By: Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com
Category: Trademark Infringement
Eastman Kodak Co. (EK), the 132-year-old
camera and film company, sued Fujifilm Corp. for
patent
infringement.
The suit, filed Jan. 13 in federal court in Rochester, New
York, accuses the Japanese company of infringing five patents
related to digital imaging.
According to court papers, Fujifilm’s FinePix cameras
infringe the patents. Kodak also objects to the importation of
user manuals and components for the camera, saying they also
infringe.
Rochester, New York-based Kodak asked the court for orders
barring future infringement, and for awards of money damages,
attorney fees, and litigation costs. Claiming the
infringement
is deliberate, Kodak asked the court to triple the monetary
award to punish the Japanese company for its actions.
In a statement released Jan. 13, Kodak said to no avail it
has “long been in discussion with Fujifilm” about taking a
license to the disputed patents that cover, the company claims,
“pioneering digital imaging technology.”
More than 30 other companies have already taken a license
including LG Electronics Inc. (066575), Samsung Electronics Co. (005930), and
Nokia Oyj (NOK1V), Kodak said.
In dispute are
patents 5,493,335, 6,292,218, 6,573,927,
6,441,854 and 5,164,831.
The case is Eastman Kodak Co. v. Fujifilm Corp., 6:12-cv-
06025, U.S. District Court, Western District of New York
(Rochester).
For more patent news, click here.
Trademark
Dr Pepper Settles Trademark Dispute With Regional Bottler
Dr Pepper Snapple Group Inc. (DPS) and one of its regional
bottlers have settled a
trademark dispute related to the
beverage’s history and the use of cane sugar in its formula.
The beverage company, based in Plano, Texas, filed suit in
June in federal court in Sherman, Texas, accusing Dr Pepper
Bottling Co. of Dublin, Texas, of infringing Dr Pepper
trademarks by using a bottle with an unauthorized modified
label.
The public was confused by the different label, and other
bottlers’ sales were negatively affected by the Dublin bottler’s
actions, according to the complaint.
The product is a soft drink first made 116 years ago in
Waco, Texas. The defendant was the first bottler of the product,
according to court papers.
The regional bottler, unlike many others, refused to switch
to high-fructose corn syrup as a sweetener, and also didn’t use
beet sugar. According to the response it filed Sept. 12, Dublin
Dr Pepper had always used only cane sugar, and as a result its
product was sought out by Dr Pepper aficionados worldwide.
A comparable battle was fought in federal court in Dallas
between PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) and a Texas company that imported made-in-
Mexico Pepsi manufactured with cane sugar. That case ended with
an order barring the Texas company from importing and selling
products made in other countries bearing the Pepsi marks.
That case was PepsiCo Inc. (PEP) v. Marroko USA LLC, 3:09-cv-
00338-B, I.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas
(Dallas).
In the case brought by Dr Pepper Snapple, the regional
bottler claims that the beverage company tacitly approved its
actions, including the special label indicating its product is
“Dublin Dr Pepper.” Dr Pepper Snapple has “reveled and openly
welcomed the free exposure and increased name recognition
provided by Dublin Dr Pepper,” the bottler said in court
papers.
Terms of the settlement were not disclosed. According to a
Jan. 12 court filing, the companies have a confidential
settlement agreement. They agreed to dismiss the case and each
side is bearing its own litigation costs.
The companies did issue a joint statement at the time the
settlement agreement was filed. They said that under the
agreement, the regional bottler will quit producing Dr Pepper
and that the beverage company has bought the bottler’s sales and
distribution operations and the right to distribute Dr Pepper in
the bottler’s distribution territory.
Dr Pepper will also make and distribute Dr Pepper sweetened
with cane sugar in the regional bottler’s former territory and
will also sell it in other parts of Texas. The cane-sugar
version will be bottled and canned in what the beverage company
called “distinct, nostalgic packaging.”
The regional bottler will still operate its museum and its
“Old Doc’s Soda Shop,” which will sell officially licensed Dr
Pepper merchandise, according to the statement.
Dr Pepper Snapple is represented by Van Harold Beckwith and
Jonathan Robert Mureen of Houston’s Baker Botts LLP (1143L), together
with Clyde Moody Siebman and Lawrence Augustine Phillips of
Siebman Reynolds Burg & Phillips LLP of Sherman, Texas.
Dublin Dr Pepper is represented by Richter Darryl Burke,
Samuel Franklin Baxter and Steven D. Wolens of McKool Smith PC (0062189L)
of Dallas.
The case is Dr Pepper/Seven Up Inc. v. Dr Pepper Bottling
Co., 4:11-cv-00398-MHS-ALM, U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Texas (Sherman).
For more trademark news, click here.
Copyright
British Student Loses Extradition Fight With U.S. Over Website
A British student whose website gave people access to
copyrighted movies and TV shows lost a U.K. ruling to avoid
being extradited to the U.S. to face criminal charges.
Richard O’Dwyer, whose TV Shack website triggered a U.S.
lawsuit, said he would appeal the ruling, according to a
televised press conference after the decision was issued in
London Jan. 13. O’Dwyer had argued the extradition was invalid
because his actions aren’t a crime in Britain.
O’Dwyer’s lawyer, Ben Cooper of Doughty Street Chambers,
didn’t immediately return a call for comment.
EFF, Fish & Richardson Seek Sanctions in Copyright Suit
Lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and
Boston’s Fish & Richardson say they will seek sanctions against
a maker of astrology software that sued two computer scientists
for copyright infringement.
Astrolabe Inc. filed suit Sept. 30 in federal court in
Boston, targeting Arthur David Olson of the National Institutes
of Health’s National Cancer Institute and Paul R. Eggert of the
Computer Science Department of the University of California, Los
Angeles.
The two computer scientists were accused of infringing the
copyright for an atlas containing historical time zone
information. Astrolabe objects to the scientists’ websites
publication of time zone data.
Brewster, Massachusetts-based Astrolabe asked the court to
order the two scientists to halt their alleged infringement, and
for awards of money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.
Astrolabe bases its claims on its ownership of the “ACS
International Atlas,” the “ACS American Atlas,” and related
software programs and databases.
The case has attracted the interest of the scientific and
technology community because the data is used in Unix and Linux
platforms to set clocks and for time-zone updates. In a posting
to a technology interest-group mailing list, Olson said the
server that provides these updates has been shut down in
response to the suit.
Stephen Colebourne, a developer who works with Java
programs in the U.K., said in a blog posting that the result of
the takedown is that “there is no longer a single central
location for time-zone information for computing.”
He called for the major tech companies to step into the
dispute on behalf of the two computer scientists.
In a notice posted on its website Jan. 12, San Francisco-
based EFF called the suit “bogus,” saying that facts aren’t
copyright protectable.
Noting that Olson took the updates offline, EFF said the
case “would be laughable but for the dangerous consequence”
and noted the “shock and dismay of the many users and
developers who relied upon the updates.”
Astrolabe has never served the complaint on the two
scientists. After filing the suit, “perhaps realizing the
absurdity of its legal position, however, Astrolabe didn’t
bother to take that next step, leaving Olson and Eggert in legal
limbo.”
The motion to be filed asks for sanctions against
Astrolabe, saying the company’s suit is frivolous and factually
baseless. Astrolabe has “no factual basis to allege that the
defendants copied” anything protectable under copyright law,
according to court papers.
Lawyers for the two scientists asked for award of attorney
fees in addition to sanctions. “Sanctioning Astrolabe and its
counsel for this conduct will affirm defendants lawful and
selfless efforts on behalf of Internet users worldwide and deter
similar misconduct in the future,” they argued.
Astrolabe is represented by Julie C. Molloy of East
Sandwich, Massachusetts, who didn’t respond immediately to an e-
mailed request for comment.
The scientists are represented by Adam J. Kessel and Olivia
T. Nguyen of Fish & Richardson PC and Corynne McSherry and
Mitchell L. Stoltz of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
The case is Astrolabe Inc. v. Olson 1:11-cv-11725-GAO, U.S.
District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
For copyright news, click here.
Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage
Ex-Dow Scientist Gets 5-Year Term for Trade Secret Theft
A former Dow Chemical Co. (DOW) research scientist was sentenced
to five years in prison for stealing trade secrets and selling
them to Chinese companies.
The sentence against Wen Chyu Liu, also known as David W.
Liou, was handed down Jan. 12 by U.S. District Judge James J. Brady in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A jury in February convicted
Liu of perjury and conspiring to steal Dow trade secrets. He was
indicted in 2005.
Liu, 75, of Houston worked for Dow from 1965 to 1992. At
its Plaquemine, Louisiana, facility he had access to secrets
related to the manufacture of chlorinated polyethylene or CPE,
used in the making of vinyl siding, electrical cable jackets and
industrial hoses, according to a U.S. Justice Department
statement Jan. 13.
“Liu traveled extensively throughout China to market the
stolen information, and evidence introduced at trial showed that
he paid current and former Dow employees for Dow’s CPE-related
material and information,” the department said.
He paid one Dow worker $50,000 for a process manual and
other product-related information, the U.S. said.
Liu’s lawyer, Frank Holthaus of Baton Rouge, didn’t
immediately return a call seeking comment.
“The technology that Mr. Liou was convicted of stealing
belonged to Dow,” the Midland, Michigan-based company said in
an e-mailed statement Jan. 13. “Because of his education and
position within the company, Mr. Liou knew of its immense
value.”
Dow called the theft and sale of its
intellectual property
“a complete betrayal of the trust imparted to Mr. Liou as a Dow
employee.”
A former Dow AgroSciences LLC researcher, Kexue Huang, was
sentenced to seven years and three months in federal prison last
month after pleading guilty in two consolidated cases to
stealing trade secrets to benefit a Chinese university. The
Huang prosecution was separate from the Liu case.
The Dow Chemical case is U.S. v. Liu, 05-cr-00085, U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Louisiana (Baton Rouge). The
Dow AgroSciences cases are U.S. v. Huang, 11-cr-00163 and 10-cr-
00102 U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana
(Indianapolis).
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-17/kodak-dr-pepper-eff-dow-chemical-intellectual-property.html
