Cedar Lane Technologies filed a complaint for patent infringement against Dish Network alleging infringed patents-in-suit through its Movies for Purchase feature, reports Kirsten Errick in Law Street Media’s Tech.

“The patents relate to playback of network audio on demand, creating and managing playlists, management of owned and unowned inventory, and translating a device command.”

“Dish Network purportedly infringed the ’443 patent by “making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing” its exemplary accused products, such as its Movies for Purchase feature as part of the Video on Demand menu.”

Read the article.

A recent decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has reduced a “covenant not to challenge” clause to mere words on paper, and fails to deter licensees from seeking a review of the licensed patent under the America Invents Act (AIA), write   Lillian Safran Shaked & Asaf Naymark in IPWatchdog.

“Covenant Not to Challenge” clauses are common in patent licenses, they write. “The clause provides that a licensee may not challenge the license in court or an administrative proceeding, and can also provide that the licensee cannot assist others in doing so.”

After discussing the case at length, the authors conclude that there is significant risk of damage to a patent licensor from a post-license IPR challenge, whether or not a “covenant no to challenge” is enforceable. “Given the costs involved and the possibility that unrelated license agreements may also be invalidated or terminated as a result of an IPR, there is need for clarification,” they write.

Read the article.