Connect with us

Patents

Latest Indian Copyright Cases – 2021 – Part 2

Published

on

This running post provides a summary of the latest Indian Copyright cases in 2021, decided by various Courts and tribunals in the country.

1. Mr. John Hart Jr. & Anr. vs. Mr. Mukul Deora & Ors, High Court of Delhi, CS (Comm) 38/2021

In this case, Plaintiff No. 1 claims to be vested with the exclusive copyright to make a movie adaptation of the book “The White Tiger” authored by Mr. Aravind Adiga by virtue of a Literary Option/Purchase Agreement dated 4th March, 2009. Plaintiff no.1 and Plaintiff no.2 (“Plaintiffs”), have approached the Court at the eleventh hour to seek an injunction restricting the release of the film “The White Tiger” (‘Film’) produced by Defendant No. 1 to be released on the streaming platform, Netflix. The Plaintiffs assert that when it came to their knowledge that Netflix was in the process of making and releasing the film, a cease and desist notice dated 4th October, 2019, was sent by Plaintiff No. 2 to Defendant No. 1. Further, the Plaintiffs stated that allowing the release of the film would result in irreparable injury, as the Plaintiffs planned to release the film in Hollywood. The Plaintiffs also attempted to justify the delay in approaching the Court by stating that the delay was unavoidable as the Plaintiffs were unaware of the fact that Defendants were shooting the film during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The court opined that no case exists for grant of any interlocutory injunction and the case constitutes a misuse of the judicial process. The court held that, “The Plaintiffs were aware of the possibility of the film being released on the Netflix platform at least from 4th October, 2019. There is not a scintilla of material produced on record to justify the Plaintiffs approaching this court less than 24 hours prior to the release of the subject film, seeking stay thereof.” The court relies on several precedents to elucidate that a Plaintiff who approaches the court at the eleventh hour, seeking an interlocutory injunction against the release of a cinematographic film, is disentitled to any such relief. A delay in approaching the Court for an equitable relief is always fatal.

The Delhi High Court held that the balance of convenience favours the Defendants and by granting an injunction at the eleventh hour, greater irreparable loss and injury would be caused. The Plaintiffs stand disentitled from seeking any interlocutory injunction against the release of the film on the ground of unconscionable delay in approaching the court. The court nevertheless directed the defendants to keep detailed accounts of the earnings made from the film so that, if the Plaintiffs were to succeed in the future, the account details would facilitate in  awarding damages or monetary compensation.

A copy of the order may accessed be here.

2. Aman Chhabra And 7 Ors vs Trac Entertainment Pvt Ltd And 6 Ors.

In this case involving the copyright of two music videos, “Pyar Ko Na Kaho” and “Lutti Heer,” the Appellant contested the order of the Single Judge vacating an interlocutory consent order restraining the Respondents from commercially exploiting the songs. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the order of the Single Judge stating that time ought to be given to the Appellants to contest the interim application filed by the Respondents to vacate the interlocutory consent order. This is required as several facts that formed the basis for vacation were disputable and should have been considered by the Single Judge. The Division Bench also pointed out that as the attempts by the Respondents to commercially exploit the songs yielded no financial returns, and that the songs can be taken down from the platform, Believe International, at any time, no third party rights have been created, and therefore, the interlocutory consent order may be in force until the Single Judge decides that matter after hearing the parties.

Citation: Aman Chhabra And 7 Ors vs Trac Entertainment Pvt Ltd And 6 …, Decided by Bombay High Court on 3 July, 2021, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111847206/, visited on 6th July, 2021.

Read Latest Copyright Cases in 2021 – Part 1 here


This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department.

About the Department: BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions.

Updates on recent orders and judgments are brought to you jointly by the Entertainment Law and Consulting/Strategy Divisions of BananaIP Counsels, a Top ranked IP Firm in India. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected]  with the subject:  Copyright Judgments

Disclaimer: Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to [email protected]  for corrections and take down.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.bananaip.com/ip-news-center/latest-copyright-cases-2021/

Patents

Apple and its gimmick, what is AirTag?

Published

on

Remember when all people talked about was the key-finder? As if they were the only thing people frequently lost. Apple has turned this common problem into the idea for its latest product, AirTag, an intelligent detector for the objects we always fear losing.

The device is about the size of a coin, about 32mm in diameter and weighing 11g, it is sold individually or in sets of four, working of course with an iOS app. AirTag has an elegant yet simple design and can also be used as a key ring. 

Once the AirTag has been removed from its packaging, all we have to do is pull away the protective plastic tab to enable the battery, and then all we have to do is bring it close to the iPhone or iPad and it will be immediately recognised and we can register AirTag on our Apple account.

So if you’re tired of searching for hours and hours for an object, once you’ve bought AirTag, just clip it on your keys and bag and go out in a carefree manner.

HOW IT WORKS

If you think you’ve lost your wallet, pick up your smartphone, open the new Where’s app and play the AirTag’s built-in speaker. Or you can ask Siri like this: “Hey Siri, find my wallet”. If it’s nearby, like under the sofa or in the next room, just follow the sound to find it. In addition to the easily recognisable sound, AirTag also provides a map of the lost item via the ‘Precise location’ function.  If the AirTag is nearby, the “Precise Location” function on your iPhone can guide you to its exact location. Thanks to Ultra Wideband technology, you will see the direction to follow and the exact distance. This feature is especially compatible with the following iPhone models: 
iPhone 11
iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max
iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini
iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max

image source: apple.com

At this point it is clear that AirTag is nothing more than a Bluetooth tracker. When you need to find something, the AirTag sends out a secure Bluetooth signal that can be picked up by nearby devices in the Where’s network. These devices send AirTag’s location to iCloud. When you open the Where’s app, you’ll see it on the map. The whole process is anonymous and encrypted to protect your privacy.

image source: apple.com

Apple has thought of everything. If another person’s AirTag accidentally ends up in your stuff, your iPhone notices it’s moving with you and alerts you.  Or if you’re in a place where other people have an AirTag, the alerts are only triggered when the AirTag moves away from the person it belongs to.

You can find all the information you need to purchase here

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.thepatent.news/2021/07/28/apple-gimmick-airtag/

Continue Reading

Patents

Apple and its gimmick, what is AirTag?

Published

on

Remember when all people talked about was the key-finder? As if they were the only thing people frequently lost. Apple has turned this common problem into the idea for its latest product, AirTag, an intelligent detector for the objects we always fear losing.

The device is about the size of a coin, about 32mm in diameter and weighing 11g, it is sold individually or in sets of four, working of course with an iOS app. AirTag has an elegant yet simple design and can also be used as a key ring. 

Once the AirTag has been removed from its packaging, all we have to do is pull away the protective plastic tab to enable the battery, and then all we have to do is bring it close to the iPhone or iPad and it will be immediately recognised and we can register AirTag on our Apple account.

So if you’re tired of searching for hours and hours for an object, once you’ve bought AirTag, just clip it on your keys and bag and go out in a carefree manner.

HOW IT WORKS

If you think you’ve lost your wallet, pick up your smartphone, open the new Where’s app and play the AirTag’s built-in speaker. Or you can ask Siri like this: “Hey Siri, find my wallet”. If it’s nearby, like under the sofa or in the next room, just follow the sound to find it. In addition to the easily recognisable sound, AirTag also provides a map of the lost item via the ‘Precise location’ function.  If the AirTag is nearby, the “Precise Location” function on your iPhone can guide you to its exact location. Thanks to Ultra Wideband technology, you will see the direction to follow and the exact distance. This feature is especially compatible with the following iPhone models: 
iPhone 11
iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max
iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini
iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max

image source: apple.com

At this point it is clear that AirTag is nothing more than a Bluetooth tracker. When you need to find something, the AirTag sends out a secure Bluetooth signal that can be picked up by nearby devices in the Where’s network. These devices send AirTag’s location to iCloud. When you open the Where’s app, you’ll see it on the map. The whole process is anonymous and encrypted to protect your privacy.

image source: apple.com

Apple has thought of everything. If another person’s AirTag accidentally ends up in your stuff, your iPhone notices it’s moving with you and alerts you.  Or if you’re in a place where other people have an AirTag, the alerts are only triggered when the AirTag moves away from the person it belongs to.

You can find all the information you need to purchase here

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.thepatent.news/2021/07/28/apple-gimmick-airtag/

Continue Reading

Patents

Sisvel vs. Haier: Düsseldorf court follows case law in Via Licensing and TCL dispute

Published

on

In urgent preliminary proceedings, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has upheld two injunctions against TCL, handed down by the city’s first-instance Regional Court (case numbers: 4b O 83/19, 4b O 23/20, and 4b 49/20). The Higher Regional Court rejected two objections by the European and German distributors of Chinese company TCL against the judgment, as well as its FRAND defence, after Via Licensing members claimed infringement by the company.

TCL disputed the validity of the first judgment. However, the Higher Regional Court corroborates the first instance decision of TCL being what the court deems an unwilling licensee (case ID: I-15 U 39/21 and I-15 U 40/21).

Sisvel vs. Haier sets standard

Previously, the Düsseldorf court had a relatively low threshold regarding the alleged infringer’s willingness to take a licence. However, in upholding the two latest judgments, the Higher Regional Court shadows the Federal Court of Justice’s recently-developed approach to licence holders. The Karlsruhe court recently heightened its standard for implementers in the case between Sisvel vs. Haier.

At the end of October 2019, Dolby and Philips filed three cases against TCL in Düsseldorf, heard by the Regional Court in March 2021 and April 2021 respectively. The standard essential patents subject to the most recent order are EP 1 410 687 and EP 1 342 230. Dolby owns both patents; both cover the standard MPEG-4 AAC (advanced audio coding). Another Dolby patent has since expired.

A third decision, regarding Via Licensing pool member Philips, is also pending before judge Thomas Kühnen (court ID: I-2 U 13/21).

The current judgments pertain to TCL’s distribution of mobile phones and tablets containing the AAC technology. However, the preliminary proceedings are just the beginning of the main appeal proceedings between Dolby, Philips and TCL. It will likely be a year before the main proceedings take place.

Leading to a licence

Via Licensing distributes licences on behalf of its members’ SEPs. In 2005, TCL had taken a licence for Dolby and Philips’ SEPs through Via Licensing. The pool terminated the licences in 2007; subsequent years of unsuccessful negotiating licensing agreements then followed.

In May 2021, the first instance Düsseldorf court decreed that the two Dolby and one Philips patents are all SEPs. It then issued an injunction against TCL in all three cases. A week before the hearing, the Chinese electronics company had submitted a FRAND licensing counter-offer, but the court found TCL an unwilling licensee. It also rejected the FRAND defence.

TCL then filed an appeal, requesting a stay of enforcement of the judgments for the appeal term. However, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf rejected the offer in a preliminary hearing. In doing so, the court has followed the approach of the Federal Court of Justice in Sisvel vs. Haier – namely, that implementers must demonstrate willingness to actively seek a licence.

According to the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, it is no longer enough to simply submit a licence offer when it may have already by-passed several previous opportunities to do so. This broadly follows the reasoning from Karlsruhe, whose judges noted that it is insufficient for a party to express the will to conclude a licence with the SEP holder only once. Implementers, say the court, must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’.

Sisvel vs. Haier on stage

In 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled that Haier had infringed two Sisvel SEPs: EP 08 52 885 and EP 12 64 504. Furthermore, the court decided that the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer did not make sufficient efforts to obtain a FRAND licence (case ID: K ZR 35/17).

While the court ruled that Haier infringed both patents, antitrust senate judges also ruled that Haier was an unwilling licensee. This is because the company did not submit FRAND offers quickly and concretely enough.

In handing down its decisions, the judges gave implementers more obligations than many experts expected. Thus, implementers must not only actively seek a licence; according to the Federal Court judges, they must also react in good time. The patent user must also examine the patent portfolio at relatively short notice.

According to the judges, implementers must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’, in other words using a delaying tactic to avoid paying a licence fee for as long as possible. For example, the implementers can do this by declaring their interest in a licence. However, the party might then not work towards the conclusion of a licence.

German courts align

Interestingly, while the senate of Ulrike Voß followed the Sisvel vs. Haier reasoning in the two Dolby judgments, the Philips judgment remains pending at the senate of Thomas Kühnen. The latter judge is notoriously outspoken against the Karlsruhe court’s approach to FRAND licensing.

Via Licensing

Tilman Müller

In the Sisvel vs. Haier case, trial observers saw the ruling as a strong contrast to case law from the Düsseldorf patent courts, and more in line with the Mannheim and Munich patent courts. Now the Düsseldorf courts are more aligned with Munich. Observers suggest that this ruling is another step along the path of appealing to patentees to file cases in Germany.

Furthermore, proceedings at the Mannheim Regional Court between Fraunhofer and TCL have now concluded, with one case pending in the first instance and stayed. In the other case, the judges rendered a negative first instance decision. Klaka, on behalf of TCL, have filed an appeal before the Karlsruhe court.

Two further cases are pending in Düsseldorf at the first instance. One is another Dolby patent against TCL, with the other filed by Japanese IT corporation NEC against TCL.

Who’s who in patent

In the three cases against Philips, Dolby and Fraunhofer, TCL has different German legal representation. Vossius, led by partner Andreas Kramer, represents TCL in the cases against Dolby. Patent attorney Christian Sandweg also worked on the nullity aspects of the case.

For the Philips case, the Düsseldorf office of CMS Hasche Sigle represented TCL. Although the team has frequently changed for TCL against Fraunhofer, the latest firm to lead proceedings for TCL is Klaka. The IP boutique represented the company in both Mannheim and Karlsruhe, taking over the two cases in 2018 for its first instruction for the company.

Via Licensing

Andreas Kramer

The Hamburg-based mixed IP firm Eisenführ Speiser is representing both Dolby and Philips. The firm has worked with Philips since around 2010, with its relationship to Via Licensing and other members such as Dolby going back to 2014.

The firm also represents Fraunhofer in the now-concluded Mannheim proceedings.

For Philips/Dolby
Eisenführ Speiser (Hamburg): Tilman Müller, Volkmar Henke (partners); Stefan Wiethoff (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Dolby
Vossius & Partner (Munich): Andreas Kramer (partner, lead); associates: Hannes Obex, Philipp Widera; Christian Sandweg (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Philips
CMS Hasche Sigle (Düsseldorf): Markus Deck; associate: Sven Krause

For TCL against Fraunhofer
Klaka (Düsseldorf): Olaf Giebe, Wolfgang Götz (partners)
Gulde & Partner (Berlin): Nicolas Haße

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
Ulrike Voß

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/sisvel-vs-haier-dusseldorf-court-follows-case-law-in-via-licensing-and-tcl-dispute/

Continue Reading

Patents

Sisvel vs. Haier: Düsseldorf court follows case law in Via Licensing and TCL dispute

Published

on

In urgent preliminary proceedings, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has upheld two injunctions against TCL, handed down by the city’s first-instance Regional Court (case numbers: 4b O 83/19, 4b O 23/20, and 4b 49/20). The Higher Regional Court rejected two objections by the European and German distributors of Chinese company TCL against the judgment, as well as its FRAND defence, after Via Licensing members claimed infringement by the company.

TCL disputed the validity of the first judgment. However, the Higher Regional Court corroborates the first instance decision of TCL being what the court deems an unwilling licensee (case ID: I-15 U 39/21 and I-15 U 40/21).

Sisvel vs. Haier sets standard

Previously, the Düsseldorf court had a relatively low threshold regarding the alleged infringer’s willingness to take a licence. However, in upholding the two latest judgments, the Higher Regional Court shadows the Federal Court of Justice’s recently-developed approach to licence holders. The Karlsruhe court recently heightened its standard for implementers in the case between Sisvel vs. Haier.

At the end of October 2019, Dolby and Philips filed three cases against TCL in Düsseldorf, heard by the Regional Court in March 2021 and April 2021 respectively. The standard essential patents subject to the most recent order are EP 1 410 687 and EP 1 342 230. Dolby owns both patents; both cover the standard MPEG-4 AAC (advanced audio coding). Another Dolby patent has since expired.

A third decision, regarding Via Licensing pool member Philips, is also pending before judge Thomas Kühnen (court ID: I-2 U 13/21).

The current judgments pertain to TCL’s distribution of mobile phones and tablets containing the AAC technology. However, the preliminary proceedings are just the beginning of the main appeal proceedings between Dolby, Philips and TCL. It will likely be a year before the main proceedings take place.

Leading to a licence

Via Licensing distributes licences on behalf of its members’ SEPs. In 2005, TCL had taken a licence for Dolby and Philips’ SEPs through Via Licensing. The pool terminated the licences in 2007; subsequent years of unsuccessful negotiating licensing agreements then followed.

In May 2021, the first instance Düsseldorf court decreed that the two Dolby and one Philips patents are all SEPs. It then issued an injunction against TCL in all three cases. A week before the hearing, the Chinese electronics company had submitted a FRAND licensing counter-offer, but the court found TCL an unwilling licensee. It also rejected the FRAND defence.

TCL then filed an appeal, requesting a stay of enforcement of the judgments for the appeal term. However, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf rejected the offer in a preliminary hearing. In doing so, the court has followed the approach of the Federal Court of Justice in Sisvel vs. Haier – namely, that implementers must demonstrate willingness to actively seek a licence.

According to the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, it is no longer enough to simply submit a licence offer when it may have already by-passed several previous opportunities to do so. This broadly follows the reasoning from Karlsruhe, whose judges noted that it is insufficient for a party to express the will to conclude a licence with the SEP holder only once. Implementers, say the court, must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’.

Sisvel vs. Haier on stage

In 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled that Haier had infringed two Sisvel SEPs: EP 08 52 885 and EP 12 64 504. Furthermore, the court decided that the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer did not make sufficient efforts to obtain a FRAND licence (case ID: K ZR 35/17).

While the court ruled that Haier infringed both patents, antitrust senate judges also ruled that Haier was an unwilling licensee. This is because the company did not submit FRAND offers quickly and concretely enough.

In handing down its decisions, the judges gave implementers more obligations than many experts expected. Thus, implementers must not only actively seek a licence; according to the Federal Court judges, they must also react in good time. The patent user must also examine the patent portfolio at relatively short notice.

According to the judges, implementers must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’, in other words using a delaying tactic to avoid paying a licence fee for as long as possible. For example, the implementers can do this by declaring their interest in a licence. However, the party might then not work towards the conclusion of a licence.

German courts align

Interestingly, while the senate of Ulrike Voß followed the Sisvel vs. Haier reasoning in the two Dolby judgments, the Philips judgment remains pending at the senate of Thomas Kühnen. The latter judge is notoriously outspoken against the Karlsruhe court’s approach to FRAND licensing.

Via Licensing

Tilman Müller

In the Sisvel vs. Haier case, trial observers saw the ruling as a strong contrast to case law from the Düsseldorf patent courts, and more in line with the Mannheim and Munich patent courts. Now the Düsseldorf courts are more aligned with Munich. Observers suggest that this ruling is another step along the path of appealing to patentees to file cases in Germany.

Furthermore, proceedings at the Mannheim Regional Court between Fraunhofer and TCL have now concluded, with one case pending in the first instance and stayed. In the other case, the judges rendered a negative first instance decision. Klaka, on behalf of TCL, have filed an appeal before the Karlsruhe court.

Two further cases are pending in Düsseldorf at the first instance. One is another Dolby patent against TCL, with the other filed by Japanese IT corporation NEC against TCL.

Who’s who in patent

In the three cases against Philips, Dolby and Fraunhofer, TCL has different German legal representation. Vossius, led by partner Andreas Kramer, represents TCL in the cases against Dolby. Patent attorney Christian Sandweg also worked on the nullity aspects of the case.

For the Philips case, the Düsseldorf office of CMS Hasche Sigle represented TCL. Although the team has frequently changed for TCL against Fraunhofer, the latest firm to lead proceedings for TCL is Klaka. The IP boutique represented the company in both Mannheim and Karlsruhe, taking over the two cases in 2018 for its first instruction for the company.

Via Licensing

Andreas Kramer

The Hamburg-based mixed IP firm Eisenführ Speiser is representing both Dolby and Philips. The firm has worked with Philips since around 2010, with its relationship to Via Licensing and other members such as Dolby going back to 2014.

The firm also represents Fraunhofer in the now-concluded Mannheim proceedings.

For Philips/Dolby
Eisenführ Speiser (Hamburg): Tilman Müller, Volkmar Henke (partners); Stefan Wiethoff (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Dolby
Vossius & Partner (Munich): Andreas Kramer (partner, lead); associates: Hannes Obex, Philipp Widera; Christian Sandweg (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Philips
CMS Hasche Sigle (Düsseldorf): Markus Deck; associate: Sven Krause

For TCL against Fraunhofer
Klaka (Düsseldorf): Olaf Giebe, Wolfgang Götz (partners)
Gulde & Partner (Berlin): Nicolas Haße

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
Ulrike Voß

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/sisvel-vs-haier-dusseldorf-court-follows-case-law-in-via-licensing-and-tcl-dispute/

Continue Reading
AR/VR3 days ago

Review: Winds & Leaves

Esports5 days ago

Legends of Runeterra adding new Lab of Legends mode: The Saltwater Scourge

IOT5 days ago

The Current State of Indoor Positioning with IoT | Navigine’s Alexey Panyov and Elvina Sharafutdinova

Cleantech4 days ago

The Grim Reaper & The Republican Party Embracing Climate Action Are The Only Things That Will Eliminate US Climate Change Deniers

Esports4 days ago

New World Faction Armor Sets

Esports4 days ago

Are Splitgate’s servers down? Here’s how to check server status

Esports5 days ago

Best Build for Lucario in Pokemon UNITE

Esports5 days ago

How to level up every trade skill in New World

Esports5 days ago

Valorant PBE Server Status: How to Check

Blockchain4 days ago

DigiMax Expands Global Marketing into Asia with Signing of Collaboration Deal in Hong Kong

Energy5 days ago

Innovation at the Interconnection Solves Inrush Current Issue on PV Solar+Storage Site in NC

Esports5 days ago

Twitch and Facebook Gaming set new records, YouTube Gaming sees viewership decrease in Q2 2021

Esports5 days ago

Broken Blade talks about Schalke 04’s disappointing 2021 Summer Split, his responsibility as one of the older players on the roster

Esports5 days ago

TSM and Gen.G VALORANT meet again in NA VCT Stage 3 Challengers 2 opener

Esports5 days ago

LCO caster Rusty condemns Chiefs Esports Club for ‘disrespectful’ behavior in week 7 win over Mammoth

Blockchain5 days ago

European Digital Identity: Talao Announces Professional Credential Solution

Energy5 days ago

Duke Energy helps build North Carolina workforce with $615,000 in grants to community colleges, HBCUs and nonprofits

SPAC Insiders4 days ago

Mercury Ecommerce Acquisition Corp. (MEACU) Prices $175M IPO

Esports4 days ago

How Many People Can Play Tribes of Midgard Together?

AR/VR5 days ago

Oculus Quest 2 Sales Paused Until Late August Due to Facial Interface, Silicone Cover Incoming

Trending