Verdicts National Instruments of Austin, Term Paper

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 967 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 3

Page 1 of 3

The court had adopted its own interpretations, which MathWorks felt were inaccurate. These inaccuracies, it was claimed, were material and detrimental to MathWorks.

The appeal also alleged several other errors in the original trial. MathWorks contended that the evidence presented by National Instruments did not support its claims. Several material differences between the SimuLink and LabVIEW products were presented by MathWorks during the course of their appeal. Further, the jury in the original trial had overstepped its boundaries in issuing a permanent injunction against sales of SimuLink. This injunction, MathWorks contended, was excessive, in part because the SimuLink product had many uses that were non-infringing. That the product had been used to infringe was argued to be irrelevant. What matters, MathWorks argued, is the intent of the product. In their case, they argued that the intent of SimuLink was not to infringe and that they should not be held liable for actions that some of their customers may have undertaken that resulted in infringement.

Stuck Writing Your "Verdicts National Instruments of Austin," Term Paper?

View All Our Example Verdicts National Instruments of Austin, Term Paper

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

During the appeal process, MathWorks had the injunction against sales of SimuLink put aside.

The appeal was rejected in September 2004 by the Court of Appeals and MathWorks was forced to stop selling the SimuLink product when the injunction against the ban on SimuLink was lifted in October of 2004.

The sales that had occurred, however, contributed to the damages that had been accruing since the injunction was originally levied.

The case was further complicated by a series of complaints between the two parties. At issue were modified versions of SimuLink that had been released by MathWorks. These versions had not been included in the original suit, but National Instruments felt that these, too, contained violations of its intellectual property. MathWorks had made claims of non-infringement which National Instruments then needed to have rejected.

The final appeal was heard in the United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit and a decision was rendered February 9, 2006.

The violations had been affirmed and the case.....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Verdicts National Instruments Of Austin " (2009, March 07) Retrieved May 21, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/verdicts-national-instruments-austin-24179

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Verdicts National Instruments Of Austin " 07 March 2009. Web.21 May. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/verdicts-national-instruments-austin-24179>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Verdicts National Instruments Of Austin ", 07 March 2009, Accessed.21 May. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/verdicts-national-instruments-austin-24179
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example