Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 DECEMBER 2016

Spotlight On Upcoming Oral Arguments – October, 2016

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will determine whether the district court properly exercised its discretion when it found no patent misuse or unclean hands on the part of Universal Electronics.

United StatesIntellectual Property

Authors: Umber Aggarwal*, Pejmon Pashai*

Universal Electronics v. Universal Remote Control, No. 15-1410, Courtroom B in Malibu, CA

In this appeal, the Federal Circuit will determine whether the district court properly exercised its discretion when it found no patent misuse or unclean hands on the part of Universal Electronics ("UE"), leading to a much smaller attorney's fees award for Universal Remote Control ("URC"). URC first argues that the jury verdict, which made all of its findings in favor of URC, was binding based on the procedures set forth by the district court and the conduct of the two parties. Specifically, URC asserts that the district court acted improperly in deeming the jury's verdict as advisory after the trial had concluded and without giving prior notice. URC also argues that the district court violated the Seventh Amendment when it failed to heed the factual findings implicit in the jury's verdict while assessing patent misuse and unclean

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from