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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patent Infringement | "Teva reaches compromise on epinephrine injector"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patent Infringement | "Larry vs. Larry"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Larger RDC Market

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

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

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

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

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