Posts Tagged ‘united states’

Signature-pic
A licensing agreement is generally a contract between an intellectual property owner (licensor) and another (licensee) desiring to use the rights owned by the intellectual property owner in exchange for a payment, or other form of consideration.  An intellectual property license is just one potential avenue for an intellectual property owner to profit from their intellectual property rights. Many different forms of intellectual property can be licensed, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and technology licensing agreements. Additionally, different forms of intellectual property can be licensed within the same agreement. Due to the complex business and commercial considerations that typically accompany the licensing of intellectual property, the respective binding licensing agreements are rarely simplistic contracts. In fact, most licensing agreements include a plethora of terms, factors, and limitations that must be carefully considered when drafting or entering into an agreement.

 

 

A jury awarded Apple over one billion and fifty million dollars in their lawsuit over patent infringements with Samsung.

There were some troubling facts about the case though. The jury awarded an extra 2.5 million on a devise they ruled did not infringe on Apple’s patents. Sloppy. They also took only three days to come up with the verdict. There were way too many devices to carefully analyze and decide on each claim to come back with a billion dollar verdict in three days.

Plus, the jury foreman stated the jury had already reached a decision without needing to read the instructions. Wait, what? How can you come up with a legally maintainable decision if you didn’t even read the instructions? Another juror was quoted as saying “After we debated that first patent — what was prior art –because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art.  In fact we skipped that one, so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down.”

This sounds like a jury in a hurry to go home. They just wanted to go ahead and give it to them so they could get the heck out of there. And when you are talking about over a billion dollars, which is just not acceptable. If they skipped over reading the instructions, and skipped over things “bogging us down” then what else did they skip over? Probably quite a bit.

Here’s another bothersome quote: “we wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable.”

So where did they come up with the figure? It sounds like they just pulled it out of thin air. They were supposed to be awarding compensatory damages, which are the money Apple is actually able to prove they’ve lost. They were not supposed to be awarding punitive damages. Here is no “slap on the wrist” component here. But that happens when you don’t read the instructions.

 

 

 

 

What happens if a private citizen or company buys some land and the government comes along after the purchase and tells the person or persons, “You cannot build anything on some or all of it because it is a wetlands area”?

Thanks to the Florida Land Dispute Resolution Act, property owners in Florida can get some relief. Under the Act, if the government “restricted or limited the use of real property such that the property owner is  permanently unable to attain the reasonable, investment-backed expectation for the existing use of the real property or a vested right to a specific use of the real property with respect to the real property as a whole, or that the property owner is left with existing or vested uses that are unreasonable such that the property owner bears a disproportionate share of a burden imposed for the good of the public, which in fairness should be borne by the public at large.”

In other words, the government cannot just come to you and say “you have to leave this section of your property alone because there are little animals here that we must protect” and leave you the property owner stuck with a worthless piece of property you paid real money to obtain. If they do that to you, they must pay you for it.

In 2006, in Brevard vs. Stack, Brevard County challenged the constitutionality of the law. Thankfully for property owners, it was upheld. The County tried to argue several points. Their main point was that the courts had no business getting involved. The courts disagreed.

The county claimed that the courts were delegated the power because there are no standards or criteria to guide interpretation of the Act. The court found that there were guidelines on time periods, settlement options and determinations to be made by the judicial system.

So in other words, you can take the government to court if they won’t let you develop your property and you can get your money back.

 

 

Skyscrapers

The attorneys at Widerman Malek, PL assist clients with a wide range of real estate services. We review and prepare real estate and construction contracts, issue title insurance as an agent for Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, act as an escrow agent and conduct real estate closings, litigate and defend real estate litigation claims, represent homeowners’ and condominium associations, and represent property owners in a wide variety of real estate, land use, zoning, building, permitting, use, and compliance matters.

       

Attorneys Mark Malek, Aaron Thalwitzer and Dan Pierron had to opportunity to meet with Governor Rick Scott recently during the grand opening of the new facility at the Melbourne International Airport for private jet manufacturer Embraer.  The facility represented yet another investment by Embraer in Melbourne to expand their operations. This expansion would not have been possible without the help of the Governor, the local government officials and the Economic Development Commission.