{"id":2752,"date":"2010-08-12T17:57:45","date_gmt":"2010-08-12T23:57:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2752"},"modified":"2010-08-18T10:00:21","modified_gmt":"2010-08-18T16:00:21","slug":"trueposition-inc-v-andrew-corp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/?p=2752","title":{"rendered":"TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp."},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp.<\/span>, 2009-1389 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2010) was decided today via a Rule 36 affirmance.\u00a0 The curious thing about this case\u00a0is that the oral argument took place back on February 5th.\u00a0 Typically, Rule 36 opinions issue within a few days of oral argument.\u00a0 The district court&#8217;s infringement judgment was for more than $48M.<\/p>\n<p>The oral argument is interesting in that in addition to discussing standard setting issues, it also\u00a0deals with when activities in the U.S. might constitute an offer for sale in the U.S.\u00a0that is actually communicated in a foreign country to an offeree. [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/2009-1389-excerpt-1.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].\u00a0 One\u00a0proposed hypothetical was the sending of\u00a0an email with the offer details\u00a0from the U.S. to the offeror&#8217;s agent in the foreign country, who would then communicate the offer to the offeree on foreign soil.<\/p>\n<p>The appellant argued for application of <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">Rotec Industries v. Mitsubishi Corp. et al.<\/span>, 215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000). [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.ll.georgetown.edu\/federal\/judicial\/fed\/opinions\/99opinions\/99-1275.html\">Link<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>The entire\u00a0oral argument is available here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov\/Audiomp3\/2009-1389.mp3\">Listen<\/a>].<\/p>\n<p>The opinion is availble here: [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/images\/stories\/opinions-orders\/09-1389.pdf\">Read<\/a>].<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>TruePosition, Inc. v. Andrew Corp., 2009-1389 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 12, 2010) was decided today via a Rule 36 affirmance.\u00a0 The curious thing about this case\u00a0is that the oral argument took place back on February 5th.\u00a0 Typically, Rule 36 opinions issue within a few days of oral argument.\u00a0 The district court&#8217;s infringement judgment was for more [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2752"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2752"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2752\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2799,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2752\/revisions\/2799"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2752"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2752"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.717madisonplace.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2752"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}