Blackberry Whine

Here is a U.S.-Canada battle worth watching. Research in Motion, the makers of the ubiquitous and, for some, essential Blackberry wireless e-mail and phone devices has been sued for patent infringement. The U.S. patent holder, NTP, sued RIM for infringing patents relating to its software for transmitting e-mail. RIM's main argument is that its servers are located in Ontario (that's Canada, not California), which is a separate sovereign country where U.S. patent laws are not in effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which also hears appeals from the Court of International Trade, was not swayed by the border argument. The most recent opinion is here.

The news media now reports that the Federal Circuit has denied RIM's request for en banc review by the entire 12-member court. RIM faces the possibility of an injunction against sales or operations in the U.S., which, according to the New York Times, is 70% of its revenue.

Two interesting things are bound to happen. First, RIM will surely appeal to the Supreme Court which, if it takes the case, will have to make a decision about the extraterritorial application of the patent law. This may be unlikely as the Federal Circuit hears all patent appeals and there is no possibility for another circuit to disagree with it. Also, there is no obvious constitutional issue. The second thing going on is that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office is re-examining the NTP patents to see if they should have been issued in the first place. According to RIM, that is looking like a promising way to get this wrapped up.

We'll have to see what happens. Just image the hue and cry from Blackberry addicts if the service goes dark. Palm shares rose on this thought alone. If that happens, I suspect the Canadian military will have to move to the border as U.S. white-collar workers threaten to invade Ontario in an effort to force RIM to settle with NTP.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl...
Read more

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more