The Federal Circuit revived a patent infringement case last Friday.  The court held that IpVenture solely owned the patent-in-suit.  An old agreement "to assign" all inventions to Hewlett-Packard hadn’t effected a present assignment.  Plus H-P disclaimed any interest in the patent.  IpVenture therefore did have standing to bring the case and didn’t have to join

Lupins
A field of lovely lovely lupins.

The WSJ Law Blog calls these California general counsel moves musical chairs in techland: 

  • Lou Lupin left Qualcomm (San Diego).  Donald Rosenberg departed Apple (Cupertino).  Daniel Cooperman exited Oracle (Redwood Shores).
  • Mr. Rosenberg replaced Mr. Lupin at Qualcomm.  Mr. Cooperman took Mr. Rosenberg’s Apple spot.  And Oracle’s own Dorian

Ernesthemingway
Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961) nicknamed himself.

In 1952, Papa put these words in the mind of Cuban fisherman Santiago as he struggled with a great Marlin:

I do not understand these things, he thought.  But it is good that we do not have to try to kill the sun or the moon or the stars.  It

Slotmachine
The patent-in-suit concerned slot machines.

The Federal Circuit held today that, in patent lingo, "comprised of" generally means the same thing as "comprising" — "including but not limited to".  The term doesn’t signify "consisting of", which implies the whole of a thing’s composition.  Thus, the United States comprises the South and the Midwest but consists

Judgesmails
Judge Smails warns the groundskeeper about gophers.

Blawgletter thought little of an op-ed title that appeared a couple days ago in the WSJ — "Contingency-Fee Con-Men".  It seemed par for the course.  But the text so distracted us that we hit a towering slice.  We triple-bogeyed the hole.

The gist went like this:

The Third Circuit today upheld dismissal of a complaint alleging that ERISA plan fiduciaries breached their duties of prudence and disclosure by allowing participants to continue investing in their employer’s stock.  The court concluded that the factual allegations didn’t support the conclusion that the fiduciaries abused their discretion in keeping Avaya stock as an investment