Patna HC: Disciplinary Authority Cannot Impose Major and Minor Penalties in a Single Order  ||  Calcutta HC: Landlord Decides His Residential Needs; Courts Cannot Set Living Standards in Eviction  ||  Orissa HC: Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Remains Invalid Even After First Wife's Death  ||  Karnataka HC: Appeals Against Acquittal in Bailable Offences Lie Only Before High Court  ||  Supreme Court: Stamp Duty on an Agreement to Sell is Leviable Only if Possession is Transferred  ||  SC: Motive Becomes Irrelevant When Direct Evidence Such as a Dying Declaration is Available  ||  Supreme Court Issues Directions to CoC in Builder Insolvency Cases To Protect Homebuyers’ Interests  ||  MP High Court: Women Retain Reservation Benefits After Marriage if Caste is Recognized in Both States  ||  Allahabad HC: Police Must Prosecute Informants of False Firs, and IOs May Face Contempt if They Fail  ||  MP HP: Over-Age Candidate Cannot Claim Age Relaxation Due to Delay in Earlier Recruitment    

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