By Stephen C. Hall
It goes without saying that businesses use software ubiquitously. Perhaps easier to miss at times is how any given company utilizes software – who uses a particular program and how many machines have the program installed – changes on a monthly, weekly or even daily basis. Such fluidity could expose your company to potential liability if it inadvertently allows too many copies of licensed software on its machines.
In this respect, software licenses contain provisions that every IT and human resource department should understand. For example, software seat licenses limit the number of times the licensee can install – that is, “copy” – a program on its computers. Exceeding that number could result in copyright liability.
This is because valuable software programs are protected under copyright law, and they are sold as part of well-planned licensing programs. One aspect of those programs is enforcement – the ability to objectively determine how many times a program was installed. The sophisticated software publisher uses the license contract to Continue reading Should You Worry About a Software Audit?
By Will Gibbons
Could a case on the boxing classic Raging Bull lead to a patent litigation prizefight of sorts? In an en banc hearing ordered on December 30, 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal appellate court with special jurisdiction over patents and trademarks, will decide whether the Supreme Court’s essential elimination of a litigation defense involving copyright cases should also apply in patent cases.
The defense in question is the doctrine of laches. Laches is an equitable defense that bars recovery when a party claims it has been legally injured, but unreasonably delays pursuing any legal action in a way that prejudices the opposing party. The defense has been asserted in many kinds of cases, including contract, tort, copyright, and patent cases.
A Supreme Court case involving a copyright and the laches defense, Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), has triggered a ripple effect that may reach into patent law. In that case, Paula Petrella, daughter of the co-author of the screenplay that evolved into Raging Bull, alleged copyright infringement against MGM. MGM countered that Petrella delayed too long in bringing the action, as she had renewed the copyright in 1991 and first threatened suit in 1998. However, the Supreme Court rejected MGM’s position and held that Continue reading Patent Litigation on Reach of Raging Bull Decision to go to Round Two in Federal Circuit