• INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS

United States Court of Appeals (Federal Circuit)

Powertech Technologies Inc Vs. Tessera Inc (Decided on 30.09.2011)

Declaration for non-infringement and invalidity - District Court dismissed the action of non-infringement and invalidity of Respondent for lack of subject matter jurisdiction finding no Article III case or controversy between the parties - Hence, present Appeal

Held, Where a patent holder accuses customers of direct infringement based on the sale or use of a supplier's equipment, the supplier has standing to commence a declaratory judgment action if there is a controversy between the patentee and the supplier as to the supplier's liability for induced or contributory infringement based on the alleged acts of direct infringement by its customers. Further, because neither party disputed that Petitioner's wBGA and µBGA products were covered by license agreement to the extent Respondent's claims against Petitioner's customers arose from the same set of facts addressed in Tessera , the result Court reached there would control equally here. Accordingly, this Court vacated the dismissal on jurisdictional grounds and remand with instructions to apply our decision in Tessera. Decision of District Court reversed

• Insurance Laws

California Court of Appeal

Fresh Express Inc. Vs. Beazley Syndicate (Decided on 04.10.2011)

Insured Event - Definition of - Trial Court passed an order that "Insured Event" was "the E-coli outbreak" was entirely inconsistent with the policy - Appeal filed against said order of trial Court on the ground that trial Court erroneously defined the "Insured Event", thereby awarding the Plaintiff damages for losses that did not come within the policy's coverage for losses that were the "direct result" of an "Insured Event" of 'Accidental Contamination" was not supported by substantial evidence - Whether the trial court has rightly interpreted the clauses stated with the policy?

Held, it is a well-settled rule to the trial court's interpretation of the policy that "Words used in an insurance policy are to be interpreted according to the plain meaning which a layman would ordinarily attach to them. Courts will not adopt a strained or absurd interpretation in order to create an ambiguity where none exists. However, any ambiguity or uncertainty in an insurance policy is to be resolved against the insurer. The purpose of this canon of construction is to protect the insured's reasonable expectation of coverage in a situation in which the insurer-draftsman controls the language of the policy. Trial Court erred in defining the term "Insured Event" and that its alternative theory lacked substantial evidentiary support. Therefore, judgment of trial Court is reversed.