Patent Infringement | "British Telecom Sues Google Over Patents"

By: Nick Clayton
Source: http://blogs.wsj.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Google is already facing patent infringement actions from Apple, Oracle, Microsoft and eBay. That is just the litigation from companies with market capitalization running into the tens of billions of dollars.

As of last Thursday, according to Florian Mueller’s wireless intellectual property news blog Foss Patents, Google was also being sued by B.T. over alleged infringements affecting its activities in a wide variety of areas. The lawsuit was reportedly filed in the U.S. district court for Delaware.

    BT seeks damages—even triple damages for willful and deliberate infringement—as well as an injunction. The complaint suggests that Google refused to pay. The second sentence of paragraph 21 states that “BT brings this action to recover the just compensation it is owed and to prevent Google from continuing to benefit from BT’s inventions without authorization”.

    BT brings this action at a time when Google is trying to close its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Whether BT already has a cross-license deal in place with MMI or simply doesn’t believe MMI has any patents with which Google can effectively strike back, it’s clear that BT decided to assert its rights at any rate.

    I don’t know yet whether BT also brought litigation in Europe over local equivalents of those patents. It would certainly make sense to take advantage of the swift and rather patent holder-friendly decisions taken by certain German courts in order to get Google to pay sooner rather than later.

    With so many major patent holders asserting their rights, obligations to pay royalties may force Google to change its Android licensing model and pass royalties on to device makers.

Mr. Mueller offers a detailed analysis of each of the six patents-in-suit which cover a variety of alleged infringements from services including Android Market, Google Music, Google Maps, Google Search, Google Places, Google Offers, Google+ and location-based advertising.


Source: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2011/12/19/british-telecom-sues-google-over-patents/

Patent Infringement | "US ITC to review one of HTC’s cases against Apple"

By: Bloomberg and CNA
Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Apple/HTC Patent

HTC Corp’s (宏達電) loss in its patent-infringement case against Apple Inc will be partially reviewed, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) said.

A judge at the trade commission had in October rejected HTC’s claims that the Apple iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad tablet were infringing four patents. The six-member agency, which can block imports of products that violate US patent rights, said in a notice on Friday that it would take a closer look at the judge’s non-infringement finding for one of the patents. The remaining three won’t be reviewed.

The case was filed in retaliation for a complaint Apple lodged against HTC in March last year that is scheduled to be ruled on tomorrow.

The cases are part of a broader fight in which technology companies, including Apple, HTC, Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc, Samsung Electronics Co and Microsoft Corp, are vying for an increased share of the smartphone market.

Apple and HTC each have two ITC cases pending against each other. The case filed in May last year, on Friday accused Apple of infringing patents related to managing a phone’s power supply, protecting data and storing contacts.

“Competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours,” said Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for California-based Apple.

HTC declined to comment on the case.

The patent that will be subject of the review, which HTC received in 2006 based on internal research, relates to a way to control how the phone switches between modes of operation to manage its power supply. The commission is scheduled to issue a final decision on the case on Feb. 17.

The commission said there was no violation of three other HTC patents, including one for a method to protect data from being lost when the phone doesn’t have enough power.

The other two relate to ways to store, access and use contact information in a phone address book. HTC acquired those two patents in 2009, about a year before Apple filed its first complaint, according to information on the US Patent and Trademark Office Web site.

There have been concerns that HTC would lose the case, which would lead the ITC to ban sales of HTC products in the company’s main market — the US.


Source: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2011/12/18/2003520998

Patent Infringement | "BRP files lawsuits against Arctic Cat for patent infringement"

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


VALCOURT, QC, Dec. 15, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ - Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP), manufacturer of Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles, today filed lawsuits in Canada and the United States claiming that Arctic Cat has infringed various Canadian and American patents for the revolutionary REV platform used in BRP's lines of snowmobiles.

BRP claims in documents filed in the Federal Court of Canada and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that Arctic Cat knowingly used certain innovations protected by BRP's patents, without permission. BRP is requesting that Arctic Cat halt production of the infringing models, that it destroy those in stock, and is seeking monetary compensation for the infringement.

"In recent years we have seen our competitors attempt to copy an increasing number of our inventions and designs," said Martin Langelier, vice-president, General Counsel and Secretary. "Innovation being at the core of BRP's strategy, we will not tolerate infringement of our intellectual property rights. We are, as a result, taking legal action to protect them."

In 2002, BRP revolutionized the snowmobile industry with the introduction of a new platform, the REV chassis. This new chassis allowed the company's Ski-Doo brand to regain the number one position in the industry, a lead it has since maintained.

Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. (BRP), a privately held company, is a world leader in the design, development, manufacturing, distribution and marketing of motorised recreational vehicles. Its portfolio of brands and products includes: Ski-Doo and Lynx snowmobiles, Sea-Doo watercraft and boats, Evinrude and Johnson outboard engines, Can-Am all-terrain and side-by-side vehicles and roadsters, as well as Rotax engines. BRP products are distributed in more than 100 countries.

Source : http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/15/4125186/brp-files-lawsuits-against-arctic.html#ixzz1ggZBXOLs

Patent Infringement | "Verizon Continues to Fight a Losing Battle in Patent Infringement"

By: Sasha Findlay
Source: http://secfilings.com
Category : Patent Infringement

Verizon vs ActiveVideo Networks

Verizon Communications (NYSE:VZ) lost another decision yesterday in a patent infringement case they’ve had ongoing with ActiveVideo Networks™ since May 2010. After an injunction on November 23, Verizon was ordered to pay $250 million in interest, royalties, and damages to ActiveVideo for patent infringement on four counts, with the first monthly payment set for December 16.

Verizon yesterday was denied their motion to stay the payments further, with the court stating that it would “serve no legitimate purpose” other than allowing Verizon to continue using the technology without recourse.

Source: http://secfilings.com/News.aspx?title=verizon_continues_to_fight_a_losing_battle_in_patent_infringement&naid=131

Patent Infringement | "Apple’s Smartphone Patent Fight With HTC Awaits Trade Rulings"

By Susan Decker

Source: http://www.businessweek.com

Category: Patent Infringement 

 

Apple Patent

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- A patent fight between Apple Inc. and HTC Corp. over smartphone technology awaits decisions this week from a U.S. trade agency that may lead to a ban on imports of some HTC devices.

The International Trade Commission commission is scheduled to announce tomorrow whether HTC infringed patents owned by Apple. A decision in Apple’s favor may result in limits on imports of some HTC phones that run on Google Inc.’s Android operating system. On Dec. 16, the commission is scheduled to say whether it will review a judge’s finding that cleared Apple of claims it infringed some HTC patents.

Each company has accused the other of using its technology without permission in a broader global fight over the smartphone market pitting Apple against makers of Android phones. Tomorrow’s decision, postponed from last week, would mark the first definitive ruling from a judicial entity in Apple’s patent war against HTC and fellow Android-phone makers Samsung Electronics Co. and Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc.

“From a consumer perspective, you want choice and the consequence of this ITC mechanism is that it appears if it does find against Android, it could limit your choice,” Google Chairman Eric Schmidt, whose company isn’t named in the case, said yesterday to reporters in Washington. Google contended in a filing that Apple is trying to control the U.S. smartphone market through litigation.

A ruling for Apple may derail Taoyuan, Taiwan-based HTC’s trajectory from a small contract manufacturer founded in 1997 to the biggest U.S. smartphone seller in the third quarter. A victory for HTC may help it secure favorable terms in any settlement with Apple.

Disputed Patents

HTC generated about $5 billion in U.S. sales last year, according to a separate patent complaint it filed at the trade agency against Cupertino, California-based Apple. That’s more than half of HTC’s $9.1 billion (NT$275 billion) in global 2010 sales. HTC sold 24 percent of the smartphones in the U.S. in the third quarter, ahead of Samsung’s 21 percent and Apple’s 20 percent, researcher Canalys reported Oct. 31.

Apple contends that HTC’s Android phones infringe four Apple patents, including one for a system to detect telephone numbers in e-mails so they can be stored in directories or called without dialing the numbers. The commission is reviewing an agency judge’s findings that HTC infringed that patent and one covering the transmission of multiple types of data, along with two other Apple patents that the judge said weren’t infringed.

HTC’s Claims

HTC has accused Apple of infringing four of its patents, including ones for a way to control how a phone switches between different modes of operation to manage the device’s power supply and a method for protecting data if a phone doesn’t have enough power.

The commission is an independent, quasi-judicial agency set up to protect U.S. markets from unfair trade practices. It has the power to block imports of products found to infringe intellectual property rights.

Apple’s case against is In the Matter of Certain Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices and Related Software, 337-710; and HTC’s case against Apple is In the Matter of Portable Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities, 337-721, both U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-12-12/apple-s-smartphone-patent-fight-with-htc-awaits-trade-rulings.html

Trademark Infringement | "‘BlackBerry 10’ Moniker Born Out of Lawsuit"

By: Carl Franzen
Source: http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

BlackBerry Trademark Infringement

Former smartphone king Research in Motion, the creator of the popular BlackBerry line of devices, has been having a tough go of its business lately.

The latest blow: A federal judge in New Mexico on Tuesday ruled to temporarily block RIM from using the name “BBX” for its new operating system across the globe, after a trademark infringement claim was filed by Basis International Ltd, an Albuquerque-based software company that has marketed its own product under the name “BBX” since 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported.

“The BBX mark is identical to the mark which RIM is allegedly using to presenting its BBX product,” Judge Judge William Johnson ruled in the District Court of New Mexico, later adding “there is sufficient similarity in this case to weigh in favor of Basis.”

The temporary restraining order had been sought by Basis to stop RIM from using the “BBX” trademark during a developers conference in Singapore on Wednesday and Thursday, where RIM was handing out free copies of its oft-discounted BlackBerry PlayBook tablet to attendees.

And indeed, BlackBerry complied with the order, tweeting on Wednesday that the new operating system would be called “BlackBerry 10.”

“RIM doesn’t typically comment on pending litigation, however RIM has already unveiled a new brand name for its next generation mobile platform,” a spokesperson later told the Journal.

The new software is designed to unify BlackBerry’s currently disparate smartphone and tablet operating systems into one coherent platform (much in the way Google is attempting to do with Android Ice Cream Sandwich) and turn it into a cohesive product that can compete with the flashier mobile offerings from Google and Apple.

BlackBerry 10 was first officially unveiled in October at the BlackBerry developer’s conference in San Francisco, the result of over a year of tinkering to merge BlackBerry’s now eight-year old core operating system with the exciting mobile software technology of QNX, another Canadian company BlackBerry purchased for $200 million in April 2010.

Still, there can be little denying Tuesday’s court ruling marked a setback in RIM’s efforts to recast itself as a dynamic mobile device manufacturer.

Not only are customers gravitating toward rival platforms, including RIM’s once reliable enterprise customer base, but the Ontario-based company suffered an exasperating global service outage in October, which resulted in class-action lawsuits from infuriated customers.

Lately, it seemed as though RIM had been making a concerted effort to regain its stride, or at least break out of its funk, introducing BBX followed by a new enterprise mobile management system, BlackBerry Mobile Fusion, in late November.

But now one of those two new pillars of BlackBerry’s future has taken a hit. We’ve reached out to BlackBerry for more information on the name change and will update when we receive a response.

Source:  http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/blackberry-10-born-out-of-lawsuit.php

Patent Infringement | "PersonalWeb Files Patent Infringement Suits"

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


TYLER, Texas, Dec. 8, 2011 -- /PRNewswire/ -- PersonalWeb (www.personalweb.com), a Tyler, Texas-based technology company, today filed multiple patent infringement suits regarding the unlicensed use of its patented technology for cloud computing, distributed search engine file systems, and content addressable storage.

Suits have been filed against Google, YouTube, Amazon, EMC, VMware, Dropbox, NetApps, NEC and Caringo.  The lawsuits state that these companies have used PersonalWeb's patented technology as part of their distributed computing products or systems, including content addressable storage and/or distributed search engine technologies.

"PersonalWeb protects its proprietary business applications and operations through a portfolio of patents that it owns, and we are actively pursuing licensing and participation in the operation of businesses that use these patents," states Michael Weiss, CEO and President of PersonalWeb.

PersonalWeb leverages its patented technology to produce groundbreaking products. The company's newest product is StudyPods™, a social learning platform that enables students to connect, collaborate and share academic knowledge with each other at their own university or colleges worldwide.

The company also develops the Global File Registry ("GFR") digital content management system; the online copyright protection and crime prevention tool is a consolidated database, containing unique identifiers of millions of infringing files captured and collected on behalf of multiple content owners and interested parties.  In addition, PersonalWeb is developing enterprise solutions, including proprietary technology assets utilizing natural language processing and semantic analysis, to search for and deliver relevant content available on the Internet to users.

The patent infringement lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas.

About PersonalWeb: PersonalWeb was established in Tyler, Texas by a team who has been responsible for creating some of the Internet's most popular software and applications used by tens of millions of people worldwide. The company develops groundbreaking products based on its patented technology that is fundamental for many important elements of cloud computing technology, distributed search engine file systems, social media and content addressable storage.  For more information, please visit www.personalweb.com.

Source: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/08/4110060/personalweb-files-patent-infringement.html#ixzz1gD9fcm2U

Patent Infringement | "'Important' Oracle patent rejected in Google Android case"

The US patent office has rejected one of Oracle's patents and upheld another

By James Niccolai
Source: http://www.computerworld.com
Category : Patent Infringement


IDG News Service - Oracle has suffered a setback in its lawsuit accusing Google of patent infringement and copyright violation in its Android operating system: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected one of Oracle's Java-related patents -- although it did uphold another.

The PTO's latest determinations, reported in a joint court filing Wednesday, are a mixed bag for both sides. However, at least one legal expert has said the Oracle patent that was rejected could be its most significant in the case.

The filing, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, also shows Oracle continuing to push for a jury trial early next year, while Google argues that trying the case before July would not be practical.

Oracle sued Google last year, arguing that its Android software violates Java-related patents that Oracle acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems. Oracle initially sought damages of up to US$6.1 billion, although the court has told it to revise that estimate.

Early on in the case, Google asked the patent office to reexamine all the patents at issue, and Wednesday's filing gives an update on that process. Oracle asserts several claims for each patent.

"The reexaminations of five of the six patents-in-suit remain ongoing, with roughly two-thirds of the currently asserted claims having been rejected," Google said in the filing. "Eighty percent of the asserted claims as to which the PTO has issued an office action currently stand rejected."

Some of the rejections are preliminary, however. And if a jury finds that Google violated even one of the claims in a patent, it could still be enough to see Oracle awarded damages or an injunction, noted Scott Daniels, author of the Reexamination Alert patents blog.

In the latest developments, the PTO on Nov. 9 upheld the claims in Oracle's patent number 6,061,520, and on Nov. 18 it rejected the claims in patent number 7,426,720, the filing shows. Both relate to improving the performance of Java.

Florian Mueller, author of the FOSS Patents blog, asserted in July that the so-called '720 patent is "strategically very important" and "may very well be" the most important patent in the case. That's because it is the "youngest" of the patents at issue; it doesn't expire until 2025, while the other patents all expire in 2018 or earlier.

That means if Google were found to have infringed that patent, any related injunction would have remained in force until 2025, Mueller wrote. And if Oracle were awarded damages, the damages might have been higher based on the longer remaining life of the patent.

Daniels agreed, although he noted that the significance of an injunction would also have depended on the scope of the claims in the patent. If they are relatively narrow, Google might have been able to engineer around them, but if they are significant that might have been harder to do.

"Sometimes the claims are like a two-foot fence and you can walk around them; other times they're like the Great Wall of China," he said.

In any case, the patent is out of the case, at least for now. The PTO's determination was a "final action" rather than a preliminary one, which is "a major defeat for the patentee," Daniels said. Oracle is still allowed to contest it, however, and must do so by Dec. 19.


Source: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9222501/_Important_Oracle_patent_rejected_in_Google_Android_cas

Trademark Infringement | "Bayer, India's Cipla settle trademark suit"

By: REUTERS
Source: http://in.reuters.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

Bayer HealthCare LLC said Cipla's DA Double Advantage pet treatment violated the trademark rights of its flea preventative, Advantage. Bayer had sought to block future sales of the product in the United States.

Under the settlement, Cipla will surrender all profits it made from the sale of its DA Double Advantage, amounting in excess of $100,000, and discontinue all use of the trademark.

Bayer received an additional $100,000 as reimbursement for attorneys' fees, and Cipla agreed to recall any product remaining in the sales pipeline.

Cipla will also stop use of the trademark 'Advance' for a companion animal product and not make any product with the same formula as Bayer's Advantix, another patented flea preventative, during the remaining term of those patents.

Website operator Archipelago agreed to a consent decree, under which it is prohibited from selling DA Double Advantage and Advantix in the United States, Bayer HealthCare said.

Cipla was not immediately available for comment. (Reporting by Zeba Siddiqui in Bangalore; Editing by Unnikrishnan Nair)

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/06/bayerhealthcare-cipla-idINDEE7B50HJ20111206

Patent Infringement | "U.S. firm files complaint against HTC, others for patent infringement"

By: Jay Chou and Lilian Wu - Central News Agency
Source: http://www.taiwannews.com.tw
Category: Patent Infringement


Washington, Dec. 5 (CNA) An American company has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against several companies, including Taiwan's HTC">HTC Corp. and its American subsidiary, for patent infringement. Digitude Innovations LLC, a consumer electronics licensing company, accused HTC">HTC, Samsung, LG, Sony and others of alleged violations with regard to certain portable communication devices. Digitude requested that the ITC conduct an investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, an important means for the U.S. to combat unfair practices in the import trade and especially for enforcing U.S. intellectual property rights at the border. If imports are found to violate section 337, an exclusion order will be issued to the U.S. Customs Service excluding these products from the United States. 

Source: http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1779342

Trademark Litigation | "Chicken Chain Says Stop, but T-Shirt Maker Balks"

By: JESS BIDGOOD
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
Category : Trademark Litigation

For Bo Muller-Moore, a folk artist from Vermont, the T-shirts he hand-screens with the slogan “Eat More Kale” are a dream fulfilled: a quirky project that has emblazoned this leafy mandate across the chests of people worldwide, and one he wants to trademark.

So when Chick-fil-A, the fast-food chain that says it sells 537 sandwiches a minute with the help of the slogan “Eat mor chikin” (the words have been penned by cows), sent him a cease-and-desist letter this fall, Mr. Muller-Moore decided to fight the company, setting off a groundswell of local support and national media attention.

“This is corporate bullying,” Mr. Muller-Moore said. His lawyer, Daniel Richardson, sent Chick-fil-A a letter in November, contesting its claim that the slogan “is likely to cause confusion of the public and dilutes the distinctiveness of Chick-fil-A’s intellectual property.”

Chick-fil-A does not have any stores in Vermont. The closest one is in Nashua, N.H., about 120 miles from Montpelier, where Mr. Muller-Moore, an Alabama native, has lived for years. He began making the shirts in 2000, at the suggestion of a local farmer. The few dozen printed at first have swollen into thousands of orders filled every year, he said, but he still works out of the overflowing studio above his garage, buying his art supplies nearby.

“Someone called me a Vermont institution, and it made me blush,” said Mr. Muller-Moore, who has received plenty of local help. His legal representation has been pro bono; a local soup purveyor put a petition on Change.org; and a onetime aide to former Gov. Jim Douglas is assisting him with public relations. And the current governor, Peter Shumlin, has also thrown his support behind the cause and was planning to appear with Mr. Muller-Moore at a news conference.

Mr. Muller-Moore has also taken to Facebook to rally fans of his work, who posted on his wall, sent supportive e-mails and put more than 16,000 signatures on the petition in just over two weeks. Their motivations varied, he said.

“There are certainly the purists and they think of kale as this superfood,” Mr. Muller-Moore said. “I think other people see it as more of this local food movement. I think, in Vermont, other people see it as a shirt printed by Bo down the road.”

For those supporters, the message is simple: Don’t mess with Bo, and don’t mess with Vermont. “I think I’ve given away enough stickers and shirts around here that Vermonters take this very personally,” Mr. Muller-Moore said.

It is a place that prides itself on an artisanal, local business culture and, Mr. Muller-Moore says, is “very supportive of its artists and what it deems as its own.”

In 2009, the Rock Art Brewery, in Morrisville, Vt., received a letter from Hansen Beverage Company, which owns Monster Energy drinks, saying the microbrewery’s Vermonster beer violated their trademark.

Matthew Nadeau, the brewery’s president and co-founder, said one of the state’s largest beverage stores immediately boycotted Hansen’s beverages. “This is the biggest store in the state and they’re standing behind us, so we knew we weren’t going to fight alone,” Mr. Nadeau said.

That story spread on social and traditional media and Vermont’s senators, Bernard Sanders and Patrick J. Leahy, got involved. Mr. Leahy wrote legislation that required the government to survey how trademark law is used by large corporations, though Mr. Nadeau lamented that it was not distributed widely enough to solicit many responses from small businesses. The two sides eventually came to an agreement without litigation, and Rock Art continued to use the Vermonster name.

Chick-fil-A sent Mr. Muller-Moore a warning once before, in 2006, but did not pursue that matter. Now, Mr. Muller-Moore and Mr. Richardson are awaiting a response from the company, and they plan to continue with their trademark application.

In a statement, Chick-fil-A said, “We must legally protect and defend our ‘Eat mor chikin’ trademarks in order to maintain rights to the slogan.”

But Mr. Richardson does not think the company’s argument would hold up in trademark court. “We believe it’s pretty clear, the issue of dilution and confusion aren’t really triggered here,” he said. “There’s no one out there that’s going to come forward and say, ‘I thought I was buying a Chick-fil-A product but I got this T-shirt.’ ”

For Mr. Muller-Moore, the fight is about those T-shirts, and his small business — not kale. Although he does not mind kale.

“If it’s cooked well, it’s good,” he said. “If it’s cooked poorly, no thank you.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/us/eat-more-kale-t-shirts-challenged-by-chick-fil-a.html

Patent Infringement | "U.S. court denies Apple's bid to halt Samsung sales; Patent infringement 'still likely'"

By: Zack Whittaker
Source: http://www.zdnet.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Apple vs Samsung

Summary: A U.S. judge has ruled in favour of Samsung, and will be able to continue selling its line of alleged patent infringing products until the matter comes to trial.

Apple’s lawyers have failed to convince a U.S. judge to impose a sales ban on Samsung’s Galaxy smartphones and tablets in the United States.

The ruling late on Friday denied Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung, reports Reuters.

Apple began legal proceedings against Samsung in April, claiming the Korean electronics giant had “slavishly” copied its iPhone smartphone and iPad tablet.

But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in Son Jose, California denied Apple’s request for a preliminary sales ban against Samsung.

But there is a catch: Apple could still prevail in the long-running patent spat if the matter comes to trial.

Koh added, in conjunction with previously held sentiments, that Apple would likely prove that Samsung infringed at least one of its tablet patents.

In the meantime, Samsung can continue to sell its products, like the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Galaxy S 4G, the Infuse 4G and the Droid Charge, until a time comes where a trial rules in favour of Apple.

The Apple-owned design patent in question — U.S Patent No. D618,677 — while likely valid and likely infringed, poses no irreparable harm to the Cupertino giant.

Apple has yet to demonstrate the “validity of those patents” to succeed in the lawsuit.

Though the case has yet to start, the outcome of the initial hearing signals a strong lead for Samsung.

The two companies continue to butt heads in over 20 cases in 10 countries, as the two compete for the crown of top smartphone and tablet maker in the run up to Christmas sales and into next year.

In November, Samsung won an appeal against its sales injunction in Australia, allowing the company to sell its Galaxy Tab products in the region. Earlier this month, Apple appealed that decision, extending the ban, restricting Samsung from selling its long-awaited iPad competitor until after the supposed busiest time for shopping in the run up to the Christmas holiday.

Source: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/us-court-denies-apples-bid-to-halt-samsung-sales-patent-infringement-still-likely/64619

Trademark Litigation | "BMW’s Long March to Court"

By: Stan Abrams, China Hearsay
Source: http://www.businessinsider.com
Category: Trademark Litigation

BMW

This intellectual property case is really funky, as in “WTF is this all about?” Here are the basic facts, and then I’ll chime in with a bit of admittedly confused commentary:

The China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) is suing BMW China for allegedly using images of the Long March rocket in advertisements without permission. The case opened in the Fengtai district court Wednesday.

I didn’t know there was a China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (中国运载火箭技术研究院). Cool. You learn something new every day.

So it sounds like some sort of trademark infringement case. CALT apparently has the rights to a logo that was used by BMW without authorization. Case closed, yes?

These additional facts do not help at all:

According to the court, CALT filed the lawsuit alleging BMW used its figurative mark CZ-2F rocket in an advertisement in Vistastory magazine in 2010. The academy is asking for 100,000 yuan ($15,708) in compensation.

“CZ-2F rocket’s image is well-known for being designed to launch the Shenzhou spaceship and Tiangong-1,” said Deng Zemin, the lawyer representing CALT. “Clearly BMW used the fame of the rockets to promote their products and increase their market influence without approval, which constitutes ‘unfair competition.’”

OK, first, is it the figurative “mark CZ-2F rocket” or the “figurative mark,” which is an image of the “CZ-2F rocket”? In other words, are we talking about a trademark here or is the word “mark” being used as a military-style identifier along with the number? I already have a headache.

Right, on to the IP case. Thanks to whoever wrote this story, I really have no idea what sort of legal theory we’re dealing with. At the top of the list, we’d have to put unfair competition, since that was mentioned specifically. However, that quote probably isn’t definitive.

What are the other possibilities? Copyright? A rocket isn’t protected by copyright law, even if the design is distinctive. Images and renderings of the rocket would be protected (e.g. a photograph, blueprint, schematic, or painting) if CALT owned those rights.

Not much to go on in the article, although this sounds a lot like copyright:

BMW argued, since the Long March rocket family has been launched more than 100 times, the images in the advertisement are considered public domain, according to a court press release.

Does that mean that BMW was using photographic images, which might be protected? Unfortunately, that’s the only indication of a copyrighted work, and since the article also contains the words “trademark” and “unfair competition,” I am rightly confused. (More on this later when we get to trademark.)

Just to be thorough, what about a design patent? Possible. The aesthetic features of the rocket could be protected via industrial design, but there is no indication that we’re dealing with that sort of IP here.

That leaves us with trademark as the “anchor” form of IP that would be used in an unfair competition case. Does CALT own some sort of trademark on the image of the rocket as a logo?

Let’s assume for the moment that CALT does have such a trademark. If so, what products/services would it be registered under? Which class includes “rockets and other launch vehicles”? Class 12? What about automobiles? (I assume that BMW’s ads involved car sales).

Crap, I might as well waste more time by doing a quick search . . . yeah, there it is. Class 13, some sort of rocket logo on several different mechanical devices including rockets and launch platform technology. And yes, they also have the logo in Class 12 under . . . wait for it . . . automobiles. Pretty wide trademark coverage for a rocket.

So if BMW used an image in car ads that looks like that logo, then I’d say their case is in trouble. Doesn’t matter that the image of the rocket is out there in the public domain, that’s copyright-speak. If their image looks like that logo, then there’s a trademark argument to be made.

[Note: According to a super secret source of mine working on a similar litigation with CALT as the plaintiff, the trademarks in that matter were not identical or substantially similar.]

If you’re still confused as to why that “public domain” argument is irrelevant, consider a company like Great Wall Wine, whose logo includes an image of the Great Wall. That image is certainly out there in the public domain, yet a private company like that can still get protection for it as a trademark. Copyright never enters into the picture. Get it?

This brings us back to unfair competition and this claim:

“The slogan ‘BMW: experience the passion while improving our society,’ copied an idea on CALT’s website reading ‘rocket boosters help China take off,’” Deng told the Global Times. “It also implies the company has something to do with the launch. It’s totally inappropriate.”

This suggests “passing off,” which is a violation of the Anti-unfair Competition Law. I’m open to the trademark infringement theory (although now that I’ve seen the actual logo (which is kind of ugly), I’m skeptical that BMW used an image that was substantially similar), but I don’t really have enough information to say anything about the passing off charge. Without seeing the ad itself, all we have is the language “BMW: experience the passion while improving our society.”

It’s possible that the ad is suggestive of a BMW role. You never know. But so what? Unfair competition is all about the competition, and there needs to be commerce going on here. BMW is not passing off its own rockets as originating from CALT, it’s selling cars. Where’s the consumer confusion? And as BMW’s lawyer said: “as an incredibly famous automotive brand, it’s unnecessary for the company to use CALT’s trademark to boost its image.” That’s not a defense, but it’s true nonetheless.

By the way, in that other ongoing litigation involving CALT and this trademark, the legal theory there is also unfair competition, even though the defendant is in no way a competitor of CALT. Maybe that was chosen because the straight-on trademark infringement case was weak.

If I was CALT, and the two images are indeed similar, I’d stick with the trademark infringement theory. If the trademarks are different, I really don’t know where this whole thing is going.

Also, if anyone can send me a link/image to that BMW ad, that would be nice.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/bmws-long-march-to-court-2011-12

Patent Infringement | "Given Imaging Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Intromedic - Quick Facts"

By: RTT Staff Writer
Source: http://www.rttnews.com
Category: Patent Infringement


(RTTNews) - Given Imaging Ltd. (GIVN: News ), a maker of diagnostic products for the detection of gastrointestinal tract disorders, Wednesday said it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Intromedic Co. Ltd., in Seoul's Central District Court accusing infringement of two Korean patents of Given Imaging.

Given Imaging believes Intromedic's capsule endoscope, marketed under the brand name MiroCam. In parallel, Intromedic commenced proceedings before the Korean Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the two patents asserted by Given Imaging.

Given Imaging added that if the patents are found valid and infringed by the MiroCam capsule, Intromedic, based in Korea, will not be able to manufacture its capsule endoscope in Korea or sell it from Korea to customers worldwide. Rulings in these proceedings are expected during the second half of 2012.

Source: http://www.rttnews.com/Content/QuickFacts.aspx?Node=B1&Id=1771441

Trademark Infringement | "Maharishi foundation: Competitor violates trademark"

Maharishi foundation: Competitor violates trademark
The Meditation House's claims about its techniques are designed to confuse the public, the Fairfield group alleges.

By: Jeff Eckhoff
Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


A nonprofit Iowa-based educational foundation tied to the calming meditation teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi has injected new stress into the life of a competitor.

Maharishi Foundation USA Inc. of Fairfield this week sued the Meditation House LLC, accusing it of infringing on the foundation’s trademark covering the teaching of “Transcendental Meditation.”

Paperwork filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Des Moines accuses the Meditation House of lying in its advertising about the benefits of “Vedic Meditation.” Claims about the studied health value of those techniques are “false on their face,” according to the lawsuit, and designed to confuse the public with research done on Transcendental Meditation, which has been actively taught in the U.S. for roughly 50 years.

“The Foundation has never had an affiliation or license with the Meditation House nor, on information and belief, has anyone connected with the Meditation House ever taken an authorized course on the TM technique, let alone acquired the skills and knowledge necessary or the authorization from the foundation required to teach it,” the lawsuit says. “The Meditation House’s belief that the parties’ respective meditation services are equivalent is based on a self-serving desire to appropriate the valuable goodwill associated with the foundation’s brand for its own commercial gain.”

A disclaimer on theme ditationhouse.com insists that the company and life coach Jules Green “expressly disclaim any association with Maharishi Foundation Ltd.,” its trademarks or its practices.

Green, a “holistic life coach” who offers workshops in San Diego, New York and Des Moines, on the website lauds the “5000-year-old tradition of Vedic Meditation” and describes how her own meditation “led her to India to study with world-renowned Vedic scholar Thom Knoles in an ashram in the foothills of the Himalayas.”

Green did not return a phone call to the Iowa number listed on her website.

Iowa corporation records show the Meditation House LLC was formed in May 2010 by Jules Green Zubradt. The corporate address listed in state records belongs to an Ankeny home owned by Marilyn Green.

The Maharishi Foundation’s lawsuit accuses Green’s company of false advertising, unfair competition, trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false representation, unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

Court papers seek “all profits wrongfully derived by the Meditation House” from its allegedly improper activities, as well as multiple changes in the content of the Meditation House website.

The foundation also seeks a court order requiring that Green’s company notify “each and every customer who purchased services” from the Meditation House that “there is no evidence that the technique taught by the defendant reduces the risk of heart disease or normalizes blood pressure, and there is no published scientific study that demonstrates any health benefit from the technique taught by the defendant.”

Source: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111130/NEWS/311300051/-1/GETPUBLISHED03scripts/Maharishi-foundation-Competitor-violates-trademark