Patent Infringement Lawsuits Against Amazon.com Grow in 3Q

By: Tim Parry
Source: http://multichannelmerchant.com

Amazon.com's legal woes go well beyond states trying to sock them, and other online retailers, with collection of online sales taxes. According to the 10-Q Amazon.com filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission last week, the online retail giant became the subject of eight patent infringement lawsuits in the third quarter.

The seven lawsuits filed against Amazon.com last month and one this month bring the number of active lawsuits against the online giant to 18, according to the filing. All are tied to the release of Amazon's new hybrid e-reader/tablet product Kindle Fire, according to published reports.

Here are the eight most recent patent infringement filings against Amazon.com:

September:

Parallel Iron filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that alleges, among other things, that certain AWS file storage systems that include a Hadoop Distributed File System infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover “Methods and Systems for a Storage System With a Program-Controlled Switch for Routing Data” (U.S. Patent No. 7,415,565), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

Lochner Technologies filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that alleges, among other things, that by offering products used for desktop virtualization or cloud computing solutions that provide virtual desktop environments Amazon infringes a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Modular Computer System” (U.S. Patent No. 7,035,598), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

Semiconductor Ideas to the Market BV filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. that alleges, among other things, that by offering products including our Kindle e-reader that employ receiver technology designed to diminish signal leakage Amazon infringes two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Receiver Comprising A Digitally Controlled Capacitor Bank” (U.S. Patent No. 7,299,018) and a “Communication Device” (U.S. Patent No. 7,072,614), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

Droplets, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that alleges, among other things, that by offering web applications and software Amazon infringes two patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “System and Method for Delivering a Graphical User Interface of Remote Applications Over a Thin Client” (U.S. Patent No. 6,687,745) and a “System and Method for Delivering Remotely Stored Graphics and Information” (U.S. Patent No. 7,502,838), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

Execware, LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that alleges, among other things, that by rapidly formatting and reformatting tabular displays of records, such as product listings on our websites, Amazon infringes a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover an “Integrated Dialog Box for Rapidly Altering Presentation of Parametric Text Data Objects on a Computer Display” (U.S. Patent No. 6,216,139), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

Select Retrieval, Inc. filed complaints in the United States District Courts for the District of Oregon and the District of Delaware that allege, among other things, that certain aspects of our websites’ technology infringe a patent owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover “Data Display Software with Actions and Links Integrated with Information” (U.S. Patent No. 6,128,617), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

LVL Patent Group, LLC filed three complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware that allege, among other things, that certain aspects of our technology, including our mobile applications, infringe four patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Telephone/Transaction Entry Device and System for Entering Transaction Data into Databases” (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,805,676; 5,987,103; and 8,019,060) and a “Data Transaction Assembly Server” (U.S. Patent No. 6,044,382), and seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys fees.

October:

Smartphone Technologies LLC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas that alleges, among other things, that certain aspects of our Kindle devices infringe five patents owned by the plaintiff purporting to cover a “Power-Conserving Intuitive Device Discovery Technique In A Bluetooth Environment” (U.S. Patent No. 6,950,645); a “Handheld Computer System That Attempts To Establish An Alternative Network Link Upon Failing To Establish A Requested Network Link” (U.S. Patent No. 7,506,064); a “Method And Apparatus For Communicating Information Over Low Bandwidth Communications Networks” (U.S. Patent No. RE 40,459); a “Method For Controlling A Handheld Computer By Entering Commands Onto A Displayed Feature Of The Handheld Computer” (U.S. Patent No. 6,956,562); and a “System and Method For Displaying And Manipulating Multiple Calendars On A Personal Digital Assistant” (U.S. Patent No. 6,466,236). The complaint seeks monetary damages, costs, and interest.

Amazon.com said in the release it denies any wrongdoing in each of the complaints.

Source: http://multichannelmerchant.com/ecommerce/news/amazon-patent-infringement-lawsuits-1031tpp1/

Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit

By: Torrent Freak
Source: http://torrentfreak.com

John Wiley and Sons, one of the world’s largest book publishers, have sued 27 BitTorrent users at a federal court in New York. The publisher claims that the defendants have shared copies of its “For Dummies” books without permission, and demands compensation. After several movie studios started filing lawsuits against BitTorrent users last year, Wiley is the first book publisher to take this kind of action.

Since early 2010 more than 200,000 people have been sued in the U.S. for sharing copyrighted works via BitTorrent. Thus far these lawsuits have been the exclusive territory of independent and adult film studios, but today they are joined by one of the world’s largest book publishers.

John Wiley and Sons have sued 27 Does at a federal court in New York for downloading and sharing copies of its “For Dummies” books using BitTorrent. The complaint (pdf), obtained by TorrentFreak, shows that all defendants allegedly shared the books on October 18 and 19 of this year.

Wiley argues that through the massive piracy that occurs on BitTorrent, their company is suffering severe losses that might cost several authors their jobs.

“Defendants are contributing to a problem that threatens the profitability of Wiley. Although Wiley cannot determine at this time the precise amount of revenue that it has lost as a result of peer-to-peer file sharing of its copyrighted works though BitTorrent software, the amount of revenue that is lost is enormous,” Wiley’s attorney writes.

“For example, BitTorrent users on a single site, demonoid.me, have downloaded one of the works that is the subject of this suit, ‘Photoshop CS 5 All-In-One FOR DUMMIES,’ more than 74,000 times since June 6, 2010,” the complaint adds.

Other pirated books listed in the complaint include familiar titles such as “AutoCAD 2011 for Dummies,” “Day Trading for Dummies”, “Calculus Essential for Dummies” and “Word Press For Dummies”. Interestingly, the popular “BitTorrent for Dummies” is not included.

Aside form the direct financial damage through copyright infringement, Wiley also claims that “counterfeit” copies of their books may result in damage to the company’s image.

“The damage to Wiley includes hark to its goodwill and reputation in the marketplace for which money cannot compensate. Wiley is particularly concerned that its trademarks are used in connection with unauthorized electronic products, which could contain malicious viruses.”

“Wiley is also concerned that these unauthorized electronic editions of its works may be of inferior quality to the original versions,” the complaint reads.

The 27 defendants are all accused of copyright infringement, trademark infringement and trademark counterfeiting, and the publisher demands to be compensated for the damage they have caused.

The court papers end with an overview of the 27 IP-addresses through which these titles were shared. These are all located in the State of New York according to the attorney.

Although Wiley’s suit can be classified as a mass-BitTorrent lawsuit, the complaint is quite different from the ones we’ve seen thus far. Also, Wiley has hired the law firm Dunnegan LLC which has no track record of filing similar cases.

At this point it is not clear whether Wiley is determined to take the 27 defendants to trial, or whether it will offer them settlements as we’ve seen in nearly all other cases thus far. However, there is little doubt that Wiley’s move to make a stand against book piracy will be watched closely by other book publishers.

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/major-book-publisher-files-mass-bittorrent-lawsuit-111031/

HanesBrands, Mosaid, Biotec Pharmacon: Intellectual Property

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


Oct. 31 (Bloomberg) -- HanesBrands Inc., the North Carolina underwear manufacturer, asked a federal court to declare it isn’t infringing a design patent for women’s pants with built-in support.

The Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based company said it’s been accused of infringing patent D641,135, belonging to Rockfit LLC of Commerce, California.

According to the complaint filed Oct. 27 in federal court in North Carolina, Rock Fit previously sued HanesBrands in federal court in Los Angeles in August, alleging that some of the North Carolina company’s products infringed the patent.

That case was dismissed by Rock Fit in October. HanesBrands said that Rock Fit hasn’t demonstrated it wouldn’t pursue infringement claims related to the patent against the North Carolina company in the future.

HanesBrands asked the court to declare the patent invalid and unenforceable. It also seeks an order barring Rock Fit and its employees from asserting that HanesBrands infringes the patent, and for awards of attorney fees and litigation costs.

The North Carolina underwear manufacturer is represented by John F. Morrow Jr. Jeffery R. McFadden and Matthew L. Jamison of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC of Winston-Salem.

Mosaid Rises Above Sterling Offer on Prospect of Counterbid

Mosaid Technologies Inc., the Canadian company that has agreed to be acquired by Sterling Partners, rose above the company’s offer price, suggesting investors may anticipate a counterbid.

Mosaid, based in Kanata, Ontario, rose as much as 6.2 percent to C$46.11 ($46.41) after the company said Oct. 27 it had agreed to be acquired by Sterling for C$46 a share, or about C$590 million.

Mosaid has been the subject of a hostile takeover bid from Wi-Lan Inc., a Canadian patent-licensing firm, which offered C$42 a share.

“Wi-Lan has no intention to further revise or extend its revised offer,” the company said in an Oct. 19 statement after raising its bid for Mosaid by 11 percent.

Wi-Lan, based in Ottawa, didn’t have a new statement early Friday, said Tyler Burns, a company spokesman.

Biotec, Sloan-Kettering Get Canadian Patent for Treatment

Biotec Pharmacon ASA, a Norwegian biotech company, said it’s received a Canadian patent for a cancer treatment it developed in conjunction with the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

The patent covers the combination of two compositions of one or more monoclonal antibodies and a substance known as yeast beta glucan. The Oslo-based company said in a statement that the compound will be used to target a wide range of malignancy, including breast, colon and lung cancer and leukemia.

The Canadian patent follows the issuance of similar patents in the U.S., Australia and Mexico, the company said.

New York-based Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is the joint owner of the technology and Biotec Pharmacon has an exclusive license.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-31/hanesbrands-mosaid-biotec-pharmacon-intellectual-property.html

Noven Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit against Watson Pharmaceuticals

By: Press Release
Source: http://www.benzinga.com
MIAMI & NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey against Watson Pharmaceuticals ("Watson") for infringement of certain Noven patents (the "Patents") by Watson.

The lawsuit was filed as a result of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submission by Watson seeking FDA approval to market and sell a generic version of Daytrana® (methylphenidate transdermal system) prior to the scheduled expiration of the Patents in 2018. The lawsuit reflects Noven's commitment to vigorously defending its intellectual property rights against infringement.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, because Noven filed this patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of receiving a Paragraph IV notification letter from Watson, the FDA cannot approve Watson's ANDA for 30 months (until March 2014), unless the district court finds the Patents invalid or not infringed before the 30 months pass.


Source: http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/11/10/b2066652/noven-files-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-watson-pharmaceuticals#ixzz1cKnVgW53

Price Chopper sues ShopRite over alleged trademark infringement

By:Michael DeMas
Source:http://www.bizjournals.com


Price Chopper    is suing ShopRite in federal court in Albany, New York, claiming trademark infringement on the Internet.

Price Chopper’s corporate owner, The Golub Corp.    in Schenectady, claims the owner of ShopRite, Wakefern Corp. in New Jersey, bought keywords on Internet search engines so that ads for ShopRite showed up first when people typed in “Price Chopper ad” or “Price Chopper flyer.”

The lawsuit includes exhibits showing alleged examples of the infringement when someone did a search on Google    , Yahoo!    and Bing.

The Golub Corp. is seeking a court injunction and unspecified damages.

A spokeswoman for ShopRite, Karen Meleta, declined comment because she said company has not yet been served with the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed Oct. 20, nearly three weeks after ShopRite opened a store in Niskayuna, just a few miles away from The Golub Corp. headquarters.

It’s the first ShopRite to open in the area in at least 20 years.

ShopRite intends to open at least three more stores in the region, intensifying the competition for Price Chopper, the dominant grocery chain with $2.1 billion in Albany metro area sales during the 12-month period that ended in April.

Total sales last year for Golub Corp. were $3.45 billion at 128 stores in the Northeast.

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2011/10/24/price-chopper-sues-shoprite-over.html

Novozymes, Nikon, Ko Olina, Pearson: Intellectual Property

By: Boomerang Business Week
Source: http://news.businessweek.com


ovozymes A/S, the world's largest maker of industrial enzymes, said it won a U.S. trial in which a jury ordered DuPont Co.'s Danisco unit to pay $18.3 million for infringing a patent related to biofuel production.

Danisco, the biggest maker of food additives and second- largest industrial enzyme producer, was found to have willfully infringed the patent, a finding that may raise the damages award, Bagsvaerd, Denmark-based Novozymes said in a statement. DuPont, which bought Danisco in June, said it plans to appeal.

Novozymes sued Copenhagen-based Danisco last year in federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, accusing the company of taking its technology on an alpha amylase enzyme that remains active in high temperatures. The companies make substances that break down organic materials such as grain and corn to form an alternative to fossil fuels. U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in July that some Danisco products infringed the patent.

The jury rejected Danisco's arguments that the patent didn't adequately describe the technology in a way that let others replicate the invention. The jury said other products didn't use the invention.

“We are confident in our position that Novozymes's patent is invalid,” Daniel Turner, a spokesman for Wilmington, Delaware-based DuPont, said in an e-mail. “We remain committed to providing innovative, sustainable ingredient solutions to our customers and we respect valid patent rights of others.”

Danisco had paid Novozymes $15.3 million in 2007 to settle a patent dispute over another enzyme used in ethanol production.

The case is Novozymes A/S v. Danisco A/S, 10-cv-251, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison).

Intellectual Ventures Sues Nikon Units for Patent Infringement

Intellectual Ventures LLC, the invention company founded by former Microsoft Corp. Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold, sued four units of Japanese camera-maker Nikon Corp. for patent infringement.

According to the complaint filed Oct. 26 in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, Nikon products infringe four patents related to digital-camera technology. Bellevue, Washington-based IV didn't specify in its court filings which Nikon products are infringing.

IV said it initially approached Nikon in 2008 about taking a license to the patents. Nikon declined to meet with the technology-licensing company at that time, according to court papers.

In 2011, IV said it made a second approach to Nikon and its “good-faith efforts to negotiate a license” with the camera company failed.

In dispute are patents 6,121,960, issued in September 2000; 6,181,836, issued in January 2001; 6,221,686, issued in April 2001, and 6,979,587, issued in December 2005.

According to court papers, IV now claims to have a portfolio of “more than 35,000” IP assets, including 3,000 patents and patent applications stemming from the Bellevue company's own work.

IV said in the complaint it has paid individual inventors more than $400 million for their inventions and has earned more than $2 billion from patent licensing. The closely held company has filed at least seven patent-infringement suits since December 2010, according to Bloomberg data.

Nikon didn't respond immediately to an e-mailed request for comment.

The case is Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Sendai Nikon Corp., 11-cv-01025, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Source: http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LTQV1F0D9L3501-5LA0PRGDUJR9OJQODBDVNII2A1

Levi's wins trademark infringement case in China

By:Wang Zhiguo
Source: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn


The iconic stitching on the back pockets of Levi's jeans is the classic symbol of the brand and also a registered trademark. In order to protect its trademark, Levi Strauss and Co., owner of the Levi's brand, has launched several trademark infringement lawsuits in Belgium, South Korea, Singapore, the United States, Japan and other countries.

In early 2011, Levi's filed its first lawsuit over infringement of its double-arched "Arcuate" stitching trademark in China. Shanghai's Pudong New Area People's Court recently ruled that four defendant companies infringed on the company's trademark.

In January, Levi's filed lawsuits in Shanghai and Beijing over infringement. Shanghai's Pudong New Area People's Court received the indictment earlier than the court in Beijing and accepted the case on Jan. 25. It was the first time that Levi’s filed lawsuits over infringement of its stitching trademark in China.

Among the four defendants, Hangzhou Hongye Clothing Company and Jianchiwode Clothing Company are owners of Jasonwood jeans, Zhongshan Renxin Clothing Factory is the manufacturer of the jeans, and Shanghai Xinning Shopping Center Company is the jeans' distributor. Levi's asked the court to order the four companies to immediately stop using its arcuate stitching design, destroy all infringing products and delete all Internet ads.

Moreover, it also asked for a compensation of 1 million yuan from the Jasonwood brand owners and the manufacturer. Shanghai Xinning Shopping Center Company took all infringing products off the shelf immediately after the suit was filed.

Levi's said during the court hearing that the arcuate design was first registered as a trademark in the United States in 1943 and the trademark is now registered in 166 countries and regions including China.

Jasonwood argued that it designed its trademark based on the letter "J," and it is different from Levi Straus's arcuate design. Producers in the jean industry all use tags and leather labels as trademarks and arcuate design is neither a trademark nor is used as a trademark. Jasonwood has not violated Levi Straus's arcuate design and has only used the "J" label in part of its jean products with a small sales volume.

The court ruled that the arcuate designs of the defendants and plaintiff are nearly identical and their positions on the back pockets are almost the same. The defendants’ practices of using trademarks on the back pockets that are similar to Levis will likely mislead customers and have violated the plaintiff's exclusive right to use the trademark, so the defendants must immediately stop the violation and make the compensation.

In terms of compensation, since Levi's could not prove that the defendants used the illegal trademarks on all jeans they produced and sold, the court did not support the company's claim for 1 million yuan in compensation. The court has required the four defendants to stop the trademark infringement and demanded that Hangzhou Hongye and Jasonwood must immediately eliminate all the hyperlinks of related products from their official websites and join Zhongshan Renxin in paying a total of 350,000 yuan in compensation to Levi's.

Source: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/7627461.html

BlackBerry-Maker RIM Sued for Trademark Infringement over ‘BBX’

By: Josh Long
Source: http://www.vision2mobile.com

BASIS International Ltd. on Wednesday revealed filing a lawsuit against BlackBerry-maker Research in Motion for trademark infringement in connection with RIM’s yet-to-be-released operating system, BBX.

RIM must now defend itself in federal court in New Mexico.

BASIS International, a global software company based in Albuquerque, N.M., claims it already has a trademark on “BBx" and that RIM’s new operating system for BlackBerry smartphones and tablet computers would cause confusion and hurt its reputation.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as an order barring RIM from using the BBX name, The Los Angeles Times reported. "In addition to the inevitable confusion created by RIM's use of the mark BBX for related goods, customers and prospective customers are also likely to wrongly believe that software applications created using Basis' development tools are only compatible with RIM's BBX operating system, thus impairing and destroying Basis' reputation for providing software development tools for cross-platform development," The Times quoted the suit.

Earlier this month, RIM told Reuters that the company hadn’t seen a copy of the legal complaint described in a press release issued by BASIS International, “but we do not believe the marks are confusing, particularly since our respective companies are in different lines of business."

Source: http://www.vision2mobile.com/news/2011/10/blackberry-maker-rim-sued-for-trademark-infringem.aspx

Taiwan's HTC loses Apple patent infringement case in US

By: Business News
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk


Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC has been dealt a big blow in its legal battle with Apple involving patent infringement claims.

The US International Trade Commission (ITC) has ruled that Apple did not violate patents as claimed by HTC in a complaint lodged last year.

HTC had asked the court to ban imports of several Apple products in to the US citing patent infringements.

HTC's shares fell as much as 6% after the ruling.

The case involved four patents held by HTC related to protecting data, storing contact information and managing the phone's power supply.
'Confident'

The judgement is another setback for HTC which is involved in a long and bitter battle with Apple.

In July this year, the Taiwanese phonemaker was found to have infringed two iPhone patents in a case brought by Apple at the ITC.

However, HTC said that despite the judgement, it was sticking to its claims.

"This is only one step of many in these legal proceedings. We are confident we have a strong case for the ITC appeals process and are fully prepared to protect our intellectual property," said Grace Lei, HTC's general counsel.

"We look forward to resolving this case, so we can continue creating the most innovative mobile experiences for consumers."

A full commission of the ITC is expected to decide in February, whether to uphold or reject the judge's decision.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15345892

Every Android device now infringes Apple patent: Slide to unlock

By: James Kendrick
Source: http://www.zdnet.com


Summary: Apple has received a confirmed patent for the “slide to unlock” control in use on every Android phone and tablet in existence.

Whatever your position is on patent infringement and the never-ending lawsuits in the mobile space, the fact is until the system is overhauled it is the law. I hate that design elements can be patented, instead of actual devices which makes more sense. Apple has been riding the patentability of design elements for a while, and has a number of Android device makers on the ropes as a result. A U. S. patent awarded today to Apple guarantees that every Android phone and tablet ever made infringes Apple’s design.

Anyone who has touched an Android device has come face-to-face with the slide to unlock feature. The device is inaccessible until a slider or similar control is touched and slid to a boundary, unlocking the gadget. This simple control has now been patented by Apple, removing it from the available design pool to anyone else.

Apple has been picking and choosing its targets for patent infringement litigation carefully, using various patents it owns to go after infringers. This new patent over the simple slide to unlock feature means the company can go after any Android device maker it wants, and likely have success in the courts.

Heck, the control on Windows Phone devices, sliding the lock screen up to access the phone functions, may very well infringe on this patent too. That could extend to the upcoming Windows 8 as early preview versions use this same control to unlock devices.

Apple filed for the slide to unlock patent before the original iPhone was released, and just received confirmation of the patent. That puts every Android device ever made firmly in the infringing category, should Apple choose to get nasty.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/mobile-news/every-android-device-now-infringes-apple-patent-slide-to-unlock/5199

Court Schedules Contempt Hearing Against Karbon Arms and Robert Gruder to Enforce TASER's Permanent Injunction for Patent Infringement

By:Press Release
Source: http://www.marketwatch.com

SCOTTSDALE, AZ, Oct 24, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- TASER International, Inc. TASR +2.09% , a global provider of safety technologies that protect life, prevent conflict, and resolve disputes, today announced that the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona granted TASER International's motion to reopen the lawsuit in which TASER was granted a permanent injunction against Stinger Systems, Inc. The permanent injunction restrained Stinger and its officers, agents and employees from making, using, offering to sell, or selling in or from the United States, the Stinger S-200 electronic control devices (ECDs) and all other products that are only colorably different from the S-200 ECDs in the context of claims 2 or 40 of TASER's U.S. Patent No. 6,999,295.

The Court reopened the case to consider TASER's motion for contempt against Karbon Arms, LLC and Robert Gruder -- the current CEO of Karbon Arms and the former CEO of Stinger -- for violating the injunction by making, offering to sell and selling the Karbon Arms MPID ECD. The Court has scheduled a hearing for December 15, 2011 to consider TASER's motion for contempt. TASER will present evidence at the hearing that the Karbon MPID ECD is only colorably different from the S-200 ECD and that Karbon Arms and Gruder are in violation of the permanent injunction.

In addition TASER filed a separate lawsuit for patent infringement of additional TASER patents in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against Karbon Arms and Gruder. A trial date has not yet been set for this lawsuit.

"Karbon Arms purchased all the assets of Stinger Systems, including the S-200 technology, at a liquidation auction and within a very short period of time, began selling the MPID ECD which evidence will show is no more than colorably different from the S-200 ECD," said Rick Smith, CEO and founder of TASER International. "The purpose of this litigation is to hold Karbon Arms and Gruder accountable for seeking to evade the Court's injunction through subversive means."

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/court-schedules-contempt-hearing-against-karbon-arms-and-robert-gruder-to-enforce-tasers-permanent-injunction-for-patent-infringement-2011-10-24?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Gerber denies claims in Mead Johnson patent-infringement lawsuit

By: Susan Orr
Source: http://www.courierpress.com

EVANSVILLE — Gerber Products has filed legal papers formally disputing points made in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed by competitor Mead Johnson Nutrition.

In August, Mead Johnson filed suit against Gerber in U.S. District Court in Evansville.

In the suit, Mead Johnson said that plastic packaging for Gerber’s Good Start infant formula was too similar to the packaging for Mead Johnson’s Enfamil infant formula.

Both packages include a wide-mouth lid and a measuring scoop. Gerber introduced its packaging earlier this year.

On Monday, Gerber filed its legal answer to Mead Johnson’s complaint.

In its response, Gerber denies that it has infringed on Mead Johnson’s patent.

Gerber also asserts that one or more claims of Mead Johnson’s patent are invalid.

In simple terms, Gerber’s legal filing says to Mead Johnson, “we are not infringing on your patent, and there’s problems with your patent,” said James Johnson, an Evansville attorney who is part of Gerber’s legal defense team.

Johnson declined to discuss further details of the case.

Attorney Brian Williams, who is representing Mead Johnson, also declined to comment on the pending litigation.

In its original filing, Mead Johnson asked for a “reasonable royalty” on the remaining EasyScoop containers, and it also asked for damages and for money to cover attorneys’ fees.

In its response, Gerber asks the court to dismiss the complaint against it, and to declare that Mead Johnson will recover nothing from Gerber.

Mead Johnson’s corporate offices are in the Chicago suburb of Glenview, Ill. Its global operations center and North American headquarters are in Evansville.

Source: http://www.courierpress.com/news/2011/oct/24/gerber-denies-claims-mead-johnson-patent-lawsuit/

J&J, Notre Dame, Prada, Louboutin, Apple: Intellectual Property

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


Johnson & Johnson and Novartis AG are under investigation by the European Union’s antitrust regulator over contracts that may have hampered the sale of generic versions of pain killer Fentanyl in the Netherlands.

The EU authority said it’s probing contractual arrangements between J&J and Novartis that may have had the “object or effect of hindering entry” of the generic drug onto the Dutch market. Basel, Switzerland-based Novartis owns Sandoz, a generic-drugmaker.

“Pharmaceutical companies are already rewarded for their innovation efforts by the patents they are granted,” EU Antitrust Commissioner Joaquin Almunia said in an e-mailed statement. “Paying a competitor to stay out of the market is a restriction of competition that the commission will not tolerate.”

Antitrust regulators on both sides of the Atlantic are focusing on how settlements between companies that make branded medicines and generics producers might harm consumers. Bayer AG was among drug firms told by EU officials in January to submit details of patent-settlement deals that may be used to delay the sale of generic versions of medicines. Drug developers use various ways to delay generics, the EU said in a 2009 report.

The investigation is related to a contractual agreement J&J had with Sandoz in the Netherlands and is limited to that country, Stefan Gijssels, a spokesman for J&J’s Janssen subsidiary, said in a telephone interview. The company will cooperate fully with authorities, he said.

“It’s important to underline that the commission has not made a finding that Janssen did something wrong in the Netherlands,” Gijssels said. “It’s the start of an investigation.”

“We don’t comment on ongoing procedures,” Eric Althoff, a spokesman for Novartis, said in an e-mail.

EU antitrust regulators are also investigating Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., the world’s largest generic drugmaker, and Cephalon Inc. over a 2005 agreement that may have delayed generic versions of Provigil. Teva last week completed its acquisition of Cephalon after agreeing to divest Cephalon’s marketing rights in France for a generic version of narcolepsy drug Provigil.

AstraZeneca Plc last year partly lost an appeal at the EU’s second-highest court over a commission decision that it had misled patent officials and flouted antitrust rules to keep a generic competitor off the market. The London-based company has an appeal pending.

For more patent news, click here.

Trademark

Notre Dame Tells Kansas High School Hands Off Our Leprechaun

The University of Notre Dame has told a Kansas high school to quit using the leprechaun logo associated with its “Fighting Irish” football team, the South Bend Tribune reported.

While the school “appreciates the intended respect that high schools show by desiring to align with Notre Dame,” the South Bend, Indiana-based university will enforce its trademark rights, Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown told the Tribune.

The school has previously enforced its trademark against high schools in El Paso, Texas, and Springfield, Ohio, the newspaper reported.

The high school in Chapman, Kansas, would be permitted to keep the Fighting Irish nickname, while barred from profiting from it, or from using the leprechaun mark, according to the newspaper.

Fake Prada, Nike Merchandise Seized in North Carolina Raid

Prada SpA and Nike Inc. are among the companies whose trademarks were found on counterfeit goods seized in a raid in Shelby, North Carolina, the Shelby Star newspaper reported.

The fake goods were sold openly for about half the price of genuine articles, according to the newspaper.

Three Shelby residents were arrested and charges with felony trademark infringement, according to the Star.

Police officials told the Star that going after trademark infringers was “new to us” and this raid was in response to “the first major crime we’ve addressed” dealing with fake consumer goods.

Louboutin Asks Appeals Court to Bar St. Laurent Red Soles

Christian Louboutin SA has made a court filing arguing that a trial judge in New York erred in failing to bar Yves St. Laurent America from selling red-soled shoes.

In its Oct. 17 brief, the French maker of high-end red- soled shoes told a New York-based appeals court that it disagreed with the trial court’s contention that barring others from using red soles on their shoes would “cast a red cloud over the whole industry.” Louboutin argues that the court failed to understand that the company “does not sell total outfits, only shoes and accessories.”

The French shoe company argued that the trial court “simple ignored its own finding that the Red Outsole Mark has become a strong source identifier and is indeed world famous.”

Louboutin noted in its court filing that the “Keds blue rectangle on the heel, the Burberry plaid, the Gucci stripes all act as trademarks because the consuming public has recognized them as indicators of source.”

The shoe company asked the appeals court to reverse the lower court’s denial of a request to bar the sale of St. Laurent from selling red-soled shoes.

Louboutin’s shoes won a measure of fame when they were worn by members of the cast of the “Sex and the City” television program. The shoes may sell for as much as $3,700 a pair.

The case is Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves St. Laurent America Inc., 11-3303, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (New York). The lower court case is Christian Louboutin SA v. Yves Saint Laurent America Inc., 1:11-02381-VM, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-24/j-j-notre-dame-prada-louboutin-apple-intellectual-property.html

Mobile phone makers wage war to protect their patents

By:Leo Kelion
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk


The patent system was created to spur on innovation. But over recent years it has sparked an arms war between some of the world's leading mobile phone companies.

The likes of Apple and Microsoft do not only sue their rivals to protect their own inventions, but go on to buy third party patents to build up their weapon stockpile.

What is more, they appear increasingly willing to litigate.

The number of handset patent infringement filings to the US courts grew from 24 cases in 2006, to 84 cases in 2010, according to Lex Machina, an intellectual property litigation data provider.

It expects that number to grow to 97 cases this year, reflecting more than a four-fold rise in the space of half a decade.

"Filings in this litigation space appeared to have hit a plateau this summer, but are now strongly back on the rise," says Lex Machina's chief executive, Josh Becker.

Accelerated innovation

Part of the problem is the speed at which the industry is evolving.

The US patent system offers inventors a limited monopoly on new ideas lasting twenty years from when they are filed. However, mobile phone users expect giant leaps in progress over a much shorter time span.

As the devices transform into music players, cameras, internet browsers and beyond, they involve an increasing amount of intellectual property.

There are now potentially more than 250,000 active patents relevant to a single smartphone, according to RPX, a San Francisco based patent aggregator and licensor.

"The devices we used 10 years ago to make voice calls have become hand-held computers incorporating a vast array of software and hardware, which increases the breadth of patent exposure," said RPX's chief executive, John Amster.

"And this problem increases with the capabilities of these devices to do new things.

The lawyers become involved when a company either doesn't want to share its advances, or wants to be paid a fee for their use. Some experts believe this is now becoming a default tactic.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15343549

Timelines Explains Trademark Suit Against Facebook

By: David Cohen
Source:http://www.allfacebook.com
Timelines.com is going public with its trademark battle against Facebook over the term “timelines,” which the social network is using to describe the new profiles it is rolling out.

In a long post titled “Why we are suing Facebook and a request for help,” the Chicago-based developer of historical web content cited its reasons for proceeding with its suit against Facebook.

Timelines.com filed its lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, September 29.

The company said it filed for the trademark for “Timelines” May 23, 2008, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted it Sept. 15, 2009. Facebook announced its timeline profile this past September 22, at its f8 developers conference.

Here’s the meatiest part of the Timelines.com post:

Our company owns a valid trademark on the term “Timelines” that is for a particular application, specifically for “providing a website that gives users the ability to create customized Web pages featuring user-defined information about historical, current and upcoming events.” We’ve spent years building this brand and using it in the above stated way on our site, Timelines.com.

Facebook — a company that has applied for or trademarked the terms “Face,” “Wall,” and “Like,” as well as sued others for using “Book” in their names — is using the name “Timeline” for a new product that is focused on how people express and share events and history online. Facebook either knew or should have known (given their rigorous defense of their own intellectual property) that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted us this trademark. People at Facebook could have at least contacted us for permission to use or license the name. They did not.

Let’s be clear: We aren’t against Facebook launching this new service. Our issue is that they’ve named and branded the service “Timeline.”

We are hoping that Facebook will realize that it made a mistake and that it needs to make things right. We’re very proud of the products and services we’ve built and cannot sit idly by and watch Facebook eliminate the goodwill we’ve developed. We will vigorously defend our trademark.

Ironically, Timelines.com urged supporters to follow developments in the case on, you guessed it, its Facebook page.

Speaking of the timeline, customized cover image site FirstCovers.com shared some news about the advanced profile’s rollout, or lack thereof, saying:

For those of you who do not want to manually switch to the new profile, you will have to wait for Facebook to slowly roll it out to you. Currently, there is no official release date. Facebook is still testing out the new profile with developers. Facebook does expect to release it to a larger testing group before the end of the year.

When the timeline profile does launch for wider testing, users will have the option to opt-in whenever they are ready. The release of the upgrade will not force all users to use the new profile until they are comfortable. Facebook wants to gradually release the profile — the launch will not be an automatic switch. It hopes to make the transition to the timeline profile as smooth as possible.

It’s possible that the legal dispute over the name timeline might have been caused the delay and Facebook might be using this extra time to refine the features in this advanced profile.

Whatever the specific cause might be, giving people more time to adjust to a new profile makes a lot of sense.

What kind of outcome do you think will result from the dispute over the name “timelines,” and how might that affect what the feature will look like once it goes live across the site?

Source: http://www.allfacebook.com/facebook-timeline-trademark-case-2011-10

Whirlpool Corporation Wins Stay Motion in Patent Litigation Brought by LG Electronics

By: Whirlpool Corporation
Source: http://www.bradenton.com

Whirlpool Corporation (NYSE: WHR) today announced that it won a stay motion in a refrigerator patent infringement case brought by LG Electronics (LG) due to progress in separate proceedings challenging the validity of LG's patents.   All four of the patents asserted by LG against Whirlpool have been initially rejected as unpatentable on multiple grounds by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in pending reexamination proceedings. 

In granting Whirlpool Corporation's motion for at least the next six months, the United States District Court in Trenton, New Jersey, commented that, in view of the surprising speed at which the PTO rejected LG's patents, the interests of justice are best served by staying the district court proceedings and allowing the reexaminations to continue.  In the likely event that LG's patents do not survive the PTO's reexamination proceedings, LG's patent infringement case will be eventually dismissed. 

"We are very pleased with this decision," said Marc Bitzer, president, Whirlpool North America Region.  "The decision provides necessary time for the PTO to fully reevaluate LG's patents.  We expect LG's patents to be found invalid under the reexamination proceedings." 

Source: http://www.bradenton.com/2011/10/21/3583944/whirlpool-corporation-wins-stay.html#ixzz1bZtSflrW

HTC, Samsung, Lodsys, Microsoft: Intellectual Property

By: Boomerang Business News
Source: http://news.businessweek.com

HTC Corp., the second-largest maker of devices using Google Inc.'s Android software, lost a ruling in a patent case against Apple Inc. that sought to block U.S. imports of the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad.

The Apple devices don't violate HTC's rights to four patents, U.S. International Trade Commission Judge Charles Bullock said in a notice yesterday. The full six-member commission in Washington may choose to review the findings, with the investigation scheduled to be completed by Feb. 17.

Apple, with competition emerging for its top-selling iPhone and iPad, has accused Android-device makers HTC, Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. of copying its technology and has won court rulings in Australia and Europe to limit sales of some Samsung products. The loss yesterday for HTC is the first ruling in at least six ITC cases that rivals had filed in retaliation against Apple.

Source: http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LT8AJU1A74E901-5SDK4VMS11VCKVLA5ETO257CRN

Newegg and Overstock win a patent-infringement case in federal court

By: Todd Rueter
Source: http://www.internetretailer.com

Two of the largest e-retailers in the United States have won a patent-infringement case involving e-commerce technology, a ruling that patent attorneys call significant, and which could make it harder for patent holders to pursue similar cases.

In a verdict handed down Friday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,  the jury found that neither Newegg Inc. nor Overstock.com Inc. violated patents held by Alcatel-Lucent USA. In a suit filed in September 2009, Alcatel, an arm of French telecommunications company Alcatel-Lucent, claimed the web retailers had infringed on three patents that involved such e-commerce functions as  web site drop-down boxes, text boxes, site search and  tools that correct consumer misspellings and other errors.

Alcatel offered no immediate comment. Overstock said Alcatel took possession of the patents through mergers and acquisitions; Bell Laboratories, for example, is an Alcatel subsidiary.

Newegg and Overstock argued that Alcatel’s patents were invalid because they covered technology that was not original and was based on prior inventions. “As an innovator in the online retail space, we have always respected the intellectual property rights of others,” says Lee Chang, Newegg’s general counsel. “However, we will not hesitate to defend ourselves vigorously against frivolous claims and to do what we believe is necessary to prevent abuses of patent law.”

Newegg is No. 12 in the Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide. Overstock is No. 27.

Alcatel had initially demanded $4 million for a license to all of its patents, which number about 27,000, says Mark Griffin, general counsel for Overstock, which is rebranding itself as O.co.  Alcatel then raised its demand to $6 million for the three patents, a demand that after the first day of the trial dropped to $1 million, he says.

Alcatel also presented its patent claims to other online retailers, including Amazon.com Inc. and Sears Holdings Corp., and reached settlements with eight  companies, according to Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, the Texas law firm that represented Overstock. Amazon provided no immediate comment. A Sears spokeswoman confirmed the settlement but declined to give details. Amazon is No. 1 in the Internet Retailer Top 500 Guide and Sears No. 7.

Newegg and Overstock are the rare e-retailers that publically fight patent infringement claims instead of settling; even e-retailers angry about payment demands from so-called patent trolls, a term that denotes companies that buy patents and then demand companies license those patents, usually prefer to speak off the record in order to avoid the arrows of infringement claims.  But the recent ruling in East Texas, and the public role played the two online retailers, likely will have a significant impact on future cases, says Peter Brann, a partner with Lewiston, ME-based law firm Brann & Isaacson who has defended e-retailers against patent infringement claims.

“It should have an immediate effect on claims asserted by Alcatel-Lucent against other Internet retailers that were not in litigation,” he says. “More broadly, the willingness of Newegg and Overstock to stand up and say ‘We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore,’ and try to win a jury trial in East Texas, may encourage more Internet retailers to fight these types of claims instead of settling.”

The verdict in the Alcatel case is the latest from the Eastern District of Texas—a court where patent holders often file their claims—in which a jury sided with e-commerce companies,  says Thomas Duston, who specializes in patent litigation as a partner at Chicago law firm Marshall, Gerstein & Borun. In other cases, he says, juries either have ruled against infringement claims or awarded relatively tiny awards to patent holders. Duston, who says he has represented Newegg in past cases, says the recent verdict represents Cheng’s most favorable result yet in the retailer’s fight against patent infringement claims.

“I think he’s trying to send signals to his colleagues in the e-commerce space that these cases should be defended,” Duston says. “Certainly all defendants are looking at what’s happening in this case. Defendants are not as fearful as going to trial in a jury case in East Texas.”

He doubts, however, that companies will cease buying up patent portfolios and then seeking, and suing for, licensing fees. But this case—which he says likely will be appealed—and recent federal patent legislation—which he says makes it more difficult to sue large collections of e-retailers and other alleged patent infringers—could make it harder for the patent holders to conduct their business.

Source: http://www.internetretailer.com/2011/10/19/newegg-and-overstock-win-patent-infringement-case

Facebook’s Timeline Legal Fight with Timelines, Inc.

By: Brandon Marsh
Source:http://www.ipbrief.net

Facebook recently announced an overhaul to its user profiles with the creation of the Facebook Timeline. Besides whipping Facebook users into a frenzy with another change to its format, the company also managed to draw the ire of Timelines, Inc. (Timelines), which slapped them with a trademark infringement lawsuit. Timelines is a small company that runs the website Timelines.com where users can organize memories in a scrapbook-like fashion. Timelines has registered trademarks for “Timelines,” “Timelines.com,” and “Timelines and design.” The company alleges that Facebook’s new Timeline profiles infringe on its trademarks and that the new Facebook feature could put Timelines out of business.

This lawsuit can be seen as representative of the type of obstacles that innovative, multinational corporations run into when developing new technologies. Analyzing this lawsuit helps uncover some of the complexities involved in trademark litigation. In trademark infringement claims, the plaintiff alleges that consumers will be confused by the defendant’s mark. There are a series of factors that courts consider in determining whether infringement has occurred, the most important of which are the strength of the mark, proximity of the services or goods, and similarity of the services or goods.

Perhaps the most interesting factor to consider is the strength of the mark because “Timelines” seems like a weak mark and possibly should not have been afforded trademark protection in the first place. There are four different levels of mark strength: fanciful/arbitrary, suggestive, descriptive, and generic. Fanciful/arbitrary and suggestive do not apply to “Timelines” because the mark is not a made up term or a term that evokes something other than what it is. Generic marks do not qualify for trademark protection so Timelines must have gotten the trademark application for registration approved through the descriptive category. Descriptive marks have a secondary meaning that warrants protection. A court considers weaker marks to be less worthy of protection because they have less economic value to consumers. Therefore, the strength of the mark factor favors Facebook.

The proximity of services or goods and similarity of services or goods between the Timelines’ website and Facebook’s Timeline are where Timelines has its strongest argument for infringement. Timelines operates a website where users can store and share events of their lives through pictures, videos, and links. Facebook’s Timeline feature allows its users to store and share their life events, which seems very similar to Timelines’ website. Actual inspection of Timelines’ website reveals that it has more of a focus on major events in history than on individuals’ personal histories. Regardless, the similarity in function would favor Timelines for the similarity of services or goods factor.

Lastly, for proximity of services or goods, both services operate in the same Internet marketplace. Facebook’s Timeline feature and Timelines’ website are offered to online consumers who want to capture and memorialize events. In Timelines’ complaint it alleges that Facebook’s Timeline has already siphoned off Internet traffic from the Timelines website. Both services are free to use so Facebook and Timelines make money through advertisement revenue, albeit Facebook takes a unique approach to acquiring their money. Internet traffic drives advertisers to pay for their ads to be on high traffic websites because more consumers will view the ads. If Facebook has actually taken traffic away from Timelines’ website, it would demonstrate that Facebook’s Timeline feature operates in a similar market and adversely impacts Timelines’ business. Therefore, the proximity factor would also seem to favor Timelines in the lawsuit.

Based on the analysis of the three most important trademark infringement factors, it seems that Timelines has some merit to its claim that Facebook infringed on its marks. Whether a judge will actually get to make that determination is another matter considering the likelihood that Facebook will settle this lawsuit. This type of lawsuit has implications for how technology companies handle naming their products. However, there are still questions about how Facebook could have missed Timelines trademarks, especially since Timelines has its own Facebook page.

Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/10/14/facebook%E2%80%99s-timeline-legal-fight-with-timelines-inc/

Samsung Cores Counterclaims in Apple Case

By: DAVE TARTRE
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/

Apple received a dressing-down as to the fraud and antitrust claims it can make in trademark litigation with Samsung over smart phones and computer tablets.
The iPhone and iPad maker still has leave, however, to fix the problematic pleadings, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh ruled.

The global fight started in San Jose this past April with Apple's federal complaint alleging that Samsung's new Galaxy smart phones and tablet computers "slavishly copy" the design and function of Apple's iPhone and iPad. Samsung "even misappropriated Apple's distinctive product packaging," according to the complaint.

Tuesday's pretrial order addresses Samsung's motion to eliminate some of Apple's fraud and antitrust counterclaims. Though Koh did not touch many of Apple's most important claims, she rejected the way that Apple had accused its Korean competitor of defrauding standards setting organizations.
Apple did not specify the patents for which it alleged Samsung had submitted false declarations to the organizations, such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), Koh said.
Companies that propose standards that include their own intellectual property rights must also agree to license certain essential patents on terms that are FRAND, an acronym for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory.

"Although there does not appear to be anything legally defective about Apple's theory of monopoly conduct arising from false FRAND licensing terms, the court finds that Apple's allegations, as pled, have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard (for fraud)," Koh wrote.
The judge also rejected the notion that Samsung's handling of its intellectual property rights amounted to monopolistic antitrust behavior.

Apple had argued that Samsung failed to disclose intellectual property rights in a patent that would be essential to a standard proposed by Samsung, and that such failure constituted an antitrust violation.
While Apple successfully showed Samsung did not disclose a key intellectual property right, Koh said it nevertheless failed to show that "a viable alternative technology performing the same functionality would have been incorporated into the ... standard, or the relevant functionality would not have been incorporated into the standard at all," if it had made the disclosure.

The last part of Koh's order struck Apple's state-law claim for unfair competition as being basically the same as its claim for federal antitrust violations.

Koh's decision came as the parties wait for her ruling on a motion to stop Samsung from selling the Galaxy products in the United States, which Apple says is fair until its trademark and trade dress allegations are resolved.

Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/10/19/40766.htm

Conceptus(R) Wins Favorable Verdict in Patent Litigation Against Hologic; Jury Awards Conceptus $18.8 Million

By: Press Release
Source: http://online.wsj.com

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Oct. 17, 2011 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Conceptus, Inc. (Nasdaq:CPTS), developer of the Essure(R) procedure, the most effective non-surgical permanent birth control method available, today announced that it has won a favorable jury verdict in its patent infringement lawsuit against Hologic, Inc. (Nasdaq:HOLX) in the United States District Court, Northern District of California. The jury has awarded Conceptus $18.8 million in monetary damages.

The jury found that use of Hologic's Adiana Permanent Contraception system infringed two claims of Conceptus' U.S. Patent Number 6,634,361 related to the Essure procedure, and that Hologic indirectly infringed those claims. The jury also upheld the validity of the claims.

Conceptus will seek an injunction prohibiting Hologic from importing, using, selling or offering to sell its Adiana system in the United States. This issue will be addressed by the Court in future proceedings.

"We are very pleased with the jury's verdict," said Mark Sieczkarek, president and chief executive officer of Conceptus. "Conceptus has always been proud of its Essure procedure, which brought a major advance to women's health, providing the most reliable form of permanent birth control to women without the need for incisions, hormones or general anesthesia. The jury verdict acknowledges the invention Conceptus pioneered more than a decade ago that is the foundation of the Essure procedure. We remain committed to continuously defending our intellectual property while we work to achieve our long-term goal of making Essure the standard of care in permanent birth control."

The Company will provide more detailed information as it becomes available and expects to make further comments during its upcoming third quarter financial results conference call on October 25, 2011.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111017-715997.html

DuPont Sues Monsanto For Patent Infringement

By: Joan E. Solsman
Source:http://online.wsj.com

DuPont Co. (DD) filed a patent-infringement suit against Monsanto Co. (MON).

In a brief statement, Dupont alleged Monsanto violated its patent for a seed production technique, one that "increases seed corn vigor to improve germination under stress." The suit was filed in the Southern District of Iowa.

Later Tuesday, Monsanto called the suit baseless and said it "appears to be another in a series of frivolous claims initiated by DuPont." It said the complaint relates to defoliating corn plants with herbicides Paraquat or Roundup, an approach not used in any Monsanto production fields. Monsanto said that it believed the lawsuit wouldn't have any practical effect on current or future business and that it would defend itself from the attack.

Rivals Monsanto and DuPont are no strangers in the courtroom. Since 2009, they have been embroiled in litigation over DuPont's genetically modified soybean seed Optimum GAT, with Monsanto claiming DuPont violated its patent and DuPont countering with a suit on antitrust grounds.

A DuPont spokesman said later Tuesday that the latest suit is unrelated to the soybean dispute.

DuPont shares were down 0.8% at $44.61 in after-hours trading. Monsanto's closed Tuesday up 2.8% at $74.53. While DuPont's stock has fallen 9.8% this year through the close, Monsanto's has risen 7%.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111018-716867.html

Taiwan's HTC loses Apple patent infringement case in US

By: BBC News
Source:

Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC has been dealt a big blow in its legal battle with Apple involving patent infringement claims.

The US International Trade Commission (ITC) has ruled that Apple did not violate patents as claimed by HTC in a complaint lodged last year.

HTC had asked the court to ban imports of several Apple products in to the US citing patent infringements.

HTC's shares fell as much as 6% after the ruling.

The case involved four patents held by HTC related to protecting data, storing contact information and managing the phone's power supply.
'Confident'

The judgement is another setback for HTC which is involved in a long and bitter battle with Apple.

In July this year, the Taiwanese phonemaker was found to have infringed two iPhone patents in a case brought by Apple at the ITC.

However, HTC said that despite the judgement, it was sticking to its claims.

"This is only one step of many in these legal proceedings. We are confident we have a strong case for the ITC appeals process and are fully prepared to protect our intellectual property," said Grace Lei, HTC's general counsel.

"We look forward to resolving this case, so we can continue creating the most innovative mobile experiences for consumers."

A full commission of the ITC is expected to decide in February, whether to uphold or reject the judge's decision.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15345892

Whirlpool Wins Six-Month Halt in LG Refrigerator-Technology Patent Lawsuit

By Phil Milford
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com

Whirlpool Corp., the world’s largest appliance maker, said it won a six-month stay of litigation in a refrigerator-technology patent infringement lawsuit brought in Trenton, New Jersey by Korean rival LG Electronics Inc. (066570)

The postponement was related “to progress in separate proceedings challenging the validity of LG’s patents” in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Whirlpool, based in Benton Harbor, Michigan, said today in a statement.

“We expect LG’s patents to be found invalid under the re- examination proceedings,” said Marc Bitzer, president of Whirlpool’s North America Region.

In another case, Whirlpool and Seoul-based LG halted proceedings in mid-trial last week in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Delaware.

“The court’s ruling will be entered and made public in the near future, resolving the issues that were pending in this retrial” over a patent for refrigerator icemakers, Kristine Vernier, a Whirlpool spokesperson, said in an Oct. 3 e-mailed statement. LG officials didn’t return messages seeking comment.

In the Delaware case, Whirlpool lawyers asked a jury to award $16.2 million in patent damages.

Whirlpool fell $2.20 or 4 percent to $53.04 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading at 1:49 p.m. LG shares rose 100 won to 74,000 in Korea.

The Delaware case is LG Electronics v. Whirlpool Corp. (WHR), 1:08-cv-00234, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-07/whirlpool-wins-six-month-halt-in-lg-refrigerator-technology-patent-lawsuit.html

Wilson Law Group Resumes Operations in Dallas

By:Press Release
Source:http://www.marketwatch.com

John T. Wilson, formerly with Fish & Richardson P.C. and Myers Wilson P.C., resumes the Wilson Law Group P.C. to provide intellectual property and litigation services

PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- John T. Wilson, formerly with Fish & Richardson P.C. and Myers Wilson P.C., resumes the Wilson Law Group P.C., a professional services corporation formed in 2003 to provide intellectual property litigation services, trademark and patent prosecution, general litigation support, and complex domestic litigation.

Assisting Mr. Wilson at the Wilson Law Group is Kandace D. Walter, a former Assistant Dallas District Attorney and Assistant Dallas City Attorney, along with several other former employees of Myers Wilson P.C.

The Wilson Law Group P.C. focuses on the needs of businesses of all sizes, regional and national investment funds, and entrepreneurs seeking patent, trademark and copyright protection. Whether it is protecting a company logo or defending against claims of patent, trademark, or copyright infringement, purchasing assets or filing an incorporation, our lawyers are ready to serve the diverse needs of our clients.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wilson-law-group-resumes-operations-in-dallas-2011-10-19

IGT Reaches Agreement with Aristocrat to Settle Patent Litigation

press release
Oct. 3, 2011, 9:00 a.m. EDT

Source: www.marketwatch.com

LAS VEGAS, Oct. 3, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- International Game Technology IGT +1.62% announced today that it has settled its patent litigation with Aristocrat Leisure Limited (asx:ALL). IGT and Aristocrat have cross-licensed each other to their patents and they will have the right to offer all the products which were the subject matter of the litigations subject to certain royalty obligations. This settlement ends all present patent litigation between IGT and Aristocrat and their subsidiaries.
"IGT is pleased that we were able to reach an agreement with Aristocrat and put these disputes behind us," said Robert G. Melendres, Chief Legal Officer and Corporate Secretary at IGT. "This settlement confirms and reinforces the importance of intellectual property to IGT and this industry."
Two of the settled lawsuits were pending in the United States. In 2006, Aristocrat sued IGT in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on patents related to multi-level progressives such as Aristocrat's HYPERLINK and IGT's FORT KNOX products. In 2010, IGT sued Aristocrat in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on patents related to the authentication of software in slot machines. The other lawsuit was pending in Australia. In 2010, Aristocrat sued IGT AU in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, on an Australian patent related to a side bet feature on slot machines.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/igt-reaches-agreement-with-aristocrat-to-settle-patent-litigation-2011-10-03

The Changing Law of Multiparty Patent Infringement in the U.S. and How It Differs from Europe: Part One

By: Finnegan on 10/18/2011

Source: www.jdsupra.com

In both the United States and Europe, most practitioners and commentators tend to focus on patent litigation involving single-party infringement. In those cases, the primary question is whether the accused took some action that meets all the limitations of a claim. But the situation becomes more complex when multiple parties are involved. In other words, the question becomes whether two or more entities acted together in some way to meet all the limitations of a patent claim.

Because of this heightened complexity, patentees and businesses should understand the law behind multiparty infringement suits for a variety of reasons. For a patentee, the distinction between single and multiparty suit is significant because the legal requirements for proving infringement differ. In addition, the law governing multiparty suits will determine the identity of the actual liable party. Moreover, patent applicants should consider these situations when drafting and prosecuting applications. In other words, a patentee should try to anticipate the issues that can arise in multiparty litigation before obtaining a patent.
For businesses, multiparty infringement suits can arise unexpectedly — for example, when one is practicing a single element in a patent claim. Moreover, companies may choose to alter their business relationships because of the law regulating multiparty infringement cases.

Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=769bd61d-89af-44f0-a94b-acc3729cd780