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/

Court to rule in Apple-Samsung patent breach case

By: Andrew Colley 
Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au


THE federal court is expected to decide next week whether it will lift a ban on the sale of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. 
 
Apple won a temporary injunction from the court mid-October banning the sale of the tablet computer ahead of a trial that will test claims that the Korean company breached technology patents in its touch screen devices.
However, Samsung today put its case to the federal appeal court that the temporary injunction was unjustified and should be dissolved.

Samsung's lawyers argued that primary judge Justice Annabelle Bennett erred in applying legal tests for injunctions.

In particular, they argued that Justice Bennett's ruling did not weigh the strength of Apple's evidence that it had a prima facie case of patent infringement and its prospects of succeeding at a trial sufficiently.

The company's lead barrister told the court that Apple's evidence needed to be weighed more stringently to take account of the short life-cycle of technology devices in the market
The Korean company argued that it was so short that the injunction was "akin" to a final ruling against Samsung.

They argued that the court needed to give more consideration to whether Apple's patents would ultimately be valid.

The appeal was the latest step in a complex pattern of aggressive patent litigation between Apple and Samsung raging around the world.

Here, Apple brought action against Samsung over the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in July.

Samsung has since responded by seeking a retaliatory injunction on the sale of Apple's iPhone 4S in Australia, on grounds that it contained communication chips that infringed its patents.

Samsung also sought injunctions on the sale of the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 in Japan, but it has since dropped its claims against the handset in that jurisdiction.

The patent war brought to an end a long-standing agreement between Apple and Samsung not to sue each other for breaches against their respective patent portfolios.

Apple is believed to hold in excess of 300 patents.

Apple's claims against Samsung in Australia primarily concern patents on interface controls in its touch screens.

Samsung and Apple are currently battling it out over their products in courts in Britain, the US, Japan, South Korea and Europe.


Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/court-to-rule-in-apple-samsung-patent-breach-case/story-e6frgakx-1226206459029

Patents Prove To Be a Contentious Issue in the Online e-Reading Industry

By: Kerrie Spencer
Source: http://www.seolawfirm.com

Amazon and Discovery were about to duke it out over a patent infringement issue when they recently agreed to a settlement.
It is always nice when a lawsuit gets settled, as it saves court time and a fair amount of money for the plaintiff and defendants. Settlement is usually also about one side knowing the other has enough evidence to likely swing a verdict in their favor, so it only makes good sense to settle voluntarily rather than have a jury increase the award to an amount they are not prepared to handle. There are times when lawsuits are about the odds of winning, and not about the fundamental issues that launched the suit in the first place. This is just the way the system works.

This particular dispute started back in 2009 when Amazon.com brought a suit in federal court against Discovery Communications. The case began when Discovery, producers of the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon relating to the Kindle e-Reader’s e-security technology. The particular patent in question is dated 2007, and refers to the “Electronic Book Security and Copyright Protection System”. [1] [2]

The interesting part about the suit that never came to fruition is that Discovery said they were not trying to halt Amazon from selling the Kindle, but wanted legal fees, future royalties and damages. When the suit was first filed, there was an ominous two month silence on the part of Amazon, in which no one was sure how they were going to react. Their reaction was to file a counter lawsuit, alleging Discovery infringed on four of Amazon’s patents for search query and recommendation technologies.

When a person visits the Amazon site and browses for books or e-Readers, the bottom of the page shows a section that also recommends other related items. Recommendation technology is designed to be intuitive for buyers, and in some instances, is quite helpful. For others, it is downright annoying. Search query technology relates to programs that search a site for answers to a demand for information. An example might be if someone was looking for a book by well known lawyer Rusty Hardin. The person would type in the name, and the search string would locate all books written by Hardin.

This is not the first lawsuit filed against Kindle either. It seems they have been making a minor habit of infringing on others patents and intellectual property. Just recently, Amazon was the target of a lawsuit filed by Smartphone Technologies LLC (owned by Acacia Research Corp.), alleging the Kindle Fire tablet infringed on four of its patents. [3] [4] [5] In fact, this might well be one of the quickest lawsuits ever filed after the debut of a new product. It was only two weeks after Amazon launched its new product that Smartphone Technologies filed suit. [6] [7]

The Smartphone Technologies group lawsuits will be interesting to watch, as the company is typically becoming quite notoriously known as a patent troll. Right now they currently have patent infringement lawsuits filed against Amazon, Research in Motion and Apple Inc. [8]

The lawsuits filed seem to focus on commonplace features that most iPads and smartphones have in common, like touching an icon to activate a feature. (U.S. Patent No. 6,956,562) [9] Just how that infringes on Smartphone Technologies patents remains to be seen, and it will likely happen in federal court because the defendants refuse to back off their statements that they did nothing wrong.

Over time, Kindle has raised more than a few serious questions that deal with compensation to authors and publishers for their works. Specifically, their Kindle 2 text-to-voice capability, which renders text orally, would have a significant impact on audio book industry royalties.

This particular issue has resulted in Amazon letting authors and publishers decide whether or not they want to add the talking feature to their e-book titles. The resolution is indicative of how delicate the whole situation can be when new technology crosses the invisible line between copyright and infringement issues. One secretly wonders if the editorial written about this, cheekily titled “The Kindle Swindle”, may have had something to do with their decision to let authors and publishers make their own decisions. [10]

Discovery continues to contend that they stand by their allegations and wish to pursue the matter in court. They also insist that on initially first reading Amazon’s complaint against them, that their lawsuit does not relate to Discovery’s e-book technology. [11] This raises an interesting question – if indeed the lawsuit does not relate to Discovery’s e-book technology, then what is the dispute really about? The best answer may well be that it has to do with who is making the most money. Often lawsuits like this are not so much about whether someone infringed on someone else’s idea or territory, but that the offended party is losing money and wants to put a stop to it.

Generally speaking, patent infringement is when a person or a company uses or sells a patented invention without the benefit of obtaining a license from the original inventor. The definition varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but in many countries patent infringement primarily relates to commercial uses or purposes. What many do not realize is that patents are referred to as territorial, meaning that if a patent is filed in the U.S., then anyone in the U.S. is prohibited from using, selling, making or importing the patented item in question. [12]

There are a number of defenses available against patent infringement, and they include, but are not limited to:
• the patent expired
• the patent is invalid or unenforceable
• the accused has a license under the patent
• the accused was not infringing on the patent in the patent territory
• the plaintiff infringed on the defendant’s patent

Source: http://www.seolawfirm.com/2011/11/patents-prove-to-be-a-contentious-issue-in-the-online-e-reading-industry/

Skullcandy files lawsuit

By: Jeff DiNunzio
Source: http://espn.go.com

On Monday, Nov. 14, the Park City-based headphone, accessories, and clothing manufacturer Skullcandy filed a complaint against Skelanimals -- a music-related accessories and apparel brand -- in the Utah District of federal court in Salt Lake City for trademark infringement.
The suit claims that consumers will be confused by the use -- perhaps even deceptively -- of Skelanimals' similar style skeleton logos. The complaint alleges that the use of the logos will damage Skullcandy's value. According to its website, Skelanimals was copyrighted in 2008 and licensed by Art Impressions Media Group -- an agency in Calabasas, Calif., that creates what it calls "lifestyle brands." The Skelanimals logos are based on various transparent animal designs, making their skeletons visible on dogs, birds, spiders, and other animations. The logos are applied to an array of items, such as cell phones, computers, handbags, and hats.
Skullcandy, by comparison, was formed in 2003 and has developed a sizeable market in the action sports industry, collaborating on headphones and other products with athletes such as two-time world surfing champion Mick Fanning and X Games and Dew Tour skater Pierre Luc Gagnon, as well as several NBA players including Derrick Rose and Kevin Durant. Skullcandy claims it "reflects the collision of the music, fashion and action sports lifestyles" -- and that its distinctive logo symbolizes that.
A representative for Skullcandy declined to comment to ESPN, except to note that the legal department said the complaint "has no legal effect until it has been served, which it has not." However, the Salt Lake Tribune quoted Tom Burton of Skullcandy's legal counsel, saying, "We have registered trademarks on that skull across the world, particularly in the headphone category. We are recognized globally for that skull ... we have to protect it." (The rep said that Burton was simply paraphrased.)
A request for comment by Skelanimals went unanswered, and no one was made available to address the suit during a phone call to Art Impressions.

Source: http://espn.go.com/action/story/_/id/7266286/skullcandy-files-lawsuit-brand-trademark-infringement

DRAM Vendor Nanya Retaliates Against Elpida in Patent Infringement Case

By: Kristin Bent
Source: http://www.crn.com


Tawainese DRAM manufacturer Nanya Technology filed a patent infringement complaint Tuesday with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against two rival memory-makers, Japan-based Elpida Memory and California-based Kingston Technology.

Nanya is accusing Elpida of infringing on four of its U.S. patents. The Taiwanese chipmaker has requested an exclusion order barring the import of Elpida DRAM and products containing Elpida DRAM into the U.S., along with a cease and desist order banning the sale of Elpida DRAM products already on the U.S. market.

As is the case with many patent infringement suits, Nanya’s complaint will escalate an already-raging legal battle. The Taiwanese vendor’s allegations come on the heels of Elpida’s accusation earlier this month, claiming Nanya had infringed on seven of its patents. Elpida’s claims were filed through the ITC as well, and a halt on Nanya’s U.S. imports was also sought.

Nanya has stressed its investments within the DRAM and memory space, and says it will take all steps necessary to protect its intellectual property and R&D efforts.

"We have invested tremendous resources in DRAM R&D since the company was founded in 1995," said Dr. Pei-Lin Pai, Nanya Technology vice president of global sales and marketing, in a statement. "Over the course of the past few years, we have also significantly expanded our intellectual property portfolio. Nanya Technology has always respected intellectual property rights, and we expect other companies to respect our intellectual property. Nanya Technology will not hesitate to take any action necessary to enforce the company’s rights against those who infringe our patents."

DRAM, a type of memory commonly seen in desktop PCs, has a taken an industry-wide hit this year due to the rising popularity of ultrabooks and cloud computing. As a result, industry analyst IHS iSuppli has scaled-back its 2011 yearly growth forecast for DRAM usage in notebooks from 31 percent to 25 percent.

Slowed DRAM growth, IHS reported, is expected to continue over the next four years.


Source: http://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/232200053/dram-vendor-nanya-retaliates-against-elpida-in-patent-infringement-case.htm;jsessionid=kCD878OzZWDTooyrAt2r0A**.ecappj01

Georgia Lottery prevails in trademark case

By: Dave Williams, Staff Writer
Source: http://www.bizjournals.com

The Georgia Supreme Court Monday narrowly ruled in favor of the Georgia Lottery Corp.    in a trademark infringement case.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices declared that, as a creation of state government, the lottery is entitled to “sovereign immunity” from lawsuits.

In addition, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had not made sufficient use of their trademark on a game called “MONEYBAG$” to make a claim against the lottery for running a game of the same name.

The case stems from 1995, when George Kyle registered a trademark for a game he created consisting of a velvet pouch contained wooden tiles.

However, his efforts to market the game fell flat, and he sold fewer than 50 during the next decade.

Meanwhile, the Georgia Lottery began running a scratch-off game called “MONEY BAGS” after the company that creates games for state lotteries – Scientific Games International Inc. ­– received permission from Kyle for one-time use of the trademark.

After the lottery ran the game twice, in 2005 and 2007, Kyle and business partner Frank Mankovitch sued for trademark infringement.

The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld a previous decision by the state Court of Appeals.

Because the Georgia Lottery Corp. is accountable to the General Assembly and the public through audits and reports, it is an “instrumentality” of the state and therefore, entitled to sovereign immunity, Justice Harold Melton wrote for the majority.

“The purpose, function and management of [the lottery] are indelibly intertwined with the state,” Melton wrote. ...

Source: http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2011/11/21/georgia-lottery-prevails-in-trademark.html

Potential Patent Infringement Threatens To Doom Highly Anticipated Open Source Project

By: Promoting-science-through-patents dept
Source: www.techdirt.com


ohn Carmack, the guy behind the Doom series of games, has alway been a supporter of open source software. He has in the past released the source code for the original Doom and Quake to the open source community. This open access has led to Doom and Quake being used in a variety of ways and has allowed numerous people to learn how to make games. It has really come as no surprise that Carmack has decided to open source the code for Doom 3. What is surprising though is that move has been held up due to an old patent infringement suit.

Back in 1999, Creative Labs filed for a software patent for a 3D shading technique called "depth fail". When Carmack was developing Doom 3, he independently invented the same technique. This led to some patent troubles that eventually ended with Carmack licensing the patent from Creative Labs. This old wound is now causing pain for Carmack once more. Because his lawyers are not willing to risk another lawsuit over the patent, Carmack is being forced to code a new solution to the 3D shading technique in order to work around the patent. This is holding up the the release of the code to the open source community.

Although the patent issues are a pain in the butt for those in the open source community, one nice thing is knowing exactly what patents you are infringing and exactly what areas of your software need to be reworked to avoid the problem. This is something that other patent holders are not willing to grant to those they are threatening, Take for example Microsoft and its claims that Linux and Android violate its patents. If MIcrosoft would just tell the open source community what it thinks is infringing, then the developers could just work around those issues. Instead, Microsoft insists on using its patents as a weapon to threaten companies into licensing deals. This behavior is well outside the bounds of the US Constitution's clause to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".


Source: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111117/11422216807/potential-patent-infringement-threatens-to-doom-highly-anticipated-open-source-project.shtml

Limelight Urges Cap on Patent Infringement in Group Inventions

By: Boomerang Businessweek
Source: http://news.businessweek.com


Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Limelight Networks Inc., an online content delivery provider, urged a U.S. appeals court to limit patent-infringement claims when separate entities perform the steps of an invention.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether a company can be liable for infringing patents when various parties carry out parts of an innovation. A three-judge court panel cleared Limelight, whose argument is supported by Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Facebook Inc., on Dec. 20 of an infringement claim by Akamai Technologies Inc. The issue was heard today by 10 of the court's active judges.

A decision in the Akamai case and in a similar dispute heard today involving drug distributor McKesson Corp. may determine the scope of patent rights involving the performance of multiple steps in a process.

“It's a pretty big deal,” said Wayne Porter, a patent lawyer with Banner & Witcoff in Washington who's been following the case. “There are an awful lot of patents out there that would require multiple people to perform the steps, so it's an important question. It's very difficult to write a patent claim that's directed to just one single step.”

E-commerce companies such as EBay Inc. and technology companies including Cisco Systems Inc. sought to curtail suits filed against them, while the trade groups for drug and biotechnology companies argued such a limit would weaken patent rights and hurt innovation.

Limelight and Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Akamai compete in the market for content-delivery networks that store and distribute movies or music to computers on behalf of services such as Hulu LLC or Netflix Inc. The three Akamai patents in the case are for the process of delivering content.

Verdict Thrown Out

Akamai won a $45.5 million jury verdict, only to have it thrown out after a court ruled there was no infringement because Limelight didn't perform all of the steps covered by the patent. Some were performed by the websites.

“This is a huge and unfair loophole in the law,” Akamai lawyer Donald Dunner of Finnegan Henderson in Washington told the court. “You have a content delivery network and a content provider. Each knows what the other is doing.”

Limelight lawyer Aaron Panner of Kellogg Huber in Washington said the law allows infringement to be found when two entities are acting as a joint enterprise to use the invention. That wasn't the case in this issue, he said.

“It is undisputed that Limelight does not carry out one of the steps of the method” covered by the Akamai patents, he said. Customers of Tempe, Arizona-based Limelight “are under no legal obligation to perform that step.”

Personalized Web Pages

In addition to the Limelight case, the Federal Circuit heard arguments on a patent suit McKesson brought against closely held Epic Systems Corp. over a method of communication between doctors and their patients over personalized Web pages. While the Akamai case involved direct infringement claims, the McKesson case involves indirect actions that cause a violation.

Myriad Genetics Inc., a maker of tests to determine the risk of developing breast cancer, argued in a court filing that methods of diagnosing and treating diseases are often carried out by two parties, such as a testing lab and a doctor.

Limiting the concept of joint infringement “will be devastating to personalized medicine if not reversed,” Myriad wrote. It “encourages collusion among collaborating parties to escape infringement liability.”

Limelight Support

Google, EBay, Cisco, Dell Inc., Intel Corp. and Yahoo! Inc. were among companies that supported Limelight. A victory for Akamai would “threaten legitimate commerce” and “complicate already dysfunctional multiparty litigation,” they said in the filing.

Such a ruling would “stifle commerce and place further upward pressure on product costs by allowing for opportunistic litigation in which more and more market participants that touch a multifeature product or system or network are sued together,” the companies said. “Likewise, opportunistic plaintiffs would pursue even more companies to seek cost-of-defense style settlements from each.”

Apple and HTC Corp. each filed papers supporting Limelight, as did the trade groups for Internet retailers and financial services companies, according to the court's docket.

The trade group for drugmakers including Abbott, Bristol- Myers Squibb Co. and Pfizer Inc. sides with Akamai's arguments, saying a ruling that limits the suits would “seriously devalue thousands of issued patents.

‘Multiple Entities'

‘‘When multiple entities acting in concert combine to carry out all of the steps of a valid method claim, they cause an infringement that harms the patent owner,'' the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactures of America said in a filing with the court.

The case is Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, 2009-1372, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The lower court case is Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks Inc., 06cv11109, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).

The McKesson case is McKesson Technologies Inc. v. Epic Systems Corp., 2010-1291, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The lower court case is McKesson Information Solutions LLC v. Epic Systems Corp., 06cv2965, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta).

Source: http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LUTUPT0UQVI901-790EAORNQ6P0M8ND1C9FQBVVLU

Balancing Competition and Trademark Infringement

By: Jusist Legal News & Research
Source: http://jurist.org

Fashion items generally do not have strong protection under trademark law. Rather, the law affords certain "conceivably separable" elements of an item protection under copyright or patent law. For example, a distinctive lace pattern could be copyrighted or a unique design element may fall under the purview of patent law. However, trademark law can be used to protect product packaging. Tiffany's trademark-blue, the Burberry check or the Gucci stripes are all examples of trademarked packaging. Even though trademark rights are limited for fashion items, they do present their holders with a strong legal tool that protects their goods from imitators.

Trademark law ensures that consumers can identify a good's source. In order to qualify for registration, a mark must be distinctive and used in commerce. Under the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010, nearly anything capable of carrying meaning can qualify as a symbol or device, and thus as a mark. Marks are classified along a continuum as either generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary or fanciful. Generic marks are the only class of marks not protected under trademark law. The red outsoles of the Louboutin shoes qualify as a descriptive mark, as descriptive marks may include shapes, sounds, smells and even colors. Descriptive marks are protectable, but only with proof of secondary meaning. The burden is on the owner of the mark to show that overtime consumers have come to associate a particular color with a particular brand, causing the color to identify the source of the product.

A product feature cannot be registered if the feature is functional. In Qualitex v. Jacobson, the US Supreme Court held that a product feature qualifies as functional if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it impacts the cost or quality of the article. Prohibiting the trademark of functional product features encourages competition by keeping producers from controlling a useful product feature. The Court in Qualitex explained that if functional product features were trademarked, than competitors would be put at a significant non-reputational disadvantage.

The theory of aesthetic functionality states that consumers desire a specific feature that is not part of the use or purpose of the product itself. Aesthetic functionality was at issue in Jay Franco & Sons v. Franek, when the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit cancelled a federal trademark registration that claimed the circular beach towel. The court held that, "[g]ranting a producer the exclusive use of a basic element [such as color] impoverishes other designers' palettes." The court explained the more basic and general the element "the more likely it is that restricting its use will significantly impair competition."

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has adopted its own aesthetic functionality test. Under Wallace International Silversmiths v. Godinger Silver Art Co., aesthetic functionality hinges on whether "trademark protection would significantly hinder competition by limiting the range of adequate alternative designs, the aesthetic functionality doctrine denies such protection." The Second Circuit also eliminated a per se rule in Villeroy & Boch Keramische Werke v. THC Systems, which qualified china patterns as aesthetically functional.

Recently, Yves Saint Laurent (YSL) began selling a line of monochromatic shoes, including four styles of an all red shoe with a matching red bottom. As a result, Christian Louboutin filed suit against YSL for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and dilution. YSL counter-claimed for cancellation of Louboutin's federally registered trademark for "lacquered red sole on footwear." Louboutin moved for a preliminary injunction, but was denied by Judge Victor Marrero of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. He noted that the court would likely find Louboutin's trademark not protectable and subject to cancellation. He held that, "the Court cannot conceive ... recognition of a trademark for the use of a single color for fashion items." The crux in Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent is whether or not Louboutin's lacquered red sole is a functional product feature. Judge Marrero opined that because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic purposes, which are vital to competition, it is unlikely that Louboutin will be able to prove that its red outsole is entitled to trademark protection.

It seems unlikely Louboutin will prevail on appeal, so long as no error in the application of law is found. The court will likely cancel Louboutin's broad registration because it poses significant trademark and policy issues. Furthermore, even with no finding of error, it is likely that the Second Circuit will dismiss Judge Marrero's finding that a trademark should never be granted for the use of a single color for fashion items, as a broad per se rule against color trademark in fashion conflicts with Qualitex and contradicts the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act. If the Second Circuit does find an error in the application of the law, it will still likely rule this case narrowly and require that Louboutin prove his trademark is not overly broad.

Though red-soled shoes almost instantly conjure up the name "Louboutin" for casual fashion consumers, a broad prohibition against red would be anti-competitive. Louboutin identified his signature color as Pantone No. 18-1663 TP or "Chinese Red." And while YSL allegedly has never used this particular color on its outsoles, without a narrow description of what the trademark protects, Louboutin, and more importantly the courts, cannot determine where the line of infringement ends and competition begins. Without a narrow construction, Louboutin would hold a monopoly on shoes with red outsoles. Louboutin incorrectly asserted on his trademark registration that only he uses red on the soles of shoes. However, as YSL pointed out, red has been used on shoe soles for centuries. Furthermore, both YSL and Valentino have used red for shoe soles in the past.

If the court establishes that Louboutin has a valid and protectable trademark, it will rely on the factors identified by the Second Circuit in Polaroid Corporation v. Polarad Electronics Corporation to determine whether YSL infringed the trademark. The Polaroid factors only apply in the Second Circuit, though other circuits have similar variations. The factors include:

    the strength of plaintiff's mark;
    the degree of similarity between the products;
    the proximity of the products or services;
    the likelihood that plaintiff will bridge the gap;
    evidence of actual confusion;
    the defendant's good faith in adopting the mark or lack thereof;
    the quality of defendant's product or service;
    and the sophistication of the buyers.

Of the eight factors, none alone are dispositive. The flexible nature of the factors permits courts significant discretion in applying them. Therefore, most factors can be construed to favor one party or another. Though the court has significant discretion, Louboutin has persuasive factors in the strength of its marks and the degree of similarity between the products.

In order to receive broad protection, Louboutin should have waited for an imitator to use a red-sole with a contrasting shoe color. By bringing the suit against YSL's monochromatic shoes, Louboutin forced the court to address aesthetic functionality as to whether or not other companies can fairly and effectively compete for prospective consumers without using red on their shoes. This forced the court to opine that in fashion a depletion of colors would be anti-competitive in nature, and thus impermissible. The manner in which Louboutin framed the issue by pursuing a monochromatic shoe may lead the court to afford a much narrower protection to Louboutin than an action against a closer imitation of a Louboutin shoe.

There may be some concern that Louboutin could endanger itself by becoming a generic mark. Both The New York Times and New York Post have published highly publicized articles on the emergence of cobblers painting their customers' shoes red and nail salons offering a "Louboutin" treatment by painting the underside of customers' nails red. The continuing reference to anything with red on the underside should be of significant concern to Louboutin.

The Louboutin case demonstrates both the best and worst of trademark law. On one hand, trademark law should have rewarded Louboutin for the effort expended in building his brand and achieving secondary meaning. The decision also reflects that trademark law has been contextual. Though people can cite the various single color trademarks, including brown for UPS trucks and Tiffany's blue product packaging, fashion presents a position where courts should consider the depletion theory.

The Second Circuit should provide a narrow protection for Louboutin. He did not exert significant effort in attempting to create a recognizable trademark; rather he was attempting to create something aesthetically pleasing. It would be detrimental for fashion if designers could not create monochromatically red shoes or red-soled shoes without the fear of litigation. Ultimately, the court must determine whether the competitive disadvantages of enforcing this trademark will outweigh the advantage of reinforcing both Louboutin's registered mark and the effort exerted by Louboutin in achieving secondary meaning.

Mark Guffanti attended Fordham University where he studied political science. He also studied international and comparative law at the Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne Summer Institute.

Source: http://jurist.org/dateline/2011/11/mark-guffanti-trademark-law.php

Porn Studio Considers Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Against HTC

By: Erica Thinesen
Source: Source: http://www.itproportal.com


Vivid Entertainment, a porn studio, claims trademark infringement by HTC and has threatened to sue the electronic giant.

The allegations against HTC is that their smartphone HTC Vivid infringes the trademark right of Vivid Entertainment, as reported by U.S. entertainment site TMZ.

Vivid Entertainment is a giant name in the porn industry. This studio is known for disclosing sex tapes of Paris Hilton and also Kim Kardashian. However, it is not very likely that consumers might mistake the Vivid smartphone and Vivid the porn studio that makes naughty films for adult viewers.

According to TMZ reports, the port studio threatened HTC to change the name of its smartphone by Monday or face a suit for trademark infringement. In fact, the studio has also sent a cease and desist letter to HTC America claiming the same.

Attorney Mark Hoffman, for Vivid Entertainment, claims, in a statement, that the use of HTC America's the Vivid trademark "creates the false impression that your company and your company's products are affiliated, connected, or associated with and or sanctioned by Vivid Entertainment."

On this matter, HTC has decided to maintain a dignified silence.


Source: http://www.itproportal.com/2011/11/17/pron-studio-considers-trademark-infringement-lawsuit-against-htc/#ixzz1e1sDU2Dd

Apple loses ground in patent infringement suits in Europe

By: NVO1
Source: http://nvonews.com


Apple has recently received some letdowns in its patent infringement suits against its rivaling technology makers, especially Samsung Electronics in Europe. The Cupertino technology maker has been in intense legal battle with Samsung for a while. The company has cited that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy S II are designed copying the very form of its iPad 2 and iPhone 4. The fight kicked off in the middle of the year with some initial success for Apple as a German court banned shipping of Galaxy Tab 10.1 firstly in the entire continent and later in Germany only. Courts in the Netherlands, Spain and Australia also had judgments in favor of Apple. In Australia, the official release of Galaxy Tab 10.1 was delayed indefinitely.

The new developments

However, recently Apple has been receiving failures in its lawsuits against Samsung, Motorola and startup firms like NT-K. Samsung has succeeded in convincing the courts that Apple also uses many of its patents to build products like iPhone, iPad and MacBook Air. Last week, a court in Mannheim, Germany rejected Apple’s claim that most of Samsung patents fall under FRAND, “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” rule. It is an exemption for technology companies to use common technologies, which are essential for a product.

In another disappointing development for Apple, a district court in Spain upended its injunction to put ban over the sale of tablets from a mid-sized firm, NT-K. The court rejected Apple’s claim that NT-K copied the designs of iPad to develop its tablet. In another case, the Mannheim court early this month directed Apple to make compensatory payments to Motorola for copying its communications patents in its products.

Why Apple is always a petitioner

Is Apple taking lawsuits as a marketing tool? The company used to raise patent infringement suits against all of its rivals mainly Samsung, HTC and Motorola every now and then. In the first half of the year, the iPhone maker filed suits against HTC, Motorola and Samsung many times. HTC and Motorola were mainly challenged in the U.S with complaints at the International Trade Center. But, both HTC and Motorola cloud silence Apple with countersuits for Apple’s patent infringements of their technologies.

The smartphone and tablet markets are quite brisk these days. Companies introduce fresh products almost every day. Apple and Samsung are certainly the poster children with some astonishing products. Most often, it is like that Apple introduces a product with much hype and fanfare. Remember the cases of iPhone and iPad’s releases. The devices were introduced respectively in 2007 and 2010 with large media attention. But soon after the launch of Apple products, Samsung and other product makers like HTC, Motorola and Dell roll out the same products with slight changes in design.

Take tablet computer as the best example to understand the situation. Apple announced the world’s first full-fledged multimedia tablet called iPad in the last week of January, 2010. The device landed in stores in a couple of months. But soon after that, we happened to learn that Samsung is also coming with a similar tablet on Google Android. Later, there was a flood of tablets from companies like Research In Motion, Asus, HTC, Dell and many others. It is here we have to witness lots of copyright and patent infringement suits. Companies file lawsuits against the rivals to win over them for market share and popularity.

Apple vs. Samsung

Apple’s lawsuits against Samsung and vice versa will be of one much discussed topics on the web. However, the most recent legal battles in Europe and Australia gained far more attention, because the products on question were Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy S II, two outstanding products the world has ever seen. In reply to Apple’s continuous lawsuits, Samsung used to fight with similar suits.

Anyway, it is the best time to remember what HTC advised Apple mid this year. The Taiwan technology maker advised Apple concentrate more on its product designing and marketing rather than running over its competitors, who certainly work on far more brilliant products.


Source: http://nvonews.com/2011/11/17/apple-loses-ground-in-patent-infringement-suits-in-europe/

‘The Situation’ Sues Abercrombie and Fitch for Trademark Infringement

By: Nicole Howley
Source: : http://www.justicenewsflash.com



Miami, FL — Michael “The Situation” Sorrentino of MTV’s hit TV show the “Jersey Shore” has filed a lawsuit against retailer Abercrombie & Fitch for an alleged publicity stunt in order to sell the retailer’s clothes with Sorrentino’s catch phrases used in the show, reported MSNBC.

The lawsuit was filed in a federal court in southern Florida by Sorrentino and his company, MPS Entertainment.

The lawsuit was filed after A&F publicly stated in August that they would pay the reality TV show cast members not to wear their clothing. Sorrentino asserts that the offer was false. Sorrentino reportedly never received an offer, nor did a representative ever communicate that to Sorrentino.

But, A&F stated that they were “deeply concerned” that Sorrentino “could cause significant damage” to its brand’s “aspirational nature,” MSNBC reported.

“Starting in August 2011, Defendant (the company) embarked on a grand, worldwide advertising campaign using Sorrentino’s name, image and likeness to create brand awareness for its products by falsely claiming that Defendant had offered money to Sorrentino if he would stop wearing Defendant’s goods,” the lawsuit read.

The lawsuit is also going after A&F T-shirt designs that feature phrases like “The Fitchuation” and “GTL… You Know The Deal.” Abercrombie & Fitch “obviously intended to create a false association” with the “Jersey Shore” star when it released it’s statement in August, MSNBC reported.

In 2009, Sorrentino and MPS Entertainment trademarked “The Situation” and “GTL,” which is an acronym for gym, tan, laundry.


Source: http://www.justicenewsflash.com/2011/11/17/the-situation-sues-abercrombie-and-fitch-for-trademark-infringement_201111179056.html

Samsung's patent infringement case against Apple's iPhone 4S to go ahead in Australia

By Zack Whittaker
Source: http://www.zdnet.com


Summary: An Australian court will hear Samsung’s case to ban sales of Apple’s iPhone 4S in the country in March, as part of an ongoing global patent dispute.

An Australian court will hear a case brought by Samsung in March, as the smartphone giant seeks to ban the sales of Apple’s iPhone 4S in the country.

This comes only a day after Samsung backtracked on a similar case in Korea, thought to be in fear of attracting negative publicity on its home turf. Cases in Italy, France and Japan continue, with Australia set to be the first hearing of the global case.

Samsung has sought to block the sale of Apple’s latest smartphone by filing preliminary sales injunction requests in the country. But justice Annabelle Bennett told the Australian Federal Court in Sydney today that the sale of the Apple smartphone would continue in the meantime.

The case will center on the alleged infringement of three patents, and more than 25 claims, the Guardian reports.

While Apple’s lawyers wanted an August hearing, claiming that more time was needed to prepare their case, March instead was set, ruling in favour of Samsung.

Apple and Samsung have been locked in a global legal battle spreading across 10 countries involving smartphone- and tablet-related patents. Confusingly, Apple is Samsung’s biggest customer, mostly purchasing microchips and displays for their own devices.

But Samsung has a greater worry to contend with than the outcome to the March ruling.

Not only is the Korean smartphone giant facing European antitrust regulators to examine how the company is pursuing its patent infringement claims, the company is also facing the International Trade Commission in the U.S. for allegedly infringing Apple’s patent on a global scale.

Apple has scored preliminary sales injunctions against some of Samsung’s Galaxy devices in Australia, Germany and the Netherlands, and further seeks to block sales of some Samsung products in the United States.

While Samsung has applied for sales injunctions of Apple’s products, including the alleged patent infringing iPad and iPhone devices in retaliation, Samsung has not been successful.


Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/samsungs-patent-infringement-case-against-apples-iphone-4s-to-go-ahead-in-australia/63440

Sonics Continues Lawsuit Against Arteris for Patent Infringement

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


MILPITAS, CA, Nov 15, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Following the filing of Sonics, Inc.'s November 1, 2011 lawsuit against Arteris, Inc. for patent infringement, the company is proceeding with the assertions as outlined in the formal complaint. Sonics is committed to defending its 15-year investments, and as a company whose business is defined by technology patents, intellectual property (IP) and trade secrets, it will make every provision to ensure its extensive portfolio of more than 110 patent properties is fully protected.

To clarify previously reported information using an accurate and viable comparison, it is noteworthy to understand that Sonics is seeking protection for its patents invented and granted exclusively in the United States. Sonics has 45 distinct patents issued with 22 additional U.S. applications in process -- which appear to be more than seven times the number of issued patents and pending applications held by Arteris in the U.S. Sonics' patents build the foundation of our highly configurable on-chip networks; end-to-end connectivity of IP cores, quality of service, security, and the verification of highly configurable IP cores -- which protect the underlying architectures for our on-chip communications. Because of Sonics vast U.S. portfolio, we believe it will be increasingly difficult for Arteris to avoid infringement of Sonics' patents in their future on-chip network and memory scheduling products.

Sonics' customers have shipped more than a billion chips to date and rely on us for the broadest array of highly configurable, on-chip communications IP of anyone in the industry. Our customer base is strong, diverse and growing in every major technology region throughout the world. Sonics' licensees can remain confident that we will continue to innovate and invest in emerging technologies as we advance system-level design with innovative products such as SonicsGN(TM). As our newest network-on-chip (NoC), SonicsGN is the industry's first GHz NoC and the highest frequency solution for applications processing in the world today. Since its introduction less than two months ago, we have seen rapid customer engagement and an early market acceptance as customers become poised to leverage this unique offering in their market-leading SoC designs.

"Since our founding, Sonics has been careful, diligent and deliberate as we invested significant resources to invent the foundational technology that would fuel our business," said Grant Pierce, Sonics' President and CEO. "This legal action against Arteris was necessary to maintain the integrity of that technology, and uphold our responsibility to customers and investors to protect the ownership of our technology."

"For years, Sonics has seen sustained growth and profitability, and is evolving with next-generation on-chip networks, IP subsystems and advanced NoC solutions that drive SoC integration and high-performance chip design. Sonics' business is based on the highest levels of integrity, a true respect for fair and ethical practices and competition, and remains unwavering in its commitment to defend our IP in the very market we pioneered," continued Pierce.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sonics-continues-lawsuit-against-arteris-for-patent-infringement-2011-11-15

No Evident Infringement in Tennis Gear Dispute

By:IULIA FILIP
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com


ATLANTA (CN) - A company that sells a tennis gauze product will not have to face trademark-infringement claims from the makers of Tourna Grip racket padding, which counts world-class tennis players among its fans, a federal judge ruled.

Claiming that Tourna Grip boasts a distinctive light blue color, Unique Sports Products sued Ferrari Importing Company dba Gamma Sports for trademark infringement.

Tennis players can wrap Tourna Grip around the grip of their rackets to provide additional cushioning and moisture absorption. The product has been manufactured and sold in light blue since 1977 by a company Unique acquired in 1992.

According to Unique's complaint, Tourna Grip is preferred by many professional tennis players, including Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Venus Williams and Maria Sharapova.

"In 1999 when Unique applied for a trademark, Tourna Grip was the most successful tennis grip tape product, with over 50 percent of the market and $40 million in cumulative sales," the court noted. "Tourna Grip continues to be the most successful tennis grip tape product."

Unique received a federal trademark registration for the color light blue used for "grip tape for sports rackets" in February 2001.

Ferrari, a company that sells specialty sporting goods accessories, offers a gauze tape in a light blue-green color. Like its competitor Unique, Ferrari advertises the product in tennis magazines, sporting goods catalogs and on the Internet.

Unique, which spends about $250,000 a year on advertisements that emphasize Tourna Grip's light blue color, among other attributes, claimed that Ferrari's product infringed on its registered trademark. Unique argued that the light blue color distinguished its product from other companies' similar products and thus had secondary meaning, which connects the mark to the product's maker in the consumer's mind.

But Ferrari countered that other companies sold light blue grip tape before Unique's mark acquired secondary meaning.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash agreed that Unique had a valid trademark, but said Ferrari did not infringe on it. Unique had spent millions of dollars promoting a connection between Tourna Grip and the light blue mark. The company's ads use expressions such as "the blue Tourna Grip," "blue tape" and "the original light blue grip," which made the product recognizable by its color, according to the Oct. 27 order.

"The plaintiff has shown that it has marketed light blue Tourna Grip since 1977, that it made considerable efforts to associate the light blue mark with Tourna Grip, and that its use of the mark has been substantially exclusive," Thrash wrote. "Thus, light blue acquired secondary meaning. For this reason, Unique's light blue trademark is valid."

But Ferrari's grip tape products, which feature various shades of blue, are not confusingly similar to Tourna Grip, Thrash found, noting that Ferrari's gauze tape is almost teal, while Tourna Grip has a purple hue.

Shade is not the only attribute that distinguishes the two products. Unlike Unique's Tourna Grip, which is smooth, has a speckled appearance and provides moisture absorption, Ferrari's tape has a rough woven appearance and does not absorb moisture as well as Tourna Grip, Thrash added. Wraps like Tourna Grip are also softer, thicker and provide more cushioning than gauze tape. And while Tourna Grip is affixed to the racket handle by a separate piece of tape, gauze is self-adhesive, the order states.

Unique and Ferrari may have similar methods of advertising, but "the packaging of the products makes it virtually impossible to confuse the source of the product as it is offered for sale," Thrash noted.

"Due to differences in appearance, feel, and performance [between Tourna Grip and gauze tape], consumers generally prefer one or the other," he wrote.

Source: http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/11/15/41462.htm

Hitachi Chemical: CMP Slurry Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Korean Company

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

MENLO PARK, Calif., Nov 15, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. (tokyo:4217)(head office:Tokyo)(ceo and president:Kazuyuki Tanaka)(capital:15.5 billion yen)(capital:hereinafter referred to as "Hitachi Chemical") announced today that it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas against K. C. Tech Co., Ltd (head office:Seoul)(head office:South Korea)(head office:hereinafter referred to as "K. C. Tech") asserting that K. C. Tech infringes Hitachi Chemical's patents relating to cerium oxide slurry for chemical mechanical planarization processes for polishing semiconductor wafers.

Before taking legal action, Hitachi Chemical discussed a possible license with K. C. Tech for K. C. Tech's unauthorized use of Hitachi Chemical's patents. Hitachi Chemical brought the action to protect its intellectual property and to obtain compensation from K. C. Tech for infringement. Hitachi Chemical has accused K. C. Tech's KCS-3100 slurry with infringing United States Patents 7,115,021 and 7,871,308.

CMP Slurry is a type of liquid used for polishing semiconductor wafer chemically and mechanically to get high planarization and cut down process time. Hitachi Chemical has been working on the development of innovative CMP products and processes. With a variety of high quality reliable products and complete technical support, customers around the world employ Hitachi Chemical's CMP Slurry. Hitachi Chemical now holds the largest market share in CMP Slurry for STI (Shallow Trench Isolation)* market. The two patents that Hitachi Chemical has accused K. C. Tech of infringing above are among many that Hitachi Chemical has obtained from its extensive research and development efforts.

Hitachi Chemical will take necessary measures to protect its patents and other intellectual property rights to provide a business advantage.

*STI is one of the isolation methods that electrically isolate semiconductor elements on a silicon wafer from one another. Because STI is suitable for making finer patterns, it has become the major isolation technology for around 180 nanometer processes.


Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hitachi-chemical-cmp-slurry-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-korean-company-2011-11-15

Serta Sues Designer in Trademark Infringement Matter

By: Jonathan Stempel
Source: http://www.claimsjournal.com


Serta Inc sued Oleg Cassini Inc to stop threatened litigation by the fashion designer related to the sale of mattresses bearing the Cassini name at J.C. Penney Co stores.

In a complaint filed in Chicago federal court, Serta said it stopped selling its Perfect Day Cassini mattress model in J.C. Penney stores after Oleg Cassini in September accused it of infringing a trademark dating to the early 1950s.

Source: http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/national/2011/11/14/194985.htm

Jenner & Block Expanding its Representation of Clients in the Media and Entertainment Industries With the Addition of Six Partners in its Los Angeles Office

By: Jenner & Block
Source: http://www.sacbee.com

LOS ANGELES, Nov. 10, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Jenner & Block today announced that it is expanding its Los Angeles office and its representation of clients in the media and entertainment industries with the addition of six new partners.  Highly experienced courtroom attorneys Richard L. Stone, Kenneth D. Klein, Julie A. Shepard, David R. Singer, and Amy M. Gallegos join the Firm's Litigation Department, while noted transactional attorney Carissa C. W. Coze joins the Corporate Department. 

All of the attorneys will become part of the Firm's acclaimed Content, Media & Entertainment practice.  This group, which previously practiced at Hogan Lovells LLP in Los Angeles, has represented numerous clients, including extensive work recently for News Corporation and many of its current and former subsidiaries, such as Fox Broadcasting Company, Dow Jones, Harper Collins and MySpace.  Jenner & Block also represents, and over the years has represented, various News Corporation entities.

This team of attorneys has been lead trial counsel in a wide variety of cases for entertainment and media clients, including business litigation directly related to the financial crisis, large scale class actions and cutting edge trademark and copyright cases.  On a transactional front, they have been responsible for strategic mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, and key licensing deals in a broad array of media.

Jenner & Block's Los Angeles office opened in 2009 with two former Kirkland & Ellis partners, Rick Richmond and Brent Caslin.  With the addition of these six new partners, there will now 24 lawyers, including 14 partners, in Jenner & Block's Los Angeles office. 

"The Los Angeles office continues on its impressive trajectory of hiring outstanding lawyers in the community and is further evidence of the Firm's overall strategic growth plan," said Jenner & Block Managing Partner Susan C. Levy.  "These lawyers bring proven records of achievement and further enhance our ability to serve client needs.  Their practices are complementary to the Firm and its existing clients.  We are delighted to welcome them to the Firm."

"We have been working together as a team for many years and the opportunity to move together to work at Jenner & Block to help build upon its existing group of leading media and entertainment clients was ideal," Mr. Stone said.  "This was the perfect fit for us and where we see our practice expanding well into the future."

Added Mr. Richmond, the Managing Partner of Jenner & Block's Los Angeles office: "This is a great day for the Los Angeles office.  These new partners provide us with an increased ability to expand our representation of a wide spectrum of clients both in southern California and across the country."

Co-Chair of Jenner & Block's Content, Media & Entertainment practice, Andy Bart, agrees:  "This group of outstanding lawyers both strengthens and expands our existing practice, and gives us real depth in the Los Angeles market.  In addition to traditional content and entertainment litigation, our new partners bring extensive experience in business litigation for entertainment sector companies and a sophisticated IP transactions capability.  We are thrilled."

Joining the Los Angeles office of Jenner & Block are:

Richard L. Stone

Richard Stone is a leading trial lawyer with an emphasis on the media and entertainment industries.  Mr. Stone's experience extends to litigating antitrust, copyright, trademark patent, piracy, securities, commercial fraud and related business tort cases.  He has also handled numerous shareholder, consumer and antitrust class actions.  Mr. Stone represents Fortune 100 and smaller companies engaged in the entertainment, communications, internet, finance, high technology, transportation and retail industries, among others.  He received a BA from the University of California, Los Angeles and a JD from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Kenneth D. Klein

A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Mr. Klein prepares and tries complex business cases.  His experience includes a wide range of litigation matters that have resulted in numerous trials in both federal and state courts.  He has served as lead counsel in a substantial number of cases, including litigation involving breach of contract, fraud, sexual and racial discrimination, accounting malpractice, consumer class actions, tortious interference, and anti-trust.  Mr. Klein earned a BA from the University of Michigan and a JD from Columbia Law School.

Carissa C. W. Coze

Ms. Coze represents public and privately held media, entertainment and technology companies in a broad range of corporate and securities transactions, including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic investments, public equity and debt securities offerings, tender offers, technology acquisitions, and venture capital and private equity financings.  She also works extensively with software developers, semiconductor device and equipment manufactures and solar and other renewable energy equipment manufacturers and developers.  Ms. Coze routinely counsels U.S. and international companies regarding insider trading compliance, corporate disclosure, corporate governance, and other corporate and securities matters.  She received a BA from the University of California, Davis, a Masters in Public Policy from the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley and a JD from the University of California, Berkeley.

Julie A. Shepard

Ms. Shepard has a broad-based commercial, entertainment, and intellectual property litigation practice.  Her practice includes defending clients in class actions, shareholder derivative suits, and business torts.  Ms. Shepard has also defended clients' rights in matters involving unfair competition, copyright infringement and trademark infringement, and trade secret misappropriation.  In recent engagements, she has seen cases through to verdict in various federal and state courts, and practiced before the American Arbitration Association and the International Chamber of Commerce.  Ms. Shepard earned a BA from the University of California, Berkley and a JD from the University of the Pacific, where she graduated No. 1 in her class.

David R. Singer

Mr. Singer's primary focus is entertainment and media litigation.  He has significant experience with intellectual property disputes involving copyrights, licensing, trademarks, and trade secrets.  Through his representation of movie studios, television production companies, and media conglomerates, Mr. Singer is well-versed in the disputes that typically arise in the entertainment and telecommunications industries.  A substantial portion of his practice is also devoted to Internet-based disputes and privacy law, and he represents and counsels some of the largest and most visited Web sites on the Internet.  Mr. Singer received a BA and JD from the University of Pennsylvania.

Amy M. Gallegos

Ms. Gallegos is a skilled litigator who has represented clients at the trial court and appellate levels in a wide variety of complex commercial disputes.  She has substantial experience in class action defense, antitrust, unfair competition, and intellectual property litigation.  Ms. Gallegos has also represented clients in the media and entertainment industries in disputes relating to copyright infringement, network programming and licensing, and Internet law.  Ms. Gallegos received a BA from the University of California, Berkeley and a JD from the University of California, Los Angeles.

Jenner & Block is a national law firm with approximately 470 attorneys and offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Washington, DC.  Founded in 1914, the Firm has grown and prospered because of an unwavering commitment to our clients, to the Bar, to our people and to public service. Jenner & Block has been widely recognized for consistently delivering excellent legal representation in the courtroom and the boardroom.  The Firm has also traditionally served as a leader in public service and pro bono advocacy, having been consistently ranked as one of the top 10 pro bono firms in the country by The American Lawyer magazine.

Source:  http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/10/4045312/jenner-block-expanding-its-representation.html#ixzz1deXCMWAn

The Patent Abuse of Patent Infringement Claims

By: Caroline Gousse
Source: http://www.ipbrief.net

A day after an article analyzing the intricacies of patent litigation appeared on PCWorld’s website, Bloomberg relayed that Barnes & Noble was urging U.S. regulatory entities to investigate whether Microsoft was abusively suing competitors for patent infringements.

Barnes & Noble refused to agree to the terms of Microsoft’s license to use patents developed by the Washington-based company and to abide by the restrictions on upgrades allegedly demanded by those terms. As a consequence, in March 2011, Microsoft initiated proceedings against Barnes & Noble and asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to stop imports of Barnes & Noble’s NOOK products, arguing that the book retailer was infringing on five patents that Microsoft owns on electronics operating under the Android system.

On November 8, 2011, Barnes & Noble quite publicly recommended that the U.S. Department of Justice take a closer look at Microsoft’s unforgiving enforcement of its patent-related rights. According to Wired magazine, Barnes & Noble is claiming that the license offered by Microsoft for the use of Microsoft’s patented products was much too restrictive, as a result of which Microsoft is abusing its dominant position by limiting Microsoft’s competitors’ influence on the relevant market.

Barnes & Noble’s strategy seems an interesting one: Microsoft already has a reputation as a blob-esque company and Barnes & Noble’s theory that Microsoft is violating antitrust laws is not completely ludicrous. The news of Barnes & Noble’s questioning the legality of Microsoft’s market behavior, with its David-against-Goliath feel, nonetheless reveals important issues between the preservation of incentives and rewards for innovation, on one hand, and the possible abuses of dominant positions on the other. Microsoft’s patent infringement claims might be indeed unforgiving, but it seems unclear whether they should be dismissed on the mere count that these claims are establishing Microsoft’s dominant position in the market. After all, patents are granted for the very reason that they can be used against competitors, thus assuring patentees’ lead on relevant markets and rewarding patent-holders for the cost of research and development they have incurred in developing patented products. Barnes & Noble is arguing that “Microsoft is attempting to raise its rivals’ costs in order to drive out competition and to deter innovation in mobile devices.” That may very well be true. Yet, aggressive protection of patent-related rights against companies which have not incurred the expenses of research and development is another means of preserving competition.

U.S. courts have many times upheld such an approach. The creation and preservation of a monopoly through the commercialization of an innovative product does not violate antitrust laws. Licenses may be restrictive as long as they do not create restraints that exceed the exclusive exercise of patent-related rights. “[W]hether [licenses] have or threaten to have anticompetitive effects beyond what the patentee could achieve through exclusive retention of the patent rights or an exclusive license of the totality of those rights” has been suggested as a sum-up test used by courts to determine the line between rightful license terms and abuse of dominant positions. See Donald F. Turner, Basic Principles in Formulating Antitrust and Misuse Constraints on the Exploitation of Intellectual Property Rights, 53 Antitrust L.J. 485, 491 (1985). In Europe also, courts have held that strengthening a dominant position did not necessarily amount to an abusive use of patent rights in violation of antitrust law.

The state of mind of the claimant may, under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, be taken into an account to determine whether this claimant is frivolously raising patent infringement claims. The dichotomy between preserving incentives for competition via a tolerance for monopolies and the distortion of competition incurred by the same dominant positions has been resolved in Europe, at least in part, by the introduction of “block exemptions.” The block exemption system allows agreements to escape the scrutiny of Article 81 of the Treaty of Rome, relating to abuses of dominant positions, provided these agreements abide by the specific terms of the block exemption. Such a system might not serve as an applicable example to the United States, but it remains that U.S. courts may soon have to define a clearer limit between frivolous infringement suits and zealous defense of one’s patents in light of the highly competitive market for new technologies.

Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2011/11/12/the-patent-abuse-of-patent-infringement-claims/

Jury Sides With Seacrets In Trademark Suit

By: Shawn J. Soper
Source: http://www.mdcoastdispatch.com


A popular Ocean City establishment was successful this week in its trademark infringement lawsuit against a travel destination company and its subsidiaries that piggybacked on its success and name recognition with a series of similar resorts in and around the Caribbean.

A U.S. District Court jury this week ruled in favor of O.C. Seacrets, the corporation that owns and operates the popular Seacrets nightclub complex along a three-block section of the bayfront in Ocean City, in its trademark infringement civil suit against the Coryn Corporation and its subsidiaries, which have opened nine resort destinations in Jamaica, Mexico, the Dominican Republic and other areas operating under the name “Secrets.”

After a seven-day trial, the federal jury deliberated just over two hours on Tuesday before returning with a favorable outcome for O.C. Seacrets and a $1 award for the plaintiff, along with punitive damages.

For Seacrets’ owner Leighton Moore, the case was less about a possible financial award and more about protecting his company’s intellectual property and the goodwill and reputation his company has earned over several years of successful operation in Ocean City. While Coryn was also hit with a little over $200,000 in punitive damages, the $1 award for Seacrets was more symbolic, according to Moore.

“We won the case and we got a dollar,” said Moore this week. “I’ve said all along this wasn’t about the money. So, we got a $1 award and I will frame it and hang it on the wall.”

In October 1997, O.C. Seacrets successfully registered the trademark “Seacrets” for “restaurant and bar services” at its location along the bay at 49th Street. Over the years, the restaurant and nightclub complex expanded to a three-block area including several bars, restaurants, a nightclub, a hotel, condominiums and its own radio station. According to court documents, the complex draws between 4,000 and 6,000 guests each weekend during the summer season.

In June 2000, Coryn filed an intent-to-use application for the trademark “Secrets” for “resort hotel services” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which officially registered the “Secrets” mark for Coryn in October 2003. In January 2004, O.C. Seacrets petitioned the patent office’s Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB) to cancel Coryn’s “Secrets” mark, arguing that its own mark “Seacrets” covered services closely related to if not identical to “resort hotel services” and there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks.

In August 2008, the TTAB ordered the cancellation of Coryn’s registration because O.C. Seacrets had a priority of usage in its Seacrets mark and there was a likelihood of confusion between the marks. The TTAB also denied Coryn’s petition for partial cancellation or restriction because it found the proposed restriction would not avoid confusion.

In October 2008, Coryn appealed the TTAB’s decision to the U.S. District Court. In December 2008, O.C. Seacrets counterclaimed for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act and Maryland common law, which is how the case ended up in front of a jury in U.S. District Court.

“The jury found they were culpable,” said Moore this week. “They acquired the trademark under less than above-board circumstances. They didn’t do it accidentally, they did it with malicious intent.”

According to Moore, not only did Coryn use the name and borrow liberally from the success of the Ocean City operation, they continued to do so even after the TTAB ordered the cancellation of its “Secrets” trademark usage.

“It was taken from them in 2008 but they appealed, and they continued to build ‘Secrets’ while their trademark was in a state of suspension,” he said.

While the federal jury sided with Moore and Seacrets this week, Coryn is not legally bound to change the name of its nine “Secrets” resorts around the Caribbean because they are not in the U.S. However, the outcome prohibits Coryn from marketing its “Secrets” resorts to the vacation-minded public in this country, which might have confused the destinations with the popular nightclub complex in Ocean City.

“They’re out of the country, so they can still legally use that name, but they can’t use the name to market their resorts anywhere in this country,” said Moore. “If they can’t market them to their target audience in this country, they’re probably going to change the name.”

Meanwhile, the victory in the trademark suit on Tuesday is just part of the good news this week for Moore, who will be honored tomorrow night with the second annual Hal Glick Community Service Award at a special gala at the Clarion.

The award, which was begun last year by a group of local business and community leaders and is named for its inaugural recipient, honors outstanding service to the resort and surrounding areas through philanthropic endeavors and community leadership.

With the resolution of the trademark suit this week, Moore said he ready to do even more in the community.

“I’ve been bogged down with this case for a couple of years now and I haven’t been able to do as much as I usually do,” he said this week. “With this behind me, I’m ready to jump back in again.”

Source: http://www.mdcoastdispatch.com/articles/2011/11/11/Top-Stories/Jury-Sides-With-Seacrets-In-Trademark-Suit

BASCOM wins $10M lawsuit against AOL

By: John Callegari
Source: http://libn.com


Hauppauge-based software developer BASCOM Global Internet Services won a huge victory recently as a federal court jury determined Internet giant AOL had infringed on one of BASCOM’s patents.

The jury in Central Islip awarded BASCOM $10 million in damages as a royalty for AOL infringing on a patent held by BASCOM for software used to remotely filter adult or other inappropriate content. BASCOM’s Internet filtering solutions and curriculum building software are used heavily by public school systems and other educational organizations.

Peter Cirasole, president of BASCOM, testified during the trial that he had tried to negotiate licenses for the patent with software and computer industry giants, but that he was rebuffed because those companies believed he would not have the wherewithal to enforce the patent. Other companies have entered into licenses with BASCOM that recognize the company’s filtering solutions.

BASCOM began its patent infringement lawsuit against AOL and Yahoo in April 2008. Yahoo! had previously settled its lawsuit with BASCOM, prompting AOL to seek the terms and conditions of that settlement, on the grounds to determine what a reasonable royalty rate would be for AOL. That motion was denied in a September decision by U.S. Magistrate Judge Arlene Rosario Lindsay.

BASCOM was represented in the lawsuit by Stone and Magnanini, a New Jersey law firm specializing in complex litigation and trial work.


Source: http://libn.com/2011/11/10/bascom-wins-10m-lawsuit-against-aol/