![]() ![]() In May of 2000, approached Kara to collaborate on Kara's Personal Computer-based (PC-based) stamp technology. ![]() offers Internet-based shipping and postage services. A seller (e.g., the post office or an airline) later verifies the authenticity of the document using both the preprinted information and the security indicia. As shown in figure 2, the final document contains both the preprinted information and the security indicia. The consumer may then print out the final document at home. The patent refers to this preprinted information as “preestablished data.” A consumer communicates information contained in the preprinted sheet to a processor, which then uses the information to create a security indicia (21). STAMPS COM INC SERIAL NUMBERFigures 1 and 2 (identical in both the ′179 and ′575 patents) illustrate one embodiment of the invention.įigure 1 depicts a label sheet preprinted with a bar code (16a) and a serial number (16b). Data contained in the preprinted label sheets are used to both create the final document and later validate its authenticity. The patents concern technology that allows a customer to print a secured document (such as a stamp or an airline ticket) at home using preprinted label sheets. The ′179 and ′575 patents are directed toward apparatuses and methods of creating and verifying the authenticity of documents such as postage. The ′179 patent is a continuation-in-part of the ′575 patent. Salim Kara is the sole inventor listed on both patents. For the following reasons, we vacate-in-part, reverse-in-part, and remand. For its part, cross appeals the determination of the district court that it was not a prevailing party in the litigation, and that it thus was not entitled to costs under 28 U.S.C. The court ruled, as a matter of law, that did not breach its nondisclosure agreement (NDA) with Kara. Kara also appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of on its breach of contract claim. Kara Technology (Kara) appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, following a jury trial, that did not infringe various claims of U.S. Graves, Graves Law Office, P.C., argued for defendant-cross appellant. Williams, Baker Botts L.L.P., of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Decided: September 24, 2009īefore SCHALL, PLAGER, and MOORE, Circuit Judges.Įliot D. STAMPS.COM INC., Defendant-Cross Appellant. KARA TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States Court of Appeals,Federal Circuit. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |