Patent Infringement Books

Saturday, September 22, 2012

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

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


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

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

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


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

Wednesday, September 19, 2012

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Patent Infringement | "HP resolves patent infringement lawsuit"

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Sunday, September 16, 2012

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Saturday, September 15, 2012

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Thursday, September 13, 2012

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

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


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


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

Following are among the key findings in the report:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


Patent Infringement | "Samsung to sue Apple over iPhone 5 patent infringement"


By: Dean Wilson
Source: http://vr-zone.com
Category: Patent Infringement


Samsung to sue Apple over iPhone 5 patent infringement
Patent Infringement
Sources say that Samsung will get revenge on Apple by suing it for infringing its LTE patents in the latest iPhone model, a move which could see sales bans imposed on the lucrative smartphone.

 Industry sources told the Korea Times that Samsung plans to take “immediate legal action” against Apple, primarily in Europe and the United States, two of the largest markets for mobile devices.

The case will focus on Samsung's treasure trove of 4G Long-term Evolution (LTE) patents, which Apple will find a difficult time evading, given revelations from various sources that a major selling-point of the iPhone 5 will be its 4G connectivity.

Apple has evaded legal difficulties over 3G due to FRAND commitments made by many technology companies, but these terms do not cover the relatively new technology of 4G. Another Apple rival, HTC, is also suing the company over 4G patents, with a US judge stating that the patents are “likely valid,” which means Apple faces some tough times ahead as Google's army of Android supporters fire back against the US firm.

Apple won a major victory against Samsung recently, with the jury deciding that it had infringed several of Apple's design patents. Samsung was ordered to pay out $1.05 billion in damages and faces a possible US sales ban on many of its products, but the Korean electronics giant secured smaller victories in Japan and South Korea.

The iPhone 5 is widely expected to be announced at a major Apple event tomorrow, 12 September, with many analysts claiming it will be the biggest Apple product launch to date. However, the unveiling could be overshadowed by the threat of having to pull the phone from store shelves or remove the 4G functionality altogether.


Source: http://vr-zone.com/articles/samsung-to-sue-apple-over-iphone-5-patent-infringement/17168.html

Monday, September 10, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Mylan settles Detrol LA patent litigation PBR Staff Writer "


By: Drug Discovery & Development News
Source: http://drugdiscovery.pharmaceutical-business-review.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Mylan and its subsidiary, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, have signed a settlement agreement with Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Pfizer Health related to Detrol LA patent litigation.

The litigation is related to Mylan Pharmaceuticals' abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for Tolterodine Tartrate ER capsules, 2mg and 4mg, the generic version of Pfizer's Detrol LA, indicated for the treatment of overactive bladder with symptoms of urge urinary incontinence, urgency, and frequency.

The settlement dismisses the pending litigation and allows Mylan to start selling the generic product on 1 January 2014, or earlier under certain limited circumstances, and 1 March 2014, subject to final FDA approval.

The agreements are subject to review by the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice. Other details of the settlement were not revealed.

Source: http://drugdiscovery.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/news/mylan-settles-detrol-la-patent-litigation-100912

Trademark Infringement | "Apple, Samsung, Reddit, DirecTV: Intellectual Property"


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


If Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent litigation is the “thermonuclear war” over smartphone technology and design that co-founder Steve Jobs pledged to his biographer, Noreen Krall is its field marshal.

Krall has become a familiar sight in courtrooms around the world as Apple’s chief litigation counsel. Her greatest victory came Aug. 24, when a California jury ordered Samsung Electronics Co., the biggest smartphone maker, to pay Apple more than $1 billion for infringing patents related to the iPhone.

“There is no historical precedent for what Noreen Krall is doing,” said John Thorne, who ran Verizon Communications Inc.’s intellectual-property team before joining Kellogg Huber in Washington this year. “Good generalship produces results like Noreen has gotten. She’s mastering big decisions, like which law firms to hire, how to manage resources, how much of Tim Cook’s time to take.”

Krall, 47, and her boss, General Counsel Bruce Sewell, have amassed a team of lawyers from inside Apple and some of the top U.S. law firms to fight Samsung, HTC Corp. (2498) and Google’s Motorola Mobility unit over Google’s Android mobile operating system and the smartphones and tablets that run on it.

Her job includes understanding the patent rules and court procedures in more than three dozen jurisdictions, making sure arguments are consistent, providing feedback and keeping her team motivated. She observes her lawyers’ arguments from benches or public seating in the back of courtrooms, leaving with them at the end of the day.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said Krall and other officials wouldn’t comment for this story.
Krall, a New York native, was trained as an electrical engineer. Two of her daughters are in college pursuing engineering degrees.

Before moving to Apple, Krall spent five years managing Sun Microsystems Inc.’s 14,000 patents as chief intellectual- property counsel.

Krall joined an Apple team that viewed Android device makers as a threat to its core business of selling distinctively designed consumer electronics at a premium price and with industry-leading profit margins.
She is a founding member of a group of female intellectual- property lawyers called the Chipsters that puts on events to share tips on being powerful women and mothers in male-dominated Silicon Valley.

A finalist this year for the annual Global Counsel Award for intellectual-property lawyers, selected by corporation lawyers and law-firm partners, she’s a shoo-in for next year, said Thorne, the former Verizon lawyer.


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/apple-samsung-reddit-directv-intellectual-property.html

Patent Infringement | "Orem blender company wins massive patent infringment award"


By: Jim Dalrymple
Source: www.heraldextra.com
Category: Patent Infringement


An Orem company famous for its popular "Will it Blend" YouTube videos won a massive appeal last week against a company that tried to rip off its unique blender design.

According to Salt Lake City-based attorney Mark Miller, a ruling issued Thursday by the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a pair of judgments in favor of Blendtec. The ruling determined that Ohio-based Vitamix had willfully copied the design of a Blendtec blending jar. The judgment requires Vitamix to pay more than $24 million for patent infringement.

Blendtec president David Beck said the origins of the case date back to 2001, when CEO Tom Dickson showed up to work on Memorial Day weekend, cut up several existing blender jars and glued them together to create something new. The resulting jar had five sides and dramatically changed blender technology, Beck said.

"When you have that fifth side it actually makes it so the vortex doesn't stay in the center, it actually moves around," Beck explained. "In 7 seconds it can make a drink."

Beck added that the increased speeds and shifting blending vortex were ground-breaking and unique to Dickson's design.

According to court documents, Blendtec patented the jar in 2005. The court documents include detailed descriptions and diagrams from Blendtec's patent filing.

However, the documents also allege that the design was stolen by Vitamix. Over several pages, Miller and other attorneys argue that Vitamix knew about Blendtec's unique jar and the related patents, but decided to copy and sell it anyway. The documents call on U.S. District Court judges to penalize Vitamix and prohibit the company from selling products based on Blendtec's jar.

The case went to trial in June 2010. Beck said that during the trial a Vitamix employee testified that Blendtec's design could do twice the amount of work in half the time as a traditional blender. He also said that the two jars were almost indistinguishable when held side-by-side. In some cases, he added, parts such as lids were even interchangeable.

"When you look at the two you can hardly tell the difference," Beck said.

Miller said the jury eventually ruled that Vitamix had infringed on Blendtec's patents. Blendtec was awarded $11 million, which award was then doubled in early 2011 when a judge ruled that the infringement had been deliberate.

Vitamix appealed the decision, but on Thursday a three-judge panel in a patent-specific, Washington, D.C., appeals court unanimously upheld the ruling. With interest, the award topped out at more than $24 million. Blendtec spokesman Tim Provost said the judgment is the largest ever awarded for patent infringement in Utah.

Miller described the decision as a satisfying conclusion to the case. He also explained that patent law functioned properly to protect Blendtec's design.

"This is a case where Tom Dickson invented a blending jar that kind of changed the industry and Vitamix copied the jar," he added.

Beck agreed, saying that it was difficult to see a larger competitor copy the jar so exactly.

Representatives for Vitamix could not be reached Monday afternoon. However, Miller said he believes the ruling finally ends the case and will allow Blendtec to collect its money.


Source: http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/orem-blender-company-wins-massive-patent-infringment-award/article_93960ee4-198c-59c2-8de4-25836f782706.html

Sunday, September 9, 2012

Patent Litigation | "Is Apple turning into patent troll?"


By: Kim Yoo-chul
Source: www.koreatimes.co.kr
Category: Patent Litigation


Intellectual property disputes have escalated worldwide with Apple, the maker of iPhones and iPads, somehow involved in every technology feud that matters today.

This has some observers wondering whether the California-based company is becoming less of an innovative force than an opportunistic “patent troll,” intent on trapping rivals with litigation rather than letting consumers decide which are the best products.

David Drummond, a legal expert representing intellectual property related to Google’s Android mobile operating system, recently criticized Apple on his blog, saying that, “patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.”

Patent experts understand where Drummond is coming from.

“It’s regrettable that Apple is concentrating more on taking competitors to court than developing its next line of wow products,” said Jeong Dong-joon, president of local patent firm, Su.

“Under the leadership of the late founder Steve Jobs, Apple maintained a pace of releasing new products nearly every year. Under Tim Cook, however, Apple got into litigation quicker, but its products have not been as impressive.”

The worries that Apple is abusing its supremacy in consumer smartphones and touch-screen tablets to suppress innovation are shared by officials in the United States, where the company is coming off a victory against Samsung Electronics, its biggest rival.

A jury in San Jose recently awarded Apple $1.05 billion in compensation, supporting its claim that Samsung has been slavishly copying the look and feel of iPhones and iPads in its own Galaxy lineup of mobile Internet devices.

“I hope Samsung Electronics can sell its products in the United States despite the (recent California jury) verdict,” John Read, chief of the antitrust division at the U.S. Department of Justice, recently said.

Samsung is hardly the only company on Apple’s hit list. HTC, Motorola and Google have been struggling to defend themselves against Apple’s wrath, although Google seems to be holding under-the-table negations seeking a truce.

“Apple isn’t the Apple that we saw under the reign of the late Jobs. Apple is too arrogant. I can say Apple is losing its Apple style. Partnerships with parts suppliers have seen a rapid deterioration and the frustrating Cook is losing his grip,” said a senior Samsung official, understandably bitter about the San Jose verdict.

It’s debatable whether the time, money and effort spent on litigation is making Apple less productive product wise. At least on the surface, the company appears to be maintaining its usual pace in product releases. Apple has traditionally maintained a 12 to 16 month period between introducing new products. The new iPhone, which may be named iPhone 5, will be unveiled this month, 11 months after the company brought out the iPhone 4S.

The problem, however, is that Samsung used that 11 months to dramatically close the smartphone gap.

“Clearly, the patent fights are costing Apple. Samsung now has the largest share in the smartphone market. Although Apple’s presence is still impressive as it represents only a single product, it doesn’t inspire confidence that it was helpless in allowing Samsung to become this powerful,” said Seo Won-suk, an analyst at Korea Investment and Securities.

“Cook chose patent as his top word by dropping innovation, which has been hurting its bottom line and consumer choices.”

During the second quarter of the year, Samsung sold 50 million smartphones followed by Apple with 26 million, data from Strategy Analytics (SA), showed. Samsung rolled out two flagship smartphones — the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note 2 — in May and August, this year.

A previous study by Boston University said that lawsuits are increasing and the overall cost of these cases in the U.S. was $29 billion, last year. The study insisted that the cost burden falls on new market comers and thus curbs innovation.

“We conclude that a top priority for policy makers should be reforming the patent system to make it perform more like an idealized property system and that the reform should address troll-like behavior. The patent system still needs significant reform to make it a truly effective system for promoting innovation,” James Bessen and Michael Meurer, the authors of the study said.

While it appears to be winning the war, Apple has lost at least one battle against Samsung in San Jose, when Judge Lucy Koh ruled against a request by Apple to delay lifting the temporary ban of Samsung Electronics selling its Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet.

A hearing was originally scheduled for Dec. 6, to determine whether or not to ban the sale of certain Samsung products completely in the United States and Apple had asked that this hearing be delayed.

“This is not a major setback for Apple, which simply tried to make a Samsung-style equal-treatment argument in hopes of a more favorable schedule. The only thing that Samsung really ‘won’ from the jury was a verdict of non-infringement of the tablet design patent, while Apple won on a long list of counts. I can’t see why its trial loss should indirectly entitle Samsung to a faster schedule,” said Florian Mueller, a German-based patent expert who is tracking Samsung-Apple disputes on his popular FossPatents blog.


Source: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/09/133_119451.html

Trademark Infringement | "Trademark action will shape NZ law"


By: CLAIRE ROGERS
Source: www.stuff.co.nz
Category: Trademark Infringement


Trademark lawyers are gearing up for one of New Zealand's most significant trademark stoushes - over humble insulation material.

Fletcher Building subsidiary Tasman Insulation and German-backed Knauf will square off in the High Court in Auckland over whether Tasman's "Batts" insulation should lose its trademark status.

Knauf - which is facing trademark infringement action from Tasman, is arguing the term has become generic in describing insulation materials.

That is rejected by Tasman, which has held the registered trademark since 1975, and says it will continue to fight to protect the brand value and awareness it has built.

The case, scheduled for September next year, raises the muddy question of exactly when a brand name becomes generic and will set a precedent for future battles over commonly used trademarks.

Ben Cain, solicitor at Knauf's law firm James & Wells, said trademarks were used as a "badge of origin" to signal to consumers that goods were from a particular source.

If a term came to describe the product, rather than its source, "then it can no longer be a trademark". Similar cases had been heard overseas but there was little case law in New Zealand, Cain said.

The Radler case last year, in which the Society of Beer Advocates failed to have DB Breweries' "Radler" mark revoked was of little help, as he believed it had not addressed the meaning of the 2002 Trade Marks Act.

The act changed the threshold for whether a trademark could be revoked, allowing it to be scrapped if it became a common name in public use - rather than in the trade - through the owner's acts or inactivity. Cain said the Radler case did not answer "how is it that a trademark becomes generic? What does common in public use mean? What do we mean by action or inaction?"

The Batts case was "probably the most significant piece of trademark law, certainly in relation to genericism, for a long time, possibly ever".

"This will set the benchmark for years to come," Cain said.

Tasman's lawyers, A J Park, declined to comment.

Penny Catley, partner at Baldwins Intellectual Property, said the case would be "a tricky one".

Proving whether a trademark was generic was complex and subjective. If a business had done all it could to protect its trademark but it had still fallen into generic use, it could argue it should still stand.

In some cases the public might know it was a trademark but still used the term generically and descriptively, Catley said.

The hearing would be a big one, as trademark battles rarely made it to court, she said.

Ad Feedback

"There's not a hell of a lot of case law here . . . It will provide some guidance for us and for other parties who may be in a position of having a well-known and well-used trademark," Catley said.

James & Wells associate Sarah Tallon advised businesses to avoid using their trademarks as descriptive terms, as that would encourage people to use the term when describing similar products.

"If you can't think of any other logical way that people would refer to it, then your trademark is in danger," Tallon said.

Businesses should also be careful to use the "TM" and "R" signs to denote the word or term was a registered trademark, she said, and to strictly police any infringement.

"When it's become a common term it's much harder to claw it back," she said.

Geography mattered, Tallon said, as a term might be generic in one country but distinctive in another.

For example, in the Radler case the term was deemed to be common overseas but not in New Zealand.

"Businesses should also choose unique, non-descriptive terms or brands to trademark, such as the made-up brand Fonterra, as then competitors would have no reason to use it in marketing their products," Tallon said.

However, in some instances descriptive words and terms could become distinctive trademarks, through a business brand building.

The Warehouse - on the face of it a generic, descriptive brand name - was an example, Tallon said.

"The reputation they have generated means that now if anyone says: ‘I'm popping to The Warehouse', everyone knows exactly what they mean."

BATTS BATTLE THE PLAYERS

Tasman Insulation New Zealand, Pink Batts supplier and a Fletcher Building subsidiary, is defending its registered trademark, "Batts".

Knauf Insulation, a subsidiary of German building materials giant Knauf, is seeking to revoke Tasman's "Batts" trademark.

THE LAW

Section 66 of the 2002 Trade Marks Act states a trademark can be revoked if, in consequence of acts or inactivity of the owner, it has become a common name in general public use for a product or service in respect of which it is registered.



Source: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7642724/Trademark-action-will-shape-NZ-law







Patent Infringement | "A Former Patent Examiner’s Perspective On The Current “Patent Hubbub”"


By: G. NAGESH RAO
Source: http://techcrunch.com
Category: Patent Infringement


On the surface patent law might seem like a mundane subject, but it is actually an important type of law that is not properly appreciated. To illustrate this point consider the following example, US Patent No. 7,863,798, entitled as a “Nanocrystal Powered Nanomotor”; where the invention’s broadest claim, states:

1. A nanoscale motor, comprising: an atom reservoir operable to provide atoms; a nanoparticle ram coupled to the atom reservoir and operable to receive the atoms from the atom reservoir; a substrate coupling the atom reservoir to the nanoparticle ram; a nanolever coupled to the nanoparticle ram, the nanolever operable to move in response to the nanoparticle ram receiving the atoms from the atom reservoir; and a voltage source electrically coupled to the substrate and operable to deliver reversible positive and negative voltages to electrical connections of the motor, the reversible positive and negative voltages operable to cause reciprocal movement of the nanolever.

Now a good number of you just scratched your head and went “wtf” is this all about and what is this thing he is referring to as “claim”?

Simply put, claims are the heart of a patent, and serve as the social contract between the inventor and the public as to what limited term monopoly rights the owner of the invention is permitted.

The real invention disclosed here was the claimed functional arrangement of parts in the motor design’s ability to operate, not what the title of the invention states. I emphasize this point, because it is so important for the technology community to not only get the facts straight on a patent dispute but also make sure to comprehend what are the legal issues at hand from a patent infringement perspective, i.e. the violation of an invention’s patented claims.

Which is why it was a bit disappointing to read the overwhelming coverage behind the Apple vs Samsung case, among the many other notorious patent disputes underway (Yahoo vs Facebook, Google vs. Oracle, etc…) all consistently laced with sexy soundbites and a constant misuse of patent terminology, to what I can best guess were various authors decisions to offer diversity in word choices.

It was not until a colleague of mine sent over a blog post by Steve Wildstrom in Tech.Pinions which referenced  Nilay Patel’s separate posting as well, that I was able to get a better of sense of the issues after the verdict was rendered, and I am a frakking former seasoned US Patent Examiner.

Now this leads me to my next point, given how complex patent law is to even explain to the layman, why would these two companies allow for a random judge and jury, none of whom are technically qualified in the art of patent law juxtaposed with the Mobile Computing Arts, oversee such a complicated case in the first place? Furthermore the notion that these types of cases should be handled by trained experts has been emphasized recently by a few well-respected legal and technology thought leaders. I am looking at you Judge Richard Posner and Om Malik.

As a former Patent Examiner, it is my firm belief that the tech-community should adhere to some sort of gentleman’s agreement policy of having these legal cases always handled and mediated by the technically appropriate authorities. You do not need some legal fix to encourage such a behavior, just do it, like Twitter did with its pledge on avoiding frivolous patent litigation.

My educated guess for why many companies choose not to go down that road is because they probably do not want a trained mediating professional to call out “BS” on either side with respect to each other’s complaints of patent infringement.

However I do not feel that is a good reason to avoid having technically competent trained officials review these types of cases, especially when there is a lot at stake. As a side note,Apple, I am a tad surprised by your push to have this case even heard, given your patent infringement woes by Creative Technologies, 6-7 years ago regarding the iPod music player device. What’s with the love for patents all of a sudden?

I do want to give credit and a “gold star” to Judge Lucy Koh for having the foresight to initially ask not once but twice for Apple and Samsung to sit down and talk through the issues of claimed infringement rather than waste the court’s time, and avoid a railroad mess which will undoubtedly have to be cleaned up via appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit aka “The Patent Court”.

In closing I can tell you all from my seven years of government service as a US Patent Examiner, I probably saw between 1-2 inventions per year that really wow’ed me. A vast majority of the patent applications that came my way never saw the light of day as a patent and when they did it was much more often due to a technical matter of patent regulations, as required by the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) aka the “Gospel on Patent Law”, rather than the claimed invention showcasing a truly innovative and groundbreaking step above the known and cited prior art.


Source: http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/09/a-former-patent-examiners-perspective-on-the-current-patent-hubbub/

Patent Litigation | "HTC's Wang expresses faith in patent litigation against Apple"


By: The China Post
Source: www.chinapost.com.tw
Category: Patent Litigation


VLADIVOSTOK, Russia--Cher Wang, chairwoman of Taiwan-based smartphone vendor HTC Corp., said Saturday that she has faith her company will win the ongoing patent litigation against rival Apple Inc.
On the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEO Summit held in Vladivostok, Wang said she remains optimistic about HTC's chances to win the lawsuit against Apple.

The comment came after foreign wire services reported Apple may face difficulties in invalidating two HTC patents related to data transmission in wireless devices.

The reports said the United States International Trade Commission could issue bans on imports of Apple's latest version of iPad and the next generation of iPhone after HTC accused the U.S. consumer electronics giant of infringing on the two patents asserted by the Taiwanese firm.

In the case, HTC said the patents allow its products to transmit a larger amount of data and are crucial to the long-term evolution technology to speed up data downloads.

Source: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2012/09/09/353696/HTCs-Wang.htm

Trademark Infringement | "Why Hiring an Attorney May Be in Your Best Interests"


By: PRESS RELEASES
Source: www.businessreviewusa.com
Category: Trademark Infringement



September 08, 2012 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Unique marks are instrumental to the establishment and growth of a thriving business. Savvy businesspeople the world over know the importance of protecting their company's name, slogans and logos from imitators. Every business works hard to develop and capitalize on its reputation and good will, and it is extremely important to keep others from profiting off of that hard work or diluting or diminishing the value of the brand.

In the United States, legally enforceable protection for this type of intellectual property is available through trademark registration. Although you are not required to retain a trademark registration attorney to take advantage of this protection, most trademark applicants do. Why? They are well-versed in the value that quality legal services can add not just to the application process, but to the strength of a trademark over its entire life.

Trademark Basics: What Is a Trademark?

A trademark is, in its most basic form, a brand name or logo. It is a word, phrase, symbol, design or some combination thereof that identifies and distinguishes your goods from all others. When a word, phrase, symbol or design is used to identify and distinguish the source of a service rather than the source of goods, it is referred to as a "service mark." Colloquially, the term "trademark" is used to encompass both trademarks and service marks.

To register a trademark, you must apply to and be approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As the owner of a trademark, you have the right to enjoin others from infringing upon or diluting your trademark -- and you may even be entitled to monetary relief from anyone who misuses your trademarked material.

Hiring a Trademark Attorney Can Save Time, Money and Trouble

You can file a trademark application on your own, or get one prepared through a discount service. However, what may seem like a good way to cut down on upfront costs can quickly transform into an ill-conceived money pit--in the end, you get what you pay for

For one thing, hiring a skilled attorney maximizes your likelihood of obtaining approval for your trademark during the initial filing. The approval process is similar to an adversarial court proceeding: when you file, government employees will review your documents for deficiencies, conflicts and other issues, and refuse registration if they find any. The fact is, the vast majority of trademark applications are initially denied registration. An experienced trademark attorney can help you avoid most of the common causes for refusal, and can help you navigate your way through a refusal if you happen to get one. As much as meeting all of the technical requirements, your application must be strategically tailored to clearly and precisely identify the goods or services to which the mark will ultimately apply. An attorney can help you draft a thorough and persuasive application that not only stands the best chances of getting approved on the first try, but that also maximizes the scope of the protection you get once your mark is registered. Rapid approval will allow you to aggressively enforce your trademark as you introduce it into the stream of commerce and begin building the good will associated with the trademark -- and it also saves you the costs and fees associated with reapplying, which can be quite high.

One of the most critical elements to establishing a trademark, and one of the most likely to cause problems in an application, is selecting a proper name, logo or slogan in the first place. There are dozens of rules and regulations restricting what kinds of words and phrases can be registered and protected as trademarks. For example, only "fanciful," "arbitrary" and "suggestive" names can be registered, while those that are generic or merely descriptive cannot. A seasoned trademark attorney can help you to evaluate the trade name or mark that you have selected, or can guide you in making a selection, so that you don't invest in a trademark that you can never legally register and protect.

An attorney can also prevent costly legal problems by conducting a comprehensive search of federal registrations, state registrations and "common law" unregistered trademarks before you file for trademark protections. This type of search is important because not all legally-protected trademarks are federally registered; such marks do not appear in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Electronic Search System database. Trademarks similar to yours that are not federally-registered could cause your application to be rejected -- or even worse, land you as the defendant in an infringement lawsuit down the road. You need someone who is skilled at ferreting out these kinds of potential conflicts long before you invest substantial money in registering your trademark and developing your brand.

At the most basic level, you are seeking a trademark in order to establish range of intellectual property rights. Another advantage of hiring an attorney is the impact an experienced advocate will have on these rights. For instance, a trademark is only applicable to certain goods and services; an attorney can help you come up with the best way to describe your goods and services in your application such that you will enjoy the broadest, most well-defined protections available to you in the marketplace. Remember, your goal is to grow and use your trademark for the lifetime of your business, so the scope of your protection is something that needs to be carefully addressed from the very beginning of the process.

Finally, an attorney is able to assist with the enforcement of your trademark rights. Once your application is approved, it is up to you to protect your trademark rights -- an attorney empowered to act through the courts can take action against any individual or business that threatens to improperly replicate your mark or otherwise diminish its value.

Source: http://www.businessreviewusa.com/press_releases/trademark-issues-why-hiring-an-attorney-may-be-in-your-best-interests