Courtship on the court: related news

SCOTUS To Hear Small ISPs' Case Against AT&T

snydeq writes "The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an antitrust case that alleges AT&T squeezed out small ISPs by charging too much for wholesale access to its phone network. The case, originally brought to US District Court in 2003, had been appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But AT&T requested the case be heard by the Supreme Court on the grounds that prior conflicting appeals court decisions in this area should be resolved at that level. As part of the case, the Supreme Court will likely also ascertain whether AT&T could be held to violate antitrust law without setting its retail prices below its own cost."

Appeals Court Reinstates One of Two Alcatel Patent Cases

A federal appeals court reinstated one of two patent cases tossed out last year in the ongoing user-interface technology dispute pitting Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft and Dell. The appeals court said the San Diego district court erred in its determination of a "terminal device" and remanded the case, which was dismissed, back to the court for further proceedings.

Affinity Technology Group, Inc.: Court of Appeals Publishes Opinion in Patent Cases

COLUMBIA, S.C. (Business Wire) -- Affinity Technology Group, Inc. (OTCBB: AFFI) today announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "Appeals Court") has published its opinion in the cases of its subsidiary, decisioning.com versus Federated Department Stores, TD Ameritrade and HSBC Finance Corporation. The principal issues decided by the Appeals Court involved the definition of certain terms which were the basis for the summary judgment order issued by the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina in which the cases against Federated, TD Ameritrade and HSBC were dismissed in 2007. The terms in dispute were the result of a Markman hearing held in December 2006 and included the terms "remote interface," "verify the applicant's identity" and "compare.

NICE Updates on Patent Infringement Litigation Brought Against Verint; Court Reaffirms...

NICE Updates on Patent Infringement Litigation Brought Against Verint; Court Reaffirms Validity of NICE's Patent RA'ANANA, Israel, May 26 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- NICE Systems (NASDAQ: NICE) announced today that in a patent infringement case brought against Verint Americas, Inc. (formerly Witness Systems, Inc.) in the Federal District Court for Northern Georgia in Atlanta, the court found that certain Witness products, which were named in this case, do not infringe NICE's VoIP patent 6871229. NICE intends to appeal this decision. The court rejected Verint's claims challenging the validity of NICE's patent and reaffirmed its validity. The US Patent Office has also, prior to the trial, denied Verint's request for re-examination of the same patent.

Quanta Decision Illustrates Case Against Specialized Patent Court

I agree with Mike that the Quanta v. LG decision was a big victory for common sense in patent law. I think it's worth taking a step back to note that this is a continuation of the trend that Mike identified last year. This is at least the fourth time in as many years that the Supreme Court has taken a patent law case, and in every case they've overruled a bad decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction over patent appeals. The Federal Circuit has spent the last 15 years making a mess of patent law, and the Supreme Court has finally started to notice and is working to clean up the Federal Circuit's messes. But it's hard because patents are one of a handful of major issues on its docket, whereas the Supreme Court has lots of other subjects it needs to deal with.

Court dismisses case against baby for unpaid bill

HARRISONBURG, Va. (AP) -- A Harrisonburg court has dismissed a case against a baby boy summoned to appear in court for an unpaid bill. Richard White said he was shocked when he got a subpoena in the mail requiring his 1-year-old son, Jacy, to appear in Rockingham County General District Court next Tuesday over a $391 chiropractor bill.

Court upholds N.Y. judge's removal for jailing 46

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York’s top court has upheld the removal of a Niagara Falls city court judge who jailed 46 people after no one would own up to a cell phone that rang in court.

Court to Notify Consumers About a Class Action Settlement Involving the Theft of Personal and Financial Data

TAMPA, Fla., April 25 /PRNewswire-HISPANIC PR WIRE/ -- A notification program began today in the United States and Puerto Rico, as ordered by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Court"), to alert people who had a credit card; paid by check for an online or phone purchase; got cash at a casino; or had a check that bounced or was returned, about a proposed settlement reached with Certegy Check Services, Inc. and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. (together called "Certegy" or the "Defendants") in a class action lawsuit about stolen personal and financial information. Preliminary approval of the settlement was granted by the Court on March 21, 2008.

Federal Court Says First-Sale Doctrine Covers Software, Too

New10k writes "The US District Court in Seattle has rejected Autodesk's myriad arguments regarding its software licenses and found in favor of eBay seller Timothy S. Vernor. The ruling started by ruling that Vernor was within his rights to resell copies of AutoCAD Release 14 he got in an auction. Once the court settled the legitimacy of reselling, it used that ruling as a lens to dismiss all of Autodesk's various claims. More than once the court described Autodesk's arguments as 'specious' and 'conflicted.'" Autodesk managed to have Vernor's eBay account pulled, after he listed for sale copies of AutoCad 14. He sued Autodesk in response.

California Court Posts SSNs, Medical Records

Lucas123 writes "California's Riverside County Superior Court's Web site is serving up document images containing SSNs and detailed medical records relating to civil cases, according to a couple of privacy advocates. All of the documents are free to anyone who knows where to look for them. 'Searches done on the court's Web site turned up various documents related to civil cases that contained sensitive information. Included were complete tax filings, medical reports pertaining to cases handled by the court, and images of checks complete with signatures as well as account and bank-routing numbers.'"

GPL vs. Skype Back In Court

mollyhackit writes "Hackaday reports that the GPL vs Skype case is going back to court today. This as an appeal to the court's decision Slashdot reported last July. The original case was brought against Skype for the Linux based SMC Skype WiFi phone. The court upheld the GPLv2 and decided that Skype had not gone far enough in meeting section 3 which details how to provide the original source. This time around Skype is apparently trying to argue that the GPL violates anti-trust regulations."

Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics: Supreme Court Broadens Application of Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

On June 9, 2008, in a 9-0 unanimous opinion in Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, the Supreme Court once again overturned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and issued an opinion that limits the rights of patent owners, this time under the patent exhaustion doctrine. Under this longstanding doctrine, the first authorized sale of a patented item terminates the patent owner’s patent rights in that item. In Quanta Computer, the Supreme Court extended the patent exhaustion doctrine to method patents and held that the authorized, unrestricted sale by a licensee of components embodying the essential features of a patented apparatus and patented method and having no reasonable use other than to practice the patented inventions exhausts the patent owner’s right in the patents.

Oracle win on Mangosoft patent claim upheld by court

Oracle's database software doesn't infringe a patent by smaller rival Mangosoft, a U.S. appeals court ruled, upholding a lower-court finding. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Wednesday upheld a March 2006 ruling in favor of Oracle, the world's third-biggest software maker. Mangosoft sued in 2002, claiming that Oracle's 9i and 10g database software infringed its patent for technology that lets a network of computers share memory to better structure data storage systems. The company had originally sought $500 million from Oracle. Redwood City-based Oracle saw its stock rise 11 cents to $21.78 in Nasdaq trading. Representatives from Nashua, N.H.-based Mangosoft didn't return a call seeking comment.

China's 5fad Sues Baidu Over Music Copyrights in U.S. Court

Hanhzhou, China - Chinese digital music distributor 5fad.com announced on Wednesday that it has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against leading Chinese search engine Baidu (NASD: BIDU) in federal court in New York. Baidu has been the target of a number of lawsuits from record labels in its home country of China, but this suit filed by 5fad appears to be the first such action to be accepted for review by a U.S. federal court, in this case the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

FCC Dealt Setback In BPL Push

SonicSpike writes in with word that an appeals court has dealt a setback to the FCC's plans to encourage broadband over power lines. The court ruled that the FCC erred when it withheld parts of the studies it had used in arriving at its position on BPL. The court did not rule that the FCC's decision was incorrect or that it should be revisited. According to the article, about 5,000 people nationwide subscribe to BPL in 35 pilot projects. We've been discussing BPL for years. "...a federal appeals court has sided in part with amateur radio operators who challenged rules designed to speed the nascent Internet service's rollout. When setting rules for BPL operators nearly two years ago, the Federal Communications Commission said it was trying to encourage deployment of a 'third pipe' to compete with cable and DSL services, while establishing

Dorel to pay $3.4-million to Mattel in patent case

Dorel Inc. has been ordered by a U.S. court to pay $3.4-million (U.S.) to Mattel Inc. for violating trade patents. The ruling, issued May 5 by the Delaware District Court, stemmed from a lawsuit initiated in 2001. Montreal-based Dorel has no plans to appeal, spokesman Rick Leckner said. Mattel argued that two Safety 1st products - Magic Motion and 2-n-1 Bouncenette - violated some patents. Dorel purchased Safety 1st in 2000. In an initial ruling in August, 2003, the court imposed an injunction prohibiting Dorel from manufacturing and marketing the products. A jury decision in 2007 found the violation was "voluntary" and ordered Dorel to pay $1.3-million in damages. Delaware Court Justice Gregory Sleet confirmed the award and added $1-million for damages before 2003 and $3.

Dorel to pay $3.4-million to Mattel in patent case

Dorel Inc. has been ordered by a U.S. court to pay $3.4-million (U.S.) to Mattel Inc. for violating trade patents. The ruling, issued May 5 by the Delaware District Court, stemmed from a lawsuit initiated in 2001. Montreal-based Dorel has no plans to appeal, spokesman Rick Leckner said. Mattel argued that two Safety 1st products - Magic Motion and 2-n-1 Bouncenette - violated some patents. Dorel purchased Safety 1st in 2000. In an initial ruling in August, 2003, the court imposed an injunction prohibiting Dorel from manufacturing and marketing the products. A jury decision in 2007 found the violation was "voluntary" and ordered Dorel to pay $1.3-million in damages. Delaware Court Justice Gregory Sleet confirmed the award and added $1-million for damages before 2003 and $3.

Mod Chips Legal In the UK

An anonymous reader writes "Good news out of the UK! Techdirt reports that an appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling and has now said that mod chips do not violate copyright laws. The case involved a mod chip seller, who imported mod chips for the XBox from Hong Kong and would sell the chips or mod the Xbox's himself. He was charged with copyright infringement and found guilty by a lower court. The appeals court has dismissed all charges, however."

Court Rules Lawsuit Challenging Google's AdWords Billing Practices May Proceed

NEW YORK, June 2 /PRNewswire/ -- On May 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied, in part, Google's motion for summary judgment, and determined that a lawsuit challenging, among other things, Google's practice of charging AdWords advertisers more than an advertiser's specified per day "daily budget" may proceed. The lawsuit is entitled CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC v. Google, Inc., Case No. C 05-03649 JW. Plaintiffs seek to represent all Google AdWords advertisers who have been charged more than their per day daily budget, and will request the Court to certify the lawsuit as a class action. Counsel for plaintiffs are Wolf Popper LLP and Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Search took 0.09 seconds.