Volume I

Issue : 2: July 24, 2003

• CryptoLogic Subsidiary Settles Cross-Border On-line Patent Dispute
• U.S. Court of Appeals Formulates Test For Website Operator Liability
• Newfoundlander Convicted of Trafficking in Moose Antlers On the Internet
• Australian Court Grants Damages For Invasion of Privacy In Landmark Case
• Secondary Disclosure of Subscribers Personal Information Contravenes PIPEDA
• Ontario Company Launches Suit Against ICANN Over the Wait List Service
• U.S. Federal Court of Appeals Refuses Jurisdiction Over Semi-Interactive Website
• Music Industry Subpoenas ISP Investigates Users At University
• P2P: Survey Released & Proposed U.S. Legislation With Criminal Provisions
• Original Registrant Losses Acrobat.ca

Home > Volume I > Issue 2: July 24, 2003 > CryptoLogic Subsidiary Settles Cross-Border On-line Patent Dispute

CryptoLogic Subsidiary Settles Cross-Border On-line Patent Dispute

Toronto-based gambling software company, CryptoLogic Inc., recently announced the settlement of a patent dispute involving its subsidiary WagerLogic Ltd. in the United Kingdom ("UK"). The company's UK licensee, William Hill, offered an online gambling service to UK punters using a host computer located outside the UK. William Hill supplied a CD of software that enabled a punter's computer to connect to the remote host computer to receive the service in the UK.

Dr. Julian Menashe sued William Hill for infringement of his European Patent to an "Interactive, computerised gaming system with remote control". William Hill denied infringement on the basis that it did not infringe as the host computer was situated outside the United Kingdom in Antigua or Curacao. This aspect of William Hill's defense was denied following a preliminary issue hearing in the High Court. William Hill appealed to the Court of Appeal. In November 2002, The Court of Appeal also found against William Hill using different reasons.

The Court Of Appeal noted that it was not material to the invention or the user where the host computer was located. Since the punter was using a PC in the UK, the punter was using the host computer in the UK. William Hill claimed an indemnity from CryptoLogic in the dispute. Terms of the settlement were not revealed but include an agreement permitting CryptoLogic and William Hill to use the Menashe patented invention. The case highlights two important points. The first is that patent infringement, in the UK at least, may not be avoided by locating part of a system off-shore. This will depend on the claims in issue. The second is that other intellectual property indemnities should not be overlooked when licensing technology.

For a copy of the decision, visit:

http://www.courtservice.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1398/menashe_v_william_hill.htm