Patent Infringement | "iPad Smart Cover Gets Apple in Trouble: Man Claims Patent Infringement"

By : Alexandra Burlacu
Source : http://www.mobilenapps.com
Category : Patent Infringement

In yet another lawsuit filed against Apple, a man claims the design of Apple's Smart Cover accessory for its second- and third-generation iPads is a rip-off. Aspen, Colorado resident Jerald Bovino filed the lawsuit in federal court, asking Apple and Target to pay royalties for using his technology.

Bovino filed for a "Portable Computer Case" patent in mid-2003, and was issued the patent in 2005. The summary of US patent 6,977,809 describes the design for a ruggedized case, which also includes a strap for carrying the device. "Defendant Apple has infringed and is continuing to directly infringe, contribute to the infringement of, and/or induce the infringement of, at least one claim of the '809 Patent without Plaintiff Bovino's consent or authorization. Such acts of infringement include, but are not limited to, Defendant Apple's use, sale, provision, and operation of the iPad Smart Cover for the new iPad and the iPad 2," states Bovino's complaint, according to the court document, as reported by PatentlyApple.

"Plaintiff Bovino has been damaged as a result of Defendant Apple's infringing conduct. Defendant Apple is liable to Plaintiff Bovino in an amount that adequately compensates him for Defendant Apple's infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court," reads the official complaint. The "reasonable royalty" mentioned in the official complained is in fact a demand for $100,000.

According to the images from the patent claim, the ribs on Apple's Smart Cover represent the most obvious similarity. Indeed, Bovino's patented design did include ribs: "A portable computer comprising: an openable case defining an exterior surface for holding the computer, and a plurality of resilient ribs positioned on said exterior surface of said case wherein said resilient ribs protects said computer from wear and tear during the transporting and use of the computer," reads the first claim of the Bovino patent.

Intriguingly enough, Bovino's patent infringement lawsuit against Apple comes shortly after the Cupertino, California-based tech giant was awarded a patent for the iPad Smart Cover on April 24, 2012. The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court of Colorado. Judge R. Brooke Jackson is the presiding judge. We await the outcome. It's a classic battle between David and Goliath, don't you think?

Source : http://www.mobilenapps.com/articles/1897/20120429/ipad-smart-cover-apple-trouble-patent-infringement.htm

Patent Infringement | "HTC and Nokia Win Against IPCom Over Patent Lawsuit"

By : Delaon
Source : http://www.planetinsane.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Nokia, a company from Finland, and HTC from Taiwan both won a major European ruling claiming German company IPCom's patent was invalid in its present form. The patent reportedly threatened the sales of Nokia and HTC's devices in Germany. Last Wednesday, the European Patent Office made a ruling that is pro Nokia because the company is having a difficult time with declining credit rating and lowering sales in the past few weeks.

According to Nokia, it will keep on selling their devices in Germany. On the other hand, IPCom said that it would at once make an appeal versus the ruling and that its 100A patent was valid while the ultimate decision on the appeal is pending. The patent 100A regulates the initial connection of a phone to a network. In addition, IPCom said that the decision does not have an effect on the rulings concerning the patent infringement cases versus Nokia and HTC in Germany and United Kingdom. The mobile telephony patent portfolio of Bosch was purchased by IPCom. The portfolio was made between the mid parts of the 1980’s and the year 2000. Globally, it consists of patent families amounting to 160. The patents include the 100A and contain fundamental technologies for the industry of wireless communication.

Licensing agreement with IPCom have been signed by a lot of the best phone manufacturers. However, Nokia and HTC have contested patents by IPCom in different courts in Europe.

For more or less five years already, IPCom and Nokia are in conflict in a number of courts over patents. According to Nokia, the demands for licensing fees of IPCom are too high.

Based on a statement by Paul Melin, Nokia's Intellectual Property VP, IPCom must stop its impractical demands. IPCom has filed a patent infringement against HTC's retailers based in Germany. On the other hand, HTC was satisfied with the decision of the European Patent Office. Moreover, it looks forward to put an end in the patent suits.

Source : http://www.planetinsane.com/htc-and-nokia-win-against-ipcom-over-patent-lawsuit/2631280/

Patent Infringement | "Merck wins patent infringement lawsuits against Mylan Pharma"

By : PHARMABIZ.com
Source : http://pharmabiz.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Merck & Co, known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, has won patent infringement suits against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., in respect of Zetia and Vytorin. The US District Court for the District of New Jersey has ruled in Merck's favour in two jointly related patent infringement suits.

"The court appropriately ruled that the patent for Zetia and Vytorin in the US is valid and enforceable," said Bruce N. Kuhlik, executive vice president and general counsel of Merck. The patent at issue in this trial is RE 42,461 which covers ezetimibe, an active ingredient in both Zetia and Vytorin and expires April 2017.

In its decision, the court upheld Merck's patent on Zetia and Vytorin and ruled that the patent was valid and enforceable. Mylan had admitted that its product would infringe the patent. The court also issued an injunction blocking the approval of Mylan's generic versions until the expiration of the patent.

Mylan had been seeking US FDA approval to sell generic versions of Zetia and Vytorin. In December 2009, Merck filed the lawsuit against Mylan in respect of Mylan’s application to the FDA seeking pre-patent expiry approval to sell a generic version of Vytorin and in June 2010, Merck filed a separate lawsuit against Mylan in respect of Mylan's application seeking pre-patent approval to sell a generic version of Zetia.

Source : http://pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=68746&sid=2

Patent Infringement | "Teva reaches compromise on epinephrine injector"

By : Fadi Mualem
Source : http://www.globes.co.il
Category : Patent Infringement

Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and Mylan Inc. (NYSE: MYL) have announced that Mylan subsidiary Meridian Medical Technologies Inc. has settled patent-infringement litigation with Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq: TEVA; TASE: TEVA) over Teva's generic version of the EpiPen device for injecting epinephrine during potentially fatal allergic reactions.

Under the settlement, Teva may begin marketing its version of the injector on June 22, 2015, or earlier under certain circumstances, provided that Teva obtains US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

Teva does not yet have FDA approval for its generic EpiPen injector, but the settlement settles the legal dispute over its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) filing with the FDA. Meridian manufactures the EpiPen for Pfizer, and Mylan markets it in the US.

Mylan and Pfizer added that additional details of settlement are confidential, and subject to review by the US Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission.

In a separate statement, Antares Pharma Inc. (NYSE: AIS), a manufacturer of small-needle injector systems, announced that it will supply Teva with injectors, if needed, for 2013 and 2014, following FDA approval of Teva's ANDA.

Teva's share price was flat at NIS 171.20 in early trading on the TASE today, after remaining unchanged at $45.63 on Nasdaq on Friday, giving a market cap of $43 billion.

Source : http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000744141&fid=1725

Patent Infringement | "Has the internet run out of ideas already?"

By : John Naughton
Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk
Category : Patent Infringement
Earlier this year, American legal scholar Tim Wu published a sobering book: The Master Switch: The Rise and Fall of Information Empires. In it, he surveyed the history of the great communications technologies of the 20th century – the telephone, movies, broadcast radio and TV. And in the story of each of these technologies, Wu discerned a pattern – "a typical progression of information technologies: from somebody's hobby to somebody's industry; from jury-rigged contraption to slick production marvel; from a freely accessible channel to one strictly controlled by a single corporation or cartel – from open to closed system. It is a progression so common as to seem inevitable, though it would hardly have seemed so at the dawn of any of the past century's transformative technologies, whether telephony, radio, television or film."

Each of these technologies, Wu argued, started out as gloriously creative, anarchic and uncontrolled. But in the end each was "captured" by corporate power, usually aided and abetted by the state. And the process in each case was the same: a charismatic entrepreneur arrived with a better consumer proposition – for example, a unified system and the guarantee of a dial tone in telephony; or a steady flow of good-quality movies created by a vertically integrated studio system in the case of movies – that enabled a corporation or a cartel to attain control of the industry. The big question, Wu asked, is whether this will happen to the net.

It's a good question. The internet was another one of those gloriously creative, anarchic technologies that spawned utopian dreams. Its internal architecture – its technical DNA, if you like – enabled an explosion of what Barbara van Schewick called "permissionless innovation": all you needed to prosper was ingenuity, software skills and imagination. So what the network's designers created was, in effect, a global machine for springing surprises.

For the last two decades, we've been gratified, bamboozled, astonished and sometimes alarmed by the surprises it has sprung. The first-order ones were innovations such as the world wide web, file-sharing, VoIP (internet telephony) and malicious software. In turn, these first-order surprises generated other, second-order ones. The web, for example, served as the foundation for search engines, Flickr, blogging, YouTube, Wikipedia and, latterly, smartphones and Facebook.

We're now at the stage where we should be getting the next wave of disruptive surprises. But – guess what? – they're nowhere to be seen. Instead, we're getting an endless stream of incremental changes and me-tooism. If I see one more proposal for a photo-sharing or location-based web service, anything with "app" in it, or anything that invites me to "rate" something, I'll scream.

We're stuck. We're clean out of ideas. And if you want evidence of that, just look at the nauseating epidemic of patent wars that now disfigures the entire world of information technology. The first thing a start-up has to do now is to hire a patent attorney. I had a fascinating conversation recently with someone who's good at getting the pin-ups of the industry – the bosses of Google, Facebook, Amazon et al – into one room. He recounted how at a recent such gathering, he suddenly realised that everyone present was currently suing or being sued for patent infringement by one or more of the others.

How have we got ourselves into this mess? How long have you got? But here are a few of the obvious culprits. One is our obsolete intellectual property regime, which, instead of encouraging innovation, is nowadays mainly used to discourage it. Another is our failure to build the kind of networking infrastructure that could form the basis for really disruptive applications of IT. Fixed-line bandwidth in the UK is poor enough, but it's lightspeed compared with the shambles of mobile broadband, as any smartphone user will testify.

A third sheet-anchor is provided by the business models currently dominant in the industry, namely the provision of "free" services in return for massive intrusions on privacy and other swindles. As a nice chart on the Pinboard blog shows, the bigger free services get, the more money they lose – and that revenue has to come from somewhere. In the end, the only stable, ethical business models will be those based on consumers paying for services. And the likelihood of that happening soon is negligible.

But perhaps the biggest curb on innovation is the fact that the technologies that might serve as the springboards for next-generation surprises are increasingly closed and controlled. Facebook, for example, was built on the web, which is an open platform. But Facebook is busily creating a walled garden in which the only innovations that can arise from it are ones allowed by the proprietors. The same applies to the tethered devices that we know as smartphones and tablets.

We look like being the first civilisation in history that invented a golden goose – and then strangled it.


Source : http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/apr/29/internet-innovation-failure-patent-control

Patent Infringement | "Nokia and HTC Win Lawsuit Against IPCom "

By : Christopher
Source : http://www.mobilebloom.com
Category : Patent Infringement

The European Patent Office (EPO) issued a verdict in favour of Nokia and HTC against IPCom, a German firm that had threatened to close down the sales of Nokia and HTC mobile devices in Germany following claims of patent infringement.

Nokia, currently facing the problem of falling sales and credit ratings in the last few weeks, can now continue selling their products in Germany. None of the 62 IPCom patents that had been challenged have been found to be valid. Meanwhile, IPCom plans to go ahead and oppose the current ruling through further appeals. The dispute is mainly centered on wireless technology for car telephone systems built by Bosch and later sold in 2007. IPCom had acquired this patent portfolio from Bosch, which includes 160 patent families all over the world.

These patents, one of which is 100A, hold some key technologies which could be of importance to the wireless industry. Therefore, a number of top mobile device makers entered into a licensing deal with IPCom. However, Nokia and HTC had proceeded to challenge IPCom’s patents. Nokia has been in dispute with IPCom for several years now as they believe that the licensing fees demanded by IPCom are extremely high and unrealistic. With Nokia and HTC refusing to agree to terms of IPCom, they faced license infringement claims by the German company.

In spite of the current ruling by the EPO, IPCom will continue to keep the patent 100A in effect until the final appeal is made and the verdict given. IPCom has already initiated orders against HTC. HTC, on the other hand, is hoping IPCom will reassess their decision to take further legal action. Back in 2009, IPCom had won against HTC in court, going ahead and urging dealers to stop the sale of HTC 3G devices. IPCom also managed to win against Nokia last week in a German court regarding another patent infringement claim. In Nokia’s defense, violation of IPCom’s intellectual property rights only applied in the case of old handsets which were not being sold anymore.

However, the current ruling seems to have gone against IPCom as one of the features of the patent may be considered to be too broad. This was not confirmed by the officials at the EPO. It may take a long time for the final verdict to be given if IPCom decides to appeal against the current ruling.

Source : http://www.mobilebloom.com/nokia-and-htc-win-lawsuit-against-ipcom/2213139/

Patent Infringement | "Want to cut health care costs? Start here."

By :  Sarah Kliff
Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Every year, Americans pay $700 million more for cholesterol-lowering drugs than they need to. The reason? Abbott Laboratories. Abbott Labs is a pharmaceutical company based in Illinois. About a decade ago, in 2000, it faced a problem. The company had recently acquired exclusive rights to sell Tricor-1, a cholesterol-fighting drug. It was profitable, which was nice, but the best part was this: It was a name-brand drug and Abbott was the only company with rights to sell it.
Drug exclusivity does not, however, last forever: After a name-brand drug has five years on the U.S. market, generics are allowed to come in and compete. That’s what a generic pharmaceutical company wanted to do with Tricor-1. Novopharm submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration to produce a generic version of the drug.
That was bad news for Abbott Labs: With generics tending to sell at about 80 percent less than brand-name drugs, the new medication had the potential to seriously undercut its Tricor-1 business.
Abbott Labs was able to delay Novopharm by a bit, a story that health-care researchers recount in a recent Annals of Internal Medicine article. The company filed a patent infringement lawsuit that ate up some months, and in the meantime, they came up with Tricor-2. It looked a lot like Tricor-1 — same active ingredients, same uses, nearly the same name. But there was one hugely important difference: Dosage. Where Tricor-1 came in 67 and 134-milligram formulations, Tricor-2 would come in 54 and 160-milligram dosages.
By time Novopharm’s generic came onto the market, Abbott Labs had already rolled out Tricor-2 and made it doctors’ prescription of choice. Six months after its introduction onto the market, Tricor-2 accounted for 97 percent of all prescriptions for this type of medication, known as fenofibrates.
Over the past decade, this has happened two more times. Tricor-3 replaced Tricor-2. Abbott did get a little creative with the name this last time, replacing Tricor-3 with a different dosage branded Tripilix. “As soon as direct, generic competition seemed likely at the new dose level, where substitution would be allowed, Abbot would launch another reformulation, and the cycle would repeat,” Yale University’s Nicholas Downing and his co-authors write.
The cost implications of Abbott’s strategy are pretty big: The Annals of Internal Medicine estimates that, if the health-care system had come to rely on Novopharm’s generic medication, our health-care system would be saving $700 million every year. Overall, the use of generic drugs is estimated to save the country $158 billion annually, which breaks down to $3 billion a week.
Part of the blame, the researchers say, goes to doctors, who have predominantly stuck with Abbott’s brand-name drugs as their prescription of choice.
They call their findings “a cautionary tale for physicians, who must accept some responsibility for the continued use of branded [drugs].”
“Despite the availability of many generics during the past nine years, physicians have continued to prescribe Abbott’s more expensive formulations,” they write. “Which in December 2009 accounted for more than 75 percent of all prescriptions.”
Some of the issue has to do with the regulatory system, too. Each time Abbott Labs faced a new generic, it would launch a patent infringement lawsuit. Each time it did that, it would create a huge delay for the generic pharmaceutical company, as the FDA requires all applicants to have resolved any outstanding patent disputes before seeking approval.
The more fundamental question, though, is about whether the new dosages of brand-name drugs ought to get new exclusivity periods in the first place. The new Tricor dosages, after all, never showed improved outcomes for patients over previous formulations. Most of them didn’t require financing for new patient trials or testing. Without the new Tricors, we’d have the same outcomes – and $700 million each year in additional health-care spending.

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/want-to-cut-health-care-costs-start-here/2012/04/20/gIQA2P0NWT_blog.html

Patent Infringement | "Larry vs. Larry"

By : Paul Hartsock
Source : http://www.technewsworld.com
Category : Patent Infringement

San Francisco courtroom is presently the center ring in the worldwide tech IP litigation circus. While other legal battles over mobile device patents and copyrights are as down and dirty as ever in places like Germany, Australia, and elsewhere in the U.S., the fight between Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) over the alleged theft of Java technologies stands out due to its cast of characters. The plaintiff started things off with an appearance from Oracle CEO and virtuoso trash-talker Larry Ellison, and then Google CEO Larry Page took the stand in his company's defense.

The trial also stands out due to what's at stake: On the line is potentially the future of the smartphone industry, not to mention a billion-dollar damages claim leveled by Oracle. That's the amount the company maintains it's lost thanks to Google's allegedly illegal use of Java code. Oracle acquired the rights to Java when it bought up Sun Microsystems in 2010, and it says Google ripped off the technology in order to build parts of Android, its mobile operating system. Google says it did nothing of the sort.

What makes the case murky is that Java is freely distributed -- but users still must obtain a license. The Larry-on-Larry action kicked off Tuesday with testimony from Ellison, who's never short on words when given a public forum for criticizing his enemies. He told the court that Google is the only company he knows of that doesn't have a license for Java. He implied Google created a "cheap knockoff" of his company's product. Oracle's lawyers also produced emails exchanged between top Google staffers, including Page, back before Oracle bought Sun. In them they discussed whether Google should get a license for Java or just plow ahead without one and deal with the consequences.

But Ellison's past came back to bite him too. Google attorneys dug up a 2010 speech he gave to developers in which he said they should be flattered that Android used Java.

Apparently one of Team Google's goals is to convince the court that Oracle was a one-time wannabe player in the smartphone world, but it decided that making a phone or software would be too difficult, so instead it's using the lawsuit as a way to shake Google down for a bite of Android's profits. Ellison admitted on the stand that Oracle at one time considered buying RIM or Palm but never actually went through with it.

Next up was Google's Larry Page. Courtroom accounts state that his grilling had the CEO staring at the ceiling sometimes when asked about various conversations that supposedly took place. The phrases "I don't know" and "I don't recall" were frequently repeated. When the should-we-or-shouldn't-we-get-a-license email was brought up, he claimed not to remember the exchange and to barely remember the employee on the other end of it, Tim Lindholm. Sorry, Tim.

The trial could drag on at length, and that billion-dollar damages claim isn't the only thing at stake. An Oracle win would be a big shock to the system for the smartphone market -- Google might have to rebuild a huge chunk of Android to eliminate the offending code, or pay up for proper license agreements.

But regardless of whether Google successfully defends itself, the splashback may also hurt Oracle, depending on how much it cares about Java as a technology rather than as a basis for a huge lawsuit. The sight of Oracle releasing the hounds on Google could have a chilling effect on the use of Java in general. With this suit, Oracle's sending the message that now that it's in charge of Java, it intends to keep it under tight control -- and sue the pants off anyone who colors outside the lines.

Source : http://www.technewsworld.com/story/Larry-vs-Larry-74922.html

Patent Infringement | "In a Rigged Game, Twitter’s IPA Lets Developers Rewrite the Rules"

By : Andy Baio
Source : http://www.wired.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Last month, in response to Yahoo’s wrongheaded patent infringement lawsuit against Facebook, I wrote about my experience filing patents at Yahoo. Patents I helped to file, ostensibly only for defensive purposes, were turned into blunt weapons to thwart innovation and extort money.

As I said, “I thought I was giving them a shield, but turns out I gave them a missile with my name permanently engraved on it.”

Yesterday, Twitter announced their Innovator’s Patent Agreement, an open source contract intended to guarantee patents will only be used defensively, even when sold. The IPA seems to directly address the issues raised in my article. Adam Messinger, Twitter VP of Engineering, wrote that, “With the IPA, employees can be assured that their patents will be used only as a shield rather than as a weapon.”

Every one of Twitter’s existing patent filings, including Loren Brichter’s famous pull-to-refresh patent, will fall under this agreement later this year.

Still, the IPA isn’t perfect, and it needs work to protect the intentions of designers and engineers. Instapaper founder Marco Arment pointed out that the contract’s definition of “defensive” is overly broad, allowing an unethical company to initiate a lawsuit for a range of reasons without requiring the inventor’s permission.

Hypothetically, if Yahoo had adopted the IPA, would it have prevented them from later suing Facebook for patent infringement? Maybe not. Facebook’s threatened several startups over trademark name issues in the past, including Lamebook, Placebook, and Teachbook. If any of them were also users, customers or affiliates of Yahoo, then Yahoo could bypass the Patent Agreement and file a patent lawsuit. (Though, if they did, the inventors could choose to sublicense their patents directly to Facebook.)

These problems are correctable though, and Twitter should be commended for taking this important first step. In a deeply broken patent system, it’s heartening to see an established company proactively try to work around its flaws. I hope agreements like these find wide industry adoption.

But this isn’t a real fix. Union Square’s Fred Wilson dubbed it Twitter’s “Patent Hack,” and that’s exactly what it is — it’s duct tape to patch a broken system, but it doesn’t solve any of the underlying problems.

The ideal would be patent reform, or if the system’s beyond reform, the abolition of business method patents entirely.

Marco Arment wrote, “A truly innovative stance would be for a large technology company to avoid filing patents, and to lobby aggressively for progressive patent reform to make that a practical choice for every technology company.”

Like I did last month, Marco vowed not to file any patents. “I fundamentally disagree that software patents (and many other types of patents) are a net gain for society, and I can’t participate in that system in good conscience.”

After all, if you only use them defensively, why do you need patents at all? Publish your work and establish prior art.

Sadly, prior art only works in an ideal world. As we’ve seen, the U.S. patent office routinely grants patents even when prior art exists. The recently passed reforms to the patent system, switching from a first-to-invent to a first-to-file system, make this more likely than ever.

For the moment, avoiding patents entirely isn’t a realistic legal strategy for large companies. Maintaining a patent arsenal won’t ward off shell company-style patent trolls, but it can protect you from competitors by allowing cross-licensing settlements. But all of that feeds into the “cold war” mentality of stockpiling patents you never hope to use.

Until we have real reform or abolition, ethical tech companies are forced to play the patent game, but at least engineers and designers now have a way to rewrite the rules in their favor.

Source : http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2012/04/opinion-baio-twitter-patents/

Patent Infringement | "SafeZone Safety Systems and Alford Safety Services Resolve Patent Infringement Lawsuit"

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

NEW ORLEANS and BATON ROUGE, La., April 18, 2012 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Jones Walker LLP, on behalf of its client, SafeZone Safety Systems, LLC, today made the following announcement.

SafeZone Safety Systems, LLC and Alford Safety Services, Inc. have announced a resolution of their patent infringement lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The lawsuit involved issues related to SafeZone's use of safe welding enclosure systems, which are occasionally referred to by others in the industry as "welding (or "hot work") habitats," "pressurized welding enclosures" or "positive pressure welding enclosures."

Under the terms of the settlement, SafeZone can continue using certain safe welding enclosure systems without making any payments to Alford and can use those certain systems without worry that SafeZone or its customers will be sued for infringement of Alford's patents.

SafeZone acknowledged that Alford's U.S. Pat. No. 6,783,054 is valid and enforceable in view of the prior art.

Additionally, under the terms of the settlement SafeZone has the option to operate under a royalty bearing license to Alford's patents should the need ever arise.

Both companies have agreed to keep certain details of the settlement confidential.

SafeZone is represented by Robert C. Tucker and Chad A. Grand of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre  L.L.P. Alford is represented by Raymond G. Areaux and Ian C. Barras of Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux L.L.C.

Source : http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/18/4422829/safezone-safety-systems-and-alford.html

Patent Infringement | "CTS Continues Its Patent Infringement Litigation with TK Holdings, Inc. (Takata)"

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

ELKHART, Ind., Apr 18, 2012 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- CTS Corporation CTS -0.83%  today announced that it is continuing its 2007 patent infringement litigation against TK Holdings, Inc. (Takata) in the U.S. District Court in Detroit, Michigan. CTS originally put Takata on notice of patent infringement in late 2005. From then to present, Takata has sold products, estimated to exceed $100 million, which CTS believes are covered by several of CTS' vehicle occupant seat weight sensor patents. An estimate of the typical royalties for intellectual property use/infringement, for these types of products, range from about 3% - 5%.

During 2010, the Court issued an order adopting CTS' interpretation of the claims of two of CTS' patents. Fact discovery and depositions were completed in March 2012. A patent claim interpretation hearing is scheduled in May 2012 and is expected to be followed by scheduling orders for expert discovery and potential trial, if no settlement between parties is reached.

CTS places a high value on its intellectual property and will continue to take all steps necessary to protect and defend its position in the litigation.

About CTS CTS is a leading designer and manufacturer of electronic components and sensors and a provider of electronics manufacturing services (EMS) to OEMs in the automotive, communications, medical, defense and aerospace, industrial and computer markets. CTS manufactures products in North America, Europe and Asia. CTS' stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol "CTS." To find out more, visit the CTS Web site at www.ctscorp.com .

Safe Harbor Statement This press release contains statements that are, or may be deemed to be, forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, any financial or other guidance, statements that reflect our current expectations concerning future results and events and any other statements that are not based solely on historical fact. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date hereof and are based on various assumptions as to future events, the occurrence of which necessarily are subject to uncertainties. These forward-looking statements are made subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those presented in the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: changes in the economy generally and in respect to the businesses in which CTS operates; unanticipated issues in integrating acquisitions; rapid technological change; general market conditions in the automotive, communications and computer industries, as well as conditions in the industrial, defense and aerospace and medical markets; reliance on key customers; unanticipated natural or other events such as the Japan earthquake and floods in Thailand; the ability to protect our intellectual property; pricing pressures and demand for our products; and risks associated with our international operations, including trade and tariff barriers, exchange rates and political and geographical risks. For more detailed information on the risks and uncertainties associated with CTS' business, see the reports CTS files with the SEC available at http://www.ctscorp.com/investor_relations/investor.htm . CTS undertakes no obligation to publicly update its forward-looking statements to reflect new information or events or circumstances that arise after the date hereof, including market or industry changes.

Source : http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cts-continues-its-patent-infringement-litigation-with-tk-holdings-inc-takata-2012-04-18

Patent Infringement | "Acushnet Co. and Callaway Golf settle patent differences out of court"

By : CHARIS ANDERSON
Source : http://www.southcoasttoday.com
Category : Patent Infringement

After years of legal wrangling, Acushnet Co. and Callaway Golf have resolved their differences out of court, agreeing to a settlement of all pending litigation and disputes.

The settlement comes more than six years after the companies first faced off over patent-infringement concerns.

Details of the settlement are confidential but no money changed hands, according to a statement released by Acushnet Co.

Each company will have specified rights to make golf balls and club products under patents owned by the other company, according to the statement.

Acushnet Co., which manufactures the hugely successful Pro V1 line of golf balls, is one of SouthCoast's largest employers with about 1,800 people in its Titleist/Foot Joy division, which is headquartered in Fairhaven.

The conflict between the companies dates to January 2006, when Acushnet Co. filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for a reexamination of four golf-ball patents that are owned by Callaway, a Carlsbad, Calif.-based company.

Callaway countered a month later with a patent-infringement lawsuit against Acushnet Co.

The patents in question involve technological breakthroughs in producing multilayer, solid-core golf balls.

The re-examination and the lawsuit proceeded on parallel tracks for a number of years.

Last year, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed Acushnet Co.'s contention that the four patents were invalid, a ruling that was followed about six weeks later by a judgment in favor of Acushnet Co. in Delaware's U.S. District Court.

Callaway appealed that judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, according to court records.

The settlement announced last week resolves the golf ball suits and other disputes between the parties, according to a statement.

Source : http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120418/NEWS05/204180319/1018/OPINION

Patent Infringement | "Patent Assistance Worldwide Highlights Patent Complexity in T-Mobile Lawsuit"

By : PRWeb
Source : http://www.prweb.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Becoming successful in a technology-related field obviously requires a great degree of technical and scientific expertise, as well as creativity and bold marketing. Yet these are only a handful of the many qualities it takes for technological success, a lesson recently learned by T-Mobile. According to PC Magazine, the cell phone carrier has been served with a lawsuit from an Israeli firm, alleging copyright infringement. A company called Patent Assistance Worldwide, meanwhile, has issued a statement, saying the T-Mobile case highlights not only the complexity of patent law, but also the need for inventors to seek the very best in legal assistance.
According to PC Magazine, the suit against T-Mobile is concerned with the near field communication (NFC) technology used in the carrier’s smartphones. The Israeli tech firm, called On Track Innovations, says T-Mobile’s technology infringes on one of their own patents. The case is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-CV-2224.
Meanwhile, Patent Assistance Worldwide spokesman Mark Fallows says this case is an example of how badly things can go afoul in technology-related fields. “Patent infringement suits like this one are sadly commonplace in technology-related fields,” notes Fallows. “What’s more, they are often rather difficult to sort through. The technology itself can be very complex, and judging whether one piece of technology truly overlaps with another is a laborious process.”
It is precisely because of this high level of complexity that Fallows says inventors ought to seek the very best patent attorneys. But while many patent attorneys come with high price tags, Fallows says his company can help inventors save money. “Patent Assistance Worldwide is not a law firm, but rather it is a clearinghouse of legal services,” he explains. “We can get inventors in touch with excellent lawyers, often at a much discounted rate. It’s an affordable way to see that an inventor’s intellectual property rights are upheld to the full extent the law will allow.”
Fallows goes on to say that filing the proper patent paperwork on the front end is the best way to reduce the odds of these infringement suits down the line. “For inventors zealous for protecting what is rightfully theirs, contacting an attorney to help with the initial filing for a patent is the best way to go,” he confirms.
And his company offers many other services, too. Patent Assistance Worldwide offers everything from professional illustrations to patent search assistance, research and documentation help, and licensing negotiation. According to Fallows, the company’s basic goal is simply to help inventors make money off their brilliant ideas. “What we hope to see is inventors prospering off of their innovations, with our help,” he concludes.
ABOUT:
Patent Assistance Worldwide is a clearinghouse of services geared toward inventors seeking to protect or market their intellectual property. The company places clients in touch with professional illustrators, patent researchers, and patent attorneys, and typically offers inventors more affordable rates than traditional legal firms can offer. More information about Patent Assistance Worldwide can be found at http://www.patents4ideas.com.

Source : http://www.prweb.com/releases/PatentAssistanceWorldwide/04/prweb9407320.htm

Patent Infringement | "Düsseldorf Court Finds Harvatek Infringes Nichia's YAG Patent"

By : PR NEWSWIRE
Source : http://www.sys-con.com
Category : Patent Infringement


On March 29, 2012 (the written judgment was served in early April 2012), in the patent infringement lawsuits in Germany at the District Court Düsseldorf which Nichia Corporation ("Nichia") filed against Harvatek Corporation ("Harvatek") and the German distributors MSC Microcomputers Systems Components Vertriebs GmbH, "Gleichmann & Co." Electronics GmbH and Glyn Jones GmbH & Co. Vertrieb von elektronischen Bauelementen KG, the court found with judgments of the same day that Harvatek and said distributors infringe Nichia's patent EP 936 682 (DE 697 02 929) (hereinafter called "YAG patent") concerning the accused white LED products.

The court rendered judgments, although they are not final and can be appealed by the respective losing party, in favor of Nichia's claims for permanent injunction, rendering account and damages. In the cases against the distributors, the court furthermore confirmed the recall of the accused products from their commercial customers.

The court found in respect of Harvatek Corporation that all accused products, four different white LED products (serial numbers: HT-V116TW, HT-U158TW, HT-P178 TWU-PQPS-DG and HT-T169 TW) manufactured by Harvatek, infringe claim 1 of the YAG patent, combining YAG based phosphor with GaN based blue LED. With regard to the German distributors, only the products HT-V116TW and HT-U158TW were accused and found to be infringing by the court.

Nichia believes that this judgment is of utmost importance for the white LED business in general.
Nichia seeks to protect its patents and other intellectual property rights and takes actions against alleged infringers in any country where appropriate and necessary.

Source : http://www.sys-con.com/node/2249530

Patent Infringement | "Mitek Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against USAA"

By : Bryan Yurcan
Source : http://www.banktech.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Mobile imaging software solutions provider Mitek Systems has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against San Antonio, Texas-based USAA pertaining to mobile RDC.

The legal action by San Diego-based Mitek comes after USAA filed a lawsuit alleging that Mitek had appropriated USAA mobile RDC technology.

[Related Content: Fiserv Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against FIS]
A Mitek statement claimed that "USAA infringes five Mitek patents relating to image capture on mobile devices, that USAA breached the parties' license agreement by using Mitek products beyond the scope of the agreed-upon license terms, and that USAA breached the parties' license agreement by disclosing confidential pricing and other confidential information for a Mitek legacy product installation."
In its lawsuit, USAA's claims against Mitek include "misappropriation of USAA's proprietary information", breach of contract and fraud.

The Larger RDC Market

Generally speaking, the USAA-Mitek imbroglio will likely not hinder the RDC market as a whole, says Celent senior analyst Bob Meara.

Meara recalls the case of DataTreasury, a Plano, Texas company that held several patents pertaining to check imaging and infamously engaged in a number of patent infringement lawsuits against financial institutions and vendors who had technology and processes related to the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, better known as Check 21.

Meara notes that those legal actions slowed the Check 21 product market as many banks were concerned about the threat of legal action from DataTreasury, and some vendors settled with them before offering a solution for the ability to indemnify their clients from potential legal action.

However, Meara says the mobile RDC market is a bit different because "the product is pretty well-honed already."

Source : http://www.banktech.com/management-strategies/232900340

Patent Infringement | "HYDRAPAK PREVAILS IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT LAWSUIT"

By : Jamie Magyar
Source : http://business.transworld.net
Category : Patent Infringement

Hydrapak, a global supplier of active-lifestyle, hands-free hydration equipment, has been granted a summary judgment of non-infringement in a lawsuit filed by Source Vagabond Systems in August of 2011. In addition to the lawsuit being dismissed in its entirety, the associated motion for Rule 11 Sanctions against Source Vagabond Systems, a company also specializing in hydration technology, was also granted.

“We feel passionately about our intellectual property and innovation efforts, and the findings of the United States District Court are validation of our work,” said Matt Lyon, CEO of Hydrapak. “We are glad to put this lawsuit behind us and continue to do what we do best; provide superior hydration systems for Hydrapak’s enthusiasts around the globe.”

Read on for the details:

Oakland, California – Judge Coleen McMahon stated in her decision, “The Court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint because defendant’s product does not infringe plaintiff’s patent.” In granting the motion to award sanctions, Judge McMahon of the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, noted that while “I and so many of my colleagues bridle at the flood of Rule 11 motions that arrive on our doorsteps,” in this case the sanctions were warranted because “this case is simply not close on the merits.” The hearing to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded to Hydrapak has been referred to the Hon. James L. Cott, United States Magisrate Judge.

The lawsuit, which contended that the top closure system used in Hydrapak’s Reversible Reservoir II infringed upon Source Vagabond’s patent, was found to be invalid and was dismissed. In fact, Hydrapak last year was awarded its own patent on its unique and novel closure method.

Source : http://business.transworld.net/95317/news/hydrapak-prevails-in-patent-infringement-lawsuit/

Patent Infringement | "Oracle v. Google: What's at stake"

By : Rachel King
Source : http://www.zdnet.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Summary: Oracle and Google are finally going to trial after two years of litigation, but what’s really at stake here for these two Silicon Valley giants?

Oracle’s patent infringement lawsuit against Google is finally set to go to trial at the U.S. District Court in San Francisco today, but there are certainly plenty of questions looming as to where this will end up.

The fact that these two Silicon Valley giants will finally have a trial underway is fairly incredible (and slightly unbelievable) given how much back-and-forth there has been over the last two years since Oracle initially filed suit in August 2010.

Since then, there have been numerous delays with potential start dates assigned for October 2011, January 2012, and March 2012. It was only just last month that April 16 was given the green light. That date was solidified once the last-ditch effort for another round of settlement talks fell through.

One of the biggest hurdles for getting this trial underway is that these two companies just can’t even seem to agree upon on what they’re fighting over.

Yes, it’s clear that Oracle is suing Google over patent violations involving Android and Java — patents that used to be owned by Sun Microsystems but now belong to Oracle. Google reasserts time and again that Sun was a big supporter of Android, and that the programming language was free to use.

To clarify matters before going into trial, Judge William H. Alsup issued an order on April 6 asking each side to “take a firm yes or no position on whether computer programming languages are copyrightable.”

But Oracle has also repeatedly failed to pinpoint and narrow down which patents being violated. Furthermore, it hasn’t helped that settlement talks have continuously stalled proceedings. Even dragging in Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Google CEO Larry Page didn’t do any good.

The big debate going into the trial is what is at stake here for Oracle and Google. Even more to the point: How much money is Oracle going to win, and will it get a cut of Android revenue going forward?

It’s all but said and done that Oracle is going to have some kind of pay day. During a court hearing last July, Judge Alsup admitted that Google is definitely going to pay up “probably in the millions, maybe in the billions” at some point.

Last September, Oracle wanted at least $1.16 billion in damages from Google, which is considerably less than the $6.1 billion it was asking for in July. Yet some followers of the cast have said that Oracle would be lucky to extract even $100 million in this intellectual property suit.

Likely accepting that some sort of defeat is inevitable, Google did put one offer on the table a few weeks ago. Google offered to pay Oracle up to $2.8 million in damages over two patents in question. Furthermore, Google also offered a deal of 0.5 percent from Android revenue for one patent through December 2012 and 0.015 percent on a second patent through April 2018.

However, that bargain would only be offered as a stipulation for damages if (and only if) Oracle prevails on patent infringement. Oracle rebuffed the deal anyway.

Whatever Oracle ends up with (or not), we should know relatively soon as the trial is only expected to last eight weeks — an incredibly short time when you put all of these other proceedings into perspective.

Source : http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/oracle-v-google-whats-at-stake/74144

Patent Infringement | "Looking Ahead to Economic Reports This Week"

By : The New York Times
Source : http://www.nytimes.com
Category : Patent Infringement

ECONOMIC REPORTS Data will include retail sales for March and business inventories for February (Monday); housing starts and industrial production for March (Tuesday); weekly jobless claims, home resales for March, leading economic indicators for March, and the Philadelphia Fed index (Thursday).

CORPORATE EARNINGS Companies scheduled to report results include Citigroup, Gannett, Mattel and Charles Schwab (Monday); Coca-Cola, Goldman Sachs, Johnson & Johnson, State Street, TD Ameritrade, I.B.M., Intel and Yahoo (Tuesday); Abbott Laboratories, Bank of New York Mellon, BlackRock, Halliburton, St. Jude Medical, American Express, eBay, Qualcomm and Yum Brands (Wednesday); Bank of America, Blackstone, Boston Scientific, DuPont, Morgan Stanley, The New York Times, Nokia, Southwest Airlines, UnitedHealth, Verizon Communications, Advanced Micro Devices, E*Trade Financial and Microsoft (Thursday); and General Electric, Honeywell, Kimberly-Clark, McDonald’s and Schlumberger (Friday).

IN THE UNITED STATES On Monday, Oracle’s patent-infringement suit against Google is expected to begin in San Francisco; a House Financial Services subcommittee will conduct a field hearing in Cleveland about the challenges facing community financial institutions in Ohio; and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will conduct a hearing about spending at the General Services Administration.

On Tuesday, a House transportation subcommittee will conduct a hearing about spending at the General Services Administration; and the Senate banking committee will conduct a hearing about reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.

On Wednesday, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, will speak at the Bertelsmann Foundation in Washington.

On Friday through Sunday, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will have their spring meetings in Washington.

OVERSEAS On Monday, the World Bank is expected to choose its next president.

On Tuesday, the I.M.F. will release a report on its outlook for world economic growth, and the central banks of India and Canada will make decisions about interest rates.

On Wednesday, the I.M.F. will issue a report on global financial stability.

On Thursday and Friday, trade ministers of the Group of 20 will meet in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

Source : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/business/economic-reports-for-the-week-of-april-16.html

Patent Infringement | "Apple granted permission to intervene in Lodsys lawsuit"

By : Ashleigh Allsopp
Source : http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk
Category : Patent Infringement

Almost a year after Lodsys began sending legal threats to iOS app developers alleging patent infringement, Apple has been granted permission to intervene in the lawsuit. In June 2011, Apple filed a motion to intervene in Lodsys' lawsuit. On Thursday, patent expert Florian Mueller reported on his blog that the Court has, at last, granted Apple permission.

"Apple is permitted to intervene in this suit, but such intervention is limited to the issues of patent exhaustion and licensing," concluded Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

When several iOS app developers first received threats from Lodsys in May 2011, they were accused of infringing on four patents that deal with online help, subscription renewals, in-app purchasing, and interactive online advertisements. The developers reached out to Apple for legal advice, and Apple backed them, saying that its existing license for patents covering in-app purchases applies to all iOS app makers as well.
"Apple is undisputedly licensed to these patents and the Apple App Makers are protected by that license. There is no basis for Lodsys' infringement allegations against Apple's App Makers," wrote senior vice president and general counsel Bruce Sewell, in a letter sent to Lodsys shortly after the accusations were made last year.

Despite this, Lodsys filed a suit against seven developers on 31 May 2011 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The company seemed sure of its position, and even promised that it will pay $1000 to any developer that it has accused of infringement if it is determined that Apple's license cover third-party developers.

Apple's motion to intervene came as a result of Lodsys lawsuit. Apple said that it was seeking the judge's approval for the company "to intervene as a defendant and counterclaim [Lodsys]...because [Apple] is expressly licensed to provide to [App Store developers] products and services that embody the patents in suit, free from claims of infringement of those patents." Apple alleged that "both Lodsys' complaint and its threats to other Apple developers adversely affect the value of Apple's license [to the patents' and its business with developers."

Source : http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/mobile-phone/3351187/apple-granted-permission-intervene-in-lodsys-lawsuit/

Patent Infringement | "e.Digital Patent Reexamination Update"

By: Press Release
Source: http://www.marketwatch.com
Category: Patent Infringement

SAN DIEGO, CA, Apr 04, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- e.Digital Corporation EDIG +37.25% , a leading innovator of dedicated portable entertainment systems and patented flash memory-related technology, today reported that it will request amendment of its patent US 5,491,774 in response to a rejection of certain claims from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which was recently received. As is customary, e.Digital expects to incorporate modifications to certain rejected claims while leaving a majority of US 5,491,774 claims unchanged. The Company expects, but cannot assure, that the planned modifications will overcome the rejection and further believes the modifications could clarify and strengthen its ability to enforce future infringement of US 5,491,774.

A copy of the USPTO action, "Reexam-Final Rejection," can be found on the USPTO Public PAIR website, http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair , by referencing application number 90/011,302.

About e.Digital Corporation: For more than 20 years, e.Digital's ideas and inventions have impacted the evolution of consumer products. Today, e.Digital innovations, including its Flash-R(TM) portfolio of flash memory-related patents, are essential to many portable consumer electronic products. The Company pioneered dedicated portable in-flight entertainment systems and more than 30 airlines have made e.Digital powered products their in-flight entertainment choice. For more information about e.Digital, please visit: www.edigital.com .

Safe Harbor statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform of 1995: All statements made in this document, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act. You should not place undue reliance on these statements. We base these statements on particular assumptions that we have made in light of our industry experience, the stage of product and market development, expected future developments and other factors that we believe are appropriate under the circumstances. These forward-looking statements are based on the then-current expectations, beliefs, assumptions, estimates and forecasts about the businesses of the Company and the industries and markets in which the Company operates. Actual outcomes and results may differ materially from what is expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. More information about potential factors that could affect the Company can be found in its most recent Form 10-K, Form 10-Q and other reports and statements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). e.Digital Corporation disclaims any intent or obligation to update these or any forward-looking statements, except as otherwise specifically stated by it.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/edigital-patent-reexamination-update-2012-04-04

Patent Infringement | "'Round the Turn They're A-Comin'! The Wild Patent Enforcement Ride of Marine Polymer v. HemCon"

By: Bracewell & Giuliani
Source: http://www.jdsupra.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Problems arise when you suddenly realize that you have prepared for one type of race and you find yourself in the middle of a completely different type of competition. Those involved in patent infringement cases analogize the process to running a marathon. Marine Polymer Technologies (Marine Polymer) and HemCon Medical (HemCon) prepared for a marathon; however, they instead found themselves for most of 2011 until March of this year in something akin to a wild chuck-wagon race at the Federal Circuit rodeo roundup.

The two companies are pushing, jostling and jockeying their horse teams over the right to practice a biomedical polymer technology useful to promote hemostasis, which is used to stop bleeding. Marine Polymer received a patent on this biomedical polymer technology in 2005 bearing 22 claims. The focus of much of the dispute relates to two matters: 1) the meaning of the term "biocompatible", which all the claims either use or reference; and 2) whether intervening rights arise in claims that are not amended during reexamination but the scope of which is possibly narrowed through reexamination argument.

Please see full article below for more information.

Source: http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=714eff31-be9f-4025-b51c-6f3c76e6aeeb

Patent Infringement | "Teva Sues Synthon Over Generic Multiple Sclerosis Drug"

By: Don Jeffrey
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com
Category: Patent Infringement
 
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (TEVA) sued Synthon BV for infringing seven patents in planning to sell a generic version of the multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone before Teva’s patents expire.

Teva, based in Petach Tikva, Israel, said it licensed the patents from Yeda Research & Development Co., according to the lawsuit filed yesterday in federal court in New York.

Copaxone, used to reduce the frequency of relapses in multiple sclerosis patients, generated sales of $3.9 billion in 2011. Synthon filed an application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval of a generic version of the drug, according to the complaint.

“Defendants plan to begin manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering to sell and/or importing Synthon’s generic glatiramer acetate product soon after FDA approval,” Teva said in the complaint. “Such conduct will constitute direct infringement.”

Closely held Synthon, based in Nijmegen, Netherlands, filed a document with the FDA stating that Teva’s patent claims are invalid or unenforceable and that Synthon’s drug wouldn’t infringe them, Teva said.

Fabienne Douven, a Synthon spokeswoman, said in an e-mail that the company would fight the suit.
‘Affordable and Accessible’

“We are committed to developing a generic alternative to Copaxone, to make this RRMS treatment, with a current high cost of around $40,000 per year for U.S. patients, more affordable and accessible,” she said, referring to relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

Teva has also sued Sandoz AG and other drug companies over Copaxone.

Yeda Research, based in Rehovot, Israel, markets and licenses developments from the laboratories at the Weizman Institute of Science, according to the complaint.

The case is Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals Inc., 12-2556, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-04/teva-sues-synthon-over-generic-multiple-sclerosis-drug.html

Patent Infringement | "DuPont and Star file court action"

By: Julian Milnes
Source: http://www.racplus.com
Category: Patent Infringement

DuPont and Star Refrigeration are filing legal action over alleged patent infringement against a major manufacturer.

DuPont and Star Refrigeration have announced that they have filed legal action in Spain alleging patent infringement against a major refrigerant manufacturer and its distributor.

Star Refrigeration owns patents in Spain covering R-422D and other non-ozone-depleting refrigerants broadly used to retrofit and service commercial refrigeration and building air conditioning equipment.

DuPont is the sole licensee of Star Refrigeration for these patents, and markets R-422D as DuPont ISCEON MO29. ISCEON MO29 is part of the DuPont ISCEON family of non-ozone-depleting retrofit refrigerants.

These refrigerants have become the leading choice in Europe to enable equipment owners to continue to operate equipment designed for HCFC-22 refrigerant despite the ban of virgin HCFC-22 for service in the European Union.

“DuPont and Star Refrigeration have secured evidence that we believe will support their allegation of patent infringement regarding certain retrofit refrigerants put on the market in Spain,” said Greg Rubin, global business manager – DuPont Refrigerants.

“We are pursuing strong action to stop any infringement of our intellectual property in the Spanish market. Enforcement of refrigerant IP rights provides customers the assurance of continued access to safe, high quality and lawfully sourced refrigerants from reliable and reputable suppliers.”

“DuPont is committed to protecting intellectual property for refrigerants such as DuPont ISCEON MO29,” added Rubin.

“The protection of intellectual property is critical to ensuring our continued investment in new technologies and products for the cooling marketplace.”

Source: http://www.racplus.com/news/dupont-and-star-file-court-action/8628866.article

Patent Infringement | "RIM sued by NXP for patent infringement"

By: Jonathan Stempel and Alastair Sharp
Source: http://www.ciol.com
Category: Patent Infringement

PlayBookNEW YORK, USA: A Dutch semiconductor company said on Tuesday it had filed a patent infringement suit against Research In Motion Ltd, adding to the BlackBerry maker's troubles and sending its shares tumbling.

An affiliate of NXP Semiconductors NV alleges that versions of RIM's BlackBerry phone and PlayBook tablet infringed on patents issued to it between 1997 and 2008. The patents in question relate to design, data transmission and other features of the devices.

NXP demands a halt to the alleged infringements and seeks to recover what it claims as lost profit, reasonable royalties and triple damages for willful infringements.

It has not specified a dollar amount it is seeking from the struggling smartphone maker, whose share price has dropped about 80 per cent in the past year as its market share has eroded.

"It's a lawsuit aimed at extracting some money from RIM at a time when RIM is most vulnerable," said Alex Poltorak of General Patent Corp, a firm that provides patent consulting.

RIM is no stranger to patent litigation. It was almost brought to its knees by a five-year patent fight that began in 2001 and at one point threatened to shut down RIM's U.S. operations. RIM eventually paid out more than $600 million to NTP Inc, a patent holding company, to settle the case.

NXP filed its lawsuit on Monday in the U.S. District Court in Orlando, Florida. RIM plans to hold its annual BlackBerry World conference there in early May.

A RIM spokeswoman declined to comment on Tuesday, citing the Canadian company's policy of not discussing litigation.

Litigation has become a major weapon in a global patent war being waged among makers of mobile phones, tablet computers and their operating software in a market worth billions of dollars.

Apple, Microsoft, Oracle and numerous hardware companies using Google's Android software are locked in court battles over patents aimed at extracting licensing fees from their rivals.

RIM teamed up with Apple, Microsoft and others to outbid Google for a trove of patents sold last year by bankrupt network equipment company Nortel Networks. Google later bought Motorola Mobility in a move many suggested was a play for its patents.

Source: http://www.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/RIM-sued-by-NXP-for-patent-infringement/162042/0/

Patent Infringement | "Now Facebook accuses Yahoo of patent infringement "

By: Dan Levine and Alexei Oreskovic
Source: http://www.ciol.com
Category: Patent Infringement
FacebookSAN FRANCISCO, USA: Facebook fired back on Tuesday in its legal battle with Yahoo by accusing the Web pioneer of infringing 10 of Facebook's patents, according to a court filing.

The counterclaim from Facebook, filed in a San Francisco federal court, comes after Yahoo sued Facebook for patent infringement last month.

The dueling claims mark an expanding web of patent litigation that has already caught up the smartphone and tablet sectors and high-tech stalwarts such as Apple Inc, Microsoft Corp and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.

Yahoo's lawsuit against Facebook came at a delicate time, as the world's largest Internet social networking service is preparing for an initial public offering that could value the company at up to $100 billion.

Also read: Yahoo sues Facebook for infringing 10 patents

Observers have said that companies are usually more vulnerable to patent suits when they are in the IPO process, as investors scrutinize the risks involved in the business.

But Facebook's counterclaim comes as Yahoo addresses its own challenges: the Web pioneer has seen declining revenue, and newly installed Chief Executive Scott Thompson is facing a contentious proxy fight with activist hedge fund Third Point.

Yahoo spokesman Eric Berman said Facebook's counterclaim is "nothing more than a cynical attempt to distract from the weakness of its defense."

Five of the patents asserted by Facebook target features related to Yahoo's online advertising business, which Facebook pegged at 80 percent of Yahoo's 2011 revenue, according to the counterclaim.

Yahoo's Flickr photo sharing service infringed various Facebook patents involving the ability to connect with other users on the online service, to identify people in a photo and to generate personalized news feeds, according to the filing.

At least one of the patents asserted by Facebook -- a method for tagging digital media -- lists its chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, as one of the inventors, according to a U.S. government database.

Facebook General Counsel Ted Ullyot said the company had indicated that it would defend itself vigorously in the face of Yahoo's lawsuit.

"While we are asserting patent claims of our own, we do so in response to Yahoo's short-sighted decision to attack one of its partners and prioritize litigation over innovation," Ullyot said in a statement.

Yahoo has claimed Facebook infringed 10 of Yahoo's patents, including several that cover online advertising technology. In its lawsuit, Yahoo said Facebook was considered "one of the worst performing sites for advertising" prior to adapting Yahoo's ideas.

Yahoo shares fell 2.4 per cent to $15.09 in afternoon trading on Tuesday.

Source: http://www.ciol.com/Global-News/News-Reports/Now-Facebook-accuses-Yahoo-of-patent-infringement/162046/0/

Patent Infringement | "Oracle Culls Google Attempt for Settlement of Java Patent Infringement"

By: Francis Rey
Source: http://socialbarrel.com
Category: Patent News

Legal haggling continues to ensue between Google and Oracle in seemingly hopeless efforts for settlement to avoid a face-off before a jury in their on-going patent infringement case.

Prior to an upcoming trial in April over Oracle’s claims of Java patent infringements by Google’s Android operating system, Google offered Oracle $3 million in damages, plus a portion of Android revenues in an effort to reach somewhat amicable settlement.

The trial is set to start next month in a San Francisco trial court.

Google has offered Oracle less than 1 percent of revenues from the Android platform, but Oracle already rejected the offer, according to reports citing a court document filed last Tuesday. The North California-based software business titan deemed the offer being too low. In July of last year, Oracle reportedly intended to receive billions in damages.

“Oracle cannot agree to Google’s proposal that Oracle waive its constitutional right to a jury trial,” said Oracle lawyers in a formal response filed to United States District Court Judge William Alsup, seen by the AFP. “Although there are issues for the Court to decide, there are substantial questions for the jury as well.”

Both parties declined to release further comments.

Oracle filed the original suit for patent infringement against Google last August 2010, with claims that Google “knowingly, directly and repeatedly infringed Oracle’s Java-related intellectual property” and sought “appropriate remedies”.

The main technology taking the spotlight is the Dalvik machine used in Android.

Google had a major hitch in its altercation with Oracle in February when the United States Court of Appeal in Washington ruled that one of Google’s internal emails could be smoking gun in favour of Oracle.

The email written by Tim Lindholm, a software engineer at Google, to his superiors on August 2010, suggested that Google had no choice other than to start licensing Java as no other technologies were applicable for use within Android and Chrome.

Google denies the patent infringement accusations and argues that Android had permission to use Java technology when it was under the ownership and development of Sun Microsystems, citing that the technology was intentionally for open-source.

Google asserts that Sun Microsystems, the software developer acquired by Oracle in April 2009, had declared that Java would be open-source and any software developer would be able to use it, thereby releasing some of its source code in 2006 and 2007, which was way before the acquisition.

Oracle completed the acquisition of one-time Silicon Valley star Sun Microsystems in January 2010 and filed suit against Google shortly after.

 Source: http://socialbarrel.com/oracle-culls-google-attempt-for-settlement-of-java-patent-infringement/34888/

Patent Infringement | "Align: ITC To Open Patent-Infringement Investigation Into ClearCorrect"

By: Ben Fox Rubin, Dow Jones
Source: http://online.wsj.com
Category: Patent News

Align Technology Inc. (ALGN) said the U.S. International Trade Commission agreed to investigate allegations of patent infringement by rival clear-braces provider ClearCorrect Operating LLC and ClearCorrect Pakistan Ltd., based on Align's complaint filed last month.

Align, maker of the Invisalign teeth aligners, alleged that ClearCorrect infringed seven Align patents related to methods for planning and implementing orthodontic treatment using aligners.

The ClearCorrect businesses are located in Houston and Pakistan. A ClearCorrect representative wasn't immediately available for comment.

Align's revenue has climbed over the past year as the company begins to integrate its brand-name Invisalign orthodontics products with other tools and procedures used by doctors. The company toward that end acquired privately held Cadent Holdings Inc., a provider of 3D digital scanners for orthodontics and dentistry, for $190 million in cash.

In January, Align said its fourth-quarter profit more than doubled as shipments of its Invisalign braces continued to climb.

Align's shares closed Monday at $28.70 and were inactive after hours. The stock is up 21% year-to-date.

 Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120402-716374.html

Patent Infringement | "General Patent Corporation Settles Patent Infringement Lawsuit with Zoolert"

By: Suffern, N.Y.
Source: http://www.virtual-strategy.com
Category: Patent News

General Patent Corporation’s subsidiary, Data Distribution Technologies LLC, settled a patent infringement lawsuit with Zoolert LLC, with Zoolert taking a license for Data Distribution Technologies’ patent and paying a 1% royalty.

Suffern, N.Y. (PRWEB) April 03, 2012

General Patent Corporation (GPC), a leading patent licensing and enforcement firm, announced today on behalf of its subsidiary, Data Distribution Technologies LLC (DDT), that it settled a patent infringement lawsuit with Zoolert LLC of Langhorne, Penn., operator of zooLert.com. Zoolert is the first website operator to license the patent from DDT. Under the license agreement, Zoolert will pay a 1% royalty.

This settlement resolves Data Distribution Technologies LLC v. Zoolert LLC (7:2011cv09653) filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in December 2011.

“We are pleased to license the DDT patent to Zoolert,” said Anthony Amaral, Chief IP Counsel of General Patent Corporation. “This license resolves one of three lawsuits we filed for infringement of this patent.”

The patent-at-suit is U.S. Patent No. 6,529,908 titled “Web-Updated Database with Record Distribution by Email.”

About General Patent Corporation
General Patent Corporation, headquartered in Suffern, N.Y., is a leading intellectual property boutique focusing on patent licensing and enforcement. GPC represents inventors, businesses, universities and other patent owners in patent assertion matters by managing and financing patent litigation on a contingency basis. GPC is the oldest patent enforcement firm in the U.S. Founded in 1987, General Patent is celebrating its 25th Anniversary in 2012. GPC is the managing member of Data Distribution Technologies LLC. For more information, visit http://www.generalpatent.com.

About Data Distribution Technologies LLC
Data Distribution Technologies LLC is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,529,908 titled “Web-Updated Database with Record Distribution by Email.”
DDT is a client and subsidiary of – and is managed by – General Patent Corporation. A non-exclusive license under this patent is available on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. For licensing terms, please contact GPC’s Director of Licensing, Kathlene Ingham, at (845) 368-4000 x107. For more information, please visit http://www.datadistributiontech.com.

Source: www.virtual-strategy.com/2012/04/03/general-patent-corporation-settles-patent-infringement-lawsuit-zoolert

Patent Infringement | "Facebook Asserts “Book” as a Trademark"

By :  Jess Robinson
Source : http://www.ipbrief.net
Category : patent Infringement

As reported by Wired and other news outlets, Facebook is planning to assert trademark protection over certain uses of the word “book.”  In clause 5.6 of the United States version of Facebook’s terms of service user agreement, Facebook currently asserts trademark protection over terms like “Facebook,” “face,” “poke,” and “wall.”  In it’s proposed changes to the terms of service (click on the “English tracked changes PDF”), “book” is added to these terms.  The above-linked Wired article discusses instances where Facebook brought trademark claims against other websites like “Teachbook” and “Placebook,” and the article goes on to say that including “book” as a trademark in Facebook’s terms of service will strengthen such trademark claims.

It makes a lot of sense to me that violating Facebook’s terms of service can get you kicked off the website, but how are the privately created terms of service able to impose a civil liability on someone if they use “book” in a way that Facebook deems impermissible?  I think the short answer is that you can indeed be liable to Facebook for trademark infringement if you create a social networking website named “______book,” but the liability arises from the strength of Facebook’s brand and not from violating their terms of service.

An important thing to remember is that trademark protection, if it exists for a mark, only extends to the contexts in which consumers would expect to find that mark.  For example, there is no trademark infringement when there is both “Prince” brand pasta and separately “Prince” brand tennis equipment, because these two brands being in different markets does not bring consumers to confuse them for one another.  So the question here becomes how broadly or narrowly should we define “social networking websites,” the context in which one would expect to find the Facebook brand?  This can get a little tricky considering that many websites not principally about social networking do incorporate some of its features.

Even though Facebook doesn’t have “book” filed as a trademark with the Patent and Trademark Office, actual registration helps but isn’t required to assert trademark protection over a mark.  Instead, one needs to have a brand strong enough to be well known.  Facebook has this in spades.  I poked around a little bit on the Internet, and commentators say that between 7 and 10% of the entire world’s population has Facebook accounts.  When people think of social networking, unless they’re Google+ hopefuls, Facebook is the first thing that comes to mind.

I think a court could easily find trademark infringement for a site named “______book,” because the factors listed in tests like Sleekcraft (e.g., strength of mark, similarity of marks, and degree of caution exercised by customers) are all in favor of Facebook and show there to be a legal likelihood of confusion.  If someone surfing the web finds a site named “_____book,” it’s not a leap to think it’s an offshoot of Facebook, and that the “book” part of the name is a suffix that’s used to identify the brand.  In this way, the website would benefit from the goodwill of Facebook’s brand.  Also, there’s a chance that the site is named as such because it’s a fitting name, but there’s a much bigger chance that it’s named that way to benefit from Facebook’s brand.  That benefit amounts to trademark infringement.

Facebook including “book” in its claimed trademarks isn’t an event in itself.  There’s an argument that including it in its terms of service, and all Facebook users agreeing to the inclusion, increases an awareness of the Facebook brand’s broad scope, but that assumes that people read those terms of service.  Instead, I think Facebook’s inclusion of “book” in its claimed trademarks goes to show the already existing strength of the company’s brand and how far it can extend in the limited context and market it occupies.

Source : http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/04/01/facebook-asserts-book-as-a-trademark/

Patent Infringement | "Twentieth Century Fox Sued Over “Glee” Trademark"

By : Chris McDonough 
Source : http://www.ipbrief.net
Category : Patent Infringement

I’m sure that everyone reading has at least heard of the TV show Glee, the high school comedy that debuted in 2009 and has gone on for three seasons, receiving nominations, awards, and favorable critical reception.  Although the series premiered in the US on Fox, it has been syndicated and broadcast in many countries including the United Kingdom.  That international distribution became a problem for Fox when it was sued in the UK for trademark infringement.  The plaintiff, Mark Tughan, owns Comic Enterprises, a company which runs a series of comedy venues in Cardiff, Birmingham, Nottingham and Oxford, sharing the name “Glee Club”.

Mark Tughan claims that although he had known about the show since 2010 (it was first shown in the UK in December 2009), he delayed addressing the problem because he didn’t know that the show would go on to become the widespread and well known phenomenon it is now.  He alleges that there has been actual confusion between the comedy venues and the TV shows; perhaps people assume that the clubs are associated with the show in some way or that they are focused on music instead of comedy.  He is seeking an injunction against Fox which would prevent them from using the name “Glee” in the UK.  Were the injunction to stop the show being broadcast there, it could cost Fox millions of dollars.  The case went to a patent judge, who passed it up to a higher court which will hear the case.

I don’t know the details of UK trademark law and how it differs from US law, but in US, this would be a case of “reverse” confusion, where the party which has used the mark for longer has much less presence and accumulated goodwill than the infringer.  This is called “reverse” confusion because the usual problem addressed by trademark law is when a smaller party “mooches” off a larger, more well-known party by using a similar mark.  The regular confusion factors still apply (strength of the mark, evidence of actual confusion, the similarity of the markets, etc), but the focus is on the conceptual strength of the senior mark (whether it is arbitrary or fanciful) and the commercial strength of the junior mark.  However, the reverse discrimination is somewhat narrowly applied in the US and I don’t know whether it is common in the UK or how it is applied.

Fox is seeking to challenge Comic Enterprise’s ability to trademark “Glee Club” in the first place, which is probably the best option.  They claim that since “Glee Club” is an existing term, the mark has little conceptual strength.  However, Comic Enterprises is not using the mark to refer to actual high school glee clubs, but as a pun with a clearly distinct definition.  That seems to move the mark into the “suggestive” category.   Given the potential cost to Fox versus the benefit to Comic Enterprises, a large settlement would probably be the best solution for both parties.  Let’s face it, while there may be confusion on the part of customers, it’s likely that confusion will only be increasing business for the comedy clubs.

Source : http://www.ipbrief.net/2012/04/01/twentieth-century-fox-sued-over-%E2%80%9Cglee%E2%80%9D-trademark/

Patent Infringement | "Mayneu-NUBE dispute: Whither future of unionism?"

By : Malaysian Reserve
Source : http://themalaysianreserve.com
Category : Patent  Infringement

To many trade union leaders, their members and employers, the ongoing fracas over National Union of Bank Employees’s (NUBE) claims and counterclaims by Maybank Non-Executive Employees Union (Mayneu) reveals apparent cracks in the facade of speaking-with-one-voice cohesion. Such episodes widen rather than narrow the gulf that will eagerly be taken advantage of by gleeful “outsiders”.

As The Malaysian Reserve cautiously notes, the attributable strides made by non-executive employees of the country’s largest bank in legal manoeuvres over the past several months augur well for the future proliferation of independently-run establishments catering to smaller but more “centric” membership interests.

The resolve by Malayan Banking Bhd’s (Maybank) inhouse union — Mayneu — to have greater self-determination through eventual recognition and acceptance has hit a raw nerve in the umbrella bank employees’ union, NUBE.

What is now patently feared is that the growing rift between the 50-year-old bank union and the newborn Mayneu could trigger off the creation of even more “splinter” set-ups throughout the industry.

Mayneu is way ahead in mileage and some moraleboosting gains, but NUBE is relying entirely and conclusively on the “letter of the law” that in this case constitutes Article 1 and Article 6 of the Malayan Commercial Banks Association (MCBA) and NUBE collective agreement or CA.

On Feb 16, the stand was made perfectly clear by Mayneu president Wan Ahmad Nazrul about the future of his new fledgling organisation.

In a strongly-worded statement, he spelt out his nascent establishment’s raison d’etre, its defence and objectives.

“Firstly, Article 6 of the CA between the Malayan Commercial Bank’s Association and NUBE recognises the union as the sole negotiating body in respect of the employees. However, it does not state that employees cannot seek alternative membership.”

Furthermore, Article 10(1)(1) of the Federal Constitution states all citizens have the right to form an association and therefore as employees of Maybank, it is the constitutional right to form a union.

“NUBE’s claim that employees in the banking industry cannot seek alternative membership is a clear infringement of our rights,” Wan Ahmad said.

His rival in the dispute — J Solomon, general secretary of NUBE — is in no mood to either concede defeat or compromise his members’ stand.

In a statement released to The Malaysian Reserve on Feb 26, he made his feelings abundantly clear: “I appreciate your newspaper’s initiative to contact the union for comments, even as those provided by the Mayneu representative are factually incorrect.”

In his relatively shorter but acerbic retort, the NUBE leader said: ”We have proof that the in-house union is fully sponsored and supported by the employer. That was our basis for lodging a complaint with Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.” To this, Wan Ahmad has said that “The Maybank union was initiated by the members and we never received any assistance from our employer.”

To a question on Wan Ahmad’s claim that the establishment of Mayneu had not indeed violated any law or human rights, as the matter had been raised and cleared by an august body such as the Malaysian Commission of Human Rights, Solomon said: “This is indeed interesting and we intend to pursue the matter with the Commission. It is our contention that the Commission is not conferred with the due authority to make such a decision.”

“The establishment of Mayneu is clearly in violation of Section 12 of the Trade Union Act 1959. We have written to the Commission and it will be interesting to see what their comments will be on our case.”

In the convoluted fabric of past union struggles and aspirations, eg the failed efforts of electronic workers to form a national union, the clamour by Maybank’s in-house union has become a reminiscent cause celebre. Its registration has become a bone of contention, one that is being vigorously challenged by NUBE, which views the whole process as an act of “sabotage”.

Veteran private sector trade union leader and erstwhile secretary general of Malaysian Trades Union Congress (MTUC), (the country’s sole umbrella body for private sector representation) G Rajasekaran, has been following the ongoing dispute with a keen eye on major bones of contention — They are, as cited by the national bank union, Article 1 and 6 of the MCBA-NUBE CA.

“Article 6 of the agreement specifies the parties who have the right to collectively bargain.

Registration of a trade union by the director general of trade unions (DGTU) cannot be restricted by this Article.

Registration under the Trade Unions Act, 1959 and collective bargaining rights under the Industrial Relations Act, 1967 are two distinctly different issues.

"It would have been better to question the wisdom of the DGTU under Section 15 (2) of the Trade Unions Act in approving the application of an in-house union, despite the existence of an industrial union. There is much more the DGTU can and should have done,” Rajasekaran said.

Mr Rajasekaran said the existence of a CA with specific provisions according collective bargaining rights to NUBE to represent all employees of MCBA members, which includes Maybank, requires of the DGTU that he or she carries out an indepth investigation before considering the application for another union within Maybank.

The question is — was it done?

NUBE has been incensed, with some justification, only because it knows all too well what the loss of membership to its financial coffers would mean in the future.

More significantly, that its traditional sway and way forward would become more stymied, as other national body members begin rethinking their forsworn commitment to an overall umbrella body.

Wan Ahmad has already set off alarm bells: ”AmBank (M) Bhd has their own union, and soon another bank will come up with one, although I cannot disclose which bank it is.”

But, is this the right thing to do?S olomon does not think so, but Wan Ahmad’s mind is already made up, going so far as to say NUBE’s CA with MCBA “was no longer relevant”.

Both sides have begun charting a course of action and counteraction in earnest, and in the process, have sought the “support” of a variety of powerful decision-makers and authorities — Human Resource Ministry, Department of Trade Union Affairs and the courts.

In one of its in-house statements, NUBE has alleged that Mayneu’s claim that it will get better benefits when it negotiates as an in-house union is “deceiving”.

This scepticism does hold water to a certain extent, given that the smaller the representation (especially without any pervasive national body protection) the greater the vulnerability to indiscriminate employer dictates, strong-arm tactics and “generous” persuasions.

“The primary objective for the formation of the in-house union is to secure better wages, benefits and working conditions. Maybank being the largest bank and a government-linked company,” Wan Ahmad said.

“Benefits negotiated by the national union is uniform. Smaller banks’ interests and their affordability need to be considered and as such this kind of arrangement is not fair to employees employed by much larger banks whose responsibilities are accordingly higher.”

For example, a teller in Maybank may handle an average of 100 customers a day, compared to a teller in a smaller bank that handles only about 10 customers a day.

“Is it fair for both the tellers to receive the same wages and benefits?” Wan Ahmad asked.

Surely, such employees need to rethink their patent conditions of service as well as their future stake in the company.

Wanting a larger slice of the “asset size and market share” of the largest bank in the country that is also aiming to be the dominant lender in South-East Asia in 2015 is not altogether an unfair nor unrealistic expectation.

The ugly truth however is that many unions in Malaysia appear to have “missed the boat.” With declining membership, and a weaker voice in the management of their own affairs, nomenclature however unambiguous really does not matter much.

In the light of such unfolding scenarios on the labour scene, serious questions are often being raised by some veteran industrial observers, labour academicians and the occasional labour writer about the future direction of not just national unions, but also those potentially

promising small start-ups. The bigger picture however is this. Membership in large unions is already dwindling or plain static, and therefore efficacy at the negotiating table may well be called into question even as employees fight for better wages in the midst of inflationary pressures. But, can small unions ever hope to get their way in the end?

There is a case for the setting up of in-house unions, no doubt about that. But, honestly speaking, is their unchartered future all that bright? How do we lend credence to such a claim, when larger more powerful players in the industry, have for decades not necessarily been on a winning streak?

Source : http://themalaysianreserve.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1386:mayneu-nube-dispute-whither-future-of-unionism&catid=36:corporate-malaysia&Itemid=120

Patent Infringement | "Google’s Self-Driving Car and the Blind, LinkedIn's Founder Lends Out Cash"

By : Jennifer van der Kleut
Source : http://mountainview.patch.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Every week, Mountain View makes news with technology developments, discoveries and sometimes controversies.

In the weekly “Bits and Bytes” column we’ll relay the past week’s news highlights from our backyard giants, start-ups and small businesses alike.

Google’s new self-driving car continues to create quite a buzz. Steve Mahan, head of the Santa Clara Valley Blind Center and also 95-percent-blind, went for a drive last January behind the wheel on a pre-programmed route in Morgan Hill. According to reps of the Mountain View-based company who announced the project in 2010, after hundreds of thousands of hours of testing, they felt confident finally letting a person behind the wheel of its self-driving car, which relies upon laser range finders, radar sensors and video cameras to navigate the road ahead. Google received a patent on the system in December.

In other Google news, the lawsuit between the search engine giant and Oracle Corporation continues to heat up. Last week, Google offered Oracle roughly $2.8 million in damages if Oracle could provide proof of the patent infringement it claimed Google infringed for its Android technology. Google said would not fight back if the proof was provided. However, Oracle rebuffed the offer, saying it was too low. Oracle filed suit against Google in 2010, for copyright and patent infringement. The U.S. District Judge scheduled to preside over the trial beginning April 16 had asked both companies to find a way to streamline the trial.

LinkedIn Founder Reid Hoffman will lend out his fortune, $25 at a time, through the microfinancing site Kiva, which has allowed people to donate money directly to entrepreneurs in poor countries since 2004. Hoffman, a member of Kiva's board, has also reportedly loaned $1 million of his personal fortune to Kiva, and announced that the next 40,000 people to sign up for a Kiva account could designate a borrower of their choice to receive $25 of Hoffman’s million-dollar loan, at no cost to them. Since the program went live on March 12, the Huffington Post reports 35,000 users have signed up and loaned out roughly $875,000 of Hoffman’s cool million.

Mountain View-based Elance announced it had reached a major milestone by surpassing $500 million of online work. Elance connects more than 1.4 million companies to its growing independent workforce online. In a statement, the company said it's rapidly progressing toward the $1 billion mark in contractor earnings, and that the company expects that one out of every three employees will be hired online by the year 2020.

Mountain View-based Violin Memory Inc., a leading provider of flash Memory Arrays, announced this week that the company’s new vice president of product management will be Narayan Venkat, the former vice president of cloud infrastructure at VMware. Vankat said in a statement this week that he looks forward to “playing a central role in fulfilling the company's vision to build an all-silicon primary storage powerhouse." Violin Memory Inc. has been adding several new executives to its team lately, including fomer employees of companies like EMEA, OnStor and Apigee Corporation.

Mountain View-based MAP Pharmaceuticals got one step closer to approval for its LEVADEX inhalation aerosol this week, designed to alleviate acute migraine pain in adults. MAP received a "Complete Response" letter from the FDA. The letter addressed some issues the FDA had with the product’s preliminary packaging and labeling, and requested a few other clarifications. MAP issued a statement this week indicating the company is pleased with the contents of the letter, and is planning a face-to-face meeting with FDA reps soon to continue along the path to approval of the drug.

In other pharmaceutical news, Mountain View-based Vivus Inc. is among one of three companies looking to get approval for some of the first weight-loss pills to hit the market in 13 years. Vivus is manufacturing the drug Qnexa. However, the FDA has expressed concerns that companies such as Vivus have not done enough clinical research on cardiovascular side effects such as increased heart rate. The FDA is scheduled to rule on Qnexa by April 17. Reports indicate that the FDA is being especially conservative and cautious about weight-loss pills ever since the fen-phen appetite suppression drug was linked to heart valve abnormalities in users approximately 15 years ago.

Source : http://mountainview.patch.com/articles/google-s-self-driving-car-and-the-blind-linkedin-s-founder-lends-out-cash