FOLLOW US

International

USA Herald

Michigan Attorney Arrested for Attempted Home Invasion and Carrying Weapons

Read More

USA Herald

Neurosurgeon Testifies on Causation in Nissan Airbag lawsuit

Read More

USA Herald

Kroenke Sports Sues Denver Hot Dog Chain for $860K in Unpaid Sponsorship Fees

Read More

USA Herald

House Lawmakers Debate Regulation of Tokenization of Real-World Assets

Read More

USA Herald

New York Federal Judge Dismisses AMTAX’s $27M Fraud Suit

Read More

WP_Query Object
(
    [query] => Array
        (
            [cat] => 23
            [posts_per_page] => 5
            [offset] => 5845
            [post_status] => publish
            [ignore_sticky_posts] => 1
        )

    [query_vars] => Array
        (
            [cat] => 23
            [posts_per_page] => 5
            [offset] => 5845
            [post_status] => publish
            [ignore_sticky_posts] => 1
            [error] => 
            [m] => 
            [p] => 0
            [post_parent] => 
            [subpost] => 
            [subpost_id] => 
            [attachment] => 
            [attachment_id] => 0
            [name] => 
            [pagename] => 
            [page_id] => 0
            [second] => 
            [minute] => 
            [hour] => 
            [day] => 0
            [monthnum] => 0
            [year] => 0
            [w] => 0
            [category_name] => international
            [tag] => 
            [tag_id] => 
            [author] => 
            [author_name] => 
            [feed] => 
            [tb] => 
            [paged] => 0
            [meta_key] => 
            [meta_value] => 
            [preview] => 
            [s] => 
            [sentence] => 
            [title] => 
            [fields] => all
            [menu_order] => 
            [embed] => 
            [category__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [category__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_name__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [tag_slug__and] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [post_parent__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__in] => Array
                (
                )

            [author__not_in] => Array
                (
                )

            [search_columns] => Array
                (
                )

            [suppress_filters] => 
            [cache_results] => 1
            [update_post_term_cache] => 1
            [update_menu_item_cache] => 
            [lazy_load_term_meta] => 1
            [update_post_meta_cache] => 1
            [post_type] => 
            [nopaging] => 
            [comments_per_page] => 50
            [no_found_rows] => 
            [order] => DESC
        )

    [tax_query] => WP_Tax_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                    [0] => Array
                        (
                            [taxonomy] => category
                            [terms] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => 23
                                )

                            [field] => term_id
                            [operator] => IN
                            [include_children] => 1
                        )

                )

            [relation] => AND
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                    [0] => wp_term_relationships
                )

            [queried_terms] => Array
                (
                    [category] => Array
                        (
                            [terms] => Array
                                (
                                    [0] => 23
                                )

                            [field] => term_id
                        )

                )

            [primary_table] => wp_posts
            [primary_id_column] => ID
        )

    [meta_query] => WP_Meta_Query Object
        (
            [queries] => Array
                (
                )

            [relation] => 
            [meta_table] => 
            [meta_id_column] => 
            [primary_table] => 
            [primary_id_column] => 
            [table_aliases:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [clauses:protected] => Array
                (
                )

            [has_or_relation:protected] => 
        )

    [date_query] => 
    [request] => SELECT SQL_CALC_FOUND_ROWS  wp_posts.ID
					 FROM wp_posts  LEFT JOIN wp_term_relationships ON (wp_posts.ID = wp_term_relationships.object_id)
					 WHERE 1=1  AND ( 
  wp_term_relationships.term_taxonomy_id IN (23)
) AND wp_posts.post_type = 'post' AND ((wp_posts.post_status = 'publish'))
					 GROUP BY wp_posts.ID
					 ORDER BY wp_posts.post_date DESC
					 LIMIT 5845, 5
    [posts] => Array
        (
            [0] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 62554
                    [post_author] => 150
                    [post_date] => 2024-06-06 08:08:56
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-06-06 13:08:56
                    [post_content] => 





Rimini Street and its owner urged the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday to vacate an injunction blocking it from copying Oracle's software in their 14-year battle over Rimini's software patches. They argued that the lower court erroneously dismissed certain infringement defenses and made other errors.

Mark Andrew Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, representing Rimini Street Inc. and its owner Seth Ravin, told a three-judge panel that the lower court made two significant legal errors at the pleading stage early in the litigation. These errors barred Rimini from asserting certain IP defenses, which Perry argued should have been considered throughout the case. He urged the appellate court to review these rulings "de novo," or without deference to the lower court's decision.

Perry argued that the trial court erred by barring Rimini from arguing that its software patches were not derivative works, emphasizing that derivative works must incorporate protected expression from another copyrighted work, whereas Rimini's software is entirely new code. He also contended that the district court wrongly struck Rimini's statutory defense under the Copyright Act, which allows lawful copying of a computer program as "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" or for "archival purposes."

Perry maintained that the trial judge wrongly held that Oracle's licensees are not "owners" of a copy of a computer program, thereby precluding Rimini from invoking the Section 117(a) defense to Oracle's infringement claims.

"This should have been in the case all along," Perry said. "It should have made all the difference. Ten years of litigation and hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees would have been avoided had the district court applied the statute Congress wrote for this particular circumstance."

The dispute dates back to 2010 when Oracle sued Rimini, seeking to stop its competitor from copying its software, which Rimini argued it needed to serve clients. Despite Rimini changing its practices in 2014, the claims went to trial in 2015, and a jury found Rimini's former practices infringed Oracle's copyright. The trial judge barred Rimini from continuing to infringe Oracle's software in 2018, and after subsequent appeals, the Ninth Circuit mostly affirmed the judge's conclusion.

During Wednesday's hearing, Perry argued that the foundational legal errors made by the trial court require the reversal of the infringement findings and the vacatur of the injunction. He cited the Second Circuit's 2019 decision in Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Systems Engineering to support his Section 117(a) defense arguments.

Oracle's counsel, Raechel Kummer of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, argued that Rimini is a "recidivist contemptuous infringer" and that the company has continued infringing Oracle's derivative works despite the court's injunction and past appellate court losses. She emphasized that Oracle has never granted Rimini a license to use its software and that the licenses Oracle grants to customers are non-transferable and prohibit sharing with third parties or accessing the software outside of facilities.

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee questioned Oracle's arguments, calling Oracle's position regarding its licensing restrictions "entirely circular."

"I don't understand what they get to do here … I don't understand how they can possibly update anything in [the software] without it being infringing under your definition," Judge Bybee said.

The panel agreed to let Oracle supplement the record after the hearing and took the arguments under submission.

In November, Oracle asked the trial judge to award it nearly $12.2 million in legal fees and other costs for enforcing the injunction, which Rimini opposed, arguing that each side should pay its own legal costs. As of Wednesday, the trial judge had not yet ruled on Oracle's fee request.
Rimini and Oracle Copyright Battle
The long-running dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, resulting in a 2019 unanimous opinion that limited recoverable litigation costs to those specified in the general litigation cost statute.

U.S. Circuit Judges Jay Bybee and Patrick Bumatay and U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett, sitting by designation, heard the case.

Oracle is represented by Raechel Kummer of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Rimini and Ravin are represented by Mark Andrew Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The case is Oracle International Corp. et al. v. Rimini Street Inc. et al., case number 23-16038, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.





                    [post_title] => Ninth Circuit Hears Rimini's Appeal in 14-Year Oracle Copyright Battle
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => ninth-circuit-hears-riminis-appeal-in-14-year-oracle-copyright-battle
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2024-06-13 02:10:08
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-06-13 07:10:08
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://usaherald.com/?p=62554
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [1] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 62552
                    [post_author] => 150
                    [post_date] => 2024-06-06 08:06:18
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-06-06 13:06:18
                    [post_content] => A Connecticut federal judge is standing by his earlier decision refusing to release $50,000 in frozen assets to pay the attorneys of an investment adviser and his wife, who face a $5.9 million fraud suit from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

U.S. District Judge Victor A. Bolden denied the request by John A. Masanotti Jr. and his company, Middlesex Mortgage Group LLC, to modify the asset freeze. The judge issued the original preliminary injunction against the defendants in November and updated it in February after the SEC said it needed to be altered on an expedited basis because regulators learned from at least two witnesses that Masanotti was not abiding by the injunction's guidelines.

The SEC's November complaint accused Masanotti and his company of misappropriating money for personal uses, such as mortgage payments on two homes he owned with his wife, Mary A. Ferrara. Ferrara is named as a relief defendant in the lawsuit.

In a May 17 filing, the SEC argued Masanotti's request to unfreeze the assets "defrauded investor money." The agency said the defendants should not be able to access even a portion of the $148,000 gained from the sale of their Connecticut home because Middlesex investor funds have been subsidizing the mortgage payments for years.

Masanotti argued Ferrara has legitimate claims to the funds because the house was in her name. However, the SEC argued the monthly mortgage payments exceeded her income, and the defendants were using investors' money for the payments and home renovations.

"Proceeds from the sale of the [Connecticut] property are tainted and should be applied toward recompensing defrauded investors who unwittingly funded defendants' lifestyle," the SEC said.

Additionally, the SEC said the defendants may be recklessly spending their income on "golf and luxury cars" and have not shown that they need the additional cash from the home sale funds or that they will use it solely for fees related to the SEC's case.

"Counsel has further indicated that some of the funds, if unfrozen, may be used for Ferrara to retain a divorce attorney, an expense unrelated to the defense of this matter that defrauded investors should not [be] forced to fund," the SEC said.

Masanotti was arrested in a parallel criminal case on May 9. The SEC and the U.S. Department of Justice asked the court to pause the SEC's action against Masanotti until the criminal proceedings conclude, but the court has not yet approved or denied the request.

Masanotti faces eight counts of wire fraud, 11 counts of making illegal monetary transactions, one count of making false statements and one count of falsification of records in a federal investigation.

The SEC declined to comment. Counsel for Masanotti did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

The SEC is represented in-house by Rua M. Kelly, Alfred A. Day, William J. Donahue and Alexandra B. Lavin.

Masanotti, Ferrara and Middlesex Mortgage are represented by Juan M. Marcelino.

The case is Securities and Exchange Commission v. Masanotti et al., case number 3:23-cv-01481, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
                    [post_title] => Judge Denies Release of Frozen Assets in SEC Fraud Case
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => judge-denies-release-of-frozen-assets-in-sec-fraud-case
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2024-06-13 02:09:25
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-06-13 07:09:25
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://usaherald.com/?p=62552
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [2] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 62549
                    [post_author] => 150
                    [post_date] => 2024-06-06 08:03:40
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-06-06 13:03:40
                    [post_content] => Shareholders in a small Miami bank told jurors Wednesday that board members working for the Venezuelan government had taken control of the bank and cost shareholders $27 million by engaging with the sanctioned Venezuelan government.

In opening statements in federal court in Miami, Diego Pérez Ara, who represents shareholders Bancor Group Inc. and Stichting Particulier Fonds Franeker, told jurors that the Eastern National Bank board members' decision to open accounts with the state-owned Banco de Venezuela in 2016 led to two consent orders from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which Pérez described as "the second-worst thing that can happen to a bank," aside from a liquidation.

Since then, the bank has closed three of its four branches, laid off 30% of its workforce, and has half the assets it did before agents of the Venezuelan government took control, according to Pérez.

"Those consent orders have caused massive damages to the bank," Pérez said. "There's a clear moment in time that determined the fate of the bank, and that was opening the Banco de Venezuela accounts."

Pérez said it began with Gabina Rodriguez, an attorney who took control of Eastern National Bank when she was appointed as receiver of Corpofin CA, the ultimate parent company of the bank. She then stacked the board with people Pérez called "Venezuelan government agents."

Pérez said that at the time the Eastern National Bank board members were opening Banco de Venezuela accounts, Citibank, a bank much larger than the small Miami bank, had decided to close its Banco de Venezuela accounts because of the risks involved in dealing with a bank owned by a sanctioned state.

Pérez said Jack Lantz, the compliance officer of the bank, was the only one who objected, saying in a September 2016 memorandum to Rodriguez that "it is very reasonable that if we do not satisfactorily manage the risks, I believe the OCC response would be a consent order or worse."

The first consent order was issued in 2018, followed by another in 2020 that Pérez said is still in place today.

In the defense's opening, Gary Davidson, who represents Rodriguez and the other board members, said "very little of what transpired at Eastern National Bank had to do with the Venezuelan government."

He pointed out that the two plaintiffs combined, Bancor and Franeker, collectively own fewer than 100 shares in the bank, out of approximately 100 million shares of Eastern National Bank stock. Both Bancor and Franeker are controlled by Venezuelan-American businessman Juan Santaella, who had originally owned the bank.

"Mr. Juan Santaella has been obsessed with only one thing: getting back control of Eastern National Bank," Davidson said.

Davidson explained that this began during the Venezuelan financial crisis of 1994, when several banks failed and were taken over by the government. The Venezuelan equivalent of the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. stepped in to protect the deposits of Bancor, which was a bank at the time, and to remove Santaella, according to Davidson.

Bancor's parent company was Corpofin, which also owned Mercorp NV, which in turn owns the majority of shares in Eastern National Bank. Rodriguez was appointed by the Venezuelan government to oversee Corpofin and took control of Mercorp as well, according to Davidson.

"She's a private lawyer at this point, but she's been appointed as an overseer of this company, not to profit from it, but to make sure it is running correctly and doing the right thing," Davidson said.

He said his team will prove that Rodriguez and the other board members never received any extra compensation and that they reasonably believed their business judgments were in the best interests of Eastern National Bank.

The trial resumes on Monday morning with testimony from the first witnesses.

Bancor and Franeker filed the suit against the bank's leadership in January 2022, claiming the directors allowed the bank to sidestep U.S. penalties in order to benefit the Venezuelan government.

The case has been marked by strife between counsel representing the warring parties, with Diaz Reus & Targ LLP attorney Michael Diaz being disqualified in April 2023 after a magistrate judge determined that he had an attorney-client relationship with the bank's beneficial owner between 1996 and 1998.

The directors hit back with their own disqualification bid against plaintiffs' counsel León Cosgrove Jiménez LLP over alleged misuse of privileged documents, but that request was denied.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles denied a bid by the plaintiffs to sanction Diaz Reus lawyers over allegations that they delayed an October 2023 trial date.

Bancor and Stichting Particulier are represented by Derek E. León, Diego Pérez Ara, and Gregory S. Carter of León Cosgrove Jiménez LLP.

The board of directors is represented by Gary E. Davidson, Evan J. Stroman, Brant C. Hadaway, Javier Coronado, and Ibrahim Amir of Diaz Reus LLP.

The case is Bancor Group Inc. v. Rodriguez et al., case number 1:22-cv-20201, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
                    [post_title] => Miami Bank Shareholders Claim $27M Loss Due to Venezuelan Government Control
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => miami-bank-shareholders-claim-27m-loss-due-to-venezuelan-government-control
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2024-06-13 02:08:56
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-06-13 07:08:56
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://usaherald.com/?p=62549
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [3] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 62544
                    [post_author] => 150
                    [post_date] => 2024-06-06 08:00:33
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-06-06 13:00:33
                    [post_content] => 





The California federal trial in a multibillion-dollar antitrust suit against the NFL by Sunday Ticket subscribers kicked off Wednesday with the seating of eight jurors and two alternates, after some potential jurors were eliminated for expressing strong views on former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick, player concussions, and the league's significant wealth.

The long-running case was brought by a class of NFL fans who purchased the NFL Sunday Ticket package through DirecTV, and another class of businesses such as bars and restaurants that purchased the package. Both are challenging the exclusivity agreement the NFL has with DirecTV for Sunday Ticket.
NFL Sunday Ticket Antitrust Trial
A handful of jurors questioned by U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez were eliminated for cause after expressing their view of the NFL as a greedy organization, while the league used at least one of its peremptory challenges to dismiss a juror who expressed concern over players suffering from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, which is a traumatic brain injury some former players have been diagnosed with after death believed to be caused by concussions.

One of the most interesting exchanges of the day occurred when a juror who appeared to be a male in his 30s was asked by the judge about an answer on his questionnaire regarding his strong views about Kaepernick, who caused controversy years ago when he chose to take a knee during some national anthems to protest police brutality against Black Americans.

It was unclear from his answer on the form how he felt about Kaepernick, but when asked, he told the judge he "sent a scathing email to the NFL and said I would never watch or support it again."

"I think the act of kneeling during the national anthem is un-American, and it was un-American for nothing to have been done to Mr. Kaepernick," he continued.

When the jurors were on a break, Judge Gutierrez told the attorneys he was going to strike the juror for cause, but William Christopher Carmody of Susman Godfrey LLP, who represents the plaintiffs, said the juror should be considered because he thought he said he could be fair in the case. The judge disagreed.

"I thought he could be rehabilitated until he started writing scathing letters to the NFL," the judge said.

Some members of the jury pool were eliminated before they were ever brought into the courtroom, based on their answers on a juror questionnaire on the case. Judge Gutierrez struck some because they appeared to be class members or for potential bias in the case, including one who expressed negative views on NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

Near the end of the day, eight jurors and two alternates were seated for the trial, with opening statements scheduled for Thursday morning.

The class action features two sets of plaintiffs: one of at least 2.4 million residential subscribers who purchased the Sunday Ticket package after June 17, 2011, and another of at least 48,000 bars, restaurants and other establishments that subscribed during the same period.

DirecTV and the NFL have been fighting those antitrust allegations for the better part of a decade. In late 2015, more than 20 lawsuits from bars, restaurants and fans were centralized into multidistrict litigation. The classes are seeking more than $6 billion in damages, which could also be trebled under antitrust law.

In their suit, the subscribers claim that DirecTV can charge higher prices because it doesn't have competition for airing football broadcasts. They have also argued that, without the deal with the NFL to sell rights collectively, each football team would be motivated to distribute its games nationally via cable, satellite, or internet channels at competitive prices.

An initial bid to throw out the case came to a head in 2020, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Ninth Circuit decision that revived the suit. In 2021, Judge Gutierrez moved the claims against DirecTV into arbitration, but the case against the NFL remained in court. The subscribers won class certification in early 2023.

In the class certification ruling, Judge Gutierrez cast some doubt on the NFL's assertions that it is not flouting antitrust laws, and did so again in January when he denied the NFL's request for summary judgment on the subscribers' Sherman Act claims, ruling both Section 1 and Section 2 allegations would proceed toward trial.

Following that ruling, the NFL and plaintiffs jockeyed for position over what evidence could be presented at the trial, with Judge Gutierrez ruling the NFL could not describe its Sunday Ticket broadcast package as a "luxury," and that the NFL defendants can't say anything to imply that the litigation is "attorney-driven" or bring evidence related to how the subscribers met their attorneys and became part of the litigation.

Other pretrial action focused on how much of the NFL's history of being faulted for antitrust violations could be presented to a jury.

The plaintiffs are represented by Marc M. Seltzer, Kalpana Srinivasan, Amanda Bonn, William C. Carmody, Seth Ard, Tyler Finn, and Ian M. Gore of Susman Godfrey LLP, Scott Martin, Sathya S. Gosselin, Christopher L. Lebsock, Samuel Maida, and Farhad Mirzadeh of Hausfeld LLP, and Howard Langer, Edward Diver, Peter Leckman, and Kevin Trainer of Langer Grogan & Diver PC.

The NFL and individual NFL clubs are represented by Rakesh N. Kilaru, Beth A. Wilkinson, Brian L. Stekloff, Max J. Warren, Anastasia M. Pastan, and Jeremy S. Barber of Wilkinson Stekloff LLP, and Neema T. Sahni, Gregg H. Levy, Derek Ludwin, and John S. Playforth of Covington & Burling LLP.

The case is In re: National Football League's "Sunday Ticket" Antitrust Litigation, case number 2:15-ml-02668, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.










                    [post_title] => NFL Sunday Ticket Antitrust Trial Begins with Jury Selection
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => nfl-sunday-ticket-antitrust-trial-begins-with-jury-selection
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2024-06-13 02:08:27
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-06-13 07:08:27
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://usaherald.com/?p=62544
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

            [4] => WP_Post Object
                (
                    [ID] => 62541
                    [post_author] => 150
                    [post_date] => 2024-06-06 07:56:58
                    [post_date_gmt] => 2024-06-06 12:56:58
                    [post_content] => 





A Federal Circuit panel appeared wary Wednesday of Provisur Technologies Inc.'s argument that Weber Inc. knew it was infringing its patents for meat slicing and packaging machines, the basis for a $10.5 million judgment against Weber last year.

Weber argues that, at the very least, the lower court's finding of willfulness should be vacated. Much of the oral argument also revolved around whether Provisur's experts could adjust the Weber machine's settings to make it work like Provisur's without the help of Weber technicians.

The Weber machines were built to slice the meat and move it to an extended conveyor that then retracts to fill the packaging pockets with the slices. A key claim in Provisur's patent applies to a conveyor that moves forward to drop the sliced food into the pockets.

Provisur argues that end users can reconfigure Weber machines to make them advance-to-fill like Provisur's, which constitutes infringement. Weber, however, contends that such a switch could only be made by a Weber technician.

U.S. Circuit Judge Kimberly A. Moore pointed out to Craig Martin of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, counsel for Provisur, that its expert, Keith Vorst, was able to configure the Weber machine to advance fill the pockets only when using a settings screen that's inaccessible to users.

"Only a Weber technician or the Weber factory can alter the prior to delivery. ... But you the user can't do that," Judge Moore told Martin. "That's the testimony of record, so how is this device therefore configurable such that a user could utilize it in an infringing way?"

Martin replied that Vorst testified "repeatedly" that he was able to use the machine's interface to reconfigure the machine to advance to fill.

"His testimony was, 'I used the ... screen to easily configure this in an advance-to-fill mode.' And that's what he testified to," Martin said. "Nobody cross-examines him and says 'you have to go beyond a wall' or 'you have to ... have a technician there.'"

Beyond that, he said, there was no dispute at trial about whether an end user could reconfigure the machines.

But Judge Moore pointed out that another expert testified that the screens used to reconfigure the setting aren't available to Weber customers. And Weber's attorney, William Milliken of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC, said Vorst himself said that the settings needed to reconfigure the machine to advance are only available to Weber technicians.

"In order to have infringement for an apparatus capability, you've got to show reasonable capability, which means it would infringe without some kind of unforeseen modification in the ordinary course. And Weber's customers don't have access to this," Milliken said.

At a minimum, Weber is asking the court to vacate U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough's judgment of willful infringement. Judge Bough wrote that Weber "intentionally copied plaintiff's patented ideas."

But Martin told the panel there was "overwhelming" evidence to support Judge Bough's willfulness finding, including interrogatory responses from Weber executives that — despite changing multiple times — indicated that the company was aware of Provisur's patents.

"The evidence clearly showed that Weber knew about the patents, that many of their senior executives, including their CEO, had rated the patents ... for relevance," Martin said.

U.S. Circuit Judge Richard G. Taranto said that there wasn't evidence that Weber executives' patent rating meant that they knew their product was infringing. And Judge Moore said Weber's awareness of the patents doesn't mean the company was aware that its "smart loader" was infringing it.

Martin argued that the testimony from Weber executives changed as the proceeding progressed, creating a significant "credibility contest." He also pointed to testimony from Provisur's willfulness expert, John White, who laid out the steps that companies go through to assess a patent related to their products.

"He goes through the steps that you'd have to go through in terms of what the investigation should be to avoid infringement, and there was no testimony whatsoever that they ever had formed a good-faith belief," Martin said. "They have no evidence with regard to whether they reasonably believe the patents are valid or invalid."

But Judge Taranto pointed out that it's Provisur's obligation to show willfulness to justify the $10.5 million judgment, and that simply inferring that Weber didn't take every step necessary to ensure that they weren't infringing might not be enough.

"This is your burden ... to establish willfulness," Judge Taranto said. "You're urging that a failure to do all that stuff is a basis or an inference that they, under the willfulness standard, knew, or it should have been obvious that they were infringing."

U.S. Circuit Judges Kimberly A. Moore and Richard G. Taranto and U.S. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi sat on the panel for the Federal Circuit.

The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,065,936; 10,625,436; and 10,639,812.

Provisur is represented by Craig C. Martin, Sara T. Horton, Michael Babbitt, Ren-How Harn and Henry C. Thomas of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.

Weber is represented by Daniel E. Yonan, Donald R. Banowit, William H. Milliken, Kristina Caggiano Kelly and Richard A. Crudo of Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC.

The case is Provisur Technologies Inc. v. Weber Inc., case number 23-1438, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.










                    [post_title] => Federal Circuit Skeptical of Weber's Willfulness Argument in Patent Case
                    [post_excerpt] => 
                    [post_status] => publish
                    [comment_status] => open
                    [ping_status] => closed
                    [post_password] => 
                    [post_name] => federal-circuit-skeptical-of-webers-willfulness-argument-in-patent-case
                    [to_ping] => 
                    [pinged] => 
                    [post_modified] => 2024-06-13 02:05:58
                    [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-06-13 07:05:58
                    [post_content_filtered] => 
                    [post_parent] => 0
                    [guid] => https://usaherald.com/?p=62541
                    [menu_order] => 0
                    [post_type] => post
                    [post_mime_type] => 
                    [comment_count] => 0
                    [filter] => raw
                )

        )

    [post_count] => 5
    [current_post] => -1
    [before_loop] => 1
    [in_the_loop] => 
    [post] => WP_Post Object
        (
            [ID] => 62554
            [post_author] => 150
            [post_date] => 2024-06-06 08:08:56
            [post_date_gmt] => 2024-06-06 13:08:56
            [post_content] => 





Rimini Street and its owner urged the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday to vacate an injunction blocking it from copying Oracle's software in their 14-year battle over Rimini's software patches. They argued that the lower court erroneously dismissed certain infringement defenses and made other errors.

Mark Andrew Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, representing Rimini Street Inc. and its owner Seth Ravin, told a three-judge panel that the lower court made two significant legal errors at the pleading stage early in the litigation. These errors barred Rimini from asserting certain IP defenses, which Perry argued should have been considered throughout the case. He urged the appellate court to review these rulings "de novo," or without deference to the lower court's decision.

Perry argued that the trial court erred by barring Rimini from arguing that its software patches were not derivative works, emphasizing that derivative works must incorporate protected expression from another copyrighted work, whereas Rimini's software is entirely new code. He also contended that the district court wrongly struck Rimini's statutory defense under the Copyright Act, which allows lawful copying of a computer program as "an essential step in the utilization of the computer program" or for "archival purposes."

Perry maintained that the trial judge wrongly held that Oracle's licensees are not "owners" of a copy of a computer program, thereby precluding Rimini from invoking the Section 117(a) defense to Oracle's infringement claims.

"This should have been in the case all along," Perry said. "It should have made all the difference. Ten years of litigation and hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees would have been avoided had the district court applied the statute Congress wrote for this particular circumstance."

The dispute dates back to 2010 when Oracle sued Rimini, seeking to stop its competitor from copying its software, which Rimini argued it needed to serve clients. Despite Rimini changing its practices in 2014, the claims went to trial in 2015, and a jury found Rimini's former practices infringed Oracle's copyright. The trial judge barred Rimini from continuing to infringe Oracle's software in 2018, and after subsequent appeals, the Ninth Circuit mostly affirmed the judge's conclusion.

During Wednesday's hearing, Perry argued that the foundational legal errors made by the trial court require the reversal of the infringement findings and the vacatur of the injunction. He cited the Second Circuit's 2019 decision in Universal Instruments Corp. v. Micro Systems Engineering to support his Section 117(a) defense arguments.

Oracle's counsel, Raechel Kummer of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, argued that Rimini is a "recidivist contemptuous infringer" and that the company has continued infringing Oracle's derivative works despite the court's injunction and past appellate court losses. She emphasized that Oracle has never granted Rimini a license to use its software and that the licenses Oracle grants to customers are non-transferable and prohibit sharing with third parties or accessing the software outside of facilities.

However, U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee questioned Oracle's arguments, calling Oracle's position regarding its licensing restrictions "entirely circular."

"I don't understand what they get to do here … I don't understand how they can possibly update anything in [the software] without it being infringing under your definition," Judge Bybee said.

The panel agreed to let Oracle supplement the record after the hearing and took the arguments under submission.

In November, Oracle asked the trial judge to award it nearly $12.2 million in legal fees and other costs for enforcing the injunction, which Rimini opposed, arguing that each side should pay its own legal costs. As of Wednesday, the trial judge had not yet ruled on Oracle's fee request.
Rimini and Oracle Copyright Battle
The long-running dispute reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, resulting in a 2019 unanimous opinion that limited recoverable litigation costs to those specified in the general litigation cost statute.

U.S. Circuit Judges Jay Bybee and Patrick Bumatay and U.S. District Judge Richard D. Bennett, sitting by designation, heard the case.

Oracle is represented by Raechel Kummer of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Rimini and Ravin are represented by Mark Andrew Perry of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.

The case is Oracle International Corp. et al. v. Rimini Street Inc. et al., case number 23-16038, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.





            [post_title] => Ninth Circuit Hears Rimini's Appeal in 14-Year Oracle Copyright Battle
            [post_excerpt] => 
            [post_status] => publish
            [comment_status] => open
            [ping_status] => closed
            [post_password] => 
            [post_name] => ninth-circuit-hears-riminis-appeal-in-14-year-oracle-copyright-battle
            [to_ping] => 
            [pinged] => 
            [post_modified] => 2024-06-13 02:10:08
            [post_modified_gmt] => 2024-06-13 07:10:08
            [post_content_filtered] => 
            [post_parent] => 0
            [guid] => https://usaherald.com/?p=62554
            [menu_order] => 0
            [post_type] => post
            [post_mime_type] => 
            [comment_count] => 0
            [filter] => raw
        )

    [comment_count] => 0
    [current_comment] => -1
    [found_posts] => 9765
    [max_num_pages] => 1953
    [max_num_comment_pages] => 0
    [is_single] => 
    [is_preview] => 
    [is_page] => 
    [is_archive] => 1
    [is_date] => 
    [is_year] => 
    [is_month] => 
    [is_day] => 
    [is_time] => 
    [is_author] => 
    [is_category] => 1
    [is_tag] => 
    [is_tax] => 
    [is_search] => 
    [is_feed] => 
    [is_comment_feed] => 
    [is_trackback] => 
    [is_home] => 
    [is_privacy_policy] => 
    [is_404] => 
    [is_embed] => 
    [is_paged] => 
    [is_admin] => 
    [is_attachment] => 
    [is_singular] => 
    [is_robots] => 
    [is_favicon] => 
    [is_posts_page] => 
    [is_post_type_archive] => 
    [query_vars_hash:WP_Query:private] => 61b511817265985d8154d41250a41712
    [query_vars_changed:WP_Query:private] => 
    [thumbnails_cached] => 
    [allow_query_attachment_by_filename:protected] => 
    [stopwords:WP_Query:private] => 
    [compat_fields:WP_Query:private] => Array
        (
            [0] => query_vars_hash
            [1] => query_vars_changed
        )

    [compat_methods:WP_Query:private] => Array
        (
            [0] => init_query_flags
            [1] => parse_tax_query
        )

    [query_cache_key:WP_Query:private] => wp_query:b5755c93bc3ca6b04801c211270557d0
)

International June 6, 2024

Judge Denies Release of Frozen Assets in SEC Fraud Case

A Connecticut federal judge is standing by his earlier decision refusing to release $50,000 in frozen assets to pay the…

By Rochdi Rais

International June 6, 2024

Miami Bank Shareholders Claim $27M Loss Due to Venezuelan Government Control

Shareholders in a small Miami bank told jurors Wednesday that board members working for the Venezuelan government had taken control…

By Rochdi Rais

International June 6, 2024

NFL Sunday Ticket Antitrust Trial Begins with Jury Selection

The California federal trial in a multibillion-dollar antitrust suit against the NFL by Sunday Ticket subscribers kicked off Wednesday with…

By Rochdi Rais

International June 6, 2024

Federal Circuit Skeptical of Weber’s Willfulness Argument in Patent Case

A Federal Circuit panel appeared wary Wednesday of Provisur Technologies Inc.’s argument that Weber Inc. knew it was infringing its…

By Rochdi Rais

America June 6, 2024

Amazon Wins Pretrial Over Thermal Camera Biometric Privacy Claims

An Illinois federal judge handed Amazon a pretrial win over accusations that it violated workers’ biometric privacy rights by using thermal cameras to screen for…

By – Rochdi Rais

America June 6, 2024

FuboTV Must Face Class Action Over Alleged Data Sharing

Streaming service Fubo cannot escape a proposed class action alleging it unlawfully shared subscribers’ personally identifiable information (PII) with third-party advertisers, an Illinois federal judge…

By – Rochdi Rais

America June 6, 2024

PwC Pushes California High Court to Reinstate $2.5M Sanction on LA

PwC urged the California Supreme Court on Wednesday to revive a $2.5 million sanction against the city of Los Angeles for yearslong discovery misconduct in…

By – Rochdi Rais

America June 6, 2024

Union Seeks Dismissal of Musicians’ Claims Over Philharmonic Suspension

The Associated Musicians of Greater New York AFM Local 802 urged a New York federal court Wednesday to dismiss duty of fair representation claims from…

By – Rochdi Rais

America June 6, 2024

Judge Dismisses $48M Negligence Suit Against BIA Over Wildfire

A federal judge in Washington state on Wednesday tossed a ranch’s $48 million negligence lawsuit alleging the Bureau of Indian Affairs is liable for damages…

By – Rochdi Rais

America June 6, 2024

Judge Questions Exemplary Damages in Cyclist’s Death

A Colorado federal judge was skeptical Wednesday that an attorney made a conscious decision when he crashed into and killed a cyclist, imperiling an attempt…

By – Rochdi Rais

International February 12, 2025

Elon Musk Alleges FEMA Spent Money in NYC to House Undocumented Migrants

Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), revealed on X Monday that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) allocated $59 million to luxury hotels in New York…

By – Jackie Allen

Latest news

International February 12, 2025

E2 to Go Public in $770M SPAC Merger

In a bold move set to reshape the energy sector, e2Companies LLC announced Wednesday its plans to go…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

Starbucks Faces Lawsuit Over Alleged Polygraph Hiring Law Breach

Starbucks is under fire in Massachusetts, facing a putative class action lawsuit that accuses the coffee giant of…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

eToro confirms IPO filing in the US

Crypto trading giant eToro has officially set its sights on Wall Street, confirming on Wednesday that it has…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

Senate Confirms Gabbard As Intelligence Chief

In a dramatic 52-48 vote on Wednesday, the U.S. Senate confirmed former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as the nation’s…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

NC County HR Worker Sues Over Alleged Wrongful Termination After Medical Leave Request

A North Carolina county is facing a federal lawsuit after allegedly firing a longtime human resources specialist for…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

California Judge Admonished for Unauthorized Entries into Jurists’ Chambers

In a case that has rattled the California judiciary, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has been…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

Georgia Overtime Pay Ruling: Lawmakers Push to Exempt Extra Hours from State Taxes

Overtime wages could soon escape Georgia’s state income tax under a new bill that aims to boost take-home…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

Michael Madigan found guilty on 10 counts in split verdict

A once-unshakable political empire crumbled in a Chicago federal courtroom Wednesday as a jury found Michael Madigan, the…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

White House Inspectors Sue Trump Over Firings

In a legal showdown with sweeping implications for government oversight, eight former inspectors general ousted by President Donald…

By Rihem Akkouche

International February 12, 2025

Trump Picks Quintenz To Lead CFTC

In a move that could redefine the future of crypto regulation, former CFTC commissioner Brian Quintenz has been…

By Rihem Akkouche

Popular News

International March 19, 2026

USPS to Raise Prices Amid $9 Billion Loss

International March 19, 2026

Mississippi $9.8M Downtown Projects Award Boosts 26 Communities

International March 19, 2026

US F-35 Emergency Landing After Suspected Iranian Strike

International March 19, 2026

US States Sue Trump EPA Over Climate Rollback

International March 19, 2026

James Gracey Found Dead in Barcelona After Spring Break Disappearance

International March 19, 2026

« 1 … 364 365 366 367 368 … 611 »

← Back