Posts Tagged ‘jurisdiction’
In Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth [2009] EW Court of Appeal Civ 1328 (16 December 2009), on an appeal from the Chancery Division, the Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) rejected the Plaintiff-Appellant Lucasfilm’s appeal in respect of copyright non-infringement and of the lack of enforcement of a US judgement in the UK. Defendant-Respondent Ainsworth cross-appeals the decision to enforce the US copyright.
In the course of making the first Star Wars film paintings and drawings were produced showing “stormtroopers” in their helmets and armour as well as a clay model of a stormtrooper helmet. Ainsworth was asked to produce a plastic version based on the clay model and created a sculpted version incorporating his own improvements. Ainsworth subsequently made and sold copies of the helmet. After trial in the Chancery Court (CC) Lucasfilm had obtained a default judgment for trade-mark and copyright infringement in California against Ainsworth in the sum of $20M (US) and was granted an injunction preventing Ainsworth from advertising the identified props in, or sending them to, the US. Continue Reading
In Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Acceleron, L.L.C., the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) panel reversed the district court’s dismissal of the case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202. Acceleron, a patent holding company, had contacted Hewlett-Packard to call attention to U.S. Patent No. 6,948,021 (“the ’021 patent”). After receiving two letters from Acceleron, HP filed for declaratory judgment. The district court granted Acceleron’s motion to dismiss for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction. The CAFC reversed, noting that while a party’s identification of a patent it owns and the plaintiff’s product line is not enough by itself to give rise to declaratory judgment jurisdiction, under the totality of the circumstances, including Acceleron’s position as a patent holding company, it was not unreasonable for HP to interpret Acceleron’s letters as an implicit assertion of its rights in the ’021 patent. Continue Reading
Subscription Options
