Enfo

By Kasey Wang – Edited by Ariane Moss State v. Rindfleisch, ...

Russia & China Cropped

Russia’s “Right

By Brittany Doyle - Edited by Ken Winterbottom The legislatures in ...

Avvo Logo Cropped

Washington Appeals C

By Leonidas Angelakos – Edited by Olga Slobodyanyuk Thomson v. Doe, ...