Patent Infringement | "Illumina, Boston Capital, Universal: Intellectual Property"

By: Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.businessweek.com
Category: Patent Infringement

(This is a daily report on global news about patents, trademarks, copyright and other intellectual property topics.)

Dec. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Illumina Inc., whose genetic analysis tools are used in disease research and drug development, sued Life Technologies Corp. claiming infringement of one of its patents.

Life Technologies’ Ion Personal Genome Machine and Ion OneTouch System infringe Illumina’s patent 7,060,431, covering a method of “making and decoding of array sensors with microspheres,” Illumina said in a complaint filed Dec. 27 in federal court in San Diego. The company seeks a court order stopping the alleged infringement and unspecified damages.

“Defendants’ infringing acts are willful in that they have knowledge of Illumina’s rights under the ‘431 Patent, but have continued to infringe, and actively induce and contribute to infringement by others,” lawyers for San Diego-based Illumina said in the complaint.

Mauricio Minotta, a spokesman for Carlsbad, California- based Life Technologies, didn’t immediately return a call to his office yesterday seeking comment on the complaint.

Life Technologies said in a Dec. 9 statement that its Ion Personal Genome Machine in June solved Europe’s E. coli outbreak by sequencing the bacteria’s DNA in two hours. The machine is the first of its kind that translates chemical information into digital data, the company said in the release.

The case is Illumina v. Life Technologies, 3:11-03022-LAB- NLS, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (San Diego).

For more patent news, click here.

Trademark

Boston Capital Corp. Says Boston Capital Partners LLC Infringes

Boston Capital Corp., a real estate investment and advisory firm founded in 1974, sued a company with a similar name for trademark infringement.

Boston Capital Partners LLC is accused of using an Internet domain name -- bostoncapitalpartners.com -- to confuse customers into believing it is affiliated with Boston Capital Corp., according to the complaint filed Dec. 22 in federal court in Boston.

The public is deceived by the similarities of the names, according to court papers. Boston Capital Corp. said that it’s suffered harm ever since Boston Capital Partners began using the website in March 2010, and asked the court to order the company to quit using the offending domain name and any other confusingly similar names.

It also asked for the Bostoncapitalpartners.com domain name to be transferred or canceled. Boston Capital Corp. also asked for court orders for the destruction of all infringing promotional materials, and for awards of money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.

When accessed Dec. 29, the Boston Capital Partners website didn’t appear to be functional. Links led to a “Page Not Found” notice.

Boston Capital Corp. is represented by Gina M. McCreadie and Jason C. Kravitz of Rochester, New York’s Nixon Peabody LLP.

The case is Boston Capital Corp. v. Boston Capital Partners LLC, 1:11-cv-12298-PBS, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

‘Havel’ Trademark Registration Stirs Debate Over Airport Naming

After the company running Prague’s international airport registered “Vaclav Havel Prague International Airport” as a trademark, a debate began in the Czech Republic about whether naming the airport for the former president is the right thing to do, according to the CzechPosition.com news website.

Havel, who died Dec. 18 at the age of 75, was afraid of flying and hated go to the Prague airport, according to CzechPosition.com.

Havel’s widow and more than 70,000 others have signed a petition seeking to have the airport named in his honor, while 6,000 others have listed themselves on a petition opposing the idea, the news website reported.

The company that runs the airport applied for the trademark using the English rather than Czech spelling of Havel’s name on the grounds it could be used in international publicity, according to CzechPosition.com.


Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-30/illumina-boston-capital-universal-intellectual-property.html

Patent Infringement | "M-Edge Files Lawsuit Against Amazon For Patent Infringement, Fraud"

By:Alicia Ciccone
Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com
Category: Patent Infringement

A small company has filed a lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the online giant of patent infringement, fraud and coercion.

Odenton, Md.-based M-Edge, a popular manufacturer of e-reader accessories including cases for Amazon's Kindle, filed the suit in Maryland federal court last week, stating, "M-Edge developed a very successful product line: personal electronic device jackets with multiple features for the Kindle and other e-readers. Amazon thereafter repeatedly sought to hijack the product through threats, deceit, interference with M-Edge's customer relationships, and patent infringement."

The 15-page filing documents Amazon's deteriorating relationship with M-Edge. The sales relationship, which began in 2008, took on the traditional standard reseller contract, which garnered Amazon an 8 percent commission on M-Edge's products.

After a mention on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" in October 2008, M-Edge's products quickly became top sellers on Amazon. Three months later, Amazon issued the first reassessment of its contract with M-Edge, which would promote M-Edge to a "Kindle Compatible" agreement, requiring the company to pay an additional 7 percent in fees to Amazon.

Over the next few years, Amazon continued to revise M-Edge's contract and increase its fees on the company's sales, totaling 32 percent in commissions and fees by a contract signed July 2010. Between then and January 2011, M-Edge -- whose sales through Amazon.com accounted for 90 percent of the company's revenue -- reported negative repercussions after refusing to accept new terms and conditions proposed by Amazon. The company claims Amazon began manufacturing its own lighted e-reader jacket, which was a direct knock-off from the company's patented design, and went as far as "de-listing" M-Edge, making the company's product less visible on the site and tampering with M-Edge's relationships with other retailers.

Amazon has yet to comment on the suit, which requests a trial by jury, but Devon Mish, a spokesperson for M-Edge, told The Huffington Post, "We believe in our intellectual property rights and will vigorously enforce them when we feel they are being infringed upon."


Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/m-edge-files-lawsuit-against-amazon_n_1173060.html

Trademark Infringement | "Once again, RIM sued for trademark infringement"

By: RnM Team
Source: http://www.radioandmusic.com
Category: Trademark Infringement



MUMBAI: Research in Motion (RIM) has been sued by a Canadian radio and TV industry group, for naming its BlackBerry Messenger service as BBM.

BBM Canada filed the suite against RIM after failing to negotiate with the company on renaming the trademark.

BBM Canada's chief executive Jim MacLeod said, “BBM Canada doesn't want to pick on RIM, which has had a tough year with declining market share, sliding profit and another trademark lawsuit loss over the use of the BBX name. We want our name back. I find it kind of amazing that this wouldn't have been thought about before they decided to use the name. The same thing goes for BBX."

“RIM also turned down an offer from BBM Canada in which the group would rename itself if RIM would pay for the costs of the rebranding, but the smartphone maker wasn't interested,” MacLeod said to a daily.

BBM Canada was established as the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement in 1944. The company changed its name to BBM in 1960s and to BBM Canada in the early 1990s, according to MacLeod. The company has revenue of around $50 million and is owned by broadcasters and advertisers.

RIM also faced a similar trademark infringement case in October, when it announced that that next smartphone and tablet operating system would be titled as BBX, a name owned by the New Mexican software firm Basis International. Earlier this month, RIM was denied the permission to use ‘BBX’  due to which the company renamed it with ‘BlackBerry 10.’


Source: http://www.radioandmusic.com/content/editorial/news/once-again-rim-sued-trademark-infringement

Patent Infringement | "Mitsubishi Chemical Files Patent Infringement Suit Against Intematix and GVP"

By: Market Watch
Source: www.marketwatch.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Tokyo, Dec 26, 2011 (JCN via COMTEX) -- Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. recently filed a patent infringement lawsuit against U.S. company Intematix Corp. and South Korean distributor GVP to enjoin them from importing and selling their phosphor products, claiming that they infringe a red phosphor patent in South Korea (No. 816693), which is owned by MCC and the National Institute of Material Science.

The Korean patent No. 816693 relates to a nitride-type red phosphor commonly known as CASN and SCASN, and LED, lighting equipment and image display, in which such phosphor is used. CASN and SCASN are the only red phosphors to be used in LED due to its high brightness and reliability. Such red phosphor MCC now sells is supported and held in high repute by many LED manufacturers.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mitsubishi-chemical-files-patent-infringement-suit-against-intematix-and-gvp-2011-12-25

Trademark Infringement | "BBM Canada hits RIM with trademark infringement over BBM use"

By Ian Hardy
Source: www.mobilesyrup.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


The pile keeps growing for RIM. Just when you think they are in the clear for a couple days, something else emerges. After allegations of trademark infringement, RIM recently shifted BBX, their upcoming smartphone software platform that will “leapfrog” the competition, to ”BlackBerry 10″.

Now a Toronto-based company called BBM Canada is going after RIM for infringing on their “BBM” trademark. BBM Canada, according to their website provides “provide broadcast measurement and consumer behaviour data, as well as industry-leading intelligence to broadcasters, advertisers and agencies”. RIM’s BlackBerry Messenger, otherwise known as BBM, is one of RIM’s saving graces, has over 50 million subscribers and offers them encrypted instant messaging between BlackBerry users. Apparently at the BBM Canada offices, employees are being mistaken for RIM employees and have been getting calls requesting support for RIM’s BBM service.

BBM Canada attempted to negotiate with RIM, but talks failed – they even went as far as offering to completely rebrand the company, possibly at RIM’s expense, but again there was no response. So now a court hearing is scheduled for January 11th, 2012. BBM Canada is  requesting RIM and all their employees to stop using the term BBM, plus ponying up for damages to their brand for infringing on their trademark.

Jim MacLeod, president and CEO of BBM Canada said “We want our name back… I find it kind of amazing that this wouldn’t have been thought about before they decided to use the name. The same thing goes for BBX.”

Just another day…


Source: http://mobilesyrup.com/2011/12/22/bbm-canada-hits-rim-with-trademark-infringement-over-bbm-use/

Patent Infringement | "Nielsen settles patent-infringement suit with ComScore"

By: Steve Donohue
Source: http://www.fiercecable.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Nine months after suing online video measurement firm ComScore for alleged patent infringement, Nielsen said Wednesday that it reached a settlement with ComScore that will see it pick up $19 million in restricted stock from ComScore.

Nielsen, which faces increased competition in the multiplatform video measurement sector from ComScore and Rentrak, said it signed a cross-licensing deal with ComScore as part of the settlement. ComScore also agreed to give Nielsen a worldwide license for four of the patents that ComScore had asserted in the litigation. Nielsen had accused ComScore of violating patents that it owns relating to online video measurement.

Source: http://www.fiercecable.com/story/nielsen-settles-patent-infringement-suit-comscore/2011-12-21

Patent Infringement | "US ITC Rules Against HTC in Apple Patent Infringement Case"

By: Francis Rey
Source: www.socialbarrel.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

The US International Trade Commission (ITC) has ruled that HTC handsets are guilty of Apple patent infringement and decided to prohibit importation and sales of the Android devices inside the US.

The US ITC found the Taiwan-based smartphone maker infringing upon an iOS feature that allows the device to turn map locations, phone numbers and URLs into clickable app-specific hyperlinks automatically from within text messages.

This development in the judicial proceeding means all OEMs, not only HTC, that preinstall Google’s Android mobile operating system are now under fire for Apple patent infringement.

Android-based devices started using the feature in question after developers added it in Android 1.5, which is not inherent on HTC devices only.

Google, however, offers Android as open-source software so Apple cannot touch it, hence the latter started to go after the Android device manufacturers, which now begins with HTC.

Apple lawyers may now be mulling over ramped up efforts to block other Android OEMs who are most likely using the feature in products sold in the market today, but HTC has already found a way out of this mess for others to follow by simply getting rid of the infringing feature from Android devices.

HTC even brought out a statement to confirm the feature’s removal from its Android product offerings, which should allow the company to import and sell its devices in the US again.

Unfortunately, HTC has to wait for Google to come up with the update before April 19 of next year, the due date given by the US ITC.


Source: http://socialbarrel.com/us-itc-rules-against-htc-in-apple-patent-infringement-case/29300/

Patent Infringement | "Limited impact on HTC from patent infringement ruling: foreign investors"

By: Jeffrey Wu
Source: http://focustaiwan.tw
Category : Patent Infringement 

HTC Patent Infringement

Taipei, Dec. 21 (CNA) A final patent ruling by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will have limited impact on HTC Corp. in the short term, foreign institutional investors said Wednesday.

On Dec. 19 in the United States, the ITC reversed part of its initial determination reached in July and ruled that HTC infringed on only one Apple Inc. patent.

The "647" patent involves data-detection technology that allows users to click on a phone number in an e-mail and immediately be connected.

The commission further determined that the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the entry of devices carrying the infringed-upon patent into the U.S. market.

Goldman Sachs, which maintained a "Buy" rating on HTC and a target price of NT$890 (US$29.46), said HTC's loss in the lawsuit was in line with its view as the most likely scenario.

"We see limited fundamental impact on HTC from the limited exclusion, which will be less than 2 percent of its total shipments, as such an order would likely apply to HTC's older models, which now represent only a minor portion of HTC shipments," Goldman Sachs analyst Robert Yen wrote in a note to clients.

"We believe the weakness of product cycle and this patent case with Apple are the major reasons HTC's share price has more than halved in the past six months. We expect HTC's share price to recover shortly on the better-than-expected ruling," Yen said.

But the brokerage also said that all Android device makers might continue to face ongoing patent lawsuits against third parties, such as Oracle, Microsoft and British Telecom, potentially raising concerns on Android's further market share gain.

J.P. Morgan said that HTC shipments will be unlikely to be impacted next year because an import ban on its infringed products to the U.S. will not take effect until April 19.

J.P. Morgan said HTC can still sell smartphones in the upcoming holiday period, and that HTC already has plans to overhaul its U.S. product offering by the end of the first quarter next year. It retained a stock rating of "neutral" and a target price of NT$445.

J.P. Morgan said HTC's long-term growth rate has shifted into much lower gear until the expected TD-LTE-enabled products come onto the market, which might give HTC a technical edge in the China market.

Meanwhile, Morgan Stanley said its fundamental concerns center more on structural issues than on litigation risks, expecting the ITC ruling will have limited impact on HTC's sales in the U.S.

"A rapid change in the smartphone market and rising competition seem likely to leave HTC not structurally well placed for the next wave," the bank said in a research note.

"Regardless of this litigation risk, HTC has been losing shares quickly in the U.S., as evidenced by its reduced shipment target, and our latest U.S. survey shows that the trend might not reverse in the short run," it said.

Morgan Stanley added that HTC's real threat comes from others in the Android camp -- both from the high-end (mainly Samsung) and the mid- to low end (China-based names) -- while wider distribution of Apple's iPhone 4S will largely eat into its pie.


Source: http://focustaiwan.tw/ShowNews/WebNews_Detail.aspx?Type=aECO&ID=201112210014

Trademark Infringement | "Google, Sprint, Juniper, Smith & Nephew, Broadcom: Intellectual Property"

By Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Google Inc. (GOOG), owner of the world’s most popular Internet search engine, was sued by British Telecommunications Plc for allegedly infringing six U.S. patents for mobile-device technology.

BT, based in London, is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages against Mountain View, California-based Google, according to a complaint filed Dec. 15 in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

“BT has invested heavily over the last 20 years,” generating “numerous patents,” and Google’s products including the Android operating system, maps, search, music and book services wrongly “incorporate BT’s patented technologies,” according to the complaint.

Last year, BT sued U.S. cable company Cox Communications Inc. in the same court over four patents for transmitting data over cable networks. A trial in that case is tentatively scheduled for 2014, according to court papers.

“We believe these claims are groundless,” Jim Prosser, a Google spokesman, said in an e-mailed message. He said the company would defend against them.

The case is British Telecommunications Plc v. Google Inc., 11-CV-1249, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Sprint Sues Time Warner, Comcast Over Digital Phone Technology

Sprint Nextel Corp. (S), the third-largest U.S. wireless operator, accused Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC), Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) and two other cable-TV companies of infringing patents related to transmitting phone calls over digital lines.

Sprint filed separate lawsuits yesterday in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, against Time Warner Cable, Comcast, Cable One Inc. and Cox Communications Inc. Overland Park, Kansas-based Sprint claims the companies are using technology it patented in the 1990s for transmission of voice data packets.

The companies “have realized the great value in this technology and have misappropriated it without Sprint’s permission,” Sprint said in each complaint.

The 12 patents include some that were asserted against Vonage Holdings Corp. (VG), which agreed to pay $80 million to license the technology after losing a 2007 trial.

Alex Dudley, a spokesman for New York-based Time Warner Cable, said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation. John Demming, a spokesman for Philadelphia-based Comcast, also declined to comment.

Rima Calderon, a spokeswoman for Cable One parent Washington Post Co. (WPO), said the Washington-based company doesn’t comment on litigation. Todd Smith, a spokesman for Atlanta-based Cox, declined to comment, citing the pending lawsuit.

The cases are Sprint Communications Co. v. Time Warner Capt Inc., 11cv2686; Sprint v. Cable One Inc., 11cv2685; Sprint v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC, 11cv2684; and Sprint v. Cox Communications Inc., 11cv2683, all U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).

Juniper Networks Sues Palo Alto Networks Over U.S. Patents

Juniper Networks Inc. accused Palo Alto Networks Inc. in a lawsuit of infringing six U.S. patents for firewall technology used to protect communications networks from intrusion.

Juniper, based in Sunnyvale, California, is seeking a jury trial, unspecified damages and an order to stop misuse of its inventions, according to the complaint filed today in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

“As a leading high-performance networking company, we will take every appropriate measure to defend and protect our innovation,” David Shane, a Juniper spokesman, said in an e-mail.

Palo Alto networks, based in Santa Clara, California, “was founded by several former high-level employees of Juniper to compete against Juniper,” lawyers for Juniper said in court papers.

“We don’t provide comment on these types of matters,” Mike Haro, a spokesman for Palo Alto Networks, said in a phone interview.

In a statement last week, Haro’s firm said it was named by industry researcher Gartner Inc. as a leader in the rapidly evolving field.

The case is Juniper Networks Inc. (JNPR) v. Palo Alto Networks Inc., 11-cv-1258, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Smith & Nephew $85 Million Verdict Against Arthrex Removed

A U.S. judge threw out an $85 million verdict that Smith & Nephew Plc had won against Arthrex Inc. over patented technology for surgical anchors used in shoulder surgery.

U.S. District Judge Michael Mosman in Portland, Oregon, found that, under the correct interpretation of the patent, no reasonable jury could find that Arthrex infringed the Smith & Nephew patent, Arthrex said in a statement.

The devices are anchored to a bone to repair tears in the rotator cuff or in the labrum, a fibrous ring in the shoulder socket. The June trial was the third in the case, which began in 2004 against Naples, Florida-based Arthrex.

“While we are very pleased with the judge’s ruling, we are perplexed by S&N’s continued attempt to compete in the courtroom rather than the marketplace,” John W. Schmieding, Arthrex’s general counsel, said in the statement.

London-based Smith & Nephew, Europe’s biggest maker of artificial hips and knees, targeted the SutureTak and PushLock line of suture anchors made by closely held Arthrex.

“We’re disappointed in the court’s latest ruling,” said Joe Metzger, a spokesman for Smith & Nephew. “We are reviewing the decision and expect to appeal and request reinstatement of the jury’s verdict.”

The case is Smith & Nephew Inc. v. Arthrex Inc., 04cv29, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland).

Broadcom Says Judge Ruled Against Emulex on Infringement

Broadcom Corp. (BRCM), a developer of integrated circuits for high-speed data networks, said a federal judge ruled that Emulex Corp. (ELX) infringed two of its patents.

The infringing products include semiconductors and four channel switches, Irvine, California-based Broadcom said in a statement yesterday.

An entry in the court docket in Santa Ana, California, said U.S. District Judge James Selna had denied Emulex’s motion for summary judgment.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision and to have prevailed in our case against Emulex,” Art Chong, Broadcom’s general counsel, said in the statement.

Broadcom said it has asked the court to issue a permanent injunction that would prohibit the sale of the infringing products, the company said. The case was filed in November 2009.

Katherine Lane, a spokeswoman for Costa Mesa, California- based Emulex, didn’t immediately return a message seeking comment.

The case is Emulex v. Broadcom, 09-01310, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division (Santa Ana).


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-20/google-sprint-juniper-smith-nephew-intellectual-property.html

Patent Infringement | "British Telecom Sues Google Over Patents"

By: Nick Clayton
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Google is already facing patent infringement actions from Apple, Oracle, Microsoft and eBay. That is just the litigation from companies with market capitalization running into the tens of billions of dollars.

As of last Thursday, according to Florian Mueller’s wireless intellectual property news blog Foss Patents, Google was also being sued by B.T. over alleged infringements affecting its activities in a wide variety of areas. The lawsuit was reportedly filed in the U.S. district court for Delaware.

    BT seeks damages—even triple damages for willful and deliberate infringement—as well as an injunction. The complaint suggests that Google refused to pay. The second sentence of paragraph 21 states that “BT brings this action to recover the just compensation it is owed and to prevent Google from continuing to benefit from BT’s inventions without authorization”.

    BT brings this action at a time when Google is trying to close its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Whether BT already has a cross-license deal in place with MMI or simply doesn’t believe MMI has any patents with which Google can effectively strike back, it’s clear that BT decided to assert its rights at any rate.

    I don’t know yet whether BT also brought litigation in Europe over local equivalents of those patents. It would certainly make sense to take advantage of the swift and rather patent holder-friendly decisions taken by certain German courts in order to get Google to pay sooner rather than later.

    With so many major patent holders asserting their rights, obligations to pay royalties may force Google to change its Android licensing model and pass royalties on to device makers.

Mr. Mueller offers a detailed analysis of each of the six patents-in-suit which cover a variety of alleged infringements from services including Android Market, Google Music, Google Maps, Google Search, Google Places, Google Offers, Google+ and location-based advertising.


Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/12/19/british-telecom-sues-google-over-patents/

Patent Infringement | "US ITC to review one of HTC’s cases against Apple"

By: Bloomberg and CNA
Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Apple/HTC Patent

HTC Corp’s (宏達電) loss in its patent-infringement case against Apple Inc will be partially reviewed, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) said.

A judge at the trade commission had in October rejected HTC’s claims that the Apple iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad tablet were infringing four patents. The six-member agency, which can block imports of products that violate US patent rights, said in a notice on Friday that it would take a closer look at the judge’s non-infringement finding for one of the patents. The remaining three won’t be reviewed.

The case was filed in retaliation for a complaint Apple lodged against HTC in March last year that is scheduled to be ruled on tomorrow.

The cases are part of a broader fight in which technology companies, including Apple, HTC, Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc, Samsung Electronics Co and Microsoft Corp, are vying for an increased share of the smartphone market.

Apple and HTC each have two ITC cases pending against each other. The case filed in May last year, on Friday accused Apple of infringing patents related to managing a phone’s power supply, protecting data and storing contacts.

“Competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours,” said Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for California-based Apple.

HTC declined to comment on the case.

The patent that will be subject of the review, which HTC received in 2006 based on internal research, relates to a way to control how the phone switches between modes of operation to manage its power supply. The commission is scheduled to issue a final decision on the case on Feb. 17.

The commission said there was no violation of three other HTC patents, including one for a method to protect data from being lost when the phone doesn’t have enough power.

The other two relate to ways to store, access and use contact information in a phone address book. HTC acquired those two patents in 2009, about a year before Apple filed its first complaint, according to information on the US Patent and Trademark Office Web site.

There have been concerns that HTC would lose the case, which would lead the ITC to ban sales of HTC products in the company’s main market — the US.


Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2011/12/18/2003520998

Patent Infringement | "BRP files lawsuits against Arctic Cat for patent infringement"

By: BRP
Source: http://www.sacbee.com
Category : Patent Infringement


VALCOURT, QC, Dec. 15, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ - Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP), manufacturer of Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles, today filed lawsuits in Canada and the United States claiming that Arctic Cat has infringed various Canadian and American patents for the revolutionary REV platform used in BRP's lines of snowmobiles.

BRP claims in documents filed in the Federal Court of Canada and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that Arctic Cat knowingly used certain innovations protected by BRP's patents, without permission. BRP is requesting that Arctic Cat halt production of the infringing models, that it destroy those in stock, and is seeking monetary compensation for the infringement.

"In recent years we have seen our competitors attempt to copy an increasing number of our inventions and designs," said Martin Langelier, vice-president, General Counsel and Secretary. "Innovation being at the core of BRP's strategy, we will not tolerate infringement of our intellectual property rights. We are, as a result, taking legal action to protect them."

In 2002, BRP revolutionized the snowmobile industry with the introduction of a new platform, the REV chassis. This new chassis allowed the company's Ski-Doo brand to regain the number one position in the industry, a lead it has since maintained.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP), a privately held company, is a world leader in the design, development, manufacturing, distribution and marketing of motorised recreational vehicles. Its portfolio of brands and products includes: Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles, Sea-Doo watercraft and boats, Evinrude and Johnson outboard engines, Can-Am all-terrain and side-by-side vehicles and roadsters, as well as Rotax engines. BRP products are distributed in more than 100 countries.

Source : http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/15/4125186/brp-files-lawsuits-against-arctic.html#ixzz1ggZBXOLs

Patent Infringement | "Verizon Continues to Fight a Losing Battle in Patent Infringement"

By: Sasha Findlay
Source: http://secfilings.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Verizon vs ActiveVideo Networks

Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) lost another decision yesterday in a patent infringement case they’ve had ongoing with ActiveVideo Networks™ since May 2010. After an injunction on November 23, Verizon was ordered to pay $250 million in interest, royalties, and damages to ActiveVideo for patent infringement on four counts, with the first monthly payment set for December 16.

Verizon yesterday was denied their motion to stay the payments further, with the court stating that it would “serve no legitimate purpose” other than allowing Verizon to continue using the technology without recourse.

Source: http://secfilings.com/News.aspx?title=verizon_continues_to_fight_a_losing_battle_in_patent_infringement&naid=131

Patent Infringement | "Apple’s Smartphone Patent Fight With HTC Awaits Trade Rulings"

By Susan Decker

Source: http://www.businessweek.com

Category: Patent Infringement 

 

Apple Patent

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- A patent fight between Apple Inc. and HTC Corp. over smartphone technology awaits decisions this week from a U.S. trade agency that may lead to a ban on imports of some HTC devices.

The International Trade Commission commission is scheduled to announce tomorrow whether HTC infringed patents owned by Apple. A decision in Apple’s favor may result in limits on imports of some HTC phones that run on Google Inc.’s Android operating system. On Dec. 16, the commission is scheduled to say whether it will review a judge’s finding that cleared Apple of claims it infringed some HTC patents.

Each company has accused the other of using its technology without permission in a broader global fight over the smartphone market pitting Apple against makers of Android phones. Tomorrow’s decision, postponed from last week, would mark the first definitive ruling from a judicial entity in Apple’s patent war against HTC and fellow Android-phone makers Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.

“From a consumer perspective, you want choice and the consequence of this ITC mechanism is that it appears if it does find against Android, it could limit your choice,” Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, whose company isn’t named in the case, said yesterday to reporters in Washington. Google contended in a filing that Apple is trying to control the U.S. smartphone market through litigation.

A ruling for Apple may derail Taoyuan, Taiwan-based HTC’s trajectory from a small contract manufacturer founded in 1997 to the biggest U.S. smartphone seller in the third quarter. A victory for HTC may help it secure favorable terms in any settlement with Apple.

Disputed Patents

HTC generated about $5 billion in U.S. sales last year, according to a separate patent complaint it filed at the trade agency against Cupertino, California-based Apple. That’s more than half of HTC’s $9.1 billion (NT$275 billion) in global 2010 sales. HTC sold 24 percent of the smartphones in the U.S. in the third quarter, ahead of Samsung’s 21 percent and Apple’s 20 percent, researcher Canalys reported Oct. 31.

Apple contends that HTC’s Android phones infringe four Apple patents, including one for a system to detect telephone numbers in e-mails so they can be stored in directories or called without dialing the numbers. The commission is reviewing an agency judge’s findings that HTC infringed that patent and one covering the transmission of multiple types of data, along with two other Apple patents that the judge said weren’t infringed.

HTC’s Claims

HTC has accused Apple of infringing four of its patents, including ones for a way to control how a phone switches between different modes of operation to manage the device’s power supply and a method for protecting data if a phone doesn’t have enough power.

The commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency set up to protect U.S. markets from unfair trade practices. It has the power to block imports of products found to infringe intellectual property rights.

Apple’s case against is In the Matter of Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software, 337-710; and HTC’s case against Apple is In the Matter of Portable Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, 337-721, both U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-12/apple-s-smartphone-patent-fight-with-htc-awaits-trade-rulings.html

Trademark Infringement | "‘BlackBerry 10’ Moniker Born Out of Lawsuit"

By: Carl Franzen
Source: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

BlackBerry Trademark Infringement

Former smartphone king Research in Motion, the creator of the popular BlackBerry line of devices, has been having a tough go of its business lately.

The latest blow: A federal judge in New Mexico on Tuesday ruled to temporarily block RIM from using the name “BBX” for its new operating system across the globe, after a trademark infringement claim was filed by Basis International Ltd, an Albuquerque-based software company that has marketed its own product under the name “BBX” since 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“The BBX mark is identical to the mark which RIM is allegedly using to presenting its BBX product,” Judge Judge William Johnson ruled in the District Court of New Mexico, later adding “there is sufficient similarity in this case to weigh in favor of Basis.”

The temporary restraining order had been sought by Basis to stop RIM from using the “BBX” trademark during a developers conference in Singapore on Wednesday and Thursday, where RIM was handing out free copies of its oft-discounted BlackBerry PlayBook tablet to attendees.

And indeed, BlackBerry complied with the order, tweeting on Wednesday that the new operating system would be called “BlackBerry 10.”

“RIM doesn’t typically comment on pending litigation, however RIM has already unveiled a new brand name for its next generation mobile platform,” a spokesperson later told the Journal.

The new software is designed to unify BlackBerry’s currently disparate smartphone and tablet operating systems into one coherent platform (much in the way Google is attempting to do with Android Ice Cream Sandwich) and turn it into a cohesive product that can compete with the flashier mobile offerings from Google and Apple.

BlackBerry 10 was first officially unveiled in October at the BlackBerry developer’s conference in San Francisco, the result of over a year of tinkering to merge BlackBerry’s now eight-year old core operating system with the exciting mobile software technology of QNX, another Canadian company BlackBerry purchased for $200 million in April 2010.

Still, there can be little denying Tuesday’s court ruling marked a setback in RIM’s efforts to recast itself as a dynamic mobile device manufacturer.

Not only are customers gravitating toward rival platforms, including RIM’s once reliable enterprise customer base, but the Ontario-based company suffered an exasperating global service outage in October, which resulted in class-action lawsuits from infuriated customers.

Lately, it seemed as though RIM had been making a concerted effort to regain its stride, or at least break out of its funk, introducing BBX followed by a new enterprise mobile management system, BlackBerry Mobile Fusion, in late November.

But now one of those two new pillars of BlackBerry’s future has taken a hit. We’ve reached out to BlackBerry for more information on the name change and will update when we receive a response.

Source:  http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/blackberry-10-born-out-of-lawsuit.php

Patent Infringement | "PersonalWeb Files Patent Infringement Suits"

By: PersonalWeb
Source: http://www.sacbee.com
Category: Patent Infringement


TYLER, Texas, Dec. 8, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ -- PersonalWeb (www.personalweb.com), a Tyler, Texas-based technology company, today filed multiple patent infringement suits regarding the unlicensed use of its patented technology for cloud computing, distributed search engine file systems, and content addressable storage.

Suits have been filed against Google, YouTube, Amazon, EMC, VMware, Dropbox, NetApps, NEC and Caringo.  The lawsuits state that these companies have used PersonalWeb's patented technology as part of their distributed computing products or systems, including content addressable storage and/or distributed search engine technologies.

"PersonalWeb protects its proprietary business applications and operations through a portfolio of patents that it owns, and we are actively pursuing licensing and participation in the operation of businesses that use these patents," states Michael Weiss, CEO and President of PersonalWeb.

PersonalWeb leverages its patented technology to produce groundbreaking products. The company's newest product is StudyPods™, a social learning platform that enables students to connect, collaborate and share academic knowledge with each other at their own university or colleges worldwide.

The company also develops the Global File Registry ("GFR") digital content management system; the online copyright protection and crime prevention tool is a consolidated database, containing unique identifiers of millions of infringing files captured and collected on behalf of multiple content owners and interested parties.  In addition, PersonalWeb is developing enterprise solutions, including proprietary technology assets utilizing natural language processing and semantic analysis, to search for and deliver relevant content available on the Internet to users.

The patent infringement lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas.

About PersonalWeb: PersonalWeb was established in Tyler, Texas by a team who has been responsible for creating some of the Internet's most popular software and applications used by tens of millions of people worldwide. The company develops groundbreaking products based on its patented technology that is fundamental for many important elements of cloud computing technology, distributed search engine file systems, social media and content addressable storage.  For more information, please visit www.personalweb.com.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/08/4110060/personalweb-files-patent-infringement.html#ixzz1gD9fcm2U

Patent Infringement | "'Important' Oracle patent rejected in Google Android case"

The US patent office has rejected one of Oracle's patents and upheld another

By James Niccolai
Source: http://www.computerworld.com
Category : Patent Infringement


IDG News Service - Oracle has suffered a setback in its lawsuit accusing Google of patent infringement and copyright violation in its Android operating system: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected one of Oracle's Java-related patents -- although it did uphold another.

The PTO's latest determinations, reported in a joint court filing Wednesday, are a mixed bag for both sides. However, at least one legal expert has said the Oracle patent that was rejected could be its most significant in the case.

The filing, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also shows Oracle continuing to push for a jury trial early next year, while Google argues that trying the case before July would not be practical.

Oracle sued Google last year, arguing that its Android software violates Java-related patents that Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. Oracle initially sought damages of up to US$6.1 billion, although the court has told it to revise that estimate.

Early on in the case, Google asked the patent office to reexamine all the patents at issue, and Wednesday's filing gives an update on that process. Oracle asserts several claims for each patent.

"The reexaminations of five of the six patents-in-suit remain ongoing, with roughly two-thirds of the currently asserted claims having been rejected," Google said in the filing. "Eighty percent of the asserted claims as to which the PTO has issued an office action currently stand rejected."

Some of the rejections are preliminary, however. And if a jury finds that Google violated even one of the claims in a patent, it could still be enough to see Oracle awarded damages or an injunction, noted Scott Daniels, author of the Reexamination Alert patents blog.

In the latest developments, the PTO on Nov. 9 upheld the claims in Oracle's patent number 6,061,520, and on Nov. 18 it rejected the claims in patent number 7,426,720, the filing shows. Both relate to improving the performance of Java.

Florian Mueller, author of the FOSS Patents blog, asserted in July that the so-called '720 patent is "strategically very important" and "may very well be" the most important patent in the case. That's because it is the "youngest" of the patents at issue; it doesn't expire until 2025, while the other patents all expire in 2018 or earlier.

That means if Google were found to have infringed that patent, any related injunction would have remained in force until 2025, Mueller wrote. And if Oracle were awarded damages, the damages might have been higher based on the longer remaining life of the patent.

Daniels agreed, although he noted that the significance of an injunction would also have depended on the scope of the claims in the patent. If they are relatively narrow, Google might have been able to engineer around them, but if they are significant that might have been harder to do.

"Sometimes the claims are like a two-foot fence and you can walk around them; other times they're like the Great Wall of China," he said.

In any case, the patent is out of the case, at least for now. The PTO's determination was a "final action" rather than a preliminary one, which is "a major defeat for the patentee," Daniels said. Oracle is still allowed to contest it, however, and must do so by Dec. 19.


Source: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222501/_Important_Oracle_patent_rejected_in_Google_Android_cas

Trademark Infringement | "Bayer, India's Cipla settle trademark suit"

By: REUTERS
Source: http://in.reuters.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

Bayer HealthCare LLC said Cipla's DA Double Advantage pet treatment violated the trademark rights of its flea preventative, Advantage. Bayer had sought to block future sales of the product in the United States.

Under the settlement, Cipla will surrender all profits it made from the sale of its DA Double Advantage, amounting in excess of $100,000, and discontinue all use of the trademark.

Bayer received an additional $100,000 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees, and Cipla agreed to recall any product remaining in the sales pipeline.

Cipla will also stop use of the trademark 'Advance' for a companion animal product and not make any product with the same formula as Bayer's Advantix, another patented flea preventative, during the remaining term of those patents.

Website operator Archipelago agreed to a consent decree, under which it is prohibited from selling DA Double Advantage and Advantix in the United States, Bayer HealthCare said.

Cipla was not immediately available for comment. (Reporting by Zeba Siddiqui in Bangalore; Editing by Unnikrishnan Nair)

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/bayerhealthcare-cipla-idINDEE7B50HJ20111206

Patent Infringement | "U.S. firm files complaint against HTC, others for patent infringement"

By: Jay Chou and Lilian Wu - Central News Agency
Source: http://www.taiwannews.com.tw
Category: Patent Infringement


Washington, Dec. 5 (CNA) An American company has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against several companies, including Taiwan's HTC">HTC Corp. and its American subsidiary, for patent infringement. Digitude Innovations LLC, a consumer electronics licensing company, accused HTC">HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony and others of alleged violations with regard to certain portable communication devices. Digitude requested that the ITC conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, an important means for the U.S. to combat unfair practices in the import trade and especially for enforcing U.S. intellectual property rights at the border. If imports are found to violate section 337, an exclusion order will be issued to the U.S. Customs Service excluding these products from the United States. 

Source: http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1779342

Trademark Litigation | "Chicken Chain Says Stop, but T-Shirt Maker Balks"

By: JESS BIDGOOD
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
Category : Trademark Litigation

For Bo Muller-Moore, a folk artist from Vermont, the T-shirts he hand-screens with the slogan “Eat More Kale” are a dream fulfilled: a quirky project that has emblazoned this leafy mandate across the chests of people worldwide, and one he wants to trademark.

So when Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain that says it sells 537 sandwiches a minute with the help of the slogan “Eat mor chikin” (the words have been penned by cows), sent him a cease-and-desist letter this fall, Mr. Muller-Moore decided to fight the company, setting off a groundswell of local support and national media attention.

“This is corporate bullying,” Mr. Muller-Moore said. His lawyer, Daniel Richardson, sent Chick-fil-A a letter in November, contesting its claim that the slogan “is likely to cause confusion of the public and dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A’s intellectual property.”

Chick-fil-A does not have any stores in Vermont. The closest one is in Nashua, N.H., about 120 miles from Montpelier, where Mr. Muller-Moore, an Alabama native, has lived for years. He began making the shirts in 2000, at the suggestion of a local farmer. The few dozen printed at first have swollen into thousands of orders filled every year, he said, but he still works out of the overflowing studio above his garage, buying his art supplies nearby.

“Someone called me a Vermont institution, and it made me blush,” said Mr. Muller-Moore, who has received plenty of local help. His legal representation has been pro bono; a local soup purveyor put a petition on Change.org; and a onetime aide to former Gov. Jim Douglas is assisting him with public relations. And the current governor, Peter Shumlin, has also thrown his support behind the cause and was planning to appear with Mr. Muller-Moore at a news conference.

Mr. Muller-Moore has also taken to Facebook to rally fans of his work, who posted on his wall, sent supportive e-mails and put more than 16,000 signatures on the petition in just over two weeks. Their motivations varied, he said.

“There are certainly the purists and they think of kale as this superfood,” Mr. Muller-Moore said. “I think other people see it as more of this local food movement. I think, in Vermont, other people see it as a shirt printed by Bo down the road.”

For those supporters, the message is simple: Don’t mess with Bo, and don’t mess with Vermont. “I think I’ve given away enough stickers and shirts around here that Vermonters take this very personally,” Mr. Muller-Moore said.

It is a place that prides itself on an artisanal, local business culture and, Mr. Muller-Moore says, is “very supportive of its artists and what it deems as its own.”

In 2009, the Rock Art Brewery, in Morrisville, Vt., received a letter from Hansen Beverage Company, which owns Monster Energy drinks, saying the microbrewery’s Vermonster beer violated their trademark.

Matthew Nadeau, the brewery’s president and co-founder, said one of the state’s largest beverage stores immediately boycotted Hansen’s beverages. “This is the biggest store in the state and they’re standing behind us, so we knew we weren’t going to fight alone,” Mr. Nadeau said.

That story spread on social and traditional media and Vermont’s senators, Bernard Sanders and Patrick J. Leahy, got involved. Mr. Leahy wrote legislation that required the government to survey how trademark law is used by large corporations, though Mr. Nadeau lamented that it was not distributed widely enough to solicit many responses from small businesses. The two sides eventually came to an agreement without litigation, and Rock Art continued to use the Vermonster name.

Chick-fil-A sent Mr. Muller-Moore a warning once before, in 2006, but did not pursue that matter. Now, Mr. Muller-Moore and Mr. Richardson are awaiting a response from the company, and they plan to continue with their trademark application.

In a statement, Chick-fil-A said, “We must legally protect and defend our ‘Eat mor chikin’ trademarks in order to maintain rights to the slogan.”

But Mr. Richardson does not think the company’s argument would hold up in trademark court. “We believe it’s pretty clear, the issue of dilution and confusion aren’t really triggered here,” he said. “There’s no one out there that’s going to come forward and say, ‘I thought I was buying a Chick-fil-A product but I got this T-shirt.’ ”

For Mr. Muller-Moore, the fight is about those T-shirts, and his small business — not kale. Although he does not mind kale.

“If it’s cooked well, it’s good,” he said. “If it’s cooked poorly, no thank you.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/us/eat-more-kale-t-shirts-challenged-by-chick-fil-a.html

Patent Infringement | "U.S. court denies Apple's bid to halt Samsung sales; Patent infringement 'still likely'"

By: Zack Whittaker
Source: http://www.zdnet.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Apple vs Samsung

Summary: A U.S. judge has ruled in favour of Samsung, and will be able to continue selling its line of alleged patent infringing products until the matter comes to trial.

Apple’s lawyers have failed to convince a U.S. judge to impose a sales ban on Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the United States.

The ruling late on Friday denied Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung, reports Reuters.

Apple began legal proceedings against Samsung in April, claiming the Korean electronics giant had “slavishly” copied its iPhone smartphone and iPad tablet.

But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in Son Jose, California denied Apple’s request for a preliminary sales ban against Samsung.

But there is a catch: Apple could still prevail in the long-running patent spat if the matter comes to trial.

Koh added, in conjunction with previously held sentiments, that Apple would likely prove that Samsung infringed at least one of its tablet patents.

In the meantime, Samsung can continue to sell its products, like the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy S 4G, the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge, until a time comes where a trial rules in favour of Apple.

The Apple-owned design patent in question — U.S Patent No. D618,677 — while likely valid and likely infringed, poses no irreparable harm to the Cupertino giant.

Apple has yet to demonstrate the “validity of those patents” to succeed in the lawsuit.

Though the case has yet to start, the outcome of the initial hearing signals a strong lead for Samsung.

The two companies continue to butt heads in over 20 cases in 10 countries, as the two compete for the crown of top smartphone and tablet maker in the run up to Christmas sales and into next year.

In November, Samsung won an appeal against its sales injunction in Australia, allowing the company to sell its Galaxy Tab products in the region. Earlier this month, Apple appealed that decision, extending the ban, restricting Samsung from selling its long-awaited iPad competitor until after the supposed busiest time for shopping in the run up to the Christmas holiday.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/us-court-denies-apples-bid-to-halt-samsung-sales-patent-infringement-still-likely/64619

Trademark Litigation | "BMW’s Long March to Court"

By: Stan Abrams, China Hearsay
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com
Category: Trademark Litigation

BMW

This intellectual property case is really funky, as in “WTF is this all about?” Here are the basic facts, and then I’ll chime in with a bit of admittedly confused commentary:

The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) is suing BMW China for allegedly using images of the Long March rocket in advertisements without permission. The case opened in the Fengtai district court Wednesday.

I didn’t know there was a China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (中国运载火箭技术研究院). Cool. You learn something new every day.

So it sounds like some sort of trademark infringement case. CALT apparently has the rights to a logo that was used by BMW without authorization. Case closed, yes?

These additional facts do not help at all:

According to the court, CALT filed the lawsuit alleging BMW used its figurative mark CZ-2F rocket in an advertisement in Vistastory magazine in 2010. The academy is asking for 100,000 yuan ($15,708) in compensation.

“CZ-2F rocket’s image is well-known for being designed to launch the Shenzhou spaceship and Tiangong-1,” said Deng Zemin, the lawyer representing CALT. “Clearly BMW used the fame of the rockets to promote their products and increase their market influence without approval, which constitutes ‘unfair competition.’”

OK, first, is it the figurative “mark CZ-2F rocket” or the “figurative mark,” which is an image of the “CZ-2F rocket”? In other words, are we talking about a trademark here or is the word “mark” being used as a military-style identifier along with the number? I already have a headache.

Right, on to the IP case. Thanks to whoever wrote this story, I really have no idea what sort of legal theory we’re dealing with. At the top of the list, we’d have to put unfair competition, since that was mentioned specifically. However, that quote probably isn’t definitive.

What are the other possibilities? Copyright? A rocket isn’t protected by copyright law, even if the design is distinctive. Images and renderings of the rocket would be protected (e.g. a photograph, blueprint, schematic, or painting) if CALT owned those rights.

Not much to go on in the article, although this sounds a lot like copyright:

BMW argued, since the Long March rocket family has been launched more than 100 times, the images in the advertisement are considered public domain, according to a court press release.

Does that mean that BMW was using photographic images, which might be protected? Unfortunately, that’s the only indication of a copyrighted work, and since the article also contains the words “trademark” and “unfair competition,” I am rightly confused. (More on this later when we get to trademark.)

Just to be thorough, what about a design patent? Possible. The aesthetic features of the rocket could be protected via industrial design, but there is no indication that we’re dealing with that sort of IP here.

That leaves us with trademark as the “anchor” form of IP that would be used in an unfair competition case. Does CALT own some sort of trademark on the image of the rocket as a logo?

Let’s assume for the moment that CALT does have such a trademark. If so, what products/services would it be registered under? Which class includes “rockets and other launch vehicles”? Class 12? What about automobiles? (I assume that BMW’s ads involved car sales).

Crap, I might as well waste more time by doing a quick search . . . yeah, there it is. Class 13, some sort of rocket logo on several different mechanical devices including rockets and launch platform technology. And yes, they also have the logo in Class 12 under . . . wait for it . . . automobiles. Pretty wide trademark coverage for a rocket.

So if BMW used an image in car ads that looks like that logo, then I’d say their case is in trouble. Doesn’t matter that the image of the rocket is out there in the public domain, that’s copyright-speak. If their image looks like that logo, then there’s a trademark argument to be made.

[Note: According to a super secret source of mine working on a similar litigation with CALT as the plaintiff, the trademarks in that matter were not identical or substantially similar.]

If you’re still confused as to why that “public domain” argument is irrelevant, consider a company like Great Wall Wine, whose logo includes an image of the Great Wall. That image is certainly out there in the public domain, yet a private company like that can still get protection for it as a trademark. Copyright never enters into the picture. Get it?

This brings us back to unfair competition and this claim:

“The slogan ‘BMW: experience the passion while improving our society,’ copied an idea on CALT’s website reading ‘rocket boosters help China take off,’” Deng told the Global Times. “It also implies the company has something to do with the launch. It’s totally inappropriate.”

This suggests “passing off,” which is a violation of the Anti-unfair Competition Law. I’m open to the trademark infringement theory (although now that I’ve seen the actual logo (which is kind of ugly), I’m skeptical that BMW used an image that was substantially similar), but I don’t really have enough information to say anything about the passing off charge. Without seeing the ad itself, all we have is the language “BMW: experience the passion while improving our society.”

It’s possible that the ad is suggestive of a BMW role. You never know. But so what? Unfair competition is all about the competition, and there needs to be commerce going on here. BMW is not passing off its own rockets as originating from CALT, it’s selling cars. Where’s the consumer confusion? And as BMW’s lawyer said: “as an incredibly famous automotive brand, it’s unnecessary for the company to use CALT’s trademark to boost its image.” That’s not a defense, but it’s true nonetheless.

By the way, in that other ongoing litigation involving CALT and this trademark, the legal theory there is also unfair competition, even though the defendant is in no way a competitor of CALT. Maybe that was chosen because the straight-on trademark infringement case was weak.

If I was CALT, and the two images are indeed similar, I’d stick with the trademark infringement theory. If the trademarks are different, I really don’t know where this whole thing is going.

Also, if anyone can send me a link/image to that BMW ad, that would be nice.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/bmws-long-march-to-court-2011-12

Patent Infringement | "Given Imaging Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Intromedic - Quick Facts"

By: RTT Staff Writer
Source: http://www.rttnews.com
Category: Patent Infringement


(RTTNews) - Given Imaging Ltd. (GIVN: News ), a maker of diagnostic products for the detection of gastrointestinal tract disorders, Wednesday said it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Intromedic Co. Ltd., in Seoul's Central District Court accusing infringement of two Korean patents of Given Imaging.

Given Imaging believes Intromedic's capsule endoscope, marketed under the brand name MiroCam. In parallel, Intromedic commenced proceedings before the Korean Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the two patents asserted by Given Imaging.

Given Imaging added that if the patents are found valid and infringed by the MiroCam capsule, Intromedic, based in Korea, will not be able to manufacture its capsule endoscope in Korea or sell it from Korea to customers worldwide. Rulings in these proceedings are expected during the second half of 2012.

Source: http://www.rttnews.com/Content/QuickFacts.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1771441

Trademark Infringement | "Maharishi foundation: Competitor violates trademark"

Maharishi foundation: Competitor violates trademark
The Meditation House's claims about its techniques are designed to confuse the public, the Fairfield group alleges.

By: Jeff Eckhoff
Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


A nonprofit Iowa-based educational foundation tied to the calming meditation teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has injected new stress into the life of a competitor.

Maharishi Foundation USA Inc. of Fairfield this week sued the Meditation House LLC, accusing it of infringing on the foundation’s trademark covering the teaching of “Transcendental Meditation.”

Paperwork filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Des Moines accuses the Meditation House of lying in its advertising about the benefits of “Vedic Meditation.” Claims about the studied health value of those techniques are “false on their face,” according to the lawsuit, and designed to confuse the public with research done on Transcendental Meditation, which has been actively taught in the U.S. for roughly 50 years.

“The Foundation has never had an affiliation or license with the Meditation House nor, on information and belief, has anyone connected with the Meditation House ever taken an authorized course on the TM technique, let alone acquired the skills and knowledge necessary or the authorization from the foundation required to teach it,” the lawsuit says. “The Meditation House’s belief that the parties’ respective meditation services are equivalent is based on a self-serving desire to appropriate the valuable goodwill associated with the foundation’s brand for its own commercial gain.”

A disclaimer on theme ditationhouse.com insists that the company and life coach Jules Green “expressly disclaim any association with Maharishi Foundation Ltd.,” its trademarks or its practices.

Green, a “holistic life coach” who offers workshops in San Diego, New York and Des Moines, on the website lauds the “5000-year-old tradition of Vedic Meditation” and describes how her own meditation “led her to India to study with world-renowned Vedic scholar Thom Knoles in an ashram in the foothills of the Himalayas.”

Green did not return a phone call to the Iowa number listed on her website.

Iowa corporation records show the Meditation House LLC was formed in May 2010 by Jules Green Zubradt. The corporate address listed in state records belongs to an Ankeny home owned by Marilyn Green.

The Maharishi Foundation’s lawsuit accuses Green’s company of false advertising, unfair competition, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false representation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

Court papers seek “all profits wrongfully derived by the Meditation House” from its allegedly improper activities, as well as multiple changes in the content of the Meditation House website.

The foundation also seeks a court order requiring that Green’s company notify “each and every customer who purchased services” from the Meditation House that “there is no evidence that the technique taught by the defendant reduces the risk of heart disease or normalizes blood pressure, and there is no published scientific study that demonstrates any health benefit from the technique taught by the defendant.”

Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111130/NEWS/311300051/-1/GETPUBLISHED03scripts/Maharishi-foundation-Competitor-violates-trademark

Trademark Infringement | "Chevron files lawsuit against Lawrence business for trademark infringement related to Salina gas station sign"

By: George Diepenbrock
Source: http://www2.ljworld.com
November 28, 2011
Category : Trademark Infringement


Chevron USA Inc. has filed a federal lawsuit alleging trademark infringement against a Lawrence-based company that owns a gas station in Salina.

According to the complaint in the case filed Wednesday, Chevron accused the I-70 Hotel Corp. of not fully removing and continuing to display “distinctive red and black Texaco color patterns” that are under trademark at the station at 1846 N. Ninth St. in Salina.

Chevron owns the rights to Texaco’s marks after purchasing the company and still uses the Texaco brand. The suit alleges the Salina station was once a Texaco station until its agreement for a Texaco fuel supply was terminated.

“We address situations like this to eliminate consumer confusion as to the true source of gasoline, lubricants and related products and services in the marketplace,” said Sean Comey, a Chevron spokesman. “Chevron initiated litigation in this matter as a last resort. In the vast majority of these situations, we resolve this type of issue on a cooperative basis and without the need for litigation.”

Chevron is asking U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia to order the station to cease using the markings and to award damages.

Members of the I-70 Hotel Corp. did not return calls Monday seeking comment.

Source: http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/nov/28/chevron-files-lawsuit-against-lawrence-business-tr/

Patent Infringement | "McDonald's Monopoly Promotion Subject of Patent Infringement Suit/ Federal Subpoena Issued"

By LaserLock Technologies, Inc.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com

Published: Tuesday, Nov. 29, 2011 - 10:10 am 

Category:  Patent Infringement

McDonald's

PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 29, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- McDonald Corporation's Monopoly® promotion is the subject of a federal patent infringement suit launched by LaserLock Technologies, Inc. (OTC Ticker: LLTI) it was announced today. LaserLock initiated the suit in 2010 against WS Packaging Group of Green Bay, Wisconsin, one of the largest label converting operations in North America, who manufactured the game pieces on behalf of McDonald's.

LaserLock alleges that McDonald's used the Company's patented technology to protect more than 1.5-billion Monopoly® game pieces from being counterfeited which were manufactured by WS Packaging Group between 2009 through 2011. LaserLock has issued a federal subpoena of McDonalds.

On November 8, 2011 under the headline "McDonald's Monopoly Gives Boost to Sales" MSNBC US Business News Report said "McDonald's reported higher than expected rise in worldwide October sales at established restaurants aided by a popular promotional game in the United States. Same restaurant sales rose 5.2% in the United States beating analysts' expectations for an increase of 3.7% and helped by the Monopoly game promotion."

LaserLock Technologies, Inc., based in Bala Cynwud, PA markets security technology solutions to protect documents and products from being counterfeited.

"The Company plans to vigorously pursue this violation of its patent rights over a three year period," said Norman A. Gardner, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer of LaserLock. "We have put in place the resources that will be required to pursue this matter to its conclusion."

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/29/4087128/mcdonalds-monopoly-promotion-subject.html#ixzz1fB0GyPH5

Apple Patent Infringement | ITC Dismisses S3 Graphics’s Patent-infringement Lawsuit Against Apple

By: Steve Chuang
Source: http://news.cens.com 
Category: Apple Patent Infringement

Taipei, Nov. 29, 2011 (CENS)--The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) recently dismissed a patent-infringement lawsuit filed by S3 Graphics against Apple Inc., claiming that the latter doesn’t violate the former’s patented technologies involved in the case.

ITC’s ruling in favor of Apple in the case is definitely a disappointment to Taiwan’s HTC Corp., which, one of the top three smartphone vendors in the U.S. by market share now, bought out S3 Graphics in mid-2011 as a strategic move to counter Apple’s continual patent-infringement charges against it, in a bid to urge the competitor to reach negotiations.

In response, HTC’s general counsel Grace Lei commented that her company respect but is disappointed at ITC’s final determination, and it will seriously consider taking all possible means, including filing a compliant with ITC, in the short term to safeguard its interests.

In fact, ITC issued a ruling on the patent-violation dispute in favor of S3 Graphics earlier, but reversed the ruling eventually, sending shock waves through the industry.

Patent experts in the U.S. opine that ITC commissioners made the final determination perhaps because of invalidity of S3 Graphics’s patents involved in the dispute, or in regard of patent exhaustion

On patent exhaustion, industry insiders also commented that Apple’s graphic chipset supplier Nvidia has already reached a patent cross-licensing agreement with S3 Graphics. In other words, this enables Apple, which adopts Nvidia’s graphic chipset in its electronic devices, not to subject to the patent violations claimed by S3 Graphics.

The patent battles between Apple and HTC’s proxy have yet to cease, for S3 Graphics just launched another patent-violation lawsuit with ITC against Apple on November 8, saying that the latter has infringed four of its patented graphic processing technologies widely used in computers and mobile electronic devices. 

Source: http://news.cens.com/cens/html/en/news/news_inner_38529.html

HTC Backs Down Appeal To Lift Sales Ban In Germany

By: Francis Rey
Source: http://socialbarrel.com

HTC has backed away from appealing against an injunction banning sales of the its 3G devices in Germany, increasing the number of banned mobile electronics products in the country.

IPcom Technologies filed a lawsuit against HTC for several patents and secured a favorable ruling from a German court over HTC infringing a specific patent that involves an algorithm for user priority assignment, claiming that the patent is present in devices worldwide.

Earlier, HTC planned to present an appeal to the German court but suddenly pulled out ahead of Monday’s decision, which only means it was dubious on the result of the action.

IPcom Technologies Managing Director Bernhard Frohwitter reacted to HTC’s decision and said, “Apparently, HTC has accepted it had no realistic chance of winning this case – the courts have clearly established that HTC has been infringing our patents and now given us the means to put a stop to it.”

He added, “Since HTC has never to come up with an offer that adequately reflects the value of these patents, IPCom has been left with no choice – we will use the right awarded by the courts, likely resulting in HTC devices disappearing from shops during the crucial Christmas season.”

IPcom, however, is not stopping with the court’s decision on the HTC case, following up on similar injunctions to ban sales of several Nokia products for patent infringement.

The intellectual property firm claimed that the same German court and judge is handling the case, highly indicative of gaining a similar decision against Nokia devices.

IPcom currently owns an extensive patent portfolio from German electronics firm Bosch, which sold its patents in 2007.

Ever since closing the deal, IPcom has tracked a list of companies that it believes is using its patented technologies, reaching licensing agreements from most companies but not HTC and Nokia, both of which turned down an offer to sign a deal.

HTC has yet to reveal its next step in an attempt to stay within the lucrative German market and dodge the sales ban.

It may consider following Samsung’s decision to modify infringing products in Germany, or try to come up with a good licensing agreement with IPcom, which should cost more than it asked for before filing the case.

Last week, Joaquín Almuni, EU Competition Commissioner, showed concern over injunctions to ban products, bringing up the case of Samsung and Apple that ended up with the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 injunction in Germany, and HTC’s case is no way different from it.


Source: http://socialbarrel.com/htc-backs-down-appeal-to-lift-sales-ban-in-germany/27958/

Hard Rock Café chain faces Las Vegas trademark lawsuit

By: Steve Green
Source: http://www.vegasinc.com

England’s Cavern Club, known as the birthplace of the Beatles, hit the international Hard Rock chain with a lawsuit Sunday in Las Vegas alleging trademark infringement.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, complained Florida-based Hard Rock Café International has recently opened a small events room called “The Cavern Club” in one of its Las Vegas locations.

Hard Rock Café International owns restaurants, clubs, casinos and hotels around the world and also licenses that name.

The Cavern Club in Liverpool said in the lawsuit that it is a "legendary nightclub" that opened in 1957. In 1961 the Beatles made their first appearance there and would go on to perform there nearly 300 times, the suit says.

It says the Cavern Club has also hosted the Rolling Stones, the Yardbirds, the Kinks, Elton John and The Who.

The lawsuit indicates the Cavern Club and the international Hard Rock company have butted heads before over the Cavern Club trademark.

The Cavern Club owns the trademark rights to that name in the United Kingdom, the 25 European Community nations, Australia, Hong Kong, Brazil and Canada, the lawsuit says.

But Hard Rock Café International has a U.S. trademark for the Cavern Club name and Sunday’s lawsuit sought to overturn a Sept. 29 decision upholding its U.S. rights to the mark.

That decision was made by the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which dismissed the Cavern Club’s challenge dating to 2005 to that trademark registration.

Besides the Las Vegas location using the Cavern Club name, Hard Rock has a club in Boston that has also used the Cavern Club name for a special events room and performance space, the lawsuit says.

The suit calls the U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision rejecting the Cavern Club’s challenge of the Hard Rock-owned trademark “erroneous” and says Hard Rock’s use of the name “is likely to cause and has caused confusion, mistake or deception” as to whether the Hard Rock-owned venues are affiliated with the U.K.’s Cavern Club.

Besides alleging trademark infringement, Sunday’s lawsuit alleges violations of Nevada’s deceptive business practices act and alleges common law unfair competition.

Hard Rock Cafe International, which is owned by Florida’s Seminole Indian tribe, has two cafes in Las Vegas. That chain also has its origins in London, opening its first cafe there in 1971.

Hard Rock Cafe International does not own the Hard Rock hotel-casino in Las Vegas and remains tied up in separate trademark litigation with the hotel-casino.

A request for comment on the lawsuit was placed with Hard Rock.

Sunday's suit was filed by attorneys Paul Rapp in Housatonic, Mass.; and Mark Borghese in Las Vegas.


Source: http://www.vegasinc.com/news/2011/nov/27/hard-rock-caf-chain-faces-las-vegas-trademark-laws/

Verizon Ordered To Stop Using ActiveVideo Patents

By Todd Spangler
Source: http://www.multichannel.com

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Verizon Communications must stop using four patents owned by interactive TV firm ActiveVideo Networks, issuing a permanent injunction effective May 23, 2012, and ordering the telco to pay ActiveVideo $2.74 per FiOS TV subscriber per month starting Dec. 1.

Verizon as of Sept. 30 had 3.98 million FiOS TV subscribers. That means the telco will owe at least $10.9 million per month to ActiveVideo -- whose largest customer is Cablevision Systems -- until the permanent injunction is in effect.

In August, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia found Verizon's FiOS TV violated four of five patents asserted by ActiveVideo and awarded ActiveVideo $115 million in damages.

ActiveVideo filed a motion for an injunction barring Verizon from using the patents in August 2011, after originally suing the telco in May 2010.

Last month, Judge Raymond Jackson for the Eastern District of Virginia added at least $24.1 million in supplemental damages and interest to the amount Verizon must pay to ActiveVideo.

While Verizon had argued against ActiveVideo's claim of "irreparable harm" because the two companies are not direct competitors, "There is no doubt that ActiveVideo suffers indirect losses when Cablevision suffers direct losses from Verizon's infringement," Judge Jackson wrote in the order Wednesday.

Verizon declined to comment. The telco may appeal the decision.

"We are extremely pleased with the court's decision to enjoin Verizon's infringing activities," ActiveVideo president and CEO Jeff Miller said in a statement. "It is only right that Verizon, having been found to infringe our patents, should be prevented from competing with us... We believe it is well past time for Verizon to comply with the court's decision, and to cease its unlawful and unauthorized use of our intellectual property."

The four ActiveVideo patents that Verizon was found to have violated are U.S. Patent Nos.: 6,034,678, "Cable Television System With Remote Interactive Processor"; 5,550,578, "Interactive And Conventional Television Information System"; 6,100,883, "Home Interface Controller for Providing Interactive Cable Television"; and 6,205,582, "Interactive Cable Television System With Frame Server."

In May, Judge Jackson ruled that two of Verizon's patents asserted in a counterclaim against ActiveVideo were invalid.

Separately, Verizon had sued Cablevision and brought a complaint before the U.S. International Trade Commission, alleging the MSO violated several telco-owned patents. The ITC ultimately rejected Verizon's claims. The commission found that although Cablevision did violate one Verizon patent -- U.S. Patent No. 6,381,748 ("Apparatus and methods for network access using a set top box and television") -- the Virginia court had ruled it invalid. Verizon's lawsuit against Cablevision in the U.S. District Court in Delaware is now proceeding and the telco is appealing the judge's patent-invalidation ruling.

According to San Jose, Calif.-based ActiveVideo, it first contacted Verizon in 2005 seeking to reach an agreement to deploy its interactive TV solution on the FiOS network.

The ActiveVideo-Verizon case is docket no. 10-CV-248 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. ActiveVideo is represented in the case by law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

Source: http://www.multichannel.com/article/477157-Verizon_Ordered_To_Stop_Using_ActiveVideo_Patents.php

Las Vegas gay nightclub sues competitor over trademark infringement

By: CRISTINA SILVA
Source: http://www.therepublic.com
LAS VEGAS — Several gay Las Vegas nightclubs are in a trademark battle over a website domain.

Manhattan West LLC filed a lawsuit Wednesday in federal court against the companies behind the popular Krave nightclub on the Las Vegas Strip. The lawsuit against Phantom Entertainment LLC and Krave Entertainment LLC alleges that those companies registered the website domain name piranhalv.com last year. The website redirects users to the Krave website.

Manhattan West owns the Piranha Night Club and 8 1/2 Ultra Lounge off the Las Vegas Strip. Its website is piranhavegas.com.

The lawsuit alleges that the Krave promoters are trying to steal Manhattan West's customers or suggest that the Piranha club is closed. Manhattan West alleges that it is suffering financially as a result because a large portion of its revenue depends on Internet marketing to new and current customers.

Phantom has been involved in the Krave nightclub since last year, when it purchased all of Krave Entertainment's assets as Krave was going through bankruptcy proceedings. Roughly two months later, Phantom registered the pranhalv.com domain name in December.

"Defendants' actions have disrupted or are intended to disrupt Plaintiff's business by, among other things, diverting web users away from Plaintiff's website and from their clubs to the Defendants' website and club," the lawsuit reads.

Manhattan West is demanding monetary, exemplary or punitive damages and attorneys' fees. However, its lawyers estimate that "it would be impossible to determine the potential monetary damages" if Krave continues to maintain the website.

The domain name directed visitors Friday to the Krave nightclub website, which promoted upcoming events and promotions such as "dress in drag & drink free" and "live hair shows."


Source: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/03f118b61f7744a2b192de3389229637/NV--Nightclub-Dispute/