Cisco wins US patent dispute over wifi technology

NEW YORK — Cisco Systems Inc did not infringe a patent holding company’s wifi technology, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Monday, reversing a near $64-million judgment against the networking equipment maker in the long-running patent dispute.

After eight years of litigation that also included a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Cisco was not liable for directly infringing or inducing others to infringe a patent held by Commil USA LLC on a way to help spread wireless signals over a large area, where multiple access points are needed.

Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler said the company was gratified by the ruling. “The patent never had anything to do with our products and the millions of dollars spent defending this unmeritorious suit are a travesty,” he said in an emailed statement.

Representatives for Commil could not be reached on Monday.

Texas-based Commil USA sued Cisco in 2007, shortly after buying the patent from an Israeli company, Commil Ltd, according to court documents. Cisco has called it a non-practicing entity, referring to a company that primarily makes money by licensing patents instead of making products.

In 2011, a federal jury in Texas found that Cisco induced infringement by encouraging its customers to use Cisco products that infringe Commil’s patent. The jury awarded Commil almost $63.8 million in damages. A judge subsequently added $10.3 million in interest.

In 2013, the Washington, D.C.-based Federal Circuit, the nation’s top appeals court specializing in patent issues, ordered a new trial, saying that Cisco should have been able to mount a defense based on its “good faith belief” that Commil’s patent was invalid.

The Supreme Court in May said that defense was not legitimate, throwing out the ruling and sending the case back to the Federal Circuit.

A three-judge Federal Circuit panel on Monday again ruled in favor of San Jose, California-based Cisco.

The panel said that when it last considered the case, it did not consider some of Cisco’s arguments that it did not infringe the patent. In weighing those arguments this time, the panel said that “substantial evidence did not support the jury’s findings.”

source: interaksyon.com

Landmark rulings see US Supreme Court move to the left

WASHINGTON DC - With four justices appointed by Democratic presidents and five by Republican leaders, the US Supreme Court is generally perceived as being weighted in favor of conservatives.

But after two historic rulings in a week supporting progressive causes -- legalizing gay marriage across America and upholding President Barack Obama's health care overhaul -- the conservatives are lashing out.

They are slamming what they see as a blatant disregard of the law in favor of a win in the court of public opinion.

Ultra-conservative justice Antonin Scalia called the 5-4 ruling in favor of legalizing gay marriage nationwide a "judicial putsch" that was "lacking even a thin veneer of law."

"Just who do we think we are?" asked Chief Justice John Roberts, who also opposed the gay marriage ruling.

He said the ruling had "nothing to do with" the Constitution and blasted the decision as "an act of will, not legal judgment."

Scalia also lambasted his colleagues for voting 6-3 to uphold "Obamacare," which has extended health insurance to millions of Americans.

Conservatives say Obamacare represents unconstitutional government intrusion into the lives of private citizens.

"Today's opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act," Scalia wrote.

"We should start calling this law SCOTUScare," he added, using the acronym for the Supreme Court.

 'Judicial activism'

Aside from the health care and gay marriage rulings, the court also voted in the past week to uphold a key tool used to fight housing discrimination -- another big win for the Obama administration.

In the past, other landmark Supreme Court rulings have ushered in the legalization of abortion, the end of racial segregation in schools, and the authorization of mixed-race marriages.

But this week's decisions left some accusing the court of siding with public opinion -- and not the Constitution.

Ryan Anderson, a research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, called the gay marriage ruling "perhaps as clear of an example of judicial activism as any we have seen in recent years –- or are likely (hopefully) to see in the future."

"The majority of the Court simply replaced the people’s opinion about what marriage is with its own," he said.

In each of this week's three main big rulings, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was appointed in the 1980s under the conservative Ronald Reagan but is considered moderate, sided with his progressive counterparts.

Roberts, the chief justice, also added his vote to the health care ruling, perhaps to protect the court from accusations it voted along political lines.

Constitution 'pliable, long-lasting guide'

"This is not about a 'conservative' or 'liberal' court," said Lisa Linsky, a partner at the McDermott Will & Emery law firm.

"This is about the highest court in the land being cognizant of the world around it and the fundamental principles and protections that are embedded in our constitution," Linsky said.

"The founding fathers of this country created the constitution to be a pliable, long-lasting guide for living life in a civilized society," she added.

These cases "impacted real people in profound and far-reaching ways," she told AFP, noting that "any other result would have caused chaos."

If the Obamacare ruling had gone the other way, millions of people could have been left without health insurance.

"Their attention in that case to the economic realities of the health insurance market was part of their statutory interpretation, not some free-floating analysis of what would be good policy," said David Cruz, an expert from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law.

In the gay marriage ruling, Kennedy wrote that same-sex couples should not be denied the "constellation of benefits" afforded married partners, such as tax and inheritance rights.

Mary Margaret Penrose, a law professor at Texas A&M University, noted that "the receipt of these benefits traditionally are matters of policy and legislation, not constitutional mandate."

Steve Sanders, who teaches constitutional litigation at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said the court should be expected to show some flexibility.

"The point is not that we should make law by opinion poll," he said.

"The point is that, under our Constitution, we expect courts to step in and act when a minority group is being denied a fundamental right based on the transient passions and discredited motives of a political majority."

Statistics show that during the current Supreme Court session, which is set to end Monday, the justices have taken more left-leaning decisions.

According to a New York Times analysis, about 56 percent of rulings by the court were considered progressive.

source: interaksyon.com

US court blocks contraception clause in health care law

WASHINGTON - A US Supreme Court justice has blocked a stipulation in the new health care reform law that requires some religion-affiliated organizations to provide insurance that includes birth control.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor acted late Tuesday just hours before the Affordable Care Act law was to take effect, in response to an order of nuns in Colorado, US media reported.

She gave the government until Friday morning to file briefs on the matter.

The contraception requirement has been one of the most controversial aspects of the health law.

Religious opponents of abortion object to the requirement to provide emergency contraception pills.

As a compromise, the administration said that women who work for nonprofit religious groups that are against birth control could receive separate coverage not paid for by the employers.

But it refused to offer such assurances to secular businesses whose owners have religious objections to contraception.

That distinction has led to a separate group of lawsuits. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a pair of cases on whether corporations can deny insurance coverage for contraception.

Sotomayor's order applies to the Colorado nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups that use a health plan called the Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust.

The groups' lawsuit is one of many challenging the federal requirement for contraceptive coverage. But a decision on the merits of that case by the full Supreme Court could have broader implications, the New York Times said.

source: interaksyon.com

Keep breasts, buttocks under wraps, CBS tells Grammy performers

LOS ANGELES - Grammy performers have been told to cover up at Sunday’s big music awards show, and keep their buttocks, nipples and genitals under wraps. Their politics can’t show either.

In a “wardrobe advisory,” broadcaster CBS also asked musicians and audience members likely to appear on camera at the February 10 Grammy Awards ceremony to avoid wearing brand names on T-shirts as well as clothing with political or activist slogans.

“Please be sure that buttocks and female breasts are adequately covered. Thong type costumes are problematic. Please avoid exposing bare flesh under curves of the buttocks and buttock crack,” said the memo issued by CBS standards and practices department and obtained by entertainment industry website Deadline.com on Wednesday.

“Obscenity or partially seen obscenity on wardrobe is unacceptable for broadcast,” the note added.

The warning follows a lengthy court battle over indecency and obscenity standards on U.S. network television.

CBS, a unit of CBS Corp, was fined $550,000 by the Federal Communications Commission for airing a glimpse of Janet Jackson’s breast when her costume slipped while singing at the Super Bowl half-time show in 2004.

The fine was later thrown out and that decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2012. CBS has expressed “deep regret” for the incident.

The annual Grammy Awards ceremony honors the best musicians of the year, but is also a major promotional showcase for rising stars and upcoming albums.

In 2010, singer Pink performed upside down in a flesh-colored bodysuit, while Rihanna last year wore a plunging black dress on the red carpet.

Performers at Sunday’s three-hour show in Los Angeles include Rihanna, Justin Timberlake, Maroon 5, Frank Ocean, Alicia Keys and Elton John.

source: interaksyon.com