SC: Authorities Directed to Take Immediate Measures Regarding Municipal Solid Waste in Delhi  ||  Del. HC: In-Mall Marketing Campaigns Also Advertisements, HUL Restrained from Comparing Products  ||  Andhra Pradesh HC: Cannot Cancel Selection Process in Absence of Valid, Bonafide Reasons  ||  SC: Cannot Make Advocates Liable for Deficiency of Service Under Consumer Protection Act, 1986  ||  Cal HC: Not Operating in Totalitarian State, Govt. Can’t Exercise Blanket Power Over Every Instit.  ||  Mad. HC: Can’t Deny Permission of Temple’s Festival on Grounds of Model Code of Conduct  ||  All. HC: Mentioning Certain Sections in Title of Claim Made to Labour Court Won’t Determine Jurisdi.  ||  Orissa High Court: Can’t Apply Principle of ‘No Work, No Pay’ Universally  ||  SC: Delay in Reporting Seizure Report to Magistrate Won’t Vitiate Act of Seizure by Police  ||  Kar. HC: For Disqua. Under Gram Swaraj & Panchayat Act, Subsisting Contract With Panchayat Necessary    

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