Calling the Situation Grim, the Supreme Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of Delays in NCLT Approvals  ||  Supreme Court: Admission of a Claim by a Resolution Professional is Not Debt Acknowledgment  ||  Supreme Court: Public Figures Must Exercise Caution as Their Words Have Consequences in Society  ||  SC: State Must Act as a Model Employer, Criticising the Union For Not Regularising ISRO Workers  ||  J&K&L High Court: Minor Minerals Have Major Environmental Impacts and Must be Regulated  ||  Del HC: Unexplained Money Received by Public Servant is Not Bribery Without Proof of Official Favour  ||  Del HC: There is No Absolute Bar on Granting Co-Convicts Parole/Furlough Together in Suitable Cases  ||  Bom HC: LARR Authority Can Examine Limitation Issues in Land Acquisition References under 2013 Act  ||  MP HC: Long-Serving Employees Cannot Be Denied Regularisation by Retrospective Statutory Amendments  ||  J&K&L HC: Routine Challenges to Lok Adalat Awards Defeat Their Purpose of Quick Dispute Resolution    

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