News

High Court Address Copyright Infringement In MGM v.Grokster

In a decision with potentially important consequences to all copyright owners and users, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion which addressed whether software providers may be held liable for copyright infringement where their programs are the platform which users use to swap copyrighted works. The case, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. (04-480), concerned a suit by petitioners MGM and other copyright holders against respondents Grokster and StreamCast Networks, Inc., both of which have developed and distributed software protocols that allow computer users to directly share electronic files. Grokster and StreamCast do not charge for their software; rather, they generate revenue by selling advertising space that appears on users’ screens when they use the programs. Moreover, because the files are transmitted from one user to another without passing through a central server, neither Grokster nor StreamCast was aware of the particular files (or their copyright status) its users were sharing. The copyright holders claimed that upwards of 90% of the material transmitted through these peer-to-peer networks was copyrighted and argued that the software companies were liable for their users’ infringement. A federal district court rejected that argument and granted summary judgment to respondents; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Read More...

Articles

The Basics Of An Adequate Pre-Filing Inquiry Under Rule 11

Amanda Mayor

While Rule 11 has not been the subject of recent press in IP circles, compliance with the Rule is a recurring issue, and one that we have seen raised in patent litigation more regularly over the past several months than in years past. Most frequently, the issue is whether the patentee adequately investigated its claims prior to filing suit or a counterclaim for infringement. While the adequacy of any prefiling investigation necessarily is fact-specific, the courts have provided litigants and their counsel with some basic guidelines for fulfilling their Rule 11 obligations. Read More...

Derivatives Patents: Some Strategies For Survival

Eric Roman

Last month, Trading Technologies agreed to settle its patent infringement lawsuit against Patsystems PLC, a London-based provider of electronic trading systems for derivatives. In that lawsuit, Trading Technologies claimed that Patsystems was infringing its patents on an electronic trading system for derivatives that displays market depth by way of a ladder-like display. As part of the settlement agreement, Patsystems agreed to pay Trading Technologies a variable royalty of at least ten cents (U.S.) per side for all derivatives contracts that trade through “Dome,” Patsystems’ trading screen, with a minimum royalty of $50 per screen that uses Dome. Read More...

IP Spotlight

		Chris Kennerly
		Chris Kennerly is a partner in the intellectual property department resident in the Dallas office. With an undergraduate degree in bioengineering and a graduate degree in electrical engineering, Chris is comfortable handling complex intellectual property matters involving a wide range of technologies. For example, he frequently handles matters spanning the biomedical, computer, electronics, software, and telecommunications fields. Chris also assists clients with respect to a wide variety of intellectual property issues, including developing, licensing, and enforcing patent and other intellectual property rights for clients, defending clients against intellectual property assertions from others, and advising clients on the various issues that arise along the way. In building strong intellectual property platforms for clients, he focuses on developing creative strategies to protect current and future revenue streams associated with key product lines, while creating obstacles for competitors. Among his current activities, Chris is litigating patent and trade secret cases related to implantable neurostimulation devices, authentication protocols for dial-up Internet access, external drug delivery devices, and data compression technology for VoIP services. He typically plays an active role in all aspects, both technical and non-technical, of the cases he works on. Chris has found his experience as an engineer and patent lawyer invaluable in his litigation work, and has similarly found his experience litigating complex intellectual property cases invaluable in his non-litigation work, helping him maintain a comprehensive intellectual property practice.

The materials in this document are made available by Baker Botts L.L.P. for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. The transmission and receipt of information contained in the document do not form or constitute an attorney-client relationship. Persons receiving the information in this document should not act upon the information without seeking professional legal counsel. The materials in this document may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and should not be considered an indication of future results. If these materials are inconsistent with the rules governing attorney communications in a particular jurisdiction, and the materials result in a client contact in such jurisdiction, Baker Botts may be prohibited from assuming representation of the client contact.

UNSUBSCRIBE: If you would like to be removed from this list and no longer receive updates, please click here.