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

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

Patent Litigation

Motorola’s ongoing patent litigation in Germany is taking some more damage.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patent Litigation | "Shire Settles All Pending Litigation With Anchen and TWi Concerning INTUNIV®"

By: press release
Source: www.marketwatch.com
Category: Patent Litigation

PHILADELPHIA, September 6, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Shire plc UK:SHP +1.70% SHPG +2.36% , announces that its subsidiary, Shire LLC, has settled all pending litigation with Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Anchen, Inc.("Anchen") and TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("TWi") in connection with TWi's Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for a generic version of Shire's INTUNIV® (guanfacine hydrochloride) for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Anchen is TWi's authorized distributor and its filing agent with the US Food and Drug Administration.

The settlement provides TWi with a license to make, and Anchen a license to market, TWi's generic versions of INTUNIV in the United States on July 1, 2016, or earlier in certain limited circumstances. Such sales will require the payment of a royalty to Shire, except in certain circumstances. Also as part of the settlement, under certain circumstances Shire may authorize Anchen to sell authorized generic versions of INTUNIV supplied by Shire, on which Shire will receive a significant royalty. To date, the US Food and Drug Administration has not granted final approval for any generic version of INTUNIV.

The litigation involved a patent infringement lawsuit relating to U.S. patents 6,287,599 ("the '599 Patent"), and 6,811,794 ("the '794 Patent"). As part of the settlement, Anchen and TWi have agreed to a consent judgment confirming that their proposed generic products infringe Shire's '599 and '794 Patents and that the two patents are valid and enforceable with respect to those proposed generic products and any other generic version of INTUNIV.

Shire's litigation with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc and Actavis Inc. in the US District Court in Delaware in connection with their ANDAs, and attempt to market generic versions of Shire's INTUNIV, is not affected by this settlement. The lawsuits against those parties asserting infringement of Shire's '599 and '794 Patents are ongoing and a trial is scheduled to begin on September 17, 2012.

The agreements, which are effective immediately, will be submitted to the US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice for review as required by law.

Notes to editors

Shire enables people with life-altering conditions to lead better lives.

Through our deep understanding of patients' needs, we develop and provide healthcare in the areas of:

Behavioral Health and Gastro Intestinal conditions

Rare Diseases

Regenerative Medicine

as well as other symptomatic conditions treated by specialist physicians.

We aspire to imagine and lead the future of healthcare, creating value for patients, physicians, policymakers, payors and our shareholders.

"SAFE HARBOR" STATEMENT UNDER THE PRIVATE SECURITIES LITIGATION REFORM ACT OF 1995

Statements included herein that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties and are subject to change at any time. In the event such risks or uncertainties materialize, the Company's results could be materially adversely affected. The risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, risks associated with: the inherent uncertainty of research, development, approval, reimbursement, manufacturing and commercialization of the Company's Specialty Pharmaceuticals, Human Genetic Therapies and Regenerative Medicine products, as well as the ability to secure new products for commercialization and/or development; government regulation of the Company's products; the Company's ability to manufacture its products in sufficient quantities to meet demand; the impact of competitive therapies on the Company's products; the Company's ability to register, maintain and enforce patents and other intellectual property rights relating to its products; the Company's ability to obtain and maintain government and other third-party reimbursement for its products; and other risks and uncertainties detailed from time to time in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
 

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shire-settles-all-pending-litigation-with-anchen-and-twi-concerning-intuniv-2012-09-06

Patent Litigation | "Apple-Samsung Case Highlights America’s Troubled Patent System "

By: Paula J. Hane
Source: http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com
Category: Patent Litigation

It’s clear that Apple scored a major victory over Samsung in its recent and highly publicized patent dispute. A jury found that a number of Samsung’s mobile devices infringed on Apple’s patented designs and awarded damages of $1.05 billion to Apple. The jury also found that Apple had not violated any of the five patents Samsung asserted in the case. Apple then requested a ban on the sale of eight models of Samsung smartphones. Both companies are considering their next steps, while the media and blogosphere continue to buzz with reactions.

The jury finding in this case has triggered an onslaught of commentary, with speculation about what this means for the two companies, what it might mean for Google’s Android platform (used by many Samsung devices), and what it might mean for consumers. But, it has also brought up many questions about the nature of the U.S. patent system. The comments have ranged from “software patents are evil” to the U.S. has a “broken patent system.”

Matthew Ingram, a senior writer at GigaOM, says, “The implications of Apple’s recent billion-dollar victory over Samsung in a patent-infringement case go beyond the specifics of this particular battle—the reality is the war over software and design patents is bad not just for individual companies but arguably for society as a whole.” Samsung and some observers say the verdict will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices.

Observers have warned for years about the giant technology companies accumulating software patents. Furthermore, the patent system is complex and unwieldy, and litigation is clogging the courts. Simon Phipps, writing at InfoWorld, pointed out: “Most concerning in this case: How on earth did Apple get awarded these patents? They’re patents on ideas, such as gestures that give commands like ‘zoom,’ visual norms for illustrating software status, and design ideas for rounded corners on icons and devices.”

Phipps notes that, “Patents are authorized in the Constitution ‘for the advancement of science and the useful arts,’ but their effect here is the opposite. Market competitors who build on the shared consensus of the market are prevented from doing so…Intellectual property law has become a game for anticompetitive control of markets—not a protection for innovation.” He hopes the Apple-Samsung case will convince legislators that the patent system is “fatally flawed when applied to software-based technologies.”

Source: http://newsbreaks.infotoday.com/Spotlight/AppleSamsung-Case-Highlights-Americas-Troubled-Patent-System-84753.asp

Patent Litigation | "A Smartphone Patent Pool: A Way Out of the Litigation Thicket"

By:  TECH.PINIONS, TECH.PINIONS QUICK TAKES | STEVE WILDSTROM 
Source: http://techpinions.com
category: Patent Litigation


One major misconception arising from Apple’s legal victory over Samsung is that Apple now has some sort of monopoly over critical components of smartphone touch screen interfaces. Patent lawyer Gene Quinn of IP Watchdog explains the problem with this view in considerable detail, but a quick and dirty way to look at it is that patents almost never are issued for broad, sweeping ideas. Instead, as is the case with the Apple claims in dispute, most patents cover small, incremental improvements in existing ideas. The design of smartphones is covered by hundreds if not thousands of such patents, distributed over a large number of patent holders.

The parties could spend an inconceivable amount of time and money trying to litigate their way out of what Quinn calls a “patent thicket.” Or they could turn to a solution that has resolved such messes in the past, a patent pool. The idea of a patent pool is simple: Each player with a relevant patent contributes it into the pool. Anyone who wished to use any of the patents buys a license. And the royalties are divided among the contributors by formula. Anyone who needs the patented technology can use it and everyone who owns patents gets paid.

Pools have been used with considerable benefit in the tech industry. For example, the development of digital entertainment media was greatly facilitated by patent pools covering CDs, DVDs, and MPEG, among other technologies. People grumbled about paying for the licenses, but development proceeded with little litigation.

Of course, a patent pool for smart phones is more easily talked about than created, especially when many of the players are at each others’ throats. Coming up with an equitable licensing arrangement is a challenge and agreeing on a formula for distribution of the proceeds is a bigger one. The fact that Apple and Microsoft are likely to be the biggest winners, at least regarding touch interface patents, will not sit well with many.

But pieces of such an arrangement are already in place. Microsoft and Apple have an intellectual property nonaggression pact dating back to 1997, when they agreed to end their numerous IP disputes with a broad cross-licensing agreement. And most Android phone and tablet makers have already agreed to license Microsoft’s patents.

But hard though it may be, establishing a pool serves everyone’s long term interests better than the present litigation free-for-all. Says Quinn: “Eventually a patent pool is almost certainly how this will resolve.  If you look at the history of so-called patent thickets, the players fight and fight for a while and then, as more and more innovation occurs, they enter into a patent sharing arrangement of one kind or another.  Patent thickets lead to a tremendous growth in innovation.  We will see that in the years to come.  Likely not too far off if you ask me.”


Source: http://techpinions.com/a-smartphone-patent-pool-a-way-out-of-the-litigation-thicket/9851

Patent Litigation | "Patent lawsuits becoming a scourge"

By: San Jose Mercury News
Source: http://seattletimes.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Sometimes the problems engulfing the U.S. patent system can seem like a thousand shades of gray where it's hard to sort the good guys from the bad. And then, at other times, the absurdity of the system just smacks you right on the face.

The latter is the case in a bizarre piece of patent litigation involving several companies, including The New York Times, a mobile technology that sends links through text messages, and an obscure inventor who has turned his patent portfolio into a weapon of mass litigation.

First, let's introduce the players in this legal digital drama.

In one corner, we have Richard J. Helferich, an engineer based in Southern California who has been awarded at least 22 patents, according to a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office website.

Little seems to be known about Helferich. But his list of patents stretch back to 2002 and cover a range of mobile-related technologies that are assigned to a company called Wireless Science based in Chatsworth.

Helferich has also apparently created another company, Helferich Patent Licensing, or HPL, which has filed 23 lawsuits over the past four years against companies such as Best Buy and the National Basketball Association, according to a story by The Washington Post.

The strategy is pretty straightforward. The suits claim the company is violating a patent, but then HPL offers to settle for $750,000. The Post reported that about 100 companies took the deal, a roster that includes Apple, Walt Disney and McDonald's.

This also appears to be the strategy being pursued in The New York Times case. Helferich holds a patent for the process of sending a text message containing a link to your mobile phone.

While patent law can be thick, patents are supposed to be awarded for inventions that are "nonobvious." Sending links through a text message would seem to be both obvious and inevitable.

Fortunately, the Times has chosen to fight. It has accepted the legal challenge in court, and it has also appealed the underlying patent to the patent office.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the Times' general counsel, Kenneth Richieri, noted there was a larger principle working here. The company doesn't want Helferich's patents to become a burden on activities that are commonplace in the digital age.

"In some ways, it's a tax for being on the Internet," Richieri told the AP. "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."

Besides the Times, other companies on the hook in this case are CBS, Bravo and J.C. Penney, according to court filings. Really, it's a bit surprising any of them would choose the path of litigation. After all, $750,000 is chump change to such large corporations.

But just because he's battling such goliaths, Helferich is certainly no David. What he's doing is perfectly legal, and is entirely within his rights, given the patents are rightfully his.

And that goes to the heart of the matter. I'm sure Helferich is a wonderful guy, and maybe in his heart he believes he's fighting the good fight for small inventors everywhere.

But unfortunately, he --and others like him -- are being enabled by a system gone awry. Lawsuits like his have become a scourge. According to PatentFreedom, which does both research and consulting for defense attorneys in such cases, 5,073 U.S. companies were sued in patent-related cases by entities like HPL that hold a treasure chest of patents but have no operations.

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

I wasn't able to reach Helferich's attorney, David Lisa, for comment.

Despite recent reforms, the patent system can't undo years of such patent awards. It appears we need Congress to figure out ways to curb runaway patent litigation.

I'm old enough to remember when "patent" wasn't a dirty word. Sadly, rather than being the hallmark of achievement, patents have become another club to wield in court to pound your foes into submission.

Source: http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019055901_obrienpatentxml.html

Patent Litigation | "Apple trying to limit choice, Samsung says"

By: The Columbia Daily 
Source: www.columbiatribune.com
Category: Patent Litigation


SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — Samsung yesterday accused Apple of resorting to litigation in an effort to limit consumer choice after the iPhone maker said it was seeking to stop the sale of Galaxy S III smartphones in the United States.

Fresh from its $1 billion court victory over Samsung Electronics Co., Apple Inc., in a separate case, asked a federal district court in San Jose, Calif., on Friday to add four more products to a list of Samsung goods that Apple says infringe on its patents.

The new list of 21 products includes Samsung's flagship smartphone Galaxy S III as well as the Galaxy Note, another popular Android phone. If the court finds those devices are infringing Apple's patents and irreparably harming the U.S. company, it could temporarily halt sales in the U.S. market even before the trial begins.

The latest accusation is part of a larger, epic struggle over patents and innovation in one of the most lucrative consumer electronics sectors that is unfolding in 10 countries.

The biggest stakes are in the United States, the world's largest smartphone market in 2011. Last month, a jury in the San Jose court found that Samsung had copied Apple's design innovations and Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion. Samsung has vowed to appeal the verdict, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

Yesterday, Samsung denounced Apple's attempt to halt sales of the S III, which hit the 10 million global sales mark in July, less than three months after its release.

"Apple continues to resort to litigation over market competition in an effort to limit consumer choice," Samsung said in a statement. "We will continue to take the necessary legal measures to ensure the availability of our innovative products in the United States."

The strong sales of the S III were crucial in driving Samsung's quarterly profit to a record high in the last quarter and helped it stay ahead in the worldwide smartphone market.

In documents filed with San Jose federal district court on Friday, Apple said 21 Samsung smartphones, media players and tablets released after August 2011 were "copycat products."

"Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smartphone and tablet computer products, Samsung has chosen to copy Apple's technology, user interface, and innovative style," Apple said in one document.

Source: http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2012/sep/02/apple-trying-to-limit-choice-samsung-says/

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