SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation  ||  Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case  ||  Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims  ||  Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation  ||  Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper  ||  Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration  ||  Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal  ||  Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status    

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. - (28 Dec 2015)

Cisco found to not have infringed patent

Intellectual Property Rights

The United States Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit ruled in favour of Cisco Systems in a patent dispute regarding improvements in wireless networking technology. U.S. Patent No. 6,430,395, owned by Commil USA, relates to a method that enables faster and more reliable handoff of mobile devices when switching from one base station to another. Commil had alleged infringement of its patent by Cisco, which had incorporated it in its wireless networking equipment and sold it to customers. Pursuant jury trial, Commil’s patent had been found valid and damages were awarded therefor. The Court of Appeal though at the first instance of the matter refused to hear Cisco’s non-infringement arguments, on remand from the United States Supreme Court, it accepted Cisco’s submissions. It noted that the Patent comprised a two step process of “dividing” and “running”, whereas Cisco’s system never performed the “running” step, meaning a single copy of the protocol supported all connected devices. Commil was held to have not proven that tracking separate ‘state’ information for each device was the same as “running” for the purposes of the Patent.

Tags : PATENT   WIRELESS COMMUNICATION   HANDOFF   REVERSAL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved