Del. HC: For Wrongful Confinement, It Isn’t Necessary That Victim Must be Immobilized By Tying Hands  ||  Delhi HC: For Offence of Criminal Intimidation, Intention to Cause Alarm is Necessary  ||  Delhi High Court Restrains Zydus Lifesciences Limited from Selling Biologic Similar to Nivolumab  ||  Delhi HC: Surveyors and Loss-Assessors Work Impartially and Independently  ||  Calcutta HC: Maintenance is a Tool to Maintain Lifestyle  ||  SC: No Binding Arbitration Agreement if Clause Says Arbitration "May Be Sought"  ||  SC: Need to Have Guidelines for Investigating Agencies Summoning Lawyers Over Legal Advice  ||  SC Suggests HCs to Make Rule Mandating Disclosure of Antecedents & Earlier Pleas in Bail Applica.  ||  SC: Remedy under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC Doesn’t Apply When All Defendants Jointly Appeal  ||  SC: No Restriction Imposed on Trial Court’s Power through Section 32 of NDPS Act    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved