Patent Litigation | "Amphion Innovations updates on IP patent litigation"

By: Giles Gwinnett
Source: http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk
Category: Patent Litigation

Patent Litigation

Amphion Innovations (LON:AMP) today updated investors further on litigation concerning its IP patents.
The firm said the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York had issued its ruling relating to certain claim terms in the 402 and 502 patents.

DataTern, the firm's wholly owned IP subsidiary, is now reviewing the ruling in these complex cases and considering all of its strategic options, it added.

"DataTern continues to believe that these patents are valid and have been infringed," it said.
The group, which develops medical and technolgy businesses, has been working to reinforce its IP position in recent years.

 DataTern is involved with patent-enforcement activities against a number of companies regarding its next-generation business software, ObjectSpark.

DataTern has taken steps to combat actions filed against it by Microsoft and SAP concerning these ’402 and ’502 patents.

Microsoft and SAP have asserted that these patents are invalid and not infringed by companies that DataTern itself has taken action against.

Source: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CD8QqQIwAg&url=http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/47419/amphion-innovations-updates-on-ip-patent-litigation--47419.html&ei=4cg-UI-0MsuGrAfnlICgBw&usg=AFQjCNHDY19egibL8jGzx9n9sqM29dyJBA&sig2=gl72zRKeaVCvnfmVoXgGnA

Trademark Infringement | "Courthouse News Services"

By: KEVIN KOENINGER
Source: http://www.courthousenews.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


     (CN) - Julia Child's foundation and a home appliance-maker filed dueling lawsuits over whether the maker of the Thermador oven can use the legendary chef's name and image without violating trademarks.

     BSH Home Appliances, which makes Bosch, Thermador and Gaggenau home appliances, sued the Julia Child Foundation for Gastronomy and the Culinary Arts in Boston Federal Court on Aug. 24.

     Child's foundation responded Tuesday with two federal lawsuits in Los Angeles, one against BSH and the other against the DGWB Advertising firm.

     BSH seeks declaratory judgment that it can use Child's name and image in its ads without violating her trademarks.

     It claims that "Ms. Child's preference for and use of Thermador products, both on the set of her popular television show 'the French Chef' and in her personal kitchen, is well-known and widely documented. Plaintiff is informed ... that Ms. Child's personal kitchen was donated to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., upon her passing, and remains on display to this day much as it appeared in her Massachusetts home, including her Thermador oven.

     "Plaintiff has used images of Ms. Child and references to the well-known historical fact of her use of Thermador products in various media, including on its website and on its social media pages. These uses do not state or imply any endorsement by Ms. Child of Thermador products. Rather, plaintiff's use of these photos and references to Julia Child's name and use of Thermador products reflect on the long history, significance and influence of Thermador products on American society and culture, and Ms. Child's documented and well-known use of these products."

     BSH claims it filed its complaint in response to a letter from Child's foundation, in which the foundation "claimed exclusive ownership and control of the name, image, likeness and celebrity identity of the late Julia Child ... [and that] plaintiff's use of the Child publicity rights and Child IP rights constitutes copyright infringement, trademark infringement and a post-mortem violation of Julia Child's right of publicity."

     But BSH claims that its "use of the image and name of Julia Child are not directly connected to the sale of any merchandise, but rather are factual references to Julia Child's well-known use of Thermador products, placed in proper context, including on a timeline chronicling the company's history and in the 'Our Heritage' section of the Thermador website."

     The complaint continues: "The timeline on Thermador's website chronicles important events in the company's history, dating back to its founding in 1916. The reference to Ms. Child appears around the 1970 mark of the timeline, and states that 'Julia Child uses Thermador in her critically acclaimed PBS TV Series.' It is accompanied by an image of Ms. Child on the set of her PBS television show.

     "Another reference on the timeline states: '2001 - Julia Child donates her kitchen to the Smithsonian, further cementing the brand's place in popular American culture.'

     "Thermador's social media pages include other factual references to Ms. Child. For example, Thermador's Pinterest.com page states 'Julia Child had Thermador appliances in her beloved kitchen.' Similarly, Thermador's facebook.com page includes a timeline, which includes an entry stating that '1970 - Julia Child uses Thermador in her critically acclaimed PBS TV Series.'"

     BSH seeks declaratory judgment that its use of Child's name and image does not infringe upon any trademarks or copyrights, and that because Child lived in Massachusetts when she died, Massachusetts state law should be applied to any future claims of infringement.

Source:www.google.com/urlsa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=4&ved=0CDgQqQIwAw&url=http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/29/49753.htm&ei=icI-UL6rO4rVrQfl54CIDg&usg=AFQjCNHemCSeAjPDk5t2eMtobrJAdSc-LA&sig2=4g1DlmqDWPAu_yUvWhdjxA

Patent Infringement | "Apple v Samsung Patent Infringement – What it Means for Seattle Businesses"

By: Timothy McCormack
Source: http://www.blogger.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

It can be costly to infringe the intellectual property rights of another. On August 24, 2012 Apple won its patent case against Samsung. The nine-member jury awarded $1.05 billion to Apple and rejected Samsung’s countersuit – finding the Samsung patents not-infringed by Apple.

For Seattle businesses, this case presents an important lesson – taking shortcuts in the design and implementation of a product is not prudent. In addition to the $1.05 billion, Apple will ask the court for an injunction against Samsung, which if granted, would require Samsung to immediately suspend sales of the infringed products in the United States as Samsung files its appeals.

What Was Infringed?
The jury found that Samsung infringed six of Apple’s patents. Regarding software, Samsung infringed; (i) Apple’s bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image; (ii) Apple’s pinching and zooming scroll feature; and (iii) Apple’s tap-to-zoom feature. Regarding design, Samsung infringed: (i) Apple’s iPhone’s face, screen and speaker slot; (ii) the ornamental design and shape of the iPhone’s face, rounded corners and bezel; and (iii) the icon arrangement on the home screen. The jury found no infringement regarding Samsung’s tablet. Samsung’s infringement included 21 of its smart phones.

Additional Damages
The jury also concluded that Samsung willfully infringed on five of the patents. Willful infringement is the deliberate disregard of intellectual property rights of the valid patent holder.(1) It is a question of fact and involves a determination as to an infringer’s state of mind.(2) In determining the question of willfulness, the jury looks to whether the infringer acted in disregard of the infringed patent with no reasonable basis to believe it had a right to do the acts in question.(3) In short, the jury found that Samsung executives either knew or should have known their products infringed on the listed patents. Because Samsung’s infringement is identified as “willful” there is potential for punitive damages against Samsung. In patent cases, the judge is given the responsibility of determining whether to award punitive damages based upon a set of factors outlined in law. In this case, the statute would limit potential patent damages to three-times the damages calculated by the jury. However, the trade dress damages are not limited.

Apple has also asked for an injunction to stop Samsung’s ongoing infringement. US patent law places the decision on whether to grant injunctive relief in the hands of the district court judge. The briefing on injunctive relief will take several weeks and was announced to begin on September 20. Whether an injunction will be granted depends upon the four “eBay factors” defined by the US Supreme Court in 2006. When granting injunctive relief, the judge has a lot of discretion. Some courts have issued broad injunctions, ie., “stop infringing the patent”, while other courts issue much more narrow orders directed only toward the particular products that infringe. If an injunction is issued, there is still the question of whether relief will be stayed pending appeal. Stayed pending appeal means that the injunction will not take place until after appeals have been concluded. Normally an infringer generally has no right to continue infringing while the case is on appeal. However, courts will stay injunctive relief when the stay prevents great potential harm and/or the appellant has a strong case on appeal.

Intellectual Property: Philosophies Divided
Apple and Samsung stand on two sides of the intellectual property debate. Apple argues for broad protection of all its intellectual property. Samsung views this as a danger to consumers as they claim it will lead to higher prices and fewer choices.

Apple:
We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.

Samsung:
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer

Conclusion
Samsung and Apple were once friendly competitors. This case turned them into bitter enemies. The outcome is damaging for Samsung because 21 of its leading smart phone devices have been found infringing.
It is important to note however that the South Korean court in Seoul ruled on Friday contrary to the American court. The Korean court held that Samsung has not violated the iPhone design. The foreign court stated that though Samsung’s flagship Galaxy smartphone looks very similar to Apple’s iPhone, Samsung has not violated the iPhone design. The South Korean judge said it would be difficult to conclude that consumers would confuse the iPhone with the Galaxy given the fact they clearly have the respective company logos on the back of each model, and consumers also factor in operating systems, brand, applications, price and services when buying a phone. “There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens … but these similarities had been documented in previous products,” stated the judge at the Seoul Central District Court.

The foreign court’s decision highlights the difficulty in determining the outcome in patent infringement cases. Apple won the first battle in the United Sates, but it remains to be seen if they’ll win the larger war.

If a Seattle company is thinking of releasing a similar product to their competitor, it is important they seek counsel from an experienced intellectual property attorney. This advice is important for non-tech companies as well, including companies selling products (shoes) camera bags or other widgets. The attorneys’ fees will be far smaller than multi-million dollar judgments, or in this case, a billion dollar judgment.

Source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/timothymccormack/2012/08/27/apple-v-samsung-patent-infringement-what-it-means-for-seattle-businesses/

Patent Infringement | "Microsoft Corporation (MSFT) Secures New Stylus Patent"

By : David Woodburn 
Source : www.insidermonkey.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) has officially taken the stylus to a whole new level with its latest approved patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The stylus – that little pen-like object that has been used for years on touchscreens, like the old Palm Pilots and several current tablet models – is getting a major makeover thanks to Microsoft. It’s such a change, that the company is changing the name from “stylus” to an “ePen.”

The new stylus design from Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) is expected to increase overall functionality of the stylus and bring better synchronicity with a tablet or smartphone. The sketches here, provided by PatentBolt, show some of the uses for this ePen. The user could select the color of “ink” to use, can change the thickness of a line, and it could even used as an eraser. Other sensors like a compass, accelerometer and even a gyroscope are included in this device.

Microsoft Corporation ePenWhile Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) has downplayed the usefulness of the stylus, there has been broad appeal in that it is still an accessory to many tablets and smartphones in the market – mostly due to it being more precise than fingers to manipulate a touchscreen. But this new device seems not only to be useful for the drawing and creative types, but it may have the tools necessary for it to be a game controller, a musical instrument for use with certain applications, or it can just be a more exacting and intuitive mode of input. It seems possible that this new ePen may even have the ability to access the user’s favorite apps automatically simply by the user’s grip or angle.

As this patent application was filed in spring of 2011, thus it took nearly 18 months to get approval, there is no word on when the ePen would come to market, much less a price-point for the device; but it’s possible that Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ:MSFT) will sell this separately from its touchscreen devices so it can be interchangeable between tablets and smartphones even if the user has different models or versions.

Source : www.insidermonkey.com/blog/microsoft-corporation-msft-secures-new-stylus-patent-17175/

Patent Infringement | "SOFTBANK TELECOM And VCE Team On Japan Cloud Strategy"

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

SOFTBANK TELECOM To Standardize Private, Public and Hybrid Cloud Services and Offerings on VCE Vblock Systems 

SOFTBANK TELECOM and VCE today announced a strategic alliance designed to accelerate the adoption of cloud computing by companies of all sizes in Japan.  SOFTBANK TELECOM will work with VCE as a service provider and reseller of VCE™ Vblock™ Systems.

SOFTBANK TELECOM is standardizing its Cloud Services on Vblock Systems, which bring together leading technologies from VMware, Cisco and EMC into an intelligent converged infrastructure system with seamless support.  In addition to infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS), SOFTBANK TELECOM and its extensive network of partners will market and deploy Vblock Systems as part of a portfolio of on-site private and hybrid cloud offerings for enterprise customers.

SOFTBANK TELECOM has deployed a Vblock System in its data centers at home and abroad.  VCE will collaborate with SOFTBANK TELECOM and provide expertise as solutions are configured and deployed for Japanese customers in and outside of Japan.  The new SOFTBANK TELECOM offerings based on Vblock Systems were previewed to thousands of attendees at "SOFTBANK World 2012"earlier this summer.

Supporting Quote Ken Miyauchi, Representative Director & COO, SOFTBANK TELECOM "This relationship with VCE extends our VMware expertise and will help more companies lower costs and improve efficiencies through virtualization and cloud computing.  Vblock Systems provide us with a globally standardized platform that we can offer either as a service or as a private or hybrid cloud solution with the ability to easily replicate services as well as performance and cost benefits."

Praveen Akkiraju, CEO, VCE "VCE Vblock Systems, the world's most advanced converged infrastructure, are a foundation for innovation.  Working together, SOFTBANK TELECOM and VCE will help companies throughout Japan take advantage of the cost and business agility benefits of highly virtualized data centers and accelerate their adoption of cloud computing through intelligent converged infrastructure using best-in-class technologies."

Source : http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/27/4762594/softbank-telecom-and-vce-team.html

Patent Infringement | "The rise and rise of China as an IP superpower"

By : Joff Wild 
Source : http://www.iam-magazine.com 
Category : Patent Infingement 

Here’s something I bet you did not know: in 2010, 82.6% of all utility model applications filed in the world were filed at China’s State IP Office. In numerical terms, that equates to 409,836 out of a total of 496,000. Second place Germany saw 17,006 applications, or just over 3% of the total. While this number is the biggest, you’ll find further proof of China’s IP superpower status by looking at all the categories covered in WIPO’s IP Facts and Figures 2012.

The country is also number one in industrial design filings, accounting for 63% (421,273) of the 669,000 applications across the globe in 2010; while it finds itself at number one as well for trademark applications with 19.3%, or just over one million, of those filed in 2010. The US, in second place, accounted for 6.8% of applications (377,964). However, in patents the Americans are still in top spot. The 490,226 filings the USPTO received in 2010 made up just over 24% of the global market. But even here the Chinese are catching up fast, with SIPO receiving 391,177 applications or 19.8% of the total. It would be no huge surprise if by the time next year’s WIPO stats-fest is compiled China is pre-eminent in this area too.

While IP filings do not tell us much about innovation, what they do tell us is that companies looking to do business in China would be mad not to consider their own IP positions and those of potential domestic and international rivals before beginning operations. What’s more, when it comes to patents and related rights, the amount of prior art held on SIPO databases must be huge. Potentially, there is a lot of material residing in Chinese language documents that could strike out any number of patents, some of them perhaps crucial in industries and extremely valuable. Even if that is not the case right now, it is bound to be increasingly so in the future: food for thought for both in-house and private practice patent attorneys. Fortunately, access to Chinese material is beginning to open up. But even so, to be a patent attorney and be fluent in Mandarin must be wonderful. Are there any more marketable people in IP right now?

Source : http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=27d6184e-23e0-4705-a937-197b3ce09949

Patent Infringement | "NYTimes leads group defense in mobile patent suit"

By : RYAN NAKASHIMA
Source : http://www.stamfordadvocate.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

The New York Times Co. is girding for a legal battle that many larger organizations have avoided.

The Times is leading the defense of a diverse group of companies that use technology they assumed was free: sending text messages with Web links to mobile phones.

The technology was patented by inventor Richard J. Helferich, who filed an outline of how such a system would work with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in September 1997. He was granted several patents on the method, giving him the right to sue companies that use it without permission.

Since 2008, his company, Helferich Patent Licensing, has filed 23 suits against companies ranging from Best Buy Co. to the National Basketball Association, claiming they are infringing on his intellectual property.

HPL offers companies the chance to settle by paying a one-time fee of $750,000. Many companies gladly pay, rather than getting bogged down in a court fight that could cost millions. Roughly 100 companies have settled with HPL already, it says, including Apple Inc., The Walt Disney Co. and McDonald's Corp.

The Times' general counsel, Kenneth Richieri, says he wants to prevent Helferich's patents from becoming a burden on activities that are commonplace in the digital age.

"In some ways, it's a tax for being on the Internet," Richieri said. "Millions and millions of dollars collectively is going out of the pockets of people who earned it to people who, in my opinion, didn't do anything."

If the Times loses, it's likely it will have to pay more than the $750,000 that HPL initially sought to continue using the technology. The Times has used it to alert readers by mobile phone of breaking news or severe weather.

Steven Lisa, a registered patent attorney who represents HPL, would not comment on the specifics of any settlements.

The U.S. patent system is designed to protect inventors and allow them to profit from their ideas. Where would General Electric be without legal protection for Thomas Edison's light bulb? What might have become of AT&T if competitors had been free to copy Alexander Graham Bell's telephone? The patent office views its role as vital to the growth of the U.S. economy, and last year, it issued around 245,000 patents.

HPL's cases, however, fit into a controversial category. Opponents point out that HPL doesn't make products or provide services. They say it simply uses patents to seek licensing fees from others who actually do business. Critics label such companies "patent trolls".

"You really have to wonder what contribution they are making to our economy or our society, or if it's just a drain," said Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley.

Patent trolling is legal. The patent office doesn't require inventors to put their ideas into action.

In 2011, entities like HPL sued 5,073 companies in the U.S. for infringing on patents that they either got on their own or acquired. That was more than double the number in 2009, according to PatentFreedom, a research organization that offers consulting advice for defendants in patent lawsuits.

PatentFreedom estimates the typical cost of a patent defense is $1 million to $5 million. Taking the low estimate, multiplied by the number of defendants, it sees such suits as a drag on the economy of more than $5 billion a year.

"Law firms are doing very well at this. Operating companies are not," says Daniel McCurdy, the founder of PatentFreedom.

Source : http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/article/NYTimes-leads-group-defense-in-mobile-patent-suit-3820940.php#ixzz24vOaxnKN

Patent Infringement | "The Trademark Clearinghouse: Secure, Reliable, Usable - Pick Any Two"

By : Gavin Brown 
Source : http://www.circleid.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Earlier this week, technical and legal experts from ICANN, Deloitte and IBM met in Brussels with their counterparts from registrars and registry service providers representing as much as 90% of prospective gTLD registries, to discuss the technical implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, the database of rights holder information that will support the mandatory rights holder protection mechanisms for new gTLDs.

After an unsatisfactory session during the Prague ICANN meeting, this summit was organised at short notice to address what was perceived as serious shortcomings in the proposed implementing model published by ICANN. Registries and registrars need a system that they can implement and deploy without disrupting their businesses, and without imposing costs that would discourage rights holder participation in the Clearinghouse. ICANN wants to develop a model that keeps the TMCH out of the "critical path" of domain registration, and Deloitte and IBM, who are developing the system, need a specification to build on, and a model that can become a self-sustaining entity once built.

The discussions focused on a fundamental contradiction in the TMCH specifications that are mandated by the Applicant Guidebook. During the development of the AGB, rights holders made it clear that a major concern for them was the risk of data mining if the database was released into the public domain: being able to identify new products being developed by global corporations (by tracking their registered trade marks) could threaten multi-billion dollar product development plans. This means restrictions on the distribution of the database, to minimise the chances of unauthorised access.

At the same time, in order to facilitate the Trademark Claims system, that same database has to be freely queryable by anyone wishing to register a domain name. Clearly, something's gotta give!

A number of solutions have been proposed to try to square this circle, but ultimately there is a choice: secure, reliable, usable — pick any two. The database can be secure and reliable (held by the TMCH who can control access to it) but not usable (meeting the service levels required by registries and registrars might make it prohibitively expensive). It can be secure and usable, but not reliable, or it can be reliable and usable, but not secure (as the database is widely distributed). This is essentially a restatement of Zooko's Triangle.

As the new gTLD program develops we are finding more issues that fell through the cracks during the development process (another example being the need to amend applications after submission). But the fundamental problems with the TMCH are much more serious: rights holder protection was probably the most controversial issue surrounding the programme, and if the protection mechanisms devised should fail, then it would be a significant blow to the credibility of ICANN as a corporation and as a community (as Kurt Pritz made clear in Brussels).

Some very smart minds are now paying close attention to this issue, trying to resolve the problems. Much of the progress made in Brussels was down to the sterling efforts of Chris Wright whose no-nonsense antipodean approach to whiteboarding the problems resolved a lot of confusion about the issue. But more feedback - especially from rights holders - is needed if we are going to build a successful platform and ensure the success of the new gTLD programme.

Source : http://www.circleid.com/posts/20120828_trademark_clearinghouse_secure_reliable_usable_pick_any_two/

Patent Infringement | "Trademark speculators bet on Olympic Games"

By : Zheng Xin  
Source : http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn 
Category : Patent Infringement 

In addition to the pride and glory Chinese Olympic champions brought to the motherland, they have also delivered unlimited business opportunities to the nation's merchants.

Since the end of the London 2012 Olympic Games in mid-August, professional trademark pre-emptors have been trying to capitalize on the names of Chinese Olympic champions, according to China's trademark authority.

"They are registering a trademark not for their own use, but in speculation on a potential appreciation in value, to sell later for illicit profit," said Zhang Liwei, head of an application examination office at the Trademark Appeal Board under the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, during an interview with China Central Television.

While the office does not yet have information on trademark applications made on athletes' names during the Games, it says that applications were filed years ago on the names of many of the Chinese Olympic champions who rose to sudden stardom in August.

According to the office's trademark inquiry website, the name of Sun Yang — winner of individual titles in the men's 400-meter and 1,500-meter freestyle swimming in London and the first Chinese man ever to win an Olympic gold medal in swimming — was registered in August 2011 by a health products company in Zhengzhou, Henan province.

The trademark office is examining the application. If it is approved, the company will be entitled to use the trademark for sports products.

The name Ye Shiwen — the 16-year-old swimmer who stunned the world by winning gold medals in the women's 200-meter and 400-meter individual medleys during the Games — was also registered in August last year by a company in Chengdu, Sichuan province.

Objections to that application have been filed, and it is currently being re-examined, according to the office.

Yu Guofu, a partner with Beijing Sheng Feng Law Firm, said there is little possibility the Sun Yang trademark will be approved because the company that filed the application has little to do with sportswear and is suspected of speculating on the potential value of the name.

The Zhengzhou company could not be reached for comment as of Monday.

China leads the world in registered trademarks, and the number has continued to rise sharply in recent years. Trademark pre-emption has long existed, but it, too, has surged in recent years due to the soaring price of trademarks thanks to the rising brand and intellectual property awareness of the Chinese merchants, said Yu.

"Trademark speculation occurs not only in relation to sporting events, but in everything that has the potential to become famous," said Yu. "Some applicants were lucky that the trademark they registered coincidently bears the same name as a prominent figure, but some entrepreneurs are tempted by foresight of athletes' fame and fortune to invest in the potential celebrity."

Chinese trademark law has measures to prevent speculation, he said.

The trademark office denies applications on names imitating those of prominent figures, places or institutions, Yu said.

In addition, before a trademark is approved, the application undergoes a three-month examination and is open to the public around the world. If any violation or infringement of rights is discovered, it is denied.

And a trademark registration can be revoked on the basis of valid complaints of speculation.

"China treats trademark and intellectual property issues in accordance with international standards and principles," he said. "But as there is no standard for being well-known, the judgment is sometimes very subjective."

Applying to register a trademark has its risks, too, Yu said.

"The applicant has to pay a 1,000 yuan ($160) registration fee, even if the trademark fails in the examination process," he said.

And there is the possibility of prosecution for violating trademark law and disturbing the order of trademark registration.

Yu said the right to apply for a trademark on a name that is by chance the same as that of a public figure should be protected.

The name of Lin Dan — the two-time Olympic badminton champion — was registered in 1997 by a feed mill of that name in Sichuan. The trademark was granted.

"As long as it's legitimate, the trademark should be based on first-to-file principle," Yu said.

"China has many Lin Dans, one of whom happens to be a two-time Olympic champion. But it is inevitable the name was registered as trademark years ago as the structure and character of the name is so simple," he said.

Source : http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2012-08/28/content_15710454.htm

Patent Infringement | "The Next Big Tech Battle Could Be Apple Versus Amazon (AAPL, AMZN)"

By : Owen Thomas 
Source : http://www.sfgate.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Bolstered by a huge victory in its patent-infringement case against Samsung, where could Apple turn next?

To the north, in Seattle, there's a juicy target: Amazon.com.

Amazon is widely expected to introduce new mobile devices next month—possibly a smartphone but almost certainly new Kindle tablets that compete with the iPad.

Either way, Apple's not going to like that.

Far more broadly, Amazon and Apple have been on a collision course in digital media and e-commerce for years.

Apple and Amazon sell music. Apple and Amazon sell movies. Apple and Amazon sell e-books. And Apple and Amazon both sell tablets, the iPad and the Kindle families, designed to consume the media they sell.

The companies weren't always on unfriendly terms. In 2000, Apple and Amazon struck a patent cross-licensing agreement that covered Amazon's famous 1-Click checkout.

And in the ensuing years, the companies have not publicly engaged in any notable patent battles, suggesting that the companies' deal may provide for an ongoing patent ceasefire.

We asked Apple and Amazon for comment on this story. Amazon declined to comment and Apple didn't respond to our request.

But even in that press release announcing its 1-Click deal, Apple was touting its own innovations. It noted that one-click downloading of digital software was an "industry first."

In the years since, Apple has been building up a formidable patent library in digital media. The name of Patrice Gautier, an Apple engineering vice president in charge of the iTunes Store and iCloud, has his name on a dozen patents, most related to downloading and purchasing digital media, and 30 pending applications.

In May, patents expert Florian Mueller speculated that Amazon could be a "logical" target for some of Apple's tablet-related patents.

Amazon has been busy, too. In 2010, it signed a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft to cover a variety of patents. And recently, it's been recruiting intellectual-property experts to build up its portfolio.

Apple and Amazon have been tussling in court over the term "app store" after Amazon launched its Android Appstore in March 2011. Apple believes it's a protected trademark. Amazon says it's a generic term.

Meanwhile, Apple has been making quiet moves into e-commerce, noting that 400 million users have registered credit cards to their iTunes accounts, more than double the number of active Amazon accounts. Its new mobile operating system, iOS 6, has a Passbook feature for coupons and tickets which many believe is its first step into offering a digital wallet.

If Apple and Amazon go to war, the dispute could blow away Apple v. Samsung, covering smartphones, tablets, e-commerce, and digital payments. The question of just how explosive it could get depends on the details of the agreement Amazon and Apple struck way back in 2000.

Get ready, because Apple and Amazon are already girded for battle.

Source : http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/The-Next-Big-Tech-Battle-Could-Be-Apple-Versus-3818753.php#ixzz24ouITUq3

Paatent Infringement | "Apple Wins: Samsung Infringes: Is Mobile Search Affected?"

By : Barry Schwartz 
Source : http://www.seroundtable.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Late Friday, the court ruled in the patent case of Apple versus Samsung. In short, Apple destroyed Samsung and most of the claims of patent infringement against Samsung were found legit.

Apple was awarded about $1.5 billion in damages, which is not a lot for Apple but it is more about values and principle for Apple than the money.

Of course, this means Samsung will likely have to make lots of changes on their devices. I am not sure what it means for existing devices.

The big question now is, will Apple sue Google over Android? The Verge has a statement from Google saying:

    The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims. Most of these don't relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the US Patent Office. The mobile industry is moving fast and all players - including newcomers - are building upon ideas that have been around for decades. We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don't want anything to limit that.

They act like they are not worried but I would think Apple will go after Google. As a matter of principle.

Now if they do, what type of impact will this have on mobile search, voice search and image search? On that front, I suspect not much. But I am no lawyer. Greg Sterling, who was/is a lawyer and knows his thing on search, wrote a lot about this at Marketing Land.

Source : http://www.seroundtable.com/apple-samsung-15617.html

Patent Infringement | " Apple patent verdict will have little impact on Android, says Google"

By: The Star.com
Source: http://www.thestar.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Google Inc., responding to a jury verdict that found its partner Samsung Electronics Co. infringed Apple Inc. patents, said most of the claims “don’t relate to the core Android” software used in mobile devices.

“The court of appeals will review both infringement and the validity of the patent claims,” Mountain View, California- based Google said in a statement sent yesterday via e-mail. “Most of these don’t relate to the core Android operating system, and several are being re-examined by the U.S. Patent Office.”

Google, owner of the world’s largest Web-search engine, lets mobile phone manufacturers weave its Android operating system into their handsets at no charge. It suffered a setback on Aug. 24, when a California jury said Samsung, the biggest user of Android, infringed Apple patents.

“This verdict is a major victory for Apple vis-a-vis the Android ecosystem,” said Toni Sacconaghi, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., in a research report today. “That said, we don’t think it is a game-changing loss for Android.”

Google’s shares decreased 2.1 percent to $664.51 at 9:34 a.m. in New York. The stock had gained 5.1 per cent this year before today.

The ruling is “likely to embolden Apple’s legal strategy,” Sacconaghi said. Litigation playing out in several countries may ultimately lead to Android phone makers paying royalties to Apple of $3 to $25 per handset or “forced work-arounds on violated patents, some of which could modestly change the look and feel of competing products.”

Android Market

Android’s share among smartphone platforms rose to 64 per cent in the second quarter from 43 per cent in the same period a year earlier, according to Stamford, Connecticut-based researcher Gartner Inc. Apple’s software had a 19 percent share, up less than a percent from the previous year.

“The mobile industry is moving fast and all players—including newcomers—are building upon ideas that have been around for decades,” Google said in the statement. “We work with our partners to give consumers innovative and affordable products, and we don’t want anything to limit that.”

Source: http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1247538--apple-patent-case-will-have-little-impact-on-android-says-google

Patent Infringement | "ITC clears Apple of infringement of three Motorola patents, holds decision on fourth "

By : John Ribeiro 
Source : http://www.macworld.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

The U.S. International Trade Commission ruled Friday that Apple did not infringe three of Motorola Mobility’s patents, while remanding the investigation into a fourth patent to the presiding administrative law judge.

 The ITC decided to review in part in June an earlier determination by the administrative law judge after receiving comments from the industry and the Federal Trade Commission, which were critical of allowing import bans that involved alleged infringement of standards-essential patents.

The ITC ruled last week that Apple did not infringe U.S. patent numbers 6,272,333 (the ‘333 patent), 6,246,697 (‘697 patent), and 5,636,223 (‘223 patent). The 6,246,862 (‘862 patent) related to a sensor controlled user interface for a portable communication device has been remanded to the ALJ.

“Motorola was one of the earliest mobile phone innovators, and much of Apple’s success builds on our foundational work. We’re considering our options as we continue to push for patent peace,” Motorola said in a statement in response to the ITC order on Friday.

Motorola, now a Google owned company, filed a complaint against Apple in November 2010, alleging that Apple’s products like some models of its Mac computers, iPad and iPhone devices violated some of its patents.

In a final initial determination in April, the ALJ Thomas B. Pender had found a violation of the ‘697 patent, though he did not find infringement of the other patents. The ALJ also found that claim 1 of the ‘862 patent was invalid as indefinite, which the commission has reversed, and remanded to the ALJ to consider issues of infringement, validity and impact on domestic industry.

In May, the ALJ recommended to the commission a “cease and desist” order that prohibited the sale of any commercially significant quantities of Apple’s accused products if it was found to violate, as the company held substantial inventories in the U.S. The order would be in addition to an import ban.

In a submission in the public interest in the investigation, FTC said in June it was concerned that a patent owner can make a commitment to license on FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms as part of the standard setting process, and then seek an exclusion order for infringement of the FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patent as a way of securing royalties that may be inconsistent with the FRAND commitment.

FTC was also referring to another dispute before the ITC between Motorola and Microsoft over the Xbox.

Motorola also filed earlier this month another claim against Apple with the ITC, claiming that its devices such as the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch infringe patents related to features such as email notifications, location reminders, and media players. Motorola said the new complaint for alleged violation of seven of its patents was not for standards-essential patents.

The ITC cases are only a part of the patent disputes between Apple and Motorola which have litigations in courts in many countries, after a surge in litigation by technology companies over patents.

Apple on Friday scored a win in one such dispute when a jury in a District Court in California decided that competitor Samsung must pay Apple US$1.05 billion for infringing several of its patents in Samsung smartphones and tablets.

Source : http://www.macworld.com/article/1168297/itc_clears_apple_of_infringement_of_three_motorola_patents_holds_decision_on_fourth.html

Patent Infringement | "Final patent office rules improve and clarify inter partes review proceeding"

By : Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Source : http://www.lexology.com 
Category : Patent Infringment 

On August 14, 2012, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued its final rules for implementation of the new “inter partes review” (“IPR”) proceeding set forth in the America Invents Act of 2011 (“AIA”). The statutory provisions authorizing IPR proceedings go into effect September 16, 2012. IPR will thereafter replace inter partes reexamination and will be available for any patent issued at any time, provided that the patent has been issued for at least nine months, is not subject to a pending post-grant review and is not the subject of a patent infringement complaint filed more than one year before the IPR. An IPR proceeding enables parties to challenge the validity of issued patents based on prior art patents and printed publications before a panel of administrative law judges.

The final rules for IPR proceedings reflect the PTO’s consideration of hundreds of comments from the public regarding the proposed rules, which were published in February 2012. In our view, the final rules remove some of the uncertainties created by the proposed rules, which may have deterred parties from using this proceeding. These uncertainties included: (1) how the PTO would interpret and apply the estoppel provisions of the AIA; (2) the scope of each party’s disclosure obligations during an IPR proceeding; and (3) how the PTO would handle the claim construction phase of an IPR proceeding. The final rules also addressed public concerns regarding the PTO’s proposed fee structure for IPR proceedings.

The statutory estoppel provisions applicable to IPR proceedings have been widely discussed. Both proposed and final rule 42.73(d) provide that the “petitioner, or real party in interest or privy of the petitioner” initiating an IPR proceeding is estopped from subsequent PTO proceedings on “any ground that that petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR proceeding. Like the proposed rule, the final rule does not define “real party in interest or privy of the petitioner.” However, the PTO states in its summary and discussion of the final rules that it will “consider, on a case-by-case basis, relevant case law”[i] to resolve disputes regarding whether a party is a “real party in interest” or “privy” for purposes of estoppel as it applies to a specific IPR proceeding. The PTO further explains that “actual control or the opportunity to control the previous proceeding is an important clue that such a relationship existed”[ii] when determining whether a particular party is estopped from seeking a post-grant challenge to a patent before the PTO. For example, mere membership in a trade association or joint defense group is “irrelevant” to the determination; other factors, such as the party’s relationship to the petition, the nature and/or degree of involvement in the petition, and the nature of the entity filing the petition, are the relevant factors to the determination.[iii] The PTO’s explanation and examples provide useful guidance that may alleviate some of the concerns regarding the potential breadth of the estoppel provisions.

Like proposed rule 42.51(b)(3), the final rule requires each party to an IPR proceeding to disclose information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding. The proposed rule stated that “[t]he party submitting the information must specify the relevance of the information, including where the information is presented in a document and, where applicable, how the information is pertinent to the claims.”[iv] In contrast, the final rule requires each party to disclose “relevant information that is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding concurrent with the filing of the documents or things that contains the inconsistency.”[v] The final rule also clarifies that the submitting party will not be required to provide a written explanation of the relevance of the information. While this modification still requires the submitting party to consider whether information “is inconsistent with a position advanced by the party during the proceeding” and to disclose any such information, parties can now satisfy their duty of disclosure without concern for conflicts of interest that would naturally arise if the submitted information is construed to be adverse to the positions taken.

Both proposed and final rule 42.104(b)(3) specify that an initial petition for IPR must identify “[h]ow the challenged claim is to be construed.” The patent owner may optionally file a “preliminary response” setting forth the reasons why IPR should not be instituted, and, if the PTO grants the petition initiating the IPR proceeding, the patent owner may later file a “patent owner response” to the petition addressing pending grounds for unpatentability. Neither the preliminary response nor the patent owner response require the patent owner to address the petitioner’s proposed claim construction—the patent owner can optionally choose only to attack the petitioner’s position without taking a position of its own. Despite comments suggesting that this proposed rule would be unfair because it places the entire burden on evaluating and providing constructions for the challenged claims on the petitioner, the PTO declined to implement joint claim construction procedures similar to those used in many district courts. The PTO clarified, however, that “petitioners are not required to define every claim term, but rather merely provide a statement that the claim terms are presumed to take on their ordinary and customary meaning, and point out any claim term that has a special meaning and the definition in the specification.”[vi] The PTO also noted that the final rules “do not preclude providing alternative claim constructions in a petition or in later-authorized filings.”[vii] These clarifications provide the petitioner with some measure of comfort that it need not provide exhaustive claim constructions in its initial petition.

The proposed fee structure for IPR proceedings has been widely reported and discussed, particularly with regard to the high cost as compared to that of the existing inter partes reexamination proceeding. Proposed rule 42.15 set a fee of $27,200 for filing a request for IPR challenging up to 20 claims of a patent. The fee escalated rapidly for every 10 claims challenged thereafter ($34,000 for 21-30 claims; $40,800 for 31-40 claims; $54,400 for 41-50 claims; $68,000 for 51-60 claims and $27,200 thereafter for every 10 claims or portion thereof).[viii] In response to numerous comments, the PTO’s final rule provides for a flat fee of $600 per claim for each claim in excess of 20.[ix] This final rule should reduce the incentive for the petitioner to challenge additional claims once a proposed claim threshold is reached and will eliminate the substantial “penalty” fee that would have otherwise occurred if the petitioner decides to challenge 61 claims, for example, instead of only 60.

While many uncertainties remain with respect to how the IPR proceeding will progress in view of these final rules, we are satisfied that the PTO seemed receptive to considering changes in response to the hundreds of comments received, and we believe that the final rules resolve several uncertainties resulting from the proposed rules and provide additional guidance relating to others that will help ensure a smoother transition to the use of the new IPR proceeding.

Source : http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3d041819-1c87-41c3-9914-717b5e3adef5

Patent Infringement | "Microsoft suddenly renames Windows 8 Metro interface, prompting trademark infringement speculation"

By : Andrew Sadauskas 
Source : http://www.smartcompany.com.au 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Microsoft has announced that it is renaming the Metro interface for its forthcoming Windows 8 and Windows RT platforms, with reports suggesting the move may have been prompted by Microsoft becoming aware “Metro” was already a registered trademark.

Initial reports about Microsoft's sudden decision to rename the Windows 8 and Windows RT interface were due to the company becoming aware of a possible trademark infringement, suggesting the term may have already been in use in the ICT sector.

In response, a Microsoft spokesperson claimed the move was not due to any current litigation, stating:

“We have used Metro style as a code name during the product development cycle across many of our product lines. As we get closer to launch and transition from industry dialog to a broad consumer dialog we will use our commercial names.”

After Microsoft's initial denial, an internal Microsoft memo was leaked to The Verge.

According to The Verge, the memo orders staff to refer to the new Windows 8 and Windows RT interface as the “Windows 8 style UI” due to unspecified "discussions with an important European partner" that have led it to "discontinue the use" of the Metro brand.

The memo also states the company is "working on a replacement term and plans to land on that by the end of this week".

Source : http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/051058-microsoft-suddenly-renames-windows-8-metro-interface-prompting-trademark-infringement-speculation.html

Patent Infringement | "The Small Biz Guide to Patents, Copyright and Trademarks"

By : Nellie Akalp
Source : http://mashable.com
Category : Patent Infringment

This post originally appeared on the American Express OPEN Forum, where Mashable regularly contributes articles about leveraging social media and technology in small business.

Your company’s intellectual property -– from your logo to trade secrets -– can be just as valuable as physical assets. This is particularly true for digital startups. Yet, taking the necessary legal steps to protect your intellectual property can be costly and time-consuming, often burdening a young startup before it gets off the ground. It’s a delicate balance to determine what actions to take and when, but the following is a primer on the various types of intellectual property.

Trademarks 

A trademark is a word, phrase, name or symbol that that identifies the source of a product or service and distinguishes it from competitors. A trademark would apply to your company name, product names, logos, and taglines.

Trademarks don’t actually have to be registered with the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office). If your company creates a logo or name that you want to use exclusively, you can attach the TM symbol and this essentially gives you “common law” rights. However, in case anyone ends up using your name or logo without your permission, you’ve got a much better chance of winning an infringement suit against them if you actually registered your trademark. And with formal trademark registration, it’s also exponentially easier for you to recover your digital properties — for example, if someone happens to using a close variation of your domain name or is using your company name as their Twitter handle.

When it comes to trademarking, there’s often some confusion surrounding the company name. Many young companies think that once they incorporate or form an LLC, they have registered and protected their name. The act of incorporating does indeed register your business name within your state of incorporation -– but that won’t stop someone else from using your name in any of the 49 other states.

To register your business name, you’ll need to file an application with the USPTO — you can file either directly with the USPTO or have an online legal filing service handle it for you. Expect to pay approximately $325 in application fees per class that your mark would fall under and the process can take anywhere from six months to a year once you submit your application. It’s also smart to perform a comprehensive trademark search before starting the application process to make sure your name is available (you won’t get an application refund just because your name isn’t available).

Copyrights 

A copyright protects “original works of authorships.” For digital startups, this typically means website copy, marketing material and possibly even computer code.

By law, a copyright exists the moment something is written, photographed, drawn, etc. As soon as you write and publish the copy on your website, you automatically own a copyright for this work — and are able to use the copyright symbol © and the terminology “All Rights Reserved.”

If copyright protection exists without registration, why register? Formal registration is a prerequisite if you decide to sue someone for copyright infringement. That’s because copyright registration gives you a public record of ownership.

You can register online through the U.S. Copyright Office or have a legal online filing service handle it for you. Registering a copyright is relatively straightforward and affordable. So if it’s important to you to have the ability to take legal action in case someone copies part of your website or whitepaper without your permission, then it makes sense to register a copyright.

Patents 

A patent gives an inventor the exclusive rights to manufacture, use, or sell an invention for a certain number of years. Patents cover tangible things, and can include software processes, product design and other inventions. For example, Twitter has a patent on the “pull-to-refresh” function found in Twitter’s iPhone app, while Coca-Cola patented the unique shape of its original bottle.

Before applying for a patent, you should ask yourself the following questions: Is your product or idea original? Is it useful? And is it not obvious to others with basic skills in your field? For example, Amazon‘s patent for its one-click ordering system was rejected by the European Patent Office (EPO) for being too obvious and non-inventive.

When you register your invention with the government, you get the legal right to exclude anyone else from manufacturing or marketing it. You also get to use terminology like “patented technology” or “patent-pending technology” (for a provisional patent) in your marketing material. And, patents have value — they can be sold as assets and are often factored into funding or acquisition deals.

Acquiring a patent can take up to six years and hundreds of hours of work. Due to the complexity of the process, most companies turn to an attorney, patent agent or licensing firm — this can mean approximately $7K-15K in attorney fees. Ideally, your IP pro will understand and specialize in your particular market, which can make the process more efficient.

Because the investment required to file a patent is so high, many startups struggle to know the right time to apply. While there’s no single right answer for everyone, keep the following things in mind.

When you submit your paperwork to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, you secure your priority date. This means that if another company starts doing something similar after your filing date, they’re infringing on your patent (and could be ordered to stop). If you wait -– perhaps until your product is ready to launch or your company has more cash flow -– you won’t have a case if someone starts doing what your patent is about. And you miss the opportunity to patent the idea or product.

In some cases, a company can spend thousands on getting a patent, only to discover that their product is not commercially viable. Or in other cases, by the time the product is finally ready for market, it has gone through so many iterations, that it’s no longer completely covered by the original patent, and the company needs to apply for a brand new patent or Continuation-In-Part application.

Be aware that the USPTO also gives you the option to file for a provisional patent. This entails a simpler and lower-cost filing procedure and lets you stake your claim for 12 months from the filing date. However, this 12-month period is non-renewable, so you’ve got to file a full patent application within the year.

No matter which IP strategy is right for you, it’s best to evaluate your options and plan your strategy early on. Filing for a trademark or copyright is often simple enough to take care of on your own or with the help of an online filing service. If patenting is in the cards, it’s best to start searching out a reputable patent attorney to discuss your options in your company’s early days, so you’re not scrambling at the last minute.

Source : http://mashable.com/2012/08/21/copyright-trademark-patent/

Patent Infringement | "Google, Oracle, Spotify, Apple: Intellectual Property"

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

Google Inc. (GOOG) said it didn’t pay people to write about Oracle Corp. (ORCL)’s lawsuit against it over Android software, although nonprofits, universities and trade groups receiving Google money have commented on the case.

Oracle said Google maintains a network of direct and indirect “influencers” to advance its intellectual property agenda, according to an Aug. 17 filing in federal court in San Francisco. Oracle has hired one writer, Florian Mueller, author of the FOSS Patents blog, as a consultant, not to blog about the lawsuit, Oracle said. Mueller has written extensively on the lawsuit.

Both companies filed papers in court Aug. 17 responding to a judge’s order to disclose payments to journalists, bloggers and commenters. U.S. District Judge William Alsup, who has presided over the lawsuit, said Aug. 7 that disclosure is needed to make clear whether anything written about the case is “possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel.”

Google said there were no quid-pro-quo payments to people for coverage, and commentators at entities which receive donations or financial support from Google weren’t paid to write about the case.

“Google does not believe that individuals or organizations within these categories were intended to be encompassed within the scope of the court’s order,” Google lawyers said in the filing. They asked Alsup to let them know if he wants a “more comprehensive list.”

A jury found May 7 that Mountain View, California-based Google, owner of the world’s most-popular search engine, infringed Oracle’s copyrights when it developed Android software for mobile devices yet deadlocked on whether the copying was “fair use.” That denied Oracle the ability to seek as much as $1 billion in damages from the search engine company. The jury found May 23 that Google didn’t infringe two Oracle patents.

The case is Oracle v. Google, 10-3561, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).

Apple Witness Claims Samsung Abused Its ‘Monopoly’ Over Patents

Samsung Electronics Co. used “monopoly power” to make exorbitant licensing demands of Apple Inc. (AAPL) over two patents the South Korean company accuses the iPhone maker of infringing, a witness told a jury.

Janusz Ordover, a New York University economics professor, said Samsung “distorted” the process through which a standard- setting body in Europe set industry requirements based on its wireless-technology patents. Ordover testified Aug. 17 at the end of a three-week-long intellectual-property trial in San Jose, California.

Ordover, hired by Apple as an expert witness, said Samsung “acted in a way that evidences it has gained monopoly power by making licensing demands to Apple that are inconsistent” with reduced licensing rates required of patents used by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute to set technological requirements.

Samsung has declared the patents “essential” and is seeking as much as $399 million in royalties from Apple for infringing them, according to court testimony.

Apple, based in Cupertino, California, sued Samsung in April 2011, accusing it of copying patented designs for mobile devices, and Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung countersued.

Testimony concluded Aug. 17 at the trial. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh limited each side to 25 hours and Samsung told the court that it declined to cross-examine Ordover because of the time constraints.

Koh said she aims to finish with jury instruction arguments by the end of today and to have the companies present closing arguments tomorrow.

The case is the first to go before a federal jury in a battle being waged on four continents for dominance in a smartphone market valued by Bloomberg Industries at $219.1 billion.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
Spotify Sued by Nonend Inventions Over Music-Sharing Patents

Spotify Ltd. was sued by Nonend Inventions NV over technology that allows Spotify users to get music from the streaming service and other subscribers.

Netherlands-based Nonend accuses Spotify of “making, using, offering to sell, and selling streaming music services to users which incorporate methodologies that infringe one or more claims” of certain patents, according to court papers filed in federal court in Delaware.

Closely held Spotify said in November it had 10 million registered users worldwide, and 3 million paying subscribers. Spotify said July 31 that 5 million more subscribers signed up for its ad-supported music service since January, with expansion into countries including Australia and New Zealand.

Spotify has content agreements with Sony Corp. (6758)’s Sony Music, Vivendi SA (VIV)’s Universal Music, EMI Group (EMIS) and Warner Music Group. Under those agreements, artists, record companies and publishers receive a cut of ad sales and subscriber fees.

Graham James, spokesman for Spotify, didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment about the lawsuit.

The case is Nonend Inventions NV v. Spotify USA Inc., 1:12- cv-01041, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Heinz Sued Over Patent for Single-Serve Ketchup Packaging

H.L. Heinz Co. (HNZ), the Pittsburgh-based food company, was sued for patent infringement by an Illinois inventor.

Scott Alan White, in a suit filed in federal court in Chicago, said he invented a container to be used for condiments and made a presentation to Heinz, suggesting the company use the product for individual-serving ketchup packages.

He filed a patent application in October 2005, before his initial contact with the food company in July 2006, according to court papers.

Heinz said it wasn’t interested, and, told him his invention wasn’t patentable, White said. White continued in his efforts to seek a patent, which was issued July 31 as patent 8,231,026, according to the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

After Heinz’s rejection of his design, White said he was surprised when Heinz began promoting single-serving ketchup in its “Dip’ & Squeeze” package, even featuring it on the cover of the food company’s 2012 annual report. The “Dip & Squeeze” packaging violates multiple claims of his patent, White said in his pleadings.

He claims he’s damaged by Heinz’s alleged infringement, and asked the court for an order barring further infringement. Additionally, he seeks awards of money damages, and asked they be tripled to punish the food company for its actions.

Heinz spokesman Michael Mullen characterized the case as a “frivolous lawsuit,” and said the company will prove that the allegations are “groundless and without merit.” The company “worked for years’” to develop the “Dip & Squeeze” package, he said.

The case is Scott Alan White V. H.J. Heinz Co., 1:12- cv-06074, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

Copyright
Coldwell Banker Infringed Architectural Renderings’ Copyright

Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate and Sard Custom Homes LLC, a Connecticut home builder, infringed an architecture firm’s copyrights by making unauthorized use of architectural renderings, a federal appeals court ruled Aug. 15.

Although Prudential Connecticut Reality is also listed as a defendant, according to a footnote in the court opinion, the issues pursued in the appeal do not involve matters that were litigated by Prudential on the trial court level. The court said Prudential didn’t participate in the appeal “although it remains technically a party.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed a lower court ruling that no infringement occurred because the renderings weren’t sufficiently detailed to enable construction of houses based on them.

Scholz Design Inc. of Toledo, Ohio, filed the infringement suit in federal court in New Haven, Connecticut, in October 2012, saying the unauthorized use of the renderings for marketing and advertising constituted copyright infringement. In July 2011 that court granted all three motions to dismiss the case, saying the drawings weren’t sufficiently detailed to warrant copyright protection.

The appeals court disagreed, noting that “copyright protection of a pictorial work, whether depicting a house, or a flower, or a donkey, or an abstract design, does not depend on any degree of detail.” The court said it saw “no reason” why the renderings should be treated differently from any other pictorial work for copyright purposes.

Although paintings by Claude Monet of the Rouen Cathedral, and by Andrew Wyeth and Edward Hopper of houses weren’t sufficiently detailed to enable construction of the buildings they depicted, that lack of detail wouldn’t justify the denial of copyright protection, the court said.

Instead, all that is required is “independent creation and originality,” and the renderings qualified, the court ruled.

The court vacated the lower court’s dismissal of the infringement claim and of a breach-of-contract claim made by Scholz. It also awarded litigation costs to the architectural firm.

The appeals court case is Scholz Design Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes, 11-3291, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The lower court case is Scholz Design Inc. v. Sard Custom Homes LLC, 3:10-cv-01681-JBA, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (New Haven).
MTN Group Responds to Politician’s Ringtone Infringement Suit

MTN Group (MTN) has responded to a copyright suit by the former mayor of Kampala, Uganda, by saying its use of recordings of his speeches doesn’t infringe, according to the AllAfrica.dom website.

The Cresta, South Africa-based telecommunication company is arguing that while it’s Al Haji Nasser Ntege Sebaggala’s voice on the ringtones, he isn’t the author of the recording and ringtones, since they were “fine-tuned” into transferable material, AllAfrica.com reported.

The recordings are the product of the engineer who shaped the raw speech, the telecom company said, according to AllAfrica.com.

Sebaggala, who filed the infringement suit in July, is demanding the proceeds MTN realized from selling the ringtones, which the company makes available to telephone users for a 30- day period for 500 Ugandan shillings ($.20), AllAfrica.com reported.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage
CBS Drops Infringement Suit Against ABC Over ‘Glass House’

CBS Corp. (CBS) dropped a lawsuit alleging that “The Glass House,” an ABC network reality television show, is a copy of CBS’s “Big Brother,” according to a court filing.

CBS, based in New York, sued Burbank, California-based Walt Disney Co. (DIS)’s ABC in May, alleging that “The Glass House” infringed on its own reality series, in which a group of contestants spend months secluded in a house, evicting one another on camera.

CBS filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in federal court in Los Angeles yesterday. The broadcaster said in a statement that it reserved the right to re-file its claim.

“The viewers have spoken and delivered the ultimate form of justice against ‘The Glass House,’” CBS said in the statement. In the week ended Aug. 12, “The Glass House” ranked 87th among broadcast shows in TV ratings based on viewers, with an audience of 1.59 million, according to Nielsen data.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feess in June denied CBS’s request to block the ABC show, saying that he wasn’t convinced CBS would prevail in its copyright suit. The harm to ABC and the people working on “Glass House” caused by stopping the show would outweigh the harm to CBS from allowing it to air, he said.

Two former supervising producers and a former co-executive producer of “Big Brother” plus 16 other ex-producers and series staff are working on “Glass House” and disclosed CBS trade secrets and confidential information in violation of nondisclosure agreements, CBS said in its complaint.

CBS said the contract and trade-secrets claims against the ex-producers will continue in arbitration.

Representatives of ABC didn’t immediately respond to e- mailed requests for comment on the dismissal.

The case is CBS v. ABC, 12-4073, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

Source : http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-20/oracle-spotify-heinz-coldwell-banker-intellectual-property#p3

Patent Infringement | "Spotify Is Being Sued (Again) For Patent Infringement"

By : Hypebot.com
Source : http://www.hypebot.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Netherlands-based Nonend Inventions is suing Spotify claiming that the streaming giant is infringing on five of Nonend’s patents covering streaming media, peer-to-peer search, and retrieval and play back techniques. Nonend accuses Spotify of “making, using, offering to sell, and selling streaming music services to users which incorporate methodologies that infringe one or more claims.” The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Spotify and affiliated companies.
Nonend claims to hold more than 40 patents and patent applications in the peer-to-peer networking and streaming technology sectors, and according to a report by TechCrunch, this will be the first lawsuit Nonend has filed in defense of those patents. Nonend is suing Spotify and not other streaming services such as Pandora because Spotify is “built on a peer-to-peer architecture.” This allows users to stream roughly 9% of the music from Spotify's servers, while the rest is being pulled from other listeners signed onto the network.

“This feature makes the Spotify service faster, more efficient, and less costly to operate, and uses the technology at the heart of the Nonend Patents,” the complaint said. Nonend is also demanding a jury trial in the case.

The specific patents that Nonend accuses Spotify of infringing on are:

    U.S. Patent No. 7,587,508 ("Multiple Source Receiver-Driven Streaming of Content Between Peers")
    U.S. Patent No. 7,590,752 ("Playing Media Content on a Media Player while Streaming the Retrieved Parts of the Media Content to Other Devices")
    U.S. Patent No. 7,779,138 ("Streaming Content Between Media Players Configured to Locate Each Other")
    U.S. Patent No. 8,090,862 ("Initiating an Alternative Communication Channel for Receiving Streaming Content")
    U.S. Patent No. 8,099,513 ("Streaming Content from One or More Production Nodes or Media Player Systems")

This isn't the first time Spotify has been sued over patent infringement. Only two weeks after arriving in the United States, PacketVideo claimed that Spotify’s music distribution architecture infringed on its patents. Spotify responded by saying that it would strongly contest the allegation, and will likely do the same with Nonend.

According to their counsel, Nonend does not intend to sue additional parties beyond Spotify Limited and its affiliated companies, but is open to licensing their technology. This lawsuit comes as Spotify recently announced that they have garnered more than three million U.S. users (with roughly 20% of them paying subscribers) since launching just over a year ago in the United States.

Source : http://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2012/08/spotify-is-being-sued-again-for-patent-infringement.html

Patent Infringement | "Apple, Samsung Fail to Cut Back Patent Infringement Claims"

By : Jeff Gamet  
Source : http://www.macobserver.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Court ordered negotiations to try to scale back claims in Apple and Samsung’s patent infringement trial before handing the case over to the jury have failed, making it likely the panel will have to work through all of the claims starting on Tuesday.

Judge Lucy Koh asked both sides to try one more time to reach an agreement for a settlement and to at least work on reducing the number of infringement claims jurors would have to wade through. She also wanted the CEOs from both companies to discuss settlement options again, according to Bloomberg. Judge Koh’s hopes for a more streamlined set of complaints, however, seem to have fallen through. “The parties have met and conferred about case narrowing, but have not been able to narrow their cases further,” Apple and Samsung’s legal teams said in a joint filing.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and Samsung CEO Kwon Oh Hyun are scheduled to talk privately today to discuss the possibility of a settlement one last time. Attorneys from both companies will report back to the court later today with the results of those talks.

Judge Koh said she is “pathologically optimistic” the companies will reach a settlement. Assuming Apple and Samsung do agree to a settlement, it isn’t likely that will happen before the case is handed over to the jury on Tuesday.

Apple is claiming Samsung owes US$2.5 billion for patent infringement, and Samsung claims Apple owes 2.4 percent of all iPhone sales for using its patents without proper licensing.

Apple and Samsung have been fighting in courtrooms around the world over mobile device patent infringement complaints for over a year. Both companies claim the other is using patents without proper licensing, and Apple has also accused Samsung of blatantly copying the iPad’s look and feel.

Both sides are scheduled to file motions related to jury instructions and exhibits today.

Source : http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/apple_samsung_fail_to_cut_back_patent_infringement_claims/

Patent Infringement | "Moto files second Apple patent complaint with ITC"

By : Mobile World Live 
Source : http://www.mobilebusinessbriefing.com
Category : Patent Infringement 

Motorola Mobility has filed a new patent infringement complaint against Apple with the US International Trade Commission (ITC), according to reports. The Wall Street Journal said seven non-standard-essential patents are being asserted by Motorola.

The patents are linked to features including Apple’s Siri voice recognition technology, location reminders, email notification and phone and video players, according to Bloomberg. Motorola is understood to be attempting to secure a US import ban for iPhones, iPads and Mac computers, which are manufactured in Asia.

In an emailed statement made to Bloomberg, Motorola said that Apple’s unwillingness to licence the technology leaves “little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations."

The two companies have been at loggerheads since technology licensing talks failed in 2010. Apple has previously said Motorola is making unreasonable demands and that Android phones made by Motorola and other vendors copy key iPhone features.

Motorola already had a patent complaint against Apple lodged with the ITC, with the Commission expected to announce a decision – potentially an import ban - on 24 August. ITC judge Thomas Pender said in April that Apple infringed one of the four Motorola patents cited in that complaint.

Apple has also accused Motorola of infringing its patents with the Droid range of smartphones and the Xoom tablet. However, the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge Richard Posner in June after he rejected the damages claims of both sides.

Apple’s IP battle with Samsung meanwhile, is currently at its height with a trial taking place in California. The federal court case has now gone to the jury for a verdict.

Source : http://www.mobilebusinessbriefing.com/articles/moto-files-second-apple-patent-complaint-with-itc/25007

Patent Infringement | "Google loads Moto Mobility cannon, fires patent shells at Apple"

By : Brid-Aine Parnell  
Source : http://www.theregister.co.uk
Category : Patent Infringement 

Google's Motorola Mobility has filed a fresh patent infringement case against Apple over features on its phones, including the iPhone's voice assistant, Siri.

Moto filed with the US International Trade Commission to try to get Apple's iDevices and Macs banned in the country over seven different patents that deal with location reminders, email notification and video players, among other things.

“We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a licence leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations,” Motorola Mobility said in a statement to Bloomberg.

The handset-maker already has another complaint open at the ITC against Apple, listing four patents, and an initial ruling decided that the firm was right about one of them. The full commission still has to review the decision however, before iPhones and 3G-enabled iPads get banned in the US. The final determination is expected later this week.

Before Google's acquisition of Motorola, it wasn't meeting its fruity adversary directly, although Apple had been targeting the Chocolate Factory's partners who were using the Android OS on their mobes.

Now Apple and Google are facing off in the existing Moto battles as well as the new one filed with the ITC, which is not yet publicly available.

The US Congress has been mulling over whether or not any companies should be able to get bans on rival products based on standards essential patents (SEP). SEP-holders argue that they should have as much recourse to the law as other patent-owners, but since SEP has to be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, potential licensees don't think their gear should be banned if they haven't come to an agreement on those terms.

Moto, like Samsung, has argued that Apple refuses to pay a reasonable licensing fee and is relying on SEP-holders' lack of legal clout to keep avoiding the payments. Apple says that these matters should be sorted out in federal court, not with the ITC, and has claimed that it has only been offered unfair licensing deals.

Motorola in Europe had not returned a request for comment at the time of publication. ®

Source : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/20/motorola_files_new_patent_case_at_apple/

Patent Infringement | "VirnetX Loss in Apple ITC Case Will Stand, Agency Says"

By : Susan Decker  
Source : http://www.bloomberg.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

VirnetX Holding Co. (VHC) lost a bid to revive a patent-infringement case against Apple Inc. (AAPL) at the U.S. International Trade Commission, the agency said today. VirnetX said it will file a new complaint against Apple.

The commission said it will let stand a trade judge’s decision to terminate the case after he found that SAIC Inc. had ownership rights and should have been a party to the case. “The commission has terminated the investigation,” the agency said in a notice posted on its website.

VirnetX fell as much as $3, or 12 percent, to $22.50 after the close of trading in New York. The company has said it’s entitled to royalties from Apple and filed the complaint, which posed the threat of a ban on imports of devices including the iPhone, iPad and Mac computer. Apple’s devices are made in Asia. It didn’t specify when it would file the new complaint against Apple at the agency.

“We believe in merits of our case against Apple,” Kendall Larsen, chief executive officer of Zephyr Cove, Nevada-based VirnetX, said in a statement. “We will continue to defend against any unauthorized use of our intellectual property by all means available to us under the U.S. legal system, including in the ITC.”

The patent, issued in November, is for a way of establishing a secure link between two computers in a virtual private network. VirnetX also has sued Cupertino, California- based Apple in a federal court in Texas, accusing it of infringing related patents.
Ownership Question

VirnetX was formed by former workers of SAIC, (SAI) a McLean, Virginia-based U.S. defense contractor. The federal judge in Texas ruled in March that, under the terms of a 2005 agreement, SAIC should be joined as a party in the case because it retained an interest in the patents. VirnetX has said the technology stemmed from work done for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

VirnetX, which said it believed SAIC no longer had an interest, refiled the Texas suit with SAIC as a party. It then sought to amend the ITC case to add SAIC there as well. ITC Judge David Shaw rejected that request, saying VirnetX was aware of the ownership issue and didn’t follow the rules in how to file a complaint. He then terminated the investigation.

VirnetX said it believed it was the sole owner of the patent when it filed the complaint and that Shaw’s refusal to let SAIC join the case was unfair.
Apple Arguments

Apple said that VirnetX has been told by multiple courts that it needed to include SAIC as a party, including a case that ended with a $200 million settlement with Microsoft Corp. in 2010.

VirnetX failed to submit documentation to support its claim to sole ownership of the patent until after it received the March decision from the Texas court, Apple said in a filing with the agency.

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

The case is In the Matter of Certain Devices with Secure Communication Capabilities, 337-818, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Susan Decker in Washington at sdecker1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at bkohn2@bloomberg.net

Source : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-20/virnetx-loss-in-apple-itc-case-will-stand-agency-says-2-.html

Patent Infringement | "Motorola Files Patent Lawsuit over Apple’s Siri, Seeks iPhone Ban"

By : Jeff Gamet  
Source : http://www.macobserver.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Motorola Mobility hit Apple with a new patent infringement lawsuit over the weekend claiming Siri, along with other features, infringe on patents it owns. The case was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission and Motorola is hoping to win an import ban on the iPhone and iPad, along with Mac computers.

Along with Siri voice-based control feature, the lawsuit alleged Apple is infringing on patents covering location-based reminders, mobile video players, and email notifications, according to Bloomberg. In total, seven patents are included in the lawsuit, none of which are considered standards essential.

This marks Motorola’s second patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The company is claiming in this new case that Apple refused to cooperate in licensing negotiations.

“We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations,” the company said.

Apple and Motorola recently won summary judgements in their earlier patent infringement lawsuit, although the Judge’s ruling won’t help Motorola as the trial moves forward. Apple’s antitrust claims against Motorola were axed as part of the summary judgement, and it looks unlikely that an injunction based on standards essential patents to block iPhone sales will happen.

A hearing date for Motorola’s new patent infringement case has not yet been set.

Source : http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/motorola_files_patent_lawsuit_over_apples_siri_seeks_iphone_ban/

Patent Infringement | "Motorola Mobility seeks ban on U.S. imports of iPad, iPhone and Mac "

By : Anuradha Shetty
Source : http://tech2.in.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Google-owned Motorola Mobility has filed a patent infringement case against Apple Inc. at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). Bloomberg reports that in its complaint, Motorola Mobility has alleged that Apple infringes on seven of its patents that pertain to location reminders, e-mail notifications, phone/ video players, etc. The company is now aiming to obtain an import ban in the U.S. on the popular Apple devices iPad, iPhone and Mac computers. The report further quotes a statement by Motorola Mobility, "We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations".
Another suite for the Apple Motorola's complaint filed at the ITC is the latest in Google's battle with the Cupertino-based company. Earlier this year, a higher regional court in Karlsruhe, Germany declared that Motorola Mobility cannot ask Apple to halt the sales of its iPhones and iPads in Germany. The court ruling read, "The licensing terms offered by Apple sufficiently addresses Motorola's interests. At the current stage, which only allows a summary assessment of the two sides' arguments, it is to be assumed that Motorola would be in breach of its obligations under anti-trust legislation if it continued to demand that Apple does not sell the iPhone and iPad".

An earlier report pertaining to the ongoing lawsuit had revealed that the dispute between Apple and Motorola Mobility over unresolved patents had escalated to the level that Motorola Mobility claimed Apple approached European Union (EU) anti-trust officials to step in to settle it for them.

Recently, there were reports of an ITC judge ruling that Apple Inc infringed on a Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc patent, by way of its iPhones, iPads and other products. ITC Judge Thomas Pender said in a preliminary ruling that Apple infringed on a patent for eliminating noise and other interference during voice and data transmissions. The full commission is to review the judge's decision and issue a final ruling in August.

Motorola Mobility, which Google Inc acquired, also accused Apple of violating three other patents, including one for touchscreen technology. Motorola Mobility had then sought for an import ban into the United States. Apple noted that it was found to not have infringed on three patents in this case.

Motorola Mobility, as per earlier reports even filed related lawsuits against Apple in district courts in Illinois and Florida.

It now remains to be seen how this case develops.

Source : http://tech2.in.com/news/smartphones/motorola-mobility-seeks-ban-on-us-imports-of-ipad-iphone-and-mac/378122

Patent Infringement | "Google's Motorola Accuses Apple of Patent Infringement, Seeking Ban of iPhones, iPads and Mac Computers"

By : GAME N GUIDE
Source : http://www.gamenguide.com
Category : Patent Infringement

It seems the court battle between Google and Apple do not subside. It is Google's turn now?

Google's Motorola Mobility has filed a new patent infringement case against Apple. The claim by Motorola is that certain features on Apple-based devices including the popular Siri voice recognition program is an infringement of its patents. The complaint claims that Apple infringed on seven Motorola patents like phone/video players, location reminders, and e-mail notification. It also seeks an import ban on Apple products like iPhone, iPad, and Mac computers. Asia manufactures Apple products.
"We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple's unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers' innovations," Motorola said in a statement.

The copy of the complaint was available at U.S. International Trade Commission. Apple and Motorola have been fighting court battles since 2010. Apple has accused Motorola and other Android-based handhelds of copying patented features of iPhone. In April, a judge ruled Apple infringed on of the four patents filed by Motorola in the first case. The commission will announce its final decision on Aug. 24 for the first case is regarding the way computers transmit signals through Wi-Fi.

Apple did not comment on the court case. One-third of smartphones sales in U.S. are Apple devices. These court battles are a bigger battle for bigger share of the smartphone industry that grew up by 62 percent when compared with last year. Google bought Motorola in May. Google's Android is the most popular operating system for smartphones.

The important issue has been whether the commission must issue import ban on products that are found to be infringing on others patents. Apple and Samsung are in the middle of a big court trail regarding Samsung infringing on Apple's patents.


Source : http://www.gamenguide.com/articles/2911/20120818/motorola-accuses-apple-of-patent-infringement.htm