TABLE OF CONTENTS

* BONNEVILLE INT'L CORP. v. PETERS

* Intellectual PropertyRESQNET.COM, INC. v. LANSA, INC.

* DEERING PRECISION INSTRUMENTS, L.L.C. v. VECTOR DISTRIB. SYS.,
INC.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
BONNEVILLE INT'L CORP. v. PETERS (10/17/03 - No. 01-3720)

Where plaintiffs claimed that the exclusion from copyright protection
for "nonsubscription broadcast transmissions" of recorded music is
unambiguously intended to apply to simultaneous webcasting of their
radio broadcast signal, judgment in favor of defendants is affirmed
where the Copyright Office's interpretation of section 114(d)(1)(A) was
persuasive and properly accorded deference.

TRUNCATED-OPINION OF THE COURT

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge:
Plaintiffs appeal from a grant of summary judgment. The district court
found that the Copyright Office’s rulemaking with respect to the Internet
“streaming” of AM/FM radio broadcast programming was entitled to deference.
The plaintiffs argue that the exclusion from copyright protection for “nonsubscription
broadcast transmissions” of recorded music is unambiguously intended to apply to their
simultaneous webcasting of their radio broadcast signal.

We conclude that, whether or not the Copyright Office’s interpretation of
§ 114(d)(1)(A) is to be accorded deference under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. National
Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (“Chevron”), the Copyright Office’s
arguments in support of its position are persuasive, see Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134
(1944), and our own independent interpretation of the statute accords with that of the
Copyright Office. Wetherefore affirm.

This case deals with copyright protection for sound recordings. The creator of a
musical composition has long had a right of exclusive public performance of that
musicalpiece. 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). Therefore, every time you hear the ubiquitous
refrain from “Happy Birthday” in a public performance, a subsidiary of AOL/TimeWarner
cashes a royalty check.1 However, the owner of a copyright in a sound recording of a
musical composition has long had very little copyright protection. Until 1971 there was
nocopyright protection at all. With the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971, Pub. L.
No. 92-140, 85 Stat. 391, a limited copyright in the reproduction of sound recordings
was established in an effort to combat recording piracy.

However, there was still no right to public performance of that sound recording.
Therefore, while playing a compact disc recording of “Happy Birthday” in a concert
hall for the Under the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-298,
112 Stat. 2827, for better or for worse, the song will not enter the public domain until at least
the year 2030.paying public would still enrich AOL/TimeWarner, the person or
company that owned the copyright on the CD recording of the music would earn no
remuneration beyond the proceeds from the original sale of the recording. This
dichotomy of copyright protection has a significant impact in the radio broadcasting
industry. While radio stationsroutinely pay copyright royalties to songwriters and
composers (through associations like the American Society of Composers, Authors,
and Publishers and Broadcast Music, Inc. (“ASCAP”) and Broadcast Music, Inc.
(“BMI”))2for the privilege of broadcasting recorded performances ofpopular music,
they do not pay the recording industry royalties for that same privilege. Perhaps
surprisingly, this state of affairs, until about ten years ago, produced relatively high
levels of contentment for all parties. The recording industry and broadcasters
existed in a sort of symbiotic relationship wherein the recording industry recognized
that radio airplay was free advertising that lured consumers to retail stores where
they would purchase recordings.3 And in return, the broadcasters paid no fees,
licensing or otherwise, to the recording industry for the performance of those recordings.
The recording industry had repeatedly sought, however, additional copyright protection in
the form of a performance copyright. Until 1995, those efforts were rejected by Congress.

[1. Happy Birthday, originally penned by two Kentucky kindergarten
teachers in the late 19th century, remains a protected and highly profitable
copyright in the intellectual property portfolio of AOL/TimeWarner. Purchased
by the company in 1988 for an estimated $25 million, it produces revenues estimated
at $2 million per year.]

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:[PDF File]
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/3rd/013720p.pdf
BONNEVILLE INT'L CORP. v. PETERS (10/17/03 - No. 01-3720)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
RESQNET.COM, INC. v. LANSA, INC. (10/16/03 - No. 03-1163)

RADER, Circuit Judge.
ResQNet.com, Inc. (ResQNet) sued Lansa, Inc. (Lansa) for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,530,961, 5,831,608, and 6,295,075. To facilitate appeal after the district court construed the claims, the parties entered into a consent judgment that Lansa's systems would not infringe. ResQNet.com, Inc. v. Lansa, Inc., Civil Action No. 01 Civ. 3578 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 4, 2002) (Claim Construction); ResQNet.com v. Lansa, Inc., Civil Action No. 01 Civ. 3578 (RWS) (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 2002, & July 9, 2003) (Consent Judgment). While the district court properly construed claim 1 of the '961 patent, it erred in construing claim 1 of the '608 patent and claim 1 of the '075 patent. Thus, this court affirms?in?part, reverses?in?part, and remands the case for further proceedings.

The three patents?in?suit claim, in relevant part, "screen recognition" and terminal emulation - processes that download a screen of information from a remote mainframe computer onto a local personal computer (PC). Mainframe computers permit multiple users to simultaneously access one central computer. Before the widespread use of PCs, each user would connect to the mainframe using a so?called "dumb terminal." A dumb terminal typically included a monitor for displaying text and a keyboard for data entry. A dumb terminal, as its name implies, did not process or reformat the data received from the mainframe. Rather, the dumb terminal simply displayed the information from the mainframe. Symmetrically, the dumb terminal sent all data entry back to the mainframe for processing. Because a dumb terminal's monitor generally was a monochromatic green, the display was called a "green screen."

In an infringement action concerning a processes that downloads a
screen of information from a remote mainframe computer onto a local
personal computer, the district court correctly construed one patent's
means plus function claims, but incorrectly construed the claims of two
other patents covering similar but different subject matter.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/031163.html mmm
RESQNET.COM, INC. v. LANSA, INC. (10/16/03 - No. 03-1163)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

DEERING PRECISION INSTRUMENTS, L.L.C. v. VECTOR DISTRIB. SYS., INC.
(10/17/03 - No. 02-1013, 02-1197)

Before BRYSON, GAJARSA, and PROST, Circuit Judges. GAJARSA, Circuit Judge.
Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. ("Deering") appeals from the judgment issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granting summary judgment to Vector Distribution Systems, Inc., Gram Precision Scales, Inc., Bonso Electronics International, Inc., and Mohan Thadani (collectively "Vector") of noninfringement of United States Patent No. 4,744,428 (the "'428 patent"). Deering Precision Instruments, L.L.C. v. Vector Distrib. Sys., Inc., No. 01-C-1118 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 31, 2001). Vector cross-appeals the district court's denial of its motion for attorney fees. We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment of no literal infringement. We vacate the district court's grant of summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We affirm the district court's denial of Vector's motion for attorney fees.

In an infringement action concerning a patent for a scale, grant of
summary judgment of no literal infringement and denial of defendant's
motion for attorney fees are affirmed, but summary judgment of no
infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is remanded to decide
whether the plaintiff has rebutted the Festo III presumption.

To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/021013.html jjj
DEERING PRECISION INSTRUMENTS, L.L.C. v. VECTOR DISTRIB. SYS., INC.(10/17/03 - No. 02-1013, 02-1197)

========================================================================

Opinion Summaries Archive September 2000 to the Present
Click here to browse or search the archive for specific opinions:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casesummary/index.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-/
The following are Direct links To FindLaw Resources and advertisements
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- advertisement =-=-=-/
Want to work full time and still attend Law School?
Concord Law School, the nation's first online law school, offers Juris
Doctor and Executive JD(SM) degrees entirely online. The programs offer
excellent course instruction combined with maximum flexibility,
specifically designed to fit into today's demanding lifestyles.
Coursework is 100% online and is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week.
http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=10655964000_nl
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- West LegalEdcenter -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
Online CLE: Punitive Damages After State Farm v. Campbell
Practising Law Institute Online CLE Program on West LegalEdcenter
Findlaw users save 50%! Enter promotion code PLIPD3 when purchasing.
West LegalEdcenter. Stay current. Stay available. Stay put.
http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=Intellectual_Property_cle_1057160980
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- westgroup.com =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
Technology Management.
Provides the expertise and guidance needed to develop, test, produce and
market technology in domestic and foreign marketplaces. Buy
online today or call 1-800-344-4912.
http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=Intellectual_Property_book_1041628411
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- advertisement =-=-=/
Time Matters(R), the most award-winning, most widely used practice
manager, has a new version 5.0. In addition to across-the-board
improvements and a beautiful new interface, version 5.0 rivals leading
stand-alone products in email, document management, client relations
management and, with Billing Matters(tm), billing/expense control,
productivity management, trust accounting, and more.
http://rd.findlaw.com/scripts/nl.pl?url=105401880010_nl
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/

ADVERTISING INFORMATION

For more information about advertising in
FindLaw Newsletters, please contact:
FindLaw Sales (mailto:sales@findlaw.com)

United States Law: Law School Libraries: Legal Organizations on the Web
Vcielaw.com: Directory of The World
United States Law: International Trade Agreements: TITLE PAGE
UNITED STATES LAW: International: Trade Agreements: NAFTA: Table of Contents ll
Thomas - Legislative Information on the Internet | California Injury (Torts) Law
FederalCriminalProcedure.Com | iLaw Dictionary.Com | FCP Law Students Center
State Resource Center USL | United States Law Consumer Law TITLE PAGE
United States Law: Directory of   State Bar Associations : Table of Contents
United States Law Consumer Law General Table of Contents

				UNITED STATES LAW				Law Students-USL
				Intellectual Property Law				Table of Forms
				Case Summaries				BankruptcyCode.US
				October 17, 2003				Constitutional Law