Law and Innovation

Fresh and interesting article posted on Apple Insider about the ongoing case between Apple and VirnetX and the jury verdict costing the American multinational technology company $625.6 million . It now seems that Apple is seeking a mistrial; in other words, t he right to a fair trial.  Happy reading!  "After objecting to the closing arguments made by Caldwell, Cassady & Curry attorneys representing VirnetX, Apple has now filed a motion for mistrial in the case that awarded a $625 million verdict after just a week of testimony and deliberation. According to a  report  by  Texas Lawyer , Apple's motion for mistral argues that VirnetX lawyers' closing remarks to the jury included "arguments outside the evidence and blatantly misrepresented the testimony of Apple's witnesses." The East Texas trial made headlines this week after a jury returned a  verdict  finding Apple guilty of willfully infringing on four VirnetX patents in products including

Fresh and interesting article posted on WIPR about the East Texas Federal District Court jury verdict that ordered Apple to pay $626 million to (patent troll) VirnetX for willfully infringing patents with FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN services. Time for a U.S. patent reform!? Happy reading! "A Texas court has ruled that Apple infringed four patents owned by licensing company VirnetX and has ordered the technology company to pay $625 million in damages. Yesterday, February 3, a jury at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that Apple’s FaceTime, iMessage and VPN On Demand services infringed the patents. All four patents cover an online secure communication network. According to the final order, VirnetX proved through a “preponderance of evidence” that Apple was liable for infringement. In total, the court  awarded  VirnetX $625.6 million in damages. Jason Cassady, principal at Caldwell, Cassady & Curry and representing VirnetX,  said : “We are th

Fresh and interesting  post about the future  Unified Patent Court Agreement. Happy reading!  In 2012, the European member states agreed on “unitary patent package” consisting of three elements: two Regulations and an international Agreement. On the one hand, two regulations ( Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection and Council Regulation (EU) No. 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements ), dealing with the creation of the unitary patent protection and the translation arrangements, which entered into force in January 2013. On the other hand, an international court, set up by treaty (“Agreement on a Unified Patent Court”), with divisions located all over Europe. As a reminder, in early 2013, 25 EU me

Fresh and interesting article posted on the IPKat about patent trolls/PAE/NPE and how the U.S. is willing (trying?) to tackle them.  Happy reading!  "At 6:30AM the planes started taking off from San Jose's airport.   Turns out the hotel is in a flight path.  Win.  Normally, this would have woken the AmeriKat but she was already wide awake.  Was it the thrill of turning a year older?  Unlikely.  Was it the jet lag?  Maybe.  Was it the excitement of being in a valley so inundated with innovation you can't swing a Kat without hitting a patent?  Most definitely.  January is almost always an incredibly bleak month in northern Europe (weather wise).  Cold, dark, rainy and miserable.  So the AmeriKat has decided to perk up her whiskers by taking a dose of California sun and American innovative spirit by relocating to Silicon Valley where she reports on the latest goings-on in the world of US patent litigation. Much ado about the patent troll problem:   Earlier this month, a