Florida Lawyer Legal Services

Florida Lawyer News Services | Robbins Equitas

Call (866) 862-6878 and speak with an attorney

(Tampa lawyer) A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC

More info…
(U.S. 4th Cir., Copyright, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property) In a copyright infringement action based on the archiving of student papers on Defendant’s website, judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s claims is affirmed, where the archiving was transformative because its purpose was to prevent plagiarism by comparative use, but judgment for Plaintiff on Defendant’s counterclaims is reversed, where damages under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) can include the costs of repairing a violation of the CFAA.


TransCore, LP v. Electronic Transaction Consultants Corp.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving automated toll collection systems, district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the sales of the toll collection systems installed by defendant were authorized by an earlier settlement agreement involving the plaintiff such that plaintiff’s patent rights were exhausted as to those systems; 2) the court did not err in excluding parol evidence of the parties’ intent at the time they entered into the settlement agreement as the settlement agreement is unambiguous, final, and exclusive; 3) plaintiff’s rights to the ’946 patent were exhausted by third party Mark IV’s authorized sales under an implied license to practice that patent by virtue of legal estoppel.


Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.

(U.S. Fed. Cir., Drugs & Biotech, Intellectual Property, Patent) In a patent infringement action involving drugs related to gene regulation, district court’s judgment against defendant is reversed in part and affirmed in part where: 1) the court lacked substantial evidence for its verdict that the asserted claims of plaintiff’s patent were supported by adequate written description, and thus the asserted claims are invalid; and 2) the correct correctly concluded that the ’516 patent was not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

tampa attorney

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google Bookmarks
  • BlinkList
  • Furl
  • MisterWong
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Do You Need Help?
We can evaluate your situation, offer you options and relate our experiences...

Fill out this form to get started or call (866) 862-6878 for a CONSULTATION

First:
Last:
Phone:
Email:
Zip Code:
Your Question:




SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline