About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

26 IPL Newsl. 1 (2007-2008)

handle is hein.journals/iprolane26 and id is 1 raw text is: A Publication of The ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law www.abanet.org/intelprop Volume 26, Number 1: Fall 2007 MGE UPS Systems, Inc. v. Titan Specialized Services, Inc. The Largest Recorded Copyright Contempt Judgment and Its Effect on IP Law STEPHEN A. KENNEDY AND ZACHARY GROOVER n today's global market economy, copyright infringement is growing at an exponential rate. In the recent case of MGE UPS Systems, Inc. v. Titan Specialized Services, Inc., the court found that the defendant's continued infringement and violation of a preliminary injunction aimed at stopping the infringement was worthy of the largest recorded contempt sanction in copyright history.' The federal court entered a judgment that ultimately awarded the plaintiff nearly $27 mil- lion in fines. This article discusses: (1) the findings and hold- ing of this potentially landmark case; (2) issues concerning preliminary injunctions and civil contempt sanctions; and (3) MGE's impact on the future of intellectual property law. Findings and Holding of MGE In MGE, the plaintiff was MGE UPS Systems, Inc. (MGE), one of America's leading developers, manufacturers, and servicers of uninterruptible power supply (UPS) equipment. A UPS device provides uninterrupted power to protect elec- tronic equipment from damages and interruptions that may result from fluctuations in power or power loss. Many hos- pitals, corporations, and utility companies across the United States rely on UPS devices manufactured by MGE to ensure that their businesses continue to run during power problems. Due to the nature of UPS devices, regular preventive maintenance is necessary to ensure that they are functioning properly and will perform as needed in the event of a power loss. In the past, a trained field service engineer was required to make several on-site visits each year to manually service the devices. For such manual service, the field ser- vice engineer would typically open the UPS, take measure- ments, and make adjustments with hand tools. This process was both time consuming-routine service could take three to six hours or more to complete-and dangerous. Recognizing the need for greater safety and efficiency as continued on page 4) The 2007 Patent Reform Act: Venue Rules Come Full Circle C. ERIK HAWES AND AUDREY CUMMING or the past several decades, choosing a venue for a patent infringement lawsuit was often comparable to other mar- ket choices-the options were many and varied. Indeed, based on the reputations of, and statistical evidence for, U.S. district courts, a variety of factors could typically be considered in choosing a venue: speed of adjudication, likelihood of trans- fer, sophistication of judges, sympathy of jurors, likelihood of summary judgment, size of damage awards, and the conve- nience of witnesses and parties. The free-market venue envi- ronment enabled plaintiffs to gravitate towards certain brand- name districts. Currently, of the ninety-four federal judicial districts, ten account for half of all patent cases, with the top five districts carrying 36 percent of the caseload.' In large part because of concerns about forum shopping by patent owners, Congress is currently considering sweep- ing changes to the venue rules for patent disputes. Both the Senate and House versions of the 2007 Patent Reform Act contain new provisions designed to sharply limit, in certain (continued on page 8) Strategic Responses to the Newly Issued USPTO Continuation and Claim Limitation Rules JAMES G. MCEWEN I. Background Under prior U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rules, an applicant was entitled to file as many continuation applica- tions as needed to ensure that the invention was properly claimed and to prevent inadvertently narrow limitations from precluding literal infringement. The only limitation on the number of continuations was generally set by matters of equity' or where an applicant was not attempting to advance prosecution by amending the claims.2 The applicant could also attempt to ensure such coverage using a single application which included as many claims as needed. The limitation on the number of claims in a single application was essentially set by the Examiner, who could issue a restriction if the number (continued on page 24) 3 State of Patent Reform 12p Group i Recent the Saction 3 and Infringement News Developments 3 Damages in Intellectual Property Law

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most