P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

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 2024 - All Rights Reserved