Patent Infringement Books

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Trademark Infringement | "Keyword Trademark Infringement Claim Fails Where Mark is Generic"


By: Brian A. Hall
Source: http://unintellectualproperty.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio denied a motion for reconsideration to alter or amend a judgment pursuant to FRCP 59(e) and held that the “evidence still fails to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether SpinLife’s alleged uses of the three-word phrase “the scooter store” creates a likelihood of confusion necessary to support its affirmative claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition, unjust enrichment and misappropriation.” Plaintiff The Scooter Store, Inc. sued Defendant SpinLife.com, LLC for, among other causes of action, trademark infringement and unfair competition in connection with SpinLife’s purchase of Google AdWords for “the scooter store” and other similar combinations as well as use of the phrase in “metadata” and “meta tags” on its website. The Court previously ruled that “[t]he phrases ‘the scooter store,’ ‘scooter store,’ and other such phrases containing ‘scooter store’ are generic, and Plaintiff TSS has no trademark rights in the use of these phrases.”

Plaintiff sought reconsideration to introduce expert testimony that the phrases are not generic and that instead the consumer public associates them with Plaintiff. Put another way, Plaintiff sought to introduce additional evidence to create an issue of material fact in an effort to avoid invalidation of its THE SCOOTER STORE trademark as generic. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration and again recognized that the phrases are generic (interestingly, the Court also mentions the word descriptive, which could change the entire analysis and determination as to trademark rights given the ability to acquire distinctiveness in a descriptive mark).

To the extent the Court found the mark generic, then THE SCOOTER STORE is indeed UnIntellectual Property. However, to the extent the Court found the mark descriptive (bearing in mind the registrations and the presumptions that go along with such registrations), it may not ultimately be UnIP. Regardless, the Court did find no likelihood of consumer confusion given the weakness of the mark and other factors that seem to be common in keyword infringement lawsuits. Needless to say, the Plaintiff probably did not expect a genericness finding that has the potential to do far more damage to its business than an online competitor. My guess is that the Plaintiff will be scooting to an appeal as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the appellate process is more like using a walker than a scooter.


Source: http://unintellectualproperty.com/keyword-trademark-infringement-claim-fails-where-mark-is-generic/

Patent Infringement | "No Disqualification of Expert Who Met With Opposing Counsel Before Being Retained"


By: DOCKET NAVIGATOR 
Source: http://docketreport.blogspot.com
Category: Patent Infringement


Patent Infringement
The court denied plaintiff's emergency motion to disqualify an expert who had met with plaintiff regarding this same case, discussed hypothetical arguments regarding claim interpretation with plaintiff's counsel, and then was hired by defendant a week later. "[A]fter [plaintiff's counsel]. . . explained [plaintiff's] position about how the claims should be interpreted . . . [the expert] proposed an argument [defendant] might make in response. [The expert] recalls that [counsel] did not want to discuss the subject any further and did not respond with anything of substance. [Plaintiff's counsel] recalls that she responded in a substantive fashion as to how [plaintiff] would address this hypothetical. . . . [T]he hypothetical posed by [the expert] and [counsel's] unsolicited response thereto do not constitute confidential information sufficient to disqualify [the expert] from consulting for [defendant]. . . . [T]he nature of the relationship and of the information allegedly disclosed instantly is much too abbreviated to warrant such a drastic sanction."

Source: http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-disqualification-of-expert-who-met.html

Saturday, October 13, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Patent problems force Motorola to yank tablets, smartphones from German store"


By: Ricardo Bilton
Source: http://venturebeat.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Patent problems force Motorola to yank tablets, smartphones from German store
Patent Litigation
Motorola’s ongoing patent litigation in Germany is taking some more damage.

Motorola has yanked some of the products from its online store in Germany. Many of its smartphones and all of its tablets are gone from the site, German news site Areamobile reports. All that remains are three devices: the Motorola Razr i, the Motorola Razr HD, aPatentnd the Motorola Gleam+.

Motorola told Areamobile that the missing devices were being “reworked,” but there’s no word on when they will return.

Motorola’s North American arm, however, has a different story: It’s simply phasing out its devices.
“As we have previously stated, Motorola Mobility is focusing on fewer mobile devices. As a result we have phased out some of our lower tier devices in Europe/Germany,” a company spokesperson told VentureBeat.
While that explanation’s at least partially valid, it’s hard to imagine that Motorola would phase out all of its tablets. Clearly, there’s something else amiss here.

The irony of the situation cannot be overstated. When Google bought Motorola last year for $12.5 billion, it did so with the assumption that Motorola’s patent trove would be able to protect the search giant from patent litigation. But it seems the company can’t even protect itself.

Motorola has been on the losing end of quite a few patent cases with companies like Microsoft and Apple in recent months, and it’s lost the majority of them. The company, however, did win a case last week, which shows that it has some momentum on its end as well.


Source: http://venturebeat.com/2012/10/08/motorola-removes-devices-germany/

Trademark Infringement | "Sony Sues its Former Spokesperson for Trademark Infringement"


By: Alison Keeley
Source: www.ipbrief.net
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
Advertisements have always had characteristic spokespersons that are used in a series of ads.  Just think of the Old Spice Guy, Fabio for “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” and “Flo” the character in all those Progressive ads, to name a few.  It is clear that these characters and actors can be heavily associated with a particular product and a particular ad campaign.  They appear on billboards, on busses, and in a series of ads.  But what does that mean for the actor in the future?

This question is raised by Sony’s recent lawsuit against Bridgestone tires and the representation of actor Jerry Lambert.  The actor played a character called “Kevin Butler” in a series of ads for PlayStation 3.  In addition to appearing in a series of television commercials, the actor appeared live, in character, at the Electronic Entertainment Expo.  The character even has his own Twitter account.  Sony did clearly invest a lot in “Kevin Butler” and by extension, Jerry Lambert.  But, of course, ad campaigns end and actors may eventually move onto a new ad.  Jerry Lambert went on to be in a Bridgestone tire ad.  The problem?  The characters were playing on a Nintendo Wii in the ad.

Sony, the makers of PlayStation, sued both Bridgestone and Lambert for trademark infringement, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship.  Apparently, Sony claims that it had an exclusivity agreement with Lambert that prevented him from appearing in ads for Nintendo or similar competitors.  While the ad isn’t technically for Nintendo Wii, the actors are playing Mario Kart for pretty much the whole ad, and the promotion allows those who purchase Bridgestone tires to get a Wii console as part of a promotion.

Bridgestone denies that Lambert was playing the “Kevin Butler” character in its ad.  Apparently Lambert’s contract with PlayStation expired three days before the Bridgestone ad aired.  But if Bridgestone and Nintendo are using PlayStation’s character or this violates the exclusivity clause (which, given the unusual situation here, probably depends on the wording of the clause) then Sony has a point.  This also raises the question of how much control a company can have over an actor when it has invested time building an actor into a particular advertising character and associating that actor with its product.   But how much can a company owe an actor’s basic appearance?  In this case, at least, it is clear at least some consumers identify a connection between Lambert and PlayStation.  This article, posted before Sony filed a lawsuit, bears the title “Sony spokesperson Kevin Butler’s latest commercial has him…promoting the Wii?!”

Based on at least one reporter’s impression, Sony may be able to prove that consumers believed that the “Kevin Butler” was in the Bridgestone ads, playing on Lambert’s previous connection with PlayStation.  And while the ad wasn’t exactly for Nintendo products, the fact that the actors were playing on a Nintendo Wii for most of the ad may run afoul of the exclusivity agreement between Lambert and Sony.  But obviously, if the actress who played “Flo” appeared in an All State ad, or that of another similar competitor in the insurance industry, there would be an obvious problem.  The issue will likely ultimately come down to how much the court thinks a company should be able to restrict an actor in order to protect the company’s rights to a character it created.


Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/10/11/sony-sues-its-former-spokesperson-for-trademark-infringement/

Trademark Infringement | "Sony Sues its Former Spokesperson for Trademark Infringement"


By: Alison Keeley
Source: www.ipbrief.net
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
Advertisements have always had characteristic spokespersons that are used in a series of ads.  Just think of the Old Spice Guy, Fabio for “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter,” and “Flo” the character in all those Progressive ads, to name a few.  It is clear that these characters and actors can be heavily associated with a particular product and a particular ad campaign.  They appear on billboards, on busses, and in a series of ads.  But what does that mean for the actor in the future?

This question is raised by Sony’s recent lawsuit against Bridgestone tires and the representation of actor Jerry Lambert.  The actor played a character called “Kevin Butler” in a series of ads for PlayStation 3.  In addition to appearing in a series of television commercials, the actor appeared live, in character, at the Electronic Entertainment Expo.  The character even has his own Twitter account.  Sony did clearly invest a lot in “Kevin Butler” and by extension, Jerry Lambert.  But, of course, ad campaigns end and actors may eventually move onto a new ad.  Jerry Lambert went on to be in a Bridgestone tire ad.  The problem?  The characters were playing on a Nintendo Wii in the ad.

Sony, the makers of PlayStation, sued both Bridgestone and Lambert for
, breach of contract, and tortious interference with a contractual relationship.  Apparently, Sony claims that it had an exclusivity agreement with Lambert that prevented him from appearing in ads for Nintendo or similar competitors.  While the ad isn’t technically for Nintendo Wii, the actors are playing Mario Kart for pretty much the whole ad, and the promotion allows those who purchase Bridgestone tires to get a Wii console as part of a promotion.

Bridgestone denies that Lambert was playing the “Kevin Butler” character in its ad.  Apparently Lambert’s contract with PlayStation expired three days before the Bridgestone ad aired.  But if Bridgestone and Nintendo are using PlayStation’s character or this violates the exclusivity clause (which, given the unusual situation here, probably depends on the wording of the clause) then Sony has a point.  This also raises the question of how much control a company can have over an actor when it has invested time building an actor into a particular advertising character and associating that actor with its product.   But how much can a company owe an actor’s basic appearance?  In this case, at least, it is clear at least some consumers identify a connection between Lambert and PlayStation.  This article, posted before Sony filed a lawsuit, bears the title “Sony spokesperson Kevin Butler’s latest commercial has him…promoting the Wii?!”

Based on at least one reporter’s impression, Sony may be able to prove that consumers believed that the “Kevin Butler” was in the Bridgestone ads, playing on Lambert’s previous connection with PlayStation.  And while the ad wasn’t exactly for Nintendo products, the fact that the actors were playing on a Nintendo Wii for most of the ad may run afoul of the exclusivity agreement between Lambert and Sony.  But obviously, if the actress who played “Flo” appeared in an All State ad, or that of another similar competitor in the insurance industry, there would be an obvious problem.  The issue will likely ultimately come down to how much the court thinks a company should be able to restrict an actor in order to protect the company’s rights to a character it created.


Source: http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/10/11/sony-sues-its-former-spokesperson-for-trademark-infringement/

Patent Infringement | "Microsoft to add Google Maps to patent infringement claims in Motorola lawsuit"


By: Tyler Lee  
Source: www.ubergizmo.com
Category: Patent Infringement


Patent Infringement
It looks like Google Maps could be in trouble as Microsoft has expanded their patent case against Motorola, and have added Google to the mixF, considering that Google now owns Motorola Mobility. To that extent Microsoft has also added a patent infringement claim on Google Maps, stating that they believe that Google’s service infringed upon a patent Microsoft owned back in 1995 which still has a good 3 years left. The lawsuit was announced in Germany and it was noted that should Microsoft be successful in their claims, Google Maps could no longer be made available in Germany next year along with every Android device that relies on it.

Supposedly every Android manufacturer has licensed Microsoft’s patent portfolio, but according to FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller, Google opposed Motorola’s licensing of Microsoft’s patent portfolio which has ultimately led to the lawsuit. We’re not sure how this will play out, but safe to say Microsoft’s victory will have an extremely huge impact on Android devices so we’ll keep our eyes peeled for more information when it has been made available.


Source: http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/10/microsoft-to-add-google-maps-to-patent-infringement-claims-in-motorola-lawsuit/

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Patent Infringement | "Microsoft finally sues Google directly for patent infringement"


By: Surur
Source: http://wmpoweruser.com
Category: Patent Infringement


For the first time ever Microsoft has dropped the proxy battle and has attacked Google directly.

Today in the Munich Regional Court  Microsoft announced that it would amend its complaint against Motorola, Google’s owner, to add Google Inc., the operator of the server infrastructure that powers the Google Maps Android app, as an additional defendant.

The current case target’s Google Maps, and mainly deals with delivering maps from an online repository, in this case Google’s Maps server, and then Geotagging.

Previous German patent rulings in Apple’s and Microsoft’s favour have already required Motorola to pull all of its Android-based devices from the German market.  The company has a bad track record in Germany, and Fosspatents note that if Motorola had not been purchased by Google they would have purchased a license a long time ago, like Samsung, HTC and a range of other Android OEMs.

If Google loses this case it could affect many more companies than just Motorola.  Microsoft has told the court they are willing to settle if Motorola takes out a license. It seems the ball is now in Google’s court.


Source: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=blogsearch&cd=10&ved=0CFQQmAEwCQ&url=http://wmpoweruser.com/microsoft-finally-sues-google-directly-for-patent-infringement/&ei=DpZ3UN3bBMXyrQed1YD4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGrtl07XDgjjr39v39gtEAaUk78Cw&sig2=JQTN-q_4VDrPVX-HNaIWmQ

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Tech giants to talk patent reform at the U.N."


By: Shara Tibken
Source: http://news.cnet.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Apple, Google, Microsoft and other tech giants are meeting in Switzerland today to discuss patent litigation reform, seeking to find ways to protect their intellectual property without hurting innovation.

The roundtable, hosted by the U.N.'s International Telecommunications Union in its Geneva headquarters, will cover topics such as "potential improvements to existing policy frameworks, entitlement to injunctive reliefs, and definitions of what constitutes a royalty base."

The group hopes to find out how standard essential patents can be enforced without hindering competition and how to make sure licenses can be offered at reasonable terms.

"We are seeing an unwelcome trend in today's marketplace to use standards-essential patents to block markets," Hamadoun Touré, secretary-general of the ITU said. "There needs to be an urgent review of this situation: Patents are meant to encourage innovation, not stifle it."

The participants will include standards organizations, key industry players, and government officials. According to a report from the BBC, some companies attending along with Apple and Microsoft are Samsung, Google, Research in Motion, Intel, Qualcomm, Philips, Huawei, Sony, and Hewlett-Packard.

Patent-related litigation has been rampant in the technology sector, particularly in the fast-growing smartphone and tablet markets. Apple and many other companies, including Samsung, have been suing each other over infringement, and Apple in August won its case against Samsung. Other companies have been making acquisitions -- like Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility -- to help build their patent arsenals.

Google's chief legal officer, David Drummond, told the Wall Street Journal yesterday that "the company is walking a fine line as it seeks reforms in the U.S. patent system" as it tries to reduce lawsuits related to mobile devices. He wants to make it more difficult to get U.S. patents on software.

Meanwhile, many companies submitted statements to the ITU ahead of the roundtable.


Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57529625-38/tech-giants-to-talk-patent-reform-at-the-u.n/


Trademark Infringement | "Trademark Infringement Case Against AASP-NJ Dismissed"


By: BodyShop Business news
Source: www.bodyshopbusiness.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


After four years of litigation, United States District Judge Kenneth M. Karas has dismissed most of Rockland Exposition Incorporated's (REI) complaint against the Alliance of Automotive Service Providers of New Jersey (AASP-NJ), AASP-NJ board members Tom Elder, Thomas Greco, Glenn Villacari and Thomas Greco Publishing. REI filed suit in 2008 after the association elected not to renew their management contract with REI and its president David McCarey, and moved AASP-NJ’s NORTHEAST Show back to New Jersey.

In an 87-page opinion issued Friday, Sept. 14, Judge Karas dismissed REI's most significant claim – that AASP-NJ and the other defendants infringed on REI's claimed rights in the trademark "NORTHEAST." Therefore, REI's demands on this count for injunctive relief and damages failed. The court also dismissed REI's claims for trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition under New York law.

The court dismissed REI's claims for false and deceptive advertising, trade libel and disparagement; tortious interference with prospective business advantage; and tortious interference with contract with respect to AASP-NJ, Thomas Greco and Thomas Greco Publishing.

“We are extremely happy that this is over,” AASP-NJ President Jeff McDowell said. “It has been a long, painful experience that has taken its toll on many of the dedicated volunteers who serve our association, and we are proud that we took a stand to make sure justice was served.

“There are many people to thank, especially board members Brian Vesley and Joe Amato. Brian has spent countless hours of his own time making sure that AASP-NJ’s interests were being looked after from day one. Joe went way beyond the call of duty to make sure we were protected from an insurance standpoint. I don’t know where we would be without those two individuals. Our association and our industry are indebted to them.”


Source: http://www.bodyshopbusiness.com/Article/105100/trademark_infringement_case_against_aaspnj_dismissed.aspx?categoryId=

Patent Infringement | "$100m Creative lawsuit over iPod led Apple to “patent it all” "


By: Mark Tyson
Source: http://hexus.net
Category: Patent Infringement


Patent Infringement
In 2006 Apple lost a patent infringement lawsuit initiated by Singapore based Creative Technology. Creative are mainly famous for their PC soundcards (and strategy of “driver obsolescence”) but at this time the company was one of the pioneer manufacturers of portable MP3 players. After the lawsuit Steve Jobs reportedly gathered his senior managers and declared “we're going to patent it all”. From that time on, just before the launch of the first iPhone, Apple’s internal corporate strategy has evolved. Now it has been revealed that Apple spends more money on patent activity than on R&D.

Creative submitted a patent, to the US patent office in 2001, describing a portable media player user interface. It is this patent, awarded in 2005, which barbed Apple and its fledgling iPod media player. After this painful 100 million dollar fine Jobs decided to patent absolutely everything the company came up. You can see Mr Jobs showing off the first iPhone, in the Macworld 2007 presentation below. He ends a section describing the interface of the new smartphone with the phrase “And boy, have we patented it!”

Nancy R. Heinen, Apple’s general counsel at the time this all happened, said Steve Jobs’ “attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent”. Shortly after this time Apple engineers had to take part in monthly patent sessions with lawyers making sure all their inventive thoughts and aspirations got a patent applied to them. Ms Heinen added that “Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway," she continued to explain, "if nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea.”

In the last decade Apple has been granted more than 4,000 patents and taken part in many fierce and protracted patent battles. How might things have been different if Creative had lost the patent case in 2006?


Source: http://hexus.net/business/news/legal/46469-100m-creative-lawsuit-ipod-led-apple-patent-all/

Monday, October 8, 2012

Patent Litigation | "NYT: Patent litigation is hurting innovation"

By:  Anthony Garreffa
Source: www.tweaktown.com
Category: Patent Litigation



In case you didn't already realize that all of these patent wars between various companies was hurting not just consumers, and businesses, but it's also hurting innovation. This innovation stops you from getting better, thinner, more exotic products, and now The New York Times has chimed in with a piece on the subject.

 The Times' piece covers the fact that big companies usually strong arm small start-ups with an extensive patent portfolio that usually ends up with an acquisition, and if the smaller company isn't acquired they're sued.

 The Times' piece also reveals that the smartphone industry spent a whopping $20 billion (or so) on patent litigation in the past two years. Companies such as Apple and Google have spent more money on legal battles than research and development in the past twelve months. Splitting this up, we find Apple spending around $3 billion on R&D last year, with another $4 billion to be spend this year. Those numbers may seem large, but they are far less than most other technology companies.

 Source: http://www.tweaktown.com/news/26120/nyt_patent_litigation_is_hurting_innovation/

Trademark Infringement | "Apple alleges trademark infringement by Polish online grocer A.pl"

By:  Michael Santo
Source: www.examiner.com 
Category: Trademark Infringement


Apple has previously sued for trademark infringement over such ludicrous things as the GreeNYC campaign's logo or items that use the word "Pod" in their name but that are totally unrelated to MP3 players.

The bulls-eye, this time, is focused on a Polish grocery store. The store is using a .pl top-level domain name, which makes a lot of sense considering its country of origin. The problem lies in the rest of their website's domain name.

The site is A.pl. A brief look at how that might be pronounced would probably clue you in on at least one thing that Apple is - or might be - upset about.

On Tuesday, the Polish patent office said that Apple had filed a complaint against A.pl, accusing the website of riding on its trademark in three ways. The Polish patent website also detailed the complaint against A.pl: its name is too similar, 2) it is trading on Apple's reputation, and 3) it has a logo that is similar to Apple's.

The logo, in fact, appears to be at a subsidiary of A.pl's, at fresh24.pl (seen above), rather than directly at A.pl.

As has been pointed out before by patent and trademark attorneys, to maintain the validity of its trademark, Apple needs to aggressively pursue those that it considers scofflaws, even if a connection to its trademark seems to be on the more ridiculous side.

Polish patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said, "(The) Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the (sic) name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation."

Meanwhile, A.pl CEO Radoslaw Celinski rebutted the complaint, saying that "The accusation is ludicrous."


Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/apple-alleges-trademark-infringement-by-polish-online-grocer-a-pl

Patent Infringement | "Motorola wins patent infringement case against Microsoft in Germany"

By: CBR Home
source: http://mobility.cbronline.com
Category: Patent Infringement





Previously Motorola lost three other patents infringement cases against Microsoft in Germany

Google's Motorola Mobility unit has won a patent infringement case against its rival Microsoft in a German court, the latest in the series of ongoing dispute over patents between both the companies.

The regional court in Mannheim ruled that Motorola did not infringe a Microsoft patent which allows software applications to work with a phone's radio antennas on different handsets.

Microsoft had ealier alleged that Motorola had violated patents related to software application programming interfaces (APIs) used to allow software developers to write a set of code to interface with different mobile devices' radio antennas.

Microsoft associate general counsel David Howard said that this decision does not impact multiple injunctions the company has already been awarded and has enforced against Motorola products in Germany.

"It remains that Motorola is broadly infringing Microsoft's intellectual property, and we hope it will join the vast majority of Android device makers by licensing Microsoft's patents," Howard said.

Previously, Microsoft had won three patent cases against Motorola in Germany, banning some of Motorola's phones from sale.

In February this year, Microsoft had asked EU antitrust regulators to intervene in a patent dispute with Google and Motorola, saying that Motorola is aggressively enforcing patent rights against rivals to stymie competition.

In May this year, a German court in the southern city of Mannheim had ruled that Microsoft has infringed two Motorola Mobility patents, can no longer sell its products locally.

A German regional court in May 2012 ruled that Motorola's Android-based devices infringed Microsoft's patents relating to transmission of long text messages by displaying multiple SMS messages.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, US had ruled that Motorola cannot enforce a patent injunction that it obtained on Xbox 360 ban against Microsoft in Germany.


Source: http://mobility.cbronline.com/news/motorola-wins-patent-infringement-case-against-microsoft-in-germany-081012

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Patent Infringement | "Apple Wants $707 Million More of Samsung’s Money Over Patent Infringement"

By: Eric Limer   
Source: http://gizmodo.com
Category: Patent Infringement


Patent Infringement
You know what's cooler than a billion dollars in damages from your rival? An additional $707 million, at least that's what Apple's thinking. Yesterday, Apple filed a motion not only for the additional damages from Samsung, but also for a permanent U.S. sales ban.

The $707 million figure is made up of additional damages for infringing on both design and utility patents, as well as some interest, and the sales ban aims to cover "any of the infringing products or any other product with a feature or features not more than colorably different from any of the infringing feature or features in any of the Infringing Products." In other words, as many Samsung handsets as possible.

Samsung's response to the new, multi-million dollar motion has been to ask for a new trial, claiming that the last time around, time constraints "prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple's many claims." And who could blame them for asking? When there's this kind of money at stake, you're going to want all the time in the world to argue your side. It just goes to show this patent feud is far from over, and the stakes are still pretty high.


Source: http://gizmodo.com/5945525/apple-wants-707-million-more-of-samsungs-money-over-patent-issues

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Patent litigation has growing impact on bottom line"

By: John Hintze
Source: www.insidecounsel.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Companies’ patent litigation costs continue to rise, and the number of patent suits filed each year continues to grow, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) annual study on patent litigation, which suggests such litigation will play an increasingly important role in shaping companies’ bottom lines.

A record 4,015 patent actions were filed in 2011, with the annual growth in patent actions averaging 6.4% since 1991, according to PwC. But median damage awards are falling, though awards to non-practicing entities (NPEs)—plaintiffs who never intend to produce the patented products—have nearly doubled, the study finds.

The $1.05 billion award that a jury ordered Samsung Electronics to pay Apple for patent infringement last month “is a dramatic exclamation point to the study’s findings,” says Sarah Burstein, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma College of Law.

Burstein notes the study’s finding that plaintiffs in patent suits are increasingly seeking jury trials—an average of 55.2% did so in the 2000s, up from 25.3% in the 1990s. That’s not surprising, she says, given how much easier it is for plaintiffs to paint defendants as idea thieves than for defendants to make the more nuanced argument that plaintiffs don’t have enforceable rights.

The study notes a high correlation (96%) between the number of patent cases filed and patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. However, Bob Chambers, a senior partner at the Cincinnati law firm of Wood Herron & Evans, discounted a causal relationship. He attributes the increase in patent suits to corporations’ greater emphasis on protecting their patents and NPEs bringing more suits.

“In either case, the litigation represents significant costs for corporations,” says Chambers, pictured at right.

The recession has prompted greater awareness of the importance of patents, Chambers says. He notes, for example, that more litigation is emerging in the technology industry, which traditionally did not get involved in patent litigation, and that plaintiffs such as Apple incur major costs to pursue litigation.

Consumer products remains the industry that sees the most patent lawsuits, followed by biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, industrial and construction, and medical devices. Computer hardware and electronics ranks next, but that industry may see litigation rise in coming years given recent M&A deals in which acquired companies held large numbers of patents, such as Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility and the purchase of the patents of defunct Nortel Networks by a consortium of large technology companies.


Source: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2012/09/19/patent-litigation-has-growing-impact-on-bottom-lin?t=litigation

Trademark Infringement | "Stanley Furniture Sues Whalen, Costco for Trademark Infringement"

By: Karen M. Koenig
Source: www.woodworkingnetwork.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


GREENSBORO, NC - Stanley Furniture has filed suit against Whalen Furniture Manufacturing Inc. and retailer Costco Wholesale Corp. for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition in regards to its MyHaven™ furniture collection. MyHaven is part of Stanley Furniture’s Young America division of youth furniture.

Filed Sept. 10 in U.S. District Court in North Carolina, Stanley’s suit claims that Whalen Furniture, doing business as Bayside Furnishings, “willfully and knowingly violated and infringed Stanley’s trademark rights in MyHaven with the intention of deceiving and misleading customers, and defendants have wrongly traded on Stanley’s goodwill and reputation.” The company states it has “suffered actual monetary damage” as a result, though a dollar amount has not yet been determined.

Stanley Furniture stated in court documents that while it promotes the fact that its Young America line of youth furniture is manufactured in America, the “infringing items” by Whalen are “manufactured overseas and in turn sold primarily through big box retailers at discount prices,” resulting in Stanley's claims of unfair competition. Whalen is selling its My Haven bunk beds through Costco.

The suit also specifies that Whalen’s My Haven bunk beds feature design and ornamental elements that are “substantially identical” to those on Stanley’s MyHaven bunk bed. “The intentional copying presumptively establishes secondary meaning for the trade dress associated with Stanley’s MyHaven bunk beds and a likelihood of confusion between Stanley’s genuine products and the infringing My Haven bunk beds,” the transcript states.

The case was referred to mediation on Sept. 11. As of Sept. 12, no reference to the My Haven bunk beds could be found on either Whalen Furniture's, Bayside Furnishings' or Costco's websites.


Source: http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/Stanley-Furniture-Sues-Whalen-Costco-for-Trademark-Infringement-169510676.html

Patent Infringement | "HP resolves patent infringement lawsuit"

By: The Associated Press
Source: www.sacbee.com
Category: Patent Infringement


NEW YORK -- Computer and printer maker Hewlett-Packard said Wednesday that it has resolved an ink cartridge patent infringement lawsuit with Brazil's Rio Branco Ltda., a distributor of Maxprint ink cartridges.

HP had filed a suit in Brazil in April 2011, alleging that HP-compatible inkjet print cartridges were being imported and sold in Brazil that infringed on HP patents. It described the settlement with Rio Branca as amicable.

The settlement includes the Maxprint brand's acknowledgement that HP's patents relating to its integrated printhead inkjet cartridges are valid and enforceable, HP said. HP said Maxprint has also agreed to stop selling the ink cartridges in question in Brazil and in other countries that offer Maxprint cartridges.

Maxprint, in agreement with HP, has until Dec. 1 to sell any remaining inventory, HP said. Once that date passes, HP said Maxprint may no longer sell the cartridges that infringe on the patent.

Maxprint must also reimburse some of HP's litigation costs, but the exact amount was not specified, HP said.

HP also said Wednesday that it has reached deals with several other companies regarding print cartridge sales in Brazil. HP said that the companies - which include Canal Verde, Edeltec, Suprijet and others - have confirmed that HP's patents are valid and enforceable. The companies said they would immediately take steps to stop from offering or selling products in Brazil affected by the patents, HP said.

Earlier this month HP announced that it planned to cut about 2,000 more jobs than it had previously announced as CEO Meg Whitman tries to turn the company around. The Palo Alto, Calif., company said in a regulatory filing that said it would eliminate 29,000 jobs by October 2014, up from the 27,000 cuts it announced in May when HP employed about 350,000 people.

Shares of Hewlett-Packard Co. fell 13 cents to $18.12 in afternoon trading. Its shares are up from a 52-week low of $16.77 set Aug. 31. They are down 40 percent from their high for the past year of $30 in mid-February.


Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/09/19/4835359/hp-resolves-patent-infringement.html

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Apple, Kodak, Home Shopping Network:Intellectual Property"


By:  Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: www.bloomberg.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Patent Litigation
Apple Inc. (AAPL) won a round of a U.S. International Trade Commission case brought by Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) over patented technology in the iPhone and iPad tablet computer, its second U.S. legal victory in a month over its largest smartphone competitor.

Apple didn’t violate Samsung’s patent rights, ITC Judge James Gildea said in a notice posted on the agency’s website. The judge’s findings are subject to review by the full commission, which has the power to block imports of products that infringe U.S. patents.

The judge’s findings follow a federal jury’s ruling in San Jose, California, on Aug. 24 awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages, after finding that Samsung copies the look and some features of the iPhone. The California jury rejected claims that Apple infringed other Samsung patents.

Gildea said there was no infringement of any of the four patents in the ITC case, and also determined that Samsung had not proven it had a domestic industry that used the patents, a requirement that is unique to the trade agency. The judge didn’t provide the reasons behind his findings. The opinion will be public after both sides get a chance to redact confidential information.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said the company had no comment.

Apple, based in Cupertino, California, has its own ITC complaint pending against Samsung, and the judge in that case is scheduled to release his findings Oct. 19. The two companies, which together make about half the smartphones sold in the world, are embroiled in more than 30 lawsuits spanning four continents.

The issue of how to handle patents related to industry standards has arisen in other cases before the trade agency, with no clear resolution. Companies that help establish standards that let various devices work with each other pledge to license their relevant patents on fair and reasonable terms.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, in a filing with the ITC on other cases, argued that such patents should be treated differently than other patents, and any dispute over licensing fees should be resolved in district court.

Most of the patents asserted in the legal battles over smartphones and tablet computers don’t involve standard- essential patents.

Samsung’s case against Apple is In the Matter of Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, 337-794, and Apple’s case against Samsung is In the Matter of Electronic Digital Media Devices, 337-796, both U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/apple-kodak-home-shopping-network-intellectual-property.html

Trademark Infringement | "Samsung Galaxy S3 Ad Slams IPhone 5"


By: cmvlive
Source: http://cmvlive.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark Infringement
Samsung has made fun of Apple in the past, making fun of Apple fans on queue and calling them sheep. Now, in a Samsung Galaxy S3 ad, it slams Apple’s new iPhone 5, which the Cupertino firm has recently launched a few days ago.

Samsung’s ad reads, “It doesn’t take a genius”, followed by a specs comparison of the smartphones. The S3’s spec sheet fills up most of the ad, while including only a few features of the iPhone 5. In other words, the Samsung Galaxy S3 is made to look extremely superior compared to the new iPhone.

Another ad was launched in The New York Times. The ad’s tagline reads, “On Sept 12th the next big thing was revealed.” Below it is a photo of the Galaxy S3. Underneath the image reads, “The Next Big Thing is Already Here.”

We can’t help but notice that Samsung is venting out its recent defeat against Apple. It’s understandable that the Korean tech giant’s rage, after being ordered by the jury to pay the Cupertino firm more than $1 billion in damages for trademark infringement. All of Samsung’s claims against Apple were dismissed. Although we understand where they’re coming from, we don’t think this will win the hearts of the consumer. It might even affect handset sales.

Apple sold out its existing pre-order stock of the iPhone 5 in the first day it was available for pre-order. Many believe that the new iPhone will be the hottest-selling device in to date. Although Apple’s new flagship is turning out to be a huge success, Samsung isn’t doing too bad with the Galaxy S3. It is also a highly successful device, shipping 20 million units after going on sale for just 100 days. We wish the Korean firm would just focus on making its devices more innovative, rather than slamming its rival.


Source: http://cmvlive.com/technology/gadgets/samsung-galaxy-s3-ad-slams-iphone-5

Patent Infringement | "Apple cleared of Samsung infringement in US"


By: Diane Bartz
Source: www.itnews.com.au
Category: Patent Infringement


Apple cleared of Samsung infringement in US
Patent Infringement
Apple did not violate patents owned by Samsung in making the iPod touch, iPhone and iPad, a judge at the International Trade Commission said in a preliminary ruling on Friday.

Apple and Samsung have taken their bruising patent disputes to some 10 countries as they vie for market share in the booming mobile industry.

Apple won a landmark victory last month after a US jury found the South Korean firm had copied key features of the iPhone and awarded Apple $US1.05 billion ($A994 million) in damages.

Samsung had separately accused Apple of infringement in a complaint filed in mid-2011. It asked for the infringing products to be banned from sale in the United States.

However, ITC Judge James Gildea said on Friday that Apple did not violate the four patents in the case.

The full commission is due to decide whether to uphold or overturn its internal judge's decision in January.

"We remain confident that the full Commission will ultimately reach a final determination that affirms our position that Apple must be held accountable for free-riding on our technological innovations," Samsung said in a statement.

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The patents in the complaint are related to 3G wireless technology, the format of data packets for high-speed transmission, and integrating functions like web surfing with mobile phone functions.

Apple has a parallel complaint filed against Samsung at the ITC, accusing Samsung, a major Apple chip provider as well as a global rival, of blatantly copying its iPhones and iPads. The ITC judge's preliminary decision is due in mid-October.

Samsung was the top-selling mobile-phone maker in the second quarter of 2012, with Apple in third place, according to data from Gartner.

Samsung's Galaxy touchscreen tablets are considered by many industry experts to be the main rival to the iPad, though they are currently a distant second to Apple's devices.

Apple has waged an international patent war since 2010 as it seeks to limit the growth of Google's Android system. The fight has embroiled Samsung, HTC and others who use Android.

Google's Android software, which Apple's late founder Steve Jobs denounced as a "stolen product", has become the world's number one smartphone operating.


Source: http://www.itnews.com.au/News/315732,apple-cleared-of-samsung-infringement-in-us.aspx

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Federal judge hands Samsung setback against Apple"


By: Peter Svensson 
Source: www.mercurynews.com
Category: Patent Litigation


NEW YORK -- In a preliminary move, a federal judge has denied Samsung's request for a ban on imports of the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

It's another setback for Samsung in a globe-spanning legal battle, where each company is accusing the other of violating its patents.

A judge at the International Trade Commission in Washington ruled Friday that Apple (AAPL) doesn't violate four Samsung patents. The judge also found that the patents don't apply to any domestic industry. That will make it harder for Samsung to press the case before the full commission, says patent litigation expert Florian Mueller.

Three weeks ago, a jury in San Jose ruled that Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion for violating patents on features of the iPhone and iPad.

"Apple at the ITC is bulletproof," said Rodney Sweetland, a lawyer at Duane Morris in Washington, who specializes in trade cases. "Nobody can get any traction against them there. The lesson is, if you want to get relief against Apple, it's going to have to be in a foreign forum where it doesn't have the clout or the cachet it has at the ITC or the northern district of California."

Gildea said there was no infringement of any of the four patents in the ITC case, and also determined that Samsung had not proven it had a domestic industry that used the patents, a requirement that is unique to the trade agency. The judge didn't provide the reasons behind his findings. The opinion will become public after both sides get a chance to redact confidential information.

"We remain confident that the full commission will ultimately reach a final determination that affirms our position that Apple must be held accountable for free-riding on our technological innovations," Adam Yates, a Samsung spokesman, said. "We are proud of our long history of innovation in the mobile industry and will continue to defend our intellectual property rights."

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said the company had no comment. Apple has previously won cases brought against it at the trade agency by HTC and Google (GOOG) Motorola Mobility, two other manufacturers of phones that run on Google's Android operating system. Apple lost its case against Motorola Mobility, and won an order that forced HTC to remove a feature from its phones.


Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21546807/federal-judge-hands-samsung-setback-against-apple

Trademark Infringement | "Can a Company Trademark the Colors On Its Web Site?"


By: John Villasenor,
Source: www.forbes.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled  that the contrasting red soles on shoes from designer Christian Louboutin are sufficiently distinctive to warrant trademark protection. The ruling adds an important chapter to the history of color trademarks, and has broad implications that go well beyond the fashion industry. To what extent, for example, might colors on web sites be eligible for trademark protection?

A trademark is “a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.” Examples of famous trademarks include the Nike swoosh symbol, the McDonald’s Golden Arches, and the phrase “Intel Inside.” In the landmark 1995 Qualitex ruling involving the color of dry cleaning equipment, the Supreme Court held that U.S. trademark law as established under the 1940s-era Lanham Act “permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simply, of a color.” Color alone, wrote the Court, can at least sometimes “meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function.”

Mr. Louboutin started coloring shoe outsoles in the early 1990s, choosing red because he considered it “engaging, flirtatious, memorable and the color of passion.”  Over the subsequent years, the red soles became a widely recognized identifier of the Louboutin brand. “When it comes to women’s shoes made for style rather than walking,” Reuters wrote in 2007, “Christian Louboutin footwear with their distinctive red soles lead the pack, according to a survey of wealthy American consumers.”

In 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Louboutin a trademark  for a “lacquered red sole on footwear,” and in 2011, when the company learned that Yves Saint Laurent was selling shoes with both a red sole and a monochrome red “upper,” it filed a trademark infringement claim in a New York federal district court. After the court refused to grant an injunction against Yves Saint Laurent, Louboutin appealed.

In a September 5 ruling that both Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent described as a victory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held  that Louboutin’s lacquered red outsole is “a distinctive symbol that qualifies for trademark protection,” but only when contrasted with a different color used for the other visible portions of the shoe. In other words, Yves Saint Laurent’s monochrome red shoes walk free, and Louboutin’s trademark survives, though with a narrower scope.

What does this mean for the ability to trademark colors on web sites? Consider the thick, red, horizontal stripe at the top of CNN’s web site. A person seeing a computer from the other side of a room who might not be able to read the print on the screen would nonetheless be likely to recognize that it was displaying a page from the cnn.com domain. In the context of online news sites, CNN’s red stripe placed across the top of the screen plays an important role in brand identification.

But does it establish trademark rights? The answer turns, among other things, on whether the stripe’s color and placement are distinctive (most likely, yes), whether its use by competitors would create customer confusion (quite possibly), and whether it steers clear of being functional (maybe).

A product feature cannot serve as a trademark “if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” This functionality doctrine is intended to avoid granting trademarks that would give a single company control over a useful feature, and thus impede competition. Under some circumstances color can have an important functional role – for instance, if it is used to identify the type of medication contained in a gelatin capsule. Preventing a generic drug maker from choosing the same capsule color as the brand name manufacturer could create confusion for both pharmacists and patients.

More subtly and controversially, some courts – including the Second Circuit that issued the Louboutin ruling – have viewed product features that are “aesthetically functional” as ineligible for trademark protection. Even a feature that is not functional in the traditional sense can be aesthetically functional if allowing it to be trademarked “significantly undermines competitors’ ability to compete in the relevant market” .

It could be argued that CNN’s red stripe is not functional in either the traditional utilitarian sense or aesthetically. After all, a competing news site barred from using it could choose to use a green stripe, or no stripe at all. But there is also a case to be made in favor of functionality: Unlike the sole of a shoe, which has a function tied to its non-color attributes, color in a web site can help visitors navigate the site.

Another issue is the limited number of basic colors to choose from when designing a web site, and the limited number of basic shapes they can be used to fill. What would happen if there were no more colors left to trademark? In the 1995 Qualitex ruling, the Supreme Court considered and rejected depletion as an argument against granting trademark protection for colors. At some point, the Court reasoned, color choices become functional and thus ineligible for protection. And, the Court wrote, when “a color serves as a mark, normally alternative colors will likely be available for similar use by others.”

That may have been true for dry cleaning equipment manufacturers in 1995, and for makers of fiberglass insulation in 1985 and outboard motor companies in 1994. But is it well matched to an era when almost every company has a web site, and in some industries, such as online news, or, for that matter, high end shoes and jewelry, there can be dozens or hundreds of competing companies? In this context, the assumptions of the Qualitex Court regarding depletion may warrant reexamination.


Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/15/can-a-company-trademark-the-colors-on-its-web-site/

Patent Infringement | "Apple didn’t infringe on Samsung’s patents: US trade judge"


By: Reuters
Source: www.firstpost.com
Category: Patent Infringement


Washington: Apple did not violate patents owned by Samsung Electronics in making the iPod touch, iPhone and iPad, a judge at the International Trade Commission said in a preliminary ruling on Friday.

Apple and Samsung have taken their bruising patent disputes to some 10 countries as they vie for market share in the booming mobile industry. Apple won a landmark victory last month after a US jury found the South Korean firm had copied key features of the iPhone and awarded Apple $1.05 billion in damages.

ITC Judge James Gildea said on Friday that Apple did not violate the four patents in the case. Samsung had accused Apple of infringement in a complaint filed in mid-2011. It asked for the infringing products to be banned from sale in the United States.

The full commission is due to decide whether to uphold or overturn its internal judge’s decision in January.

The patents in the complaint are related to 3G wireless technology, the format of data packets for high-speed transmission, and integrating functions like web surfing with mobile phone functions.

Apple’s share price was up about 1.3 percent for the day, at $692.17.

Apple has a parallel complaint filed against Samsung at the ITC, accusing Samsung, a major Apple chip provider as well as a global rival, of blatantly copying its hot-selling iPhones and iPads. The ITC judge’s preliminary decision is due in mid-October.

Samsung was the top-selling mobile-phone maker in the second quarter of 2012, with Apple in third place, according to data from Gartner Inc.

Samsung’s Galaxy touchscreen tablets are considered by many industry experts to be the main rival to the iPad, though they are currently a distant second to Apple’s devices.

Apple has waged an international patent war since 2010 as it seeks to limit the growth of Google’s Android system. The fight has embroiled Samsung, HTC and others who use Android.

Google’s Android software, which Apple’s late founder Steve Jobs denounced as a “stolen product,” has become the world’s No. 1 smartphone operating system.

The ITC judge’s decision comes just weeks after the most closely watched patent trial in years. A jury in a California federal court ordered Samsung to pay $1.05 billion in damages after finding that Samsung had copied critical features of the iPhone and iPad and could face an outright sales ban on key products.

Samsung has said it will contest that verdict and work with carriers to modify its products to keep them on the US market.


Source: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/apple-didnt-infringe-on-samsungs-patents-us-trade-judge-456685.html

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Patent Infringement | "Amazon, Ben & Jerry’s, Costco: Intellectual Property"


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


Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, persuaded a federal court in San Francisco to dismiss a suit brought by a patent owner from Menlo Park, California.

OIP Technologies Inc. sued the Seattle-based retailer March 12, claiming its patent 7,970,713 was infringed. The patent, which was issued in June 2011, covers a method and apparatus for automatic pricing in electronic commerce. Although the application was filed in 2000, it took 11 years for the patent to be issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

According to court papers, Amazon was in discussions with OIP’s predecessor in 2001 over acquisition of the company and the technology covered by the patent. OIP claims that instead of buying the company or taking a license to the technology, Amazon interviewed two of the company’s engineers about the technology and offered each a job.

OIP said in its complaint that the software system Amazon uses through its website infringed the patent. It asked the court for money damages to compensate for what it said was unauthorized use of its technology, together with litigation costs and attorney fees.

In his Sept. 11 order, U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed OIP’s case. He said that the technology at issue wasn’t patentable, under U.S. patent law, because it was “directed toward the abstract idea of price optimization, which is a fundamental economic principle” that belongs in the public domain.
The case is OIP Technologies Inc., v. Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), 3:12-cv-01233-EMC, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/amazon-ben-jerry-s-costco-intellectual-property.html

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Apple's Mobile Patent Portfolio for Insights into New iPhone Technology & Litigation Activity"


By: Press release.
Source: www.reuters.com
Category: Patent Litigation


PHILADELPHIA, PA, September 11, 2012 - The Intellectual Property & Science business of Thomson Reuters, the world's leading provider of intelligent information for businesses and professionals, today released the results of its study of Apple, Inc.'s mobile technology patents. The findings, which are featured in the Thomson Reuters paper, "Inside the iPhone Patent Portfolio,"detail patent and litigation activity across Apple's 1,298 mobile patents and provide insight into possible future incarnations of the iPhone.

Following are among the key findings in the report:

Top Technology Areas: Apple filed 416 smartphone-related patents since the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Another 279 have been filed for mobile camera patents; 232 were filed for user interface technologies; 149 have been filed for image display; and 88 were filed for battery/power control. Antenna (75), calendar (31), contact management (15), and voice control (5) technology were also among the patents within Apple's portfolio.

Patents to Watch: Among Apple's mobile-related patents, individual technologies that stand out as key indicators of what future smartphone design may hold include a fuel cell system that will allow a portable device to stay charged for days or weeks, and an educational content display feature that allows users to interact with text to see images of what the word(s) mean.

Litigation - Behind the Scenes of the Patent Wars: To provide insight into the ongoing smartphone "patent wars," the report tracks all active IP litigation between 2008 and 2012, noting a rapid rise in Apple's recent IP litigation.  By June 2012, the company had already filed nearly as many patent suits as it did in 2010 and 2011 combined.

"With Apple expected to launch its iPhone 5 this week, the company's patent portfolio gives us a unique perspective into what may be unveiled on September 12th, or years down the road as part of a future product iteration," said Bob Stembridge, an intellectual property analyst at Thomson Reuters and author of the report. "The recent and rapid increase in Apple's IP litigation activity is indicative of just how valuable intellectual property can be to an organization and the lengths to which an organization will go to defend the inventions it's worked so hard to develop."

Data for this report were aggregated using Thomson Reuters Derwent World Patents IndexR (DWPI) to identify global patent activity for Apple, Inc. in the Derwent Manual Code category for portable, hand-held mobile radio telephones. Additionally, Thomson Reuters IP Monitor was used to identify active IP litigation for the company. Researchers analyzed the total number of unique inventions issued in published patent applications and granted patents between January 2000 and August 2012. Active IP litigation was analyzed between January 2008 and June 2012.


Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/idUS97399+11-Sep-2012+HUG20120911

Trademark Infringement | "Apple alleges trademark infringement by Polish online grocer"


BY: MICHAEL SANTO
Source: www.examiner.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

Apple has previously sued for trademark infringement over such ludicrous things as the GreeNYC campaign's logo or items that use the word "Pod" in their name but that are totally unrelated to MP3 players.
The bulls-eye, this time, is focused on a Polish grocery store. The store is using a .pl top-level domain name, which makes a lot of sense considering its country of origin. The problem lies in the rest of their website's domain name.
The site is A.pl. A brief look at how that might be pronounced would probably clue you in on at least one thing that Apple is - or might be - upset about.
On Tuesday, the Polish patent office said that Apple had filed a complaint against A.pl, accusing the website of riding on its trademark in three ways. The Polish patent website also detailed the complaint against A.pl: its name is too similar, 2) it is trading on Apple's reputation, and 3) it has a logo that is similar to Apple's.
The logo, in fact, appears to be at a subsidiary of A.pl's, at fresh24.pl (seen above), rather than directly at A.pl.
As has been pointed out before by patent and trademark attorneys, to maintain the validity of its trademark, Apple needs to aggressively pursue those that it considers scofflaws, even if a connection to its trademark seems to be on the more ridiculous side.
Polish patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said, "(The) Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the (sic) name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation."
Meanwhile, A.pl CEO Radoslaw Celinski rebutted the complaint, saying that "The accusation is ludicrous."
A date for a hearing has not yet been set.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5275751898949626712#editor/target=post;postID=5750594095844836774