• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Duval wiedmann llc v. Inforocket com Inc Ingenio Inc (Decided on 17.09.2010)

 Patent license agreement - Breach of -  Whether termination of agreement after 60 days of receivable  of "actual notice" can be determined?

Held, that the Summary Judgments was affirmed where the district court correctly held that the agreement terminated on 29th November, 2004, sixty days after Plaintiff received actual notice of termination. Here the District Court had correctly applied Lear Doctrine .However, the order is remanded where the district court did not address what royalties, if any, were owed to Plaintiff over a certain time period

• LAW OF TORTS

Supreme Court of Florida

Marc e. Bosem,  v. Musa holdings, Inc., etc., et al. (Decided on 23.09.2010)

Review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal - Whether a Plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest on lost profits?

Held, that the Fourth District's reversal of the Trial court's award of prejudgment interest for the Plaintiff was quashed as prejudgment interest is a matter of right under the prevailing "loss theory" of recovery for pecuniary damages, such as damages for economic or tangible losses. The court further stated that in all cases, either of tort or contract, where the loss is wholly pecuniary, and may be fixed as of a definite time, interest should be allowed as a matter of right, whether the loss is liquidated or unliquidated. Accordingly the Fourth District's decision was quashed. Plaintiff would not be fully compensated unless he receive, not only the value of what he has lost, but receive it as nearly as may be as of the date of his loss.

• Competition Laws

Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Konkurrensverket v. TeliaSonera AB (Decided on  02.09.2010)

Alleged abuse of dominant position in the form of margin squeeze — Conditions establishing an abusive margin squeeze — Lack of a regulatory obligation to supply

Held, a margin squeeze is abusive only where the dominant undertaking has a regulatory obligation to supply the input in question or where that input is indispensable. Therefore, if there was no regulatory obligation compatible with EU law on a dominant undertaking to provide an input which is not indispensable then the dominant undertaking should not in principle be charged with a margin squeeze abuse. If margin squeezes were prohibited purely on the basis of an abstract calculation of the prices and in the absence of any assessment of the indispensability of the input for competition in the market, (28) dominant undertakings’ willingness to invest would be reduced and/or they would be likely to raise end-user prices lest they be charged with a margin squeeze. If a dominant undertaking could lawfully have refused to provide the products in question, then it should not be reproached for providing those products at conditions which its competitors may consider not advantageous.