VoIP-Pal on Tuesday won an appeal in the Federal Circuit in its ongoing patent litigation against Apple, meaning that the case will return to the lower courts.
The patent holder initially filed several lawsuits against Apple dating back to 2018 alleging that several of the tech giant’s platforms, such as FaceTime and iMessage, violated its intellectual property. In this specific case, which was dismissed by a California District Court in late 2019, VoIP-Pal alleged infringement of four patents related to voice over IP protocols.
On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed VoIP-Pal’s appeal of the 2019 ruling. Although oral arguments in that case were scheduled for Nov. 3, they were canceled.
In its appeal, VoIP-Pal argued that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California erroneously determined that its patent claims were ineligible and dismissed its patent lawsuit in error. The court had
In order to be a successful company, you need to be able to answer two questions:
What’s more, you need to appeal to all types of decision makers when answering those questions, and typically, you need to communicate the answer with something as limiting as a webpage or a short email.
Put another way, you’re answering why people should start using your platform, solution, or product now, and why they should choose you over every other competitor.
If you do this effectively, you’ll get multiple psychological biases to work in the same direction. Vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Charlie Munger calls this the “lollapalooza effect.”
In a speech he gave in 1995 to Harvard Law School, Munger discussed standard causes of human misjudgment– including a variety of biases that humans hold. He then asked:
What happens when these standard psychological tendencies combine? What happens when the situation, or the artful
The Federal Court in January found that Trivago breached Australian Consumer Law after misleading consumers about hotel room rates on both its website and television advertisements.
It appealed the decision in March, but the Full Federal Court on Wednesday dismissed the appeal.
The initial ruling declared that from at least December 2016, Trivago was using an algorithm to place “significant weight” on hotel booking sites that paid Trivago the highest cost-per-click fee and, therefore, did not often present the cheapest rates to consumers.
The judge at first instance had found Trivago did not sufficiently disclose to users that it was using this practice.
The primary judge also found Trivago’s hotel room rate comparisons that used strike-through prices or highlighted text in different colours gave consumers a false impression that they were making savings because, in reality, Trivago was comparing an offer for a standard room with an offer
Uber and Lyft lost a court battle on Thursday and must classify their drivers in California as employees who are due benefits and labor protections.
Under the ruling by California’s court of appeals, the companies must comply within 30 days.
But in the Nov. 3 election, California voters will decide on Proposition 22, which could exempt Uber, Lyft and others from the state law that mandates their drivers be employees, not contractors.
California’s AB5 law, which went into effect earlier this year, requires gig-economy companies to reclassify many of their workers as employees, rather than independent contractors. As employees, the car-service drivers are entitled to benefits and protections like a minimum wage, health insurance, overtime pay, sick leave and the right to form a union.
After Uber and Lyft refused to comply, California sued the companies in May. A lower court ruled against them in August, prompting the