Nautilus v Biosig Case Study

Already another month has passed, and it’s about time for another update. Earlier I mentioned some other patent cases the Supreme Court recently decided and how I should talk a little bit about them. At the end of April the Court handed down two decisions both unanimously reversing and remanding the appeals court. For now I will talk about one of them, Nautilus v. Biosig, that dealt with the construction of claims in a patent and opine on the logic behind the patent prosecution process. Continue reading

Posted in Case Study, Patents | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Bowman v. Monsanto Case Study

The Aereo case may be a demonstration about how a larger force in the market uses intellectual property arguments to shut down a competition. This sort of behavior is not limited to copyright cases though. Recently the Supreme Court unanimously decided to rule in favor of Monsanto in a patent infringement case the company filed against one of its customers, a soybean farmer in Indiana. To understand why seed growing was worth the time of the highest court in the land, we need to explain a key aspects of patents and how it is balanced against the public interest. Continue reading

Posted in Case Study, Patents | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

American Broadcasting Cos v. Aereo Case Study

In addition to posting about patent cases the Supreme Court hears, I pay attention to the other intellectual property cases the high court decides on. Back in April the Supreme Court heard arguments on the basis for a preliminary injunction against Aereo for its service to let people watch broadcast television over the internet. Last week the Court decided 6-3 that Aereo was liable for direct copyright infringement of the broadcast television companies’ content. The case involves the key rights granted by copyright and questions about controlling content, so I think I should provide my own explanation on the ruling. Continue reading

Posted in Case Study, Copyright | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Apple-Samsung Jury Wasn’t Sending Message

Originally Posted on SFBay

SAN JOSE — After two hours of deliberations to fix an error spotted late on Friday, Judge Koh told the jury in the Apple v. Samsung trial:

“Please take a seat for the last time.”

The total damages based on Samsung’s infringement of an Apple autocomplete patent remained at around $120 million. The jury found Samsung infringed on two of five Apple patents, using the intellectual property in multiple Samsung smartphones. Continue reading

Posted in Apple v. Samsung, Patents, SFBay | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Apple, Samsung Delay Closing Arguments

Originally Posted on SFBay

SAN JOSE — The jury in the Apple Samsung case was excused from the courtroom Friday morning as the court dealt with the implications of a separate appeals court ruling on this case. Continue reading

Posted in Apple v. Samsung, Patents, SFBay | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment