Patent Infringement | "Microsoft Seeks Mobile Patent Peace With Google"

By : Mark Long   
Source : http://www.cio-today.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

"More than 70 percent of Android devices sold in the United States have a license from Microsoft," said patent expert Florian Meuller. "But Google appears to be fundamentally opposed to the concept of inbound licensing, though it's simply the way industry players commonly address patent infringement issues." 

Microsoft hopes to arrive at mobile Relevant Products/Services "patent peace" with Google's new Motorola Mobility division without having to enforce the software Relevant Products/Services giant's recent string of legal victories in Europe and the United States.

Earlier this month, for example, the International Trade Commission issued an order banning from the U.S. market those Android Relevant Products/Services devices made by Motorola which implement Microsoft's ActiveSync technology. What's more, two courts in Germany have ruled in Microsoft's favor with respect to Motorola Mobility's infringement of other patented technologies owned by the software giant.

Still, Microsoft's legal staff complained on Tuesday that Google is resorting to smoke screens when it should be ironing out a comprehensive mobile patent agreement.

"Unfortunately, we have no reason to believe that Google's diversionary tactics will cease any time soon, and in fact expect more of them in the future," wrote Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith and Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez in a blog.

Seeking Reasonable Compensation

Last Friday in Germany's Mannheim Regional Court, Microsoft was awarded multiple remedies concerning the sale of Motorola mobile devices that infringe upon Microsoft's File Allocation Table (FAT) patent. The court mandated remedies include "an injunction, a recall of infringing products from retail, and damages -- the amount of which will have to be determined," noted FOSS Patents blogger Florian Mueller.

The downside is that Microsoft can only enforce the Mannheim court's verdict by posting "a 10-million euro bond," Meuller noted. This helps to explain why Microsoft continues to press for an amicable patent settlement with Google.

"We are seeking solely the same level of reasonable compensation for our patented intellectual property that numerous other Android distributors -- both large and small -- have already agreed to recognize in our negotiations with them," Smith and Gutierrez wrote. "And we stand ready to pay reasonable compensation for Motorola's patented intellectual property as well."

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its rival's call for "patent peace." Eventually, however, industry observers expect that Google will have to make cross-licensing patent deals with its top smartphone and tablet Relevant Products/Services rivals.

"This is already the third patent ruling in Microsoft's favor against Motorola Mobility," Meuller noted. "On a worldwide basis, ten Apple and Microsoft software patents have now been deemed valid and infringed by Android-based devices."

Standing at the Crossroads

Among other things, Microsoft is calling for a comprehensive settlement with Google that covers all outstanding patent issues. "Motorola's public proposal to take a license for only a small sub-set of the large number of Microsoft patents used in its products will not result in durable patent peace," Smith and Gutierrez said.

Moreover, Microsoft's patent deals with other handset and tablet makers demonstrate that these agreements have already achieved broad industry acceptance.

"With every licensee that Microsoft signs up and every court ruling that Microsoft wins, Google's ability to dissuade other Android device makers from signing a license agreement is further impaired," Meuller said.

By contrast, Meuller said, Motorola Mobility is the only major Android device maker to refuse to take a royalty-bearing patent license from Microsoft.

"For example, more than 70 percent of Android devices sold in the United States have a license from Microsoft," Meuller said. "But Google appears to be fundamentally opposed to the concept of inbound licensing, though it's simply the way industry players commonly address patent infringement issues."

Microsoft sees two patent litigation options for Google going forward: engage in serious discussions or string out the process by continuing to rely on diversionary tactics.

"We hope it will choose the first course, and we stand ready to engage in good faith if it does," Smith and Gutierrez said.

Source : http://www.cio-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=13300D2W7TDG&page=2&full_skip=1

Patent Infringement | "Fractus Awarded $41M in Patent Infringement Suit"

By : Business Wire  
Source : http://www.businesswire.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Fractus, S.A. today announced another win in its years-long battle with Samsung Electronics Co. In his Final Judgment, U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis awarded Fractus over $23 million in damages for Samsung’s infringement, and, deeming the infringement willful, an additional $15 million in enhanced damages. Including costs and interest, the combined award totals more than $41 million.

In addition to the $41 million award against Samsung, Fractus has negotiated settlements worth nearly $70 million with major cell phone manufacturers including LG, HTC, RIM, Motorola, Sanyo, Pantech, Sharp, Palm, and UTStarcom.

“Fractus regularly licenses its patents and innovative technologies to its partners,” said Rubén Bonet, President and CEO of Fractus. “This judgment is an important milestone that shows our commitment to our licensing efforts in the wirelessly connected devices in the consumer electronics industry.”

Fractus originally filed suit in 2009 against ten mobile phone companies, nine of which opted out of court. At trial with Samsung, Fractus proved that the company willfully infringed on four of Fractus’ U.S. patents which cover the internal multiband antennas common in cell phones, tablets, laptops, navigation devices and other wireless portable devices. The Barcelona-based company has shown its dedication to executing its licensing strategy, having challenged in court some of the biggest names in the global technology sector.

Fractus has made itself a world leader in antenna IP and licensing, with more than 200 patents and patent applications worldwide, and over 50 in the United States.

Source : http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120731005444/en/Fractus-Awarded-41M-Patent-Infringement-Suit

Patent Infringement | "Jury in Apple-Samsung patent trial to hear opening arguments today"

By : Joel Rosenblatt 
Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

A federal court jury in Apple Inc.’s patent trial against Samsung Electronics Co. is set to be the first in the U.S. to hear lawyers’ arguments and evidence in the global dispute over smartphone technology.

The panel selected yesterday include a man who filed for his own technology patents, a woman who worked for a semiconductor company, and an aspiring software engineer.

While the interests and professional backgrounds of those jurors reflect the Silicon Valley pool from which the panel was drawn, another juror didn’t go to college and works in construction. A Google Inc. engineer who Apple fought to get removed early in the selection process over the objections of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, was eliminated in the final cut.

The seven men and three women are scheduled to hear opening arguments today in a trial that is part of a battle being fought on four continents for dominance of a mobile-device market that Bloomberg Industries said was $312 billion last year.

Apple, the iPhone maker based in Cupertino, California, seeks $2.5 billion for its claims that Samsung infringed patents covering designs and technology for mobile devices. Samsung, based in Suwon, South Korea, countersued and will present claims that Apple is infringing two patents covering mobile-technology standards and three utility patents. Samsung is demanding royalties of as much as 2.4 percent for each device sold, according to a court filing.

Sports Analogy

Yesterday, Koh thinned the pool of jury candidates with questions screening for any bias that might prevent them being impartial in the case.

In the 20 minutes Koh allotted lawyers to speak to potential jurors, Bill Price, a lawyer for Samsung, offered a sports analogy for all potential jurors.

He asked jurors if their opinions about a referee’s call against a favored team were ever less than objective “because you’re leaning one way or another you see things different?” He continued by asking if any jurors were inclined to think Asian or Korean companies are more inclined to “cheat” compared to another company “nearby and iconic?”

Jurors remained silent after both questions.

Google Engineer

Four jury candidates were dismissed by Koh before lawyers weighed in with their preferences, which were discussed privately among lawyers at their tables and at Koh’s bench. Koh twice rejected a request by William Lee, a lawyer for Apple, to dismiss “for cause” the Google engineer who said he owns shares in his company.

The engineer said he started at Google before it bought YouTube, working on user interface layouts. He said he had worked on the company’s AdWords program, maps and a version of the company’s Android operating system called Jelly Bean. He said he assisted in some capacity with patents covering some of those technologies.

“His credibility, as far as I’m concerned, I believe it when he says he can be fair and impartial,” Koh said, noting that the juror said his family owns many Apple products. “For right now he’s been solid that he can be fair and impartial, so he’s staying on,” Koh said.

The engineer was later dismissed from the jury after lawyers for both sides conferred with each other.

The engineer who applied for his own patents told the court he worked in the hard-drive industry. He said he’s married with two children and that he had worked for Memorex, Digital Equipment and Seagate, among other companies. during the seven years it took him to get the patent approved, he was “active” with his lawyer during the process, he said.

Tech Connections

A woman serving on the jury said she worked for National Semiconductor Corp. and now works in retail. She said her husband worked for Applied Materials Inc.

The construction worker, with two children from a previous marriage lives in Gilroy, California, with his wife who also has children from an earlier marriage. He said his hobbies include working on cars and motorcycles.

One juror said he hopes to go to college to study software development for video games. Early in the selection process he asked Koh if his grandparents’ Apple shares disqualified him from serving on the jury.

The judge asked if he stood to profit from the stock? The judge said he was fit to serve after he told her the only way he might benefit is if the shares were somehow passed on to him through his parents.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-jury-to-hear-arguments-in-samsung-patent-infringement-case/2012/07/31/gJQAzduPMX_story.html

Patent Infringement | "Taiwanese University sues Apple for patent infringement"

By : James Dohnert 
Source : http://www.v3.co.uk 
category : Patent Infringement 

Taiwan's National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) has sued Apple for infringing on two of its speech recognition patents.

NCKU is claiming that Apple's Siri app infringes on patents it filed in 2002 and 2005. The patents in question relate to the use of speech recognition and speech matching systems which the university began developing in the 1990s.

The case has been brought in front of a Texas court. NCKU is working with Texas attorney Winston O. Huff during the proceedings.

"NCKU has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Apple's infringing activities are enjoined by this Court," Huff said in the filing.

According to US patent filings NCKU's patents deal with the matching and recognition of speech by an electronic device.

In its patent numbered 7,707,032 NCKU stakes claim to a method and system used for matching speech data. The system has the ability to match speech fragments with sample speech preloaded into the system.

"The present invention relates to a matching method and system," the university states in its original patent which was officially recognized in 2010.

"More particularly, the present invention relates to a method and system for determining the similarity between two speech data."

The university's second patent in question relates to a system that runs speech through a four part module that attempts to recognize speech. NCKU says in the patent that the four part system creates four separate intellectual products that could each be used to streamline product building.

"Each module forms an intellectual product (IP) component by itself," NCKU continues in its patent numbered 7,266,496.

"Each IP component can work with various products and application requirements for the design reuse to greatly shorten the time to market."

In its claim, NCKU asks to be awarded damages and trial expenses. The university also asks for an injunction against any Apple products that infringe on its patents.

Apple has been busy with patent cases recently. The iPhone maker currently has ongoing infringement cases against both Samsung and Motorola.

Apple was not avaiable for comment at the time of publication.

Source : http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2195776/taiwanese-university-sues-apple-for-patent-infringement

Patent Infringement | "USPTO Expands and Extends Patent Prosecution Highway Programs"

By : Donald Zuhn 
Source : http://www.patentdocs.org 
Cateogry : Patent Infringement 

Since implementing its first Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program with the Japan Patent Office (JPO) on July 3, 2006, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had established some thirty PPH programs with more than twenty other patent offices.  The USPTO recently increased the number of PPH programs (full or pilot) to thirty-three by establishing a PPH pilot program based on Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) work products (PCT-PPH) with the Israel Patent Office (ILPO), and the number of offices with which it has PPH programs to twenty-three by establishing a PPH pilot program with the Colombian Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC).  In addition, the USPTO continued two other PPH programs -- PCT-PPH pilot programs with IP Australia and the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI) -- and fully implemented two other PPH programs -- a PPH program with ILPO and a PCT-PPH program with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO).

Last week, the USPTO announced the establishment of a new Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program with the Colombian Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC).  As with other PPH programs, the USPTO-SIC PPH will permit an applicant having an application whose claims have been allowed in one of the offices to fast track the examination of an application in the other office, such that the latter application is examined out of turn.  In particular, an applicant receiving a ruling from either the USPTO or SIC that at least one claim in an application is patentable may request that the other office fast track the examination of corresponding claims in the corresponding application in that office.  The USPTO-SIC PPH pilot program, which will begin on September 1, 2012, is scheduled to expire on August 31, 2013, but may be extended for up to one year or terminated earlier depending on volume of activity and other factors.  The USPTO's notice regarding the USPTO-SIC PPH pilot program, including requirements for participation in the program, can be found here.

Earlier this month, the USPTO announced that it would be launching a new Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot program with the Israel Patent Office (ILPO) on August 1, 2012.  The pilot program will apply to qualifying patent applications filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).  Under the USPTO-ILPO PCT-PPH, an applicant receiving a positive written opinion or a positive international preliminary report in a PCT application where the USPTO or ILPO was the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examination Authority may request that the other office fast track the examination of corresponding claims in corresponding applications.  The USPTO-ILPO PPH pilot program is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2013, but may be extended for up to one year or terminated earlier depending on volume of activity and other factors.  The USPTO's notice regarding the USPTO-ILPO PCT-PPH pilot program, including requirements for participation in the program, can be found here.  While announcing the new PCT-PPH pilot program with the ILPO, the USPTO also announced that it was fully implementing the PPH program with the ILPO, effective July 1, 2012.  The USPTO's notice regarding the USPTO-ILPO PPH program, including requirements for participation in the program, can be found here.

The USPTO also announced earlier this month the continuation of a current PPH pilot program with the ILPO (see notice) and a PPH pilot program based on Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) work products (PCT-PPH) with the NPI (see notice).  Both PPH programs have been extended indefinitely.

Finally, the USPTO announced in late June that the USPTO and KIPO had agreed to fully implement their PCT-PPH program on a permanent basis starting on June 1, 2012.  The USPTO noted that "[t]he results of the [USPTO-KIPO] PCT-PPH pilot program showed that applicants have been able to expeditiously obtain a patent at an early stage by utilizing petition to make special procedures," and that "the USPTO and the KIPO have been able to reduce duplication of search efforts by exploiting the search and examination results in PCT applications to the maximum extent practicable."  The USPTO's notice regarding the USPTO-KIPO PCT-PPH program, including requirements for participation in the program, can be found here.

With the addition of the above programs, the USPTO has twenty-one PPH programs (full or pilot) in place with IP Australia (IP AU), the Austrian Patent Office (APO), the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), China's State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO), the Colombian Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC), the Danish Patent and Trademark Office (DKPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the National Board of Patents and Registration of Finland (NBPR), the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA), the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office (HIPO), the Icelandic Patent Office (IPO), the Israel Patent Office (ILPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI), the Norwegian Industrial Property Office (NIPO), the Russian Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents and Trademarks (ROSPATENT), the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), the Spanish Patent and Trademark Office (SPTO), the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO), and the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO).  The USPTO has also established twelve PCT-PPH programs with other patent offices:  IP AU, APO, SIPO, EPO, NBPR, ILPO, JPO, KIPO, the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), ROSPATENT, SPTO, and the Swedish Patent and Registration Office (PRV).  Additional information regarding the various PPH and PCT-PPH programs, as well as links to the appropriate request forms to be used for each program, can be found here.

Source : http://www.patentdocs.org/2012/07/uspto-expands-and-extends-patent-prosecution-highway-programs.html

Patent Infringement | "Apple-Samsung Patent Trial to Hear Opening Arguments on Tuesday"

By : Martyn Williams  
Source : http://www.pcworld.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

A highly anticipated patent infringement case between Apple and Samsung Electronics will get under way in a California courtroom on Tuesday after each side spent Monday agreeing on a 10-person jury.

Selection of the jury took until just after 4 p.m. PDT on Monday. The court had previously agreed to let each company spend up to 1.5 hours each presenting their opening statements and for both to present on the same day, so it became obvious around lunchtime that opening arguments would have to wait until Tuesday.

The jury will hear arguments from Apple that Samsung set out to deliberately copy its iPhone and iPad designs in coming up with competing products. Samsung will argue that its products aren't mere copies of Apple's devices and that some Apple products infringe on technology patents it holds for certain aspects of 3G wireless.

"If you are ultimately selected as a juror, this will be a very interesting case," Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court in San Jose told potential jurors as Monday's session began.

What she didn't say, but what became clear during the course of the day, was how interesting and varied the potential jurors were themselves.

They include a retired naval cryptologist with a son who drives race cars, an Iranian-born pizza delivery man whose hobbies include Libertarian politics, an engineer with more than 125 patents to his name, and a woman who runs an accredited pre-school, doesn't own a cell phone, and doesn't want anything to do with social media.

It was, in short, a typical cross-section of the kind of people it's easy to find in Northern California.

In the heart of Silicon Valley, it's also easy to find people with deep links to the high-tech industry, and the potential jurors were no different.

One, an Apple employee, was excused because he admitted he would like to see his employer win in the case, and another said his son worked at Apple -- in the legal department, which drew some laughs from the court. He was also excused after he spoke of a long history between family members and Apple and said he felt the company "was bred into my family."

The questions posed to the potential jurors were intended to uncover any bias they might have regarding the companies or the patent system, which some view as responsible for a recent rise in the number of big-name patent lawsuits. There were other questions that probed at a speciality in any of the areas related to the case or business relationships with Apple, Samsung or Android creator Google and its Motorola Mobility subsidiary.

Going into lunch, Apple said it planned to object to the inclusion of a Google employee who worked on user-interface design, but Koh said she would deny such an appeal.

"He said he would be fair and impartial," Koh said, noting that despite his job at Google he was a big buyer of Apple products. The designer told the court he owned two iPads, a Galaxy Tab 7, an iPod Touch, a MacBook Air, a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro and used a MacBook Pro at work.

"You're good for the economy," Koh said as he finished his list of gadgets.

Asked several times about whether he believed he could fairly judge the case based on the evidence presented and nothing more, he said yes each time.

"His credibility, as far as I am concerned ... I believe it," Koh said.

Several hours later, when it was time to pick the 10 people who would make up the jury from the larger pool, Apple's lawyers tried again to get him taken off the jury because of his job at Google, but Koh again refused.

The decision meant that Apple had to use one of its jury challenges -- an ability to remove a potential juror from the eventual jury without objection from the other party. So the Google programmer did not eventually make it into the jury.

The case is 11-01846, Apple vs Samsung Electronics, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Source : http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/260074/applesamsung_patent_trial_to_hear_opening_arguments_on_tuesday.html

Patent Infringement | "Apple, Paddy Power, Perdue, Netflix: Intellectual Property"

By : Victoria Slind 
Source : http://www.bloomberg.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s $2.5 billion patent- infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co. opened yesterday in federal court in California with the selection of a jury in the first U.S. trial to consider the global smartphone dispute.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, who practiced as an intellectual-property litigator in Silicon Valley for eight years, is presiding over the trial. Jurors will decide each company’s claims that its rival infringed patents covering designs and technology for mobile devices, with potential damage awards reaching billions of dollars.

The case is the first U.S. jury trial of a battle being fought on four continents for dominance of a mobile-device market that Bloomberg Industries said was $312 billion last year. Apple, the iPhone maker based in Cupertino, California, just 11 miles from the courthouse, won’t benefit from any bias from a jury drawn from Silicon Valley, said Stanford Law School Professor Mark Lemley.

“Just as many people in the valley work for Android companies like Google as work for Apple,” Lemley said in an e- mail, referring to Google Inc. (GOOG)’s Android operating system that some Samsung products use. “I expect that a Silicon Valley jury will be more technologically sophisticated than most, and that may work in Samsung’s favor.”

Samsung, based in Suwon, South Korea, has countersued and will present claims that Apple is infringing two patents covering mobile-technology standards and three utility patents. Samsung is demanding royalties of as much as 2.4 percent for each device sold, according to a court filing.

Samsung Chief Executive Officer Choi Gee Sung and Apple CEO Tim Cook failed to settle the San Jose case at a court-ordered May 21 meeting in San Francisco. Previously, company officials met in September and December and on May 4 to discuss resolving a related dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

The case is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 11- cv-01846, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).

Source : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/apple-paddy-power-perdue-netflix-intellectual-property.html

Patent News | "Apple, Samsung Patent Trial Starts With Implications for Mobile Devices"

By : Todd R. Weiss 
Source : http://www.eweek.com 
Catgory : Patent Infringement 

After a two-year-long and very public trail of allegations, counter-allegations and patent-infringement claims from both sides, the high-stakes patent trial between Apple and Samsung gets under way in a San Jose courtroom on July 30.

The long-awaited patent-infringement trial between Apple and Samsung that opens July 30 in U.S. District Court in California could potentially impact the kinds of mobile devices that are available to consumers and enterprise buyers in the mobile marketplace, so its implications are notable.

Apple alleges that Samsung outwardly infringed on many of its patents in Apple's iPhone line to incorporate the same ideas in Samsung products, while Samsung argues that that its designs are its own, based on ideas that the company had prior to the introduction of the iPhone. Samsung also alleges that Apple is trying to prevent competition in the marketplace by attacking competitors with unfair patent claims.

The opening of the jury trial is even being called the "patent trial of the century" by Fortune magazine as the two powerful rivals prepare to again battle their patent infringement arguments out in court.

The two sides will again meet in the San Jose, Calif., courtroom of U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, where the selection of 10 jurors is expected to be the first task in the trial. The case will begin late Monday with opening arguments if the jury selection is completed swiftly.

The trial schedule calls for the case to be heard on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays for the first two weeks, and if it goes longer, proceedings will be held each weekday, according to a report from The Washington Post.

In the latest court fight that is unfolding today, Apple is seeking more than $2.5 billion in damages from Samsung for alleged infringement of its smartphone patents, while Samsung is seeking damages amounting to 2.4 percent of Apple's sales for alleged infringement of Samsung patents, according to new case details outlined in the Fortune story.

Already the legal proceedings between Apple and Samsung have been affecting consumers since sales of Samsung's Galaxy 10.1 Tab tablet computers were banned in the United States on June 26 by a California court, pending the results of the trial that starts July 30. In the earlier case, the judge ordered an injunction to stop the sales of the Galaxy 10.1 devices in response to a motion from Apple, which alleged that the devices copied technologies held by Apple patents. That injunction followed similar legal battles between Apple and Samsung involving courts in Germany, South Korea, Japan, Great Britain and Australia.

Samsung appealed the U.S. injunction earlier this month, but lost on July 19 when a three-judge panel for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Samsung's motion and allowed the sales ban to remain until the trial decided the issues.

In June, Apple upgraded its patent-infringement lawsuit against Samsung to include the Galaxy 10.1 tablet. Apple alleges that the product violates its intellectual-property rights.

In addition to the Galaxy Tab 10.1, the expanded complaint targets a multitude of other Samsung devices such as the Galaxy S II. Included are two hardware patents focusing on touch-sensitive panels and a software patent for graphical user interfaces.

The Apple-Samsung legal fight is not your typical intellectual-property battle because, while the companies are fighting in court in public, they actually do a fair amount of business together behind the scenes. Apple remains a major purchaser of components from Samsung, which is only too happy to cash the checks.

Meanwhile, while the U.S. case unfolds in San Jose, a German court last week ruled that Samsung's earlier Galaxy Tab 7.7 tablet computers can no longer be sold anywhere in the European Union because they infringe on Apple patents. At the same time, Samsung also won a round in the German court when it rejected Apple's appeal regarding Samsung's newer Galaxy Tab 10.1N tablets. Apple had appealed an earlier court decision that found that the latest, redesigned Galaxy Tab 10.1N tablets are different enough and don't infringe on Apple's designs.

Source : http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Apple-Samsung-Patent-Trial-Starts-With-Implications-for-Mobile-Devices-403114/

Patent Infringement | "Jury Selected For Apple-Samsung Patent Trial"

By : Eric Linton 
Source : http://www.ibtimes.com 
Catgory : Patent Infringement 

The first day of the patent infringement trial between Apple and Samsung wrapped up in San Jose, Calif., with a jury in hand Monday.

The pool of prospective jurors was narrowed down to seven men and two women who will hear testimony and decide the case, CNET reported.

Potential jurors were asked many questions ranging from what gadgets they owned to whether they worked for either company -- the U.S. District Court in San Jose is just a few miles from Apple's Cupertino headquarters.

As it turned out, both a Google and Apple employee were in the pool of potential jurors, along with numerous former tech workers. Those two individuals did not make it into the final group, though a man who told the court that he had once been involved with a patent-related lawsuit made it on the final jury.

Apple's effort is focused on getting billions in damages from Samsung, as well as potentially keeping some of its most popular products off store shelves. That's despite the fact that Apple buys billions of dollars worth of components from Samsung, including memory and LCD panels, to make its iOS devices.

Samsung's argument centers on the idea that Apple's suit against it threatens to "stifle" innovation among other device-makers if it's successful. Samsung also plans to argue that the iPhone could have never come to be without some of its technology, and those from other companies.

The questioning of prospective jurors demonstrated the challenge of finding a Silicon Valley jury with no bias toward either Apple or Google, companies that are headquartered just a few miles away from the federal courthouse. Both Apple and Google employ thousands in Northern California.

Judge Lucy Koh questioned nearly three dozen members of the jury pool on a host of issues, Reuters reported, including their choice of phones, how the economic downturn affected their lives, experience with the legal system and connections to either Samsung, Apple, Google Inc or its Motorola Mobility unit.

Google is a background actor in the trial as Samsung's smartphones run on Google's Android operating system. Many analysts see Apple's global patent wars as a proxy war against Google.

A Google employee in the jury pool acknowledged he bought two iPads, but also owned Samsung phones and a Galaxy tablet.

"You're good for the economy, I guess," Koh said.

Source : http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/368450/20120730/apple-samsung-patent-infringement-trial-jury.htm

Patent Infringement | "Apple sued by Taiwanese university for Siri patent infringement"

By : Salvador Rodriguez 
Source : http://www.latimes.com 
Catgory : Patent Infringement 

A Taiwanese university has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple, claiming that Siri infringes on two of its patents.

The National Cheng Kung University claims that Siri infringes on one patent for a speech recognition system and another for a method and system that matches speech data.

"As a result of Apple's infringement ... NCKU has suffered monetary damages in an amount not yet determined, and will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Apple's infringing activities are enjoined by this court," the university says, according to PCMag.

Rumor roundup: The new iPhone

The university is seeking a permanent injunction against Apple along with costs and damages. It says it filed in 2005 for the speech-data matching patent, which it received in 2010, and the speech-recognition patent in 2002, which it received in 2007.

This is not the first time Apple has been sued for its Siri software. Earlier this month, Apple also was sued by a Chinese company for an alleged patent infringement because of Siri.

And earlier this year, an American man filed a lawsuit against the Cupertino company, saying its advertisements for Siri are "fundamentally and designedly false and misleading."

Apple purchased Siri in 2010 and launched it with the iPhone 4S last October. The iPad will receive Siri later this year.

The lawsuit was filed in a federal district court in Texas.

Source : http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-apple-siri-ncku-20120730,0,6927360.story

Patent Infringement | "Apple and Google set to bid for Kodak’s patents"

By : Jerimiah Yap 
Source : http://gantdaily.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

After competing for smartphone and computer supremacy, Apple and Google are set to go at it again — this time for Kodak’s patents. The popular imaging company Eastman Kodak Co. is selling over 1,000 patents and Apple and Google are set to compete for most of it.

Apple is joining forces with Microsoft Corp. and Intellectual Ventures Management LLC while Google is partnering with patent firm RPX Corp., Samsung Electronics Co., LG Electronics Inc. and HTC Corp in preparation for the bidding.

These alliances are not set in stone and could experience a shake-up in the upcoming weeks.

The Wall Street Journal reports: “The contest comes amid a global battle over intellectual property as Apple and Google jockey for position atop the lucrative smartphone market. In recent years, Apple and Google have made big advances in mobile design and software, but as relative newcomers they have vulnerabilities regarding basic phone functions that leave them vulnerable to intellectual property suits largely aimed at slowing them down.”

Apple and Microsoft won a bidding war against Google just last year for the telecommunications company Nortel Networks.

Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy seven months ago. The company is selling two portfolios. One portfolio containing patents to capture and view images on tablets, cameras and smartphones and the other portfolio contains patents to analyzing images.

The Wall Street Journal continues: “The consortiums reflect pre-existing rivalries and alliances in the mobile phone space. Apple has filed several patent-infringement lawsuits against handset makers that use Google’s Android operating system, including Samsung and HTC. Intellectual Ventures’ co-founder formerly worked at Microsoft as chief strategist and chief technology officer.”

Source : http://gantdaily.com/2012/07/28/apple-and-google-set-to-bid-for-kodaks-patents/

Patent Infringement | "Apple changing design of its connector"

By : Adam Satariano 
Source : http://www.sfgate.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

When Steve Jobs created the iTunes Store more than nine years ago, he also introduced the third-generation iPod, the first device with a plug design that has become nearly as significant to independent manufacturers as iTunes has to the music industry. The bottom-mounted connector capable of transferring songs and charging the music player is now a standard Apple component. Makers of mobile accessories use the plug's specifications when designing chargers, cases, speakers, and stands for iPods, iPhones and iPads.

That $1.3 billion-a-year market will soon be upended by the connector's first overhaul since April 2003, according to several people familiar with the design of the new iPhone, expected this fall. These people, who were not authorized to discuss the change, say the new plug will have only 19 connector pins, down from 30 in the port used by more than 600 million iPods, iPhones and iPads, as well as millions of third-party accessories. An Apple representative declined to comment.

The long-rumored change is a huge opportunity for some mobile-accessory makers, says industry analyst Ross Rubin. "Customers will want to purchase new accessories that take advantage of the new dock," he said, because he expects the new connector to enable faster data transfer.

But manufacturers who took the design for granted aren't thrilled. "I was talking with somebody in the car industry, and I mentioned the dock connector may change, and they got this panicked deer-in-headlights look," said Kyle Wiens, the co-founder and chief executive officer of iFixit, which publishes consumer electronics repair manuals. "There's an entire ecosystem built around a single connector that's going to be obsolete."

Apple executives are well aware of that. The company sells its own peripherals and enjoys a lucrative relationship with third-party accessory makers, who pay about $4 for each accessory in exchange for official endorsements of their products. Apple has long kept a close eye on the accessory market, and in 2010 it slapped patent-infringement lawsuits on companies that sold unlicensed iPod cables, chargers and speakers.

Regardless of the disruption it will cause, the redesign is overdue. Apple's connector has been surpassed by sturdier, smaller, faster data-transfer jacks used in smartphones made by Samsung Electronics, Motorola Mobility, and other competitors, Rubin said.

Wireless software is making plugs less critical, as new accessories can play music from an iPod, tablet or smartphone without a physical link. And there's some precedent for easy adjustments to Apple design tweaks. In June, when the company announced that its new MacBook Pro would not be compatible with older power connectors, it also released an adapter that costs about $10. Many third parties expect a similar move when the new iPhone hits the market, said Dominic Symons, the founder of accessory maker Bluelounge Design.

Even so, some companies have stopped making Apple accessories until there is a formal announcement. "It's a challenge," Symons said, "because we have to wait and see what's going to happen."

Source : http://www.sfgate.com/technology/article/Apple-changing-design-of-its-connector-3743274.php

Patent Infringement | "Apple, Samsung set for blockbuster US patent trial"

By : Hindustan Times
Source : http://www.hindustantimes.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Apple and Samsung are set to square off in a California court Monday in what is seen as the biggest patent US trial in recent memory. Apple is seeking more than $2.5 billion in a case accusing the South Korean firm of copying designs and other patents from the iPhone and iPad maker in the
trial in San Jose, California, federal court.

Samsung however alleges that Apple infringed on some of its patents for mobile phones, and the case will sort out the competing claims.

It is one of several cases in courts around the world involving the two big electronics giants in the hottest part of the tech sector, tablet computers and smartphones.

While the results so far have been mixed in courts in Europe and Australia, Samsung is clearly on the defensive in the US case.

US District Judge Lucy Koh, who will preside in the jury trial barring any last-minute settlement, has issued temporary injunctions against US sales of Samsung's 10-inch Galaxy tablet and the Galaxy Nexus smartphone developed with Google.

To make matters worse, a magistrate in the case ruled Monday that Samsung failed to retain key evidence in the case by allowing emails to be destroyed after learning of the lawsuit.

That will mean Judge Koh can issue an "adverse inference" instruction to the jury.

"It's never good when the judge decides you've withheld or destroyed evidence," said R. Polk Wagner, a professor of patent law at the University of Pennsylvania.

Florian Mueller, a consultant who blogs on patent issues in the tech sector said the decision "must be a nightmare" for Samsung as it seeks to establish credibility with the jury.

A patent attorney in Washington DC who asked to remain anonymous because of client links, said the ruling could be "a killer" for Samsung.

"Whether it was relevant or not, the fact that evidence was destroyed will be taken into consideration," he said.

Additionally, the attorney said Apple could benefit from the fact that the case is being heard in Silicon Valley, just down the road from its headquarters in Cupertino, California.

"You like to think there is no home court advantage, but there could be," the lawyer said. "You also have the issue of a foreign company versus an American one."

Wagner said the case is probably the biggest patent trial since the 1980s case involving photo giants Polaroid and Kodak, and is important because of its size and ability to set precedent.

"I see this as the first in what I expect to be many cases involving smartphone technology," he told AFP.

"It remains to be seen what the impact will be even if Apple wins. Typically the patents are relatively easy to design around. So if Samsung loses a couple of rounds they may still be able to make their phones."

But Samsung could face big risks: If Apple wins, it would automatically get a permanent injunction on sales of Samsung devices. And if Samsung makes only minor changes, Apple could ask for the Korean firm to be held in contempt.

The case has huge financial implications for both firms and the burgeoning industry for mobile devices.

A survey by research firm IDC showed Samsung shipped 50.2 million smartphones globally in the April-June period while Apple sold 26 million iPhones. IDC said Samsung held 32.6 percent of the market to 16.9 percent for Apple.

Samsung is the leading maker of smartphones using Google's Android operating system, which has become the most popular platform despite complaints from Apple that it has infringed on its patents.

Apple outlined its case for damages in paperwork filed in advance of the pivotal court battle.

The Apple filing Tuesday said Samsung, in entering the smartphone and tablet markets, "chose to compete by copying Apple."

"Samsung's infringing sales have enabled Samsung to overtake Apple as the largest manufacturer of smartphones in the world," the document said.

Apple estimated that its lost profits and Samsung's "unjust enrichment" total in the vicinity of $2.525 billion; a figure that could be ramped up given damages rules for "willful" infringement of patents.

Samsung has steadfastly denied abusing Apple patents and countered in court that Apple has been taking advantage of some of the South Korean company's patented technology for wireless connections.

In May, two days of court-directed peace talks between the chiefs of Apple and Samsung ended with no truce in the legal battle headed for court in San Jose, California.

Apple boss Tim Cook and Samsung chief Choi Gee-Sung met in San Francisco after a judge asked the bosses to personally try to resolve the case.

Source : http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/BusinessComputing-Updates/Apple-Samsung-set-for-blockbuster-US-patent-trial/SP-Article1-903059.aspx

Patent Infringement | "Tablet Takedown: Apple-Samsung Patent Spat Headed to Trial"

By : Amy Miller 
Source : http://www.law.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan's reputation as one of the toughest firms to beat in a courtroom is on the line.

Starting Monday, a team of high-profile litigators led by Charles Verhoeven will defend Samsung Electronics Co. in front of a jury against Apple Inc.'s claims that it "slavishly" copied features of the iPad and iPhone in some of its Galaxy line of products, which includes smartphones and touchscreen tablets.

Apple's patent war against rival handset makers using Google Inc.'s Android operating system hasn't fared well in other courts. Most notably, Judge Richard Posner in Illinois, a vocal critic of the U.S. patent system, threw out the Apple-Motorola Mobility suit, saying neither company could prove damages. And Apple's assertion that it owns the rights to design features, such as a rectangular shape and a flat, black screen, have been roundly criticized.

But in Apple's backyard, Samsung's lawyers have suffered a series of pretrial setbacks that could hurt the company when it goes before a jury in San Jose on Monday, observers say. That's not ideal when fending off claims for potentially record-setting damages of $2.5 billion and battling Apple's heavy-hitting team from Morrison & Foerster, led by long-time Bay Area IP litigator Harold McElhinny.

"It would be a fair statement to say they're in the lion's den, and they have some potentially bad facts," said Guy Chambers, an IP litigator at Duane Morris in San Francisco, who is not involved in the case.

All eyes will be on Verhoeven when he arrives in U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh's court for what many expect to be an epic legal showdown between some of the Bay Area's top litigators.

TOUGH SANCTIONS

Much of Apple's patent infringement case against Samsung rests on what it claims are the unique design features of its iPhone and iPad. "Samsung cannot change the central fact that its products are strikingly similar to Apple's patented designs," Apple attorney Michael Jacobs, a partner at MoFo in San Francisco, wrote in a July 23 trial brief. "Nor can it change the novelty and extraordinary success of Apple's designs.

Apple even goes so far as to claim that no other mobile device should be allowed to have similar features, such as rectangles, rounded corners or flat, black screens.

Apple "demands the entirety of Samsung's revenues on the accused phones and tablets for the alleged infringement of a design patent that shows little more than a black rectangle with rounded corners," Quinn attorney Victoria Maroulis wrote in Samsung's trial brief.

Samsung will argue that Apple's designs aren't in fact unique but were modeled after another rival, Sony.

Apple's claims haven't been persuasive in some courts. In July, the High Court of England and Wales ruled that Samsung's Galaxy Tab did not infringe upon Apple's tablet designs. The judge said the Galaxy Tab was "not as cool" as the iPad, and therefore not likely to be confused with Apple's tablets.

In the Northern District, though, Apple has had more success. Koh took the unusual step in June of granting a preliminary injunction blocking sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the U.S. Koh sided with Apple, saying the company was likely to succeed on that claim after a remand from the Federal Circuit.

The injunction won't be presented as evidence to the jury, but at least one damaging discovery sanction imposed against Samsung could be fodder for jurors. This past week, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal, who has presided over the parties' many discovery spats, ruled that Samsung allowed emails relevant to Apple's infringement claims to be deleted. The jury will be told that the missing evidence was favorable to Apple and that Samsung didn't preserve it. Grewal said Samsung didn't go far enough to curb deletions of potentially relevant email between August 2010, when Apple first presented its grievances Samsung, and April 2011, when it filed the lawsuit.

"In effect, Samsung kept the shredder on long after it should have known about this litigation, and simply trusted its custodial employees to save relevant evidence from it," Grewal wrote.

Samsung can call on witnesses, who can try to explain it away, said Neil Smith, a patent litigator at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley in San Jose. "But in a situation like that, there's not a lot trial lawyers can do," Smith said. "They destroyed evidence and the jury can draw an adverse conclusion that the evidence was against them. The coverup and destruction may be much worse than what the documents actually said."

Florian Mueller, a patent expert and IP consultant who is not involved in the case, agreed. The sanction could make it a lot harder for Samsung to fend off claims of willful infringement.

"And it certainly won't enhance the jury's confidence in what Samsung's trial lawyers say," Mueller said in an email.

Samsung is fighting the magistrate's sanction and will take it to the appeals court if necessary, a spokeswoman said in an email.

MoFo attorneys referred questions to Apple's PR department, and Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet did not respond to requests for comment.

Apple's case isn't just about design patents. Grewal issued another sanction against Samsung barring it from presenting evidence that it had designed around software patents that Apple says its infringing. That order came after he found Samsung's lawyers failed to produce source code for the Galaxy products after a court-ordered deadline.

Partly because of these sanctions, Apple's lawyers urged Koh to find the case "exceptional" and award treble damages after trial. That means if Apple emerges victorious, Samsung could be on the hook for up to $7.5 billion.

"The evidence at trial of Samsung's willful infringement, together with other evidence of Samsung's willfulness and its litigation misconduct, will support a post-verdict finding that this is an exceptional case warranting treble damages," Jacobs wrote in a 66-page trial brief.

Samsung also got a bad ruling on its counterclaims. At a claim construction hearing, Koh struck down one of its infringement claims on a utility patent that covers generating codes. She kept intact the heart of Apple's case. Apple is alleging trade dress infringement, trade dress dilution, utility patent infringement, design patent infringement and violation of antitrust law.

HOMEBOY SHOWDOWN

When the trial, which is sure to be one of Silicon Valley's most closely watched, gets under way, there's little doubt that Verhoeven, 49, will be in the spotlight. The head of the firm's Northern California offices is expected to make Samsung's opening statement. The Iowa native has built a reputation for making complicated patent cases easy for jurors to understand.

He's successfully defended Google in several patent trials in the Eastern District of Texas. He's also been busy defending other handset makers, including HTC Corp. and Motorola Inc., that use Google's Android operating system against patent infringement claims by Apple.

And he's brought in Los Angeles-based William Price, co-chair of the firm's trial practice, to handle the critically important jury selection process. Recently, Price helped pull off a pair of high-profile wins against patent aggregator Rambus.

Apple's team is led by McElhinny, 65, a West Coast native who's been practicing patent law in the Bay Area for decades. He made a name for himself in the 1990s after representing Fujitsu against IBM in a landmark software copyright case. He chaired MoFo's litigation department from 1996 to 1999 and co-chaired the intellectual property practice group from 2006 through 2008.

His team is made up of several experienced trial lawyers, including Jacobs, who was Oracle Corp.'s lead counsel in its recent — unsuccessful — battle against Google. Partner Alison Tucher battled Samsung in discovery hearings in the run up to trial.

So Apple already had what looked like an IP dream team when, less than two weeks before trial, it added Rachel Krevans to the lineup. Handling Apple's defense against Samsung's counterclaims are Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partners William Lee in Boston and Mark Selwyn in Palo Alto. Lee, a veteran of the smartphone wars, has the dubious distinction of seeing one of his clients, Abbott Laboratories, hit with one of the largest patent verdicts in history: $1.67 billion. But he was the ultimate victor, getting that verdict overturned on appeal.

With so many major players involved, IP lawyers say this trial is one to watch, and several said they plan to attend at least some the proceedings just to see the lawyers in action.

"Usually watching patent trials is not a spectator sport, but as an experienced patent and trade dress litigator, and iPhone/iPad zealot, this is the one to watch," Smith said. "We have our own local legal Olympics."

Source : http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202564800487

Patent Infringement | "BK Jewellery/AV Jewelry Sue Prestige over Design Patent Infringement"

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

BK Jewellery's patent infringement court action against Prestige International will proceed unimpeded, the company's CEO Mr. Rocky Wong announced today. Following a July 16, 2012 ruling by Judge J Sand, of the US District Court of New York, Prestige International was denied any additional stays of proceedings and ordered that all discovery should be complete by August 31, 2012.

The patent infringement law suit concerns BK International's patented design of its Diamond jewelry that has a unique, never before seen, silhouette that was first introduced in 2008 in Hong Kong by its affiliate Wing Yee of www.BKJewelry.com . The company holds worldwide patents on this remarkable design which incorporates one full cut diamond solitaire surrounded by perfectly matched single cut stones. This elegant silhouette has a unique appearance and artfully imitates a larger solitaire diamond. This revolutionary design has been widely accepted for its advantageous form: providing two to three times the perceived value of a similar size piece at half the price.

AV Jewelry of New York (BK Jewellery's exclusive licensee in North America) asserts that the infringement of the design patent D614,132 by Prestige International's Unity Jewelry has caused loss of profits, customer confusion and damage to AV's goodwill. BK and AV assert in the law suit that Prestige International's Unity jewelry pieces are infringements under the Federal Patent Laws and that Prestige International's market place conduct violated the Federal Lanham Act which prohibits unfair competition.

AV Jewelry's Avi Matatov commented "We are confident that this law suit will set the record straight and allow us to continue to offer our clients innovative, highest quality gemstone designs without interference from imitators who are flooding the market with copycat replicas of our patented designs."

The litigation should be concluded by this Fall (2012) and enable the company to stop the ongoing market confusion. Mr. Matatov is confident that the resolution of this case will curtail and discourage further infringement practices ahead of the upcoming holiday season. AV Jewelry's North American customers include many national specialty retailers and department stores.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bk-jewelleryav-jewelry-sue-prestige-over-design-patent-infringement-2012-07-26 

Patent Infringement | "German Court Rules In Favor Of Microsoft In FAT Technology Patent Case"

By : Enid Burns 
Source : http://www.redorbit.com 
Category : Patent Infringment 

A German court has ruled in favor of Microsoft in a patent infringement case against Google’s Motorola Mobility unit. In the judgment, Microsoft won the ability to place an injunction on Motorola to stop the sale of phones using Microsoft’s FAT technology, for which it holds an international patent.

Motorola phones affected by the injunction include the Razr, Razr Maxx, and Atrix smartphones running Android. Motorola will not only be blocked from the sale of products listed in the injunction, but will have to issue a recall. Motorola will also have to pay damages, an article on Fox Business says.

Microsoft holds patent EP0618540, which was granted in 1994, for FAT technology. The technology helps operating systems manage long filenames and short filenames into a short filename directory.

Microsoft corporate vice president and deputy general counsel David Howard released a statement. “Today’s decision, which follows similar rulings in the U.S. and Germany, is further proof that Motorola Mobility is broadly infringing Microsoft’s intellectual property. We will continue to enforce injunctions against Motorola Mobility products in those countries and hope they will join other Android device makers by taking a license to Microsoft’s patented inventions.”

In order to enforce the injunction, Microsoft will have to put up a 10 million euro ($12.3 million) bond, according to a report on Engadget. Two options Motorola has under the injunction are to pay licensing fees to Microsoft for use of the FAT technology on its smartphones, or to stop the sale of handsets that use the infringing technology. Motorola may also be responsible for additional fees to cover damages to Microsoft and its patent.

Motorola may have neglected to use one argument that might have helped in this case. The company, which was recently acquired by Google, was apparently given the opportunity to cite FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-descriminatory), SlashGear learned. Using FRAND, Motorola could have argued Microsoft was demanding unfair fees. The article states, “Since there are already alternative file systems, the Microsoft patent isn’t considered standards-essential.”

While there are other file allocation systems out there, VentureBeat says Motorola is the only Android handset device maker that hasn’t licensed Microsoft’s FAT technology. The article cites Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, saying more than 70 percent of Android phones use Microsoft’s patented technology. If Motorola decides to look for options other than licensing FAT technology from Microsoft, there are few options. One possibility might be an open-source, Linux-based file allocation system.

This isn’t the first time Microsoft and Motorola have gone to courts over patent infringements. In May the US International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Motorola infringed upon Microsoft patents. In the same month a German court banned sales of Motorola Android phones using technology under a Microsoft patent that handles how cell phones communicate. Patent suits between the two companies goes beyond Android-based cell phones. An additional patent suit between the two companies concerns the Xbox, which Motorola says violates a number of patents.

Source : http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1112665276/microsoft-motorola-mobility-fat-patent/

Patent infringement | "Minecraft maker sued for patent infringement"

By: Aasim Durrani
Source: http://www.lawdit.co.uk
Category: Patent infringement

The maker of Minecraft, a popular building and survival game, is being sued by a Texas company over the way in which the mobile version of the game authenticates players. Uniloc, which claims to own a patent for a "system and method for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data", has named a number of prolific games publishers in its claim, including Electronic Arts, GameLoft and Square Enix.

The founder of Mojang, the company behind Minecraft, has taken to his blog to criticise the existence of software patents as he resolves to "throw piles of money" into his defence of the claim. Markus Persson's blog post entitled "On Patents" makes for some interesting reading for lawyers and non-lawyers-alike. Persson describes software patents as "counterproductive", claiming that they inhibit progress and embroil companies in costly and pointless litigation.

Persson also touches on an issue which goes to the heart of the patent system:

"A common argument for patents is that inventors won't invent unless they can protect their ideas. The problem with this argument is that patents apply even if the infringer came up with the idea independently. If the idea is that easy to think of, why do we need to reward the person who happened to be first?"

It is impossible to take a view on the merits of Uniloc's claim without examining the patent in depth and in light of US patent law. However, obviousness is a ground for refusing patent registration and is often cited by defendants in patent litigation when they seek to have patents declared invalid (arguably the most common way of defending proceedings).

Texas has become something of a hotbed for patent litigation in the US and it remains to be seen whether this claim will come to trial.


Source: http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/11000-ad-mojang-sued-by-uniloc.htm

Patent infringement | "Apple and Motorola Appeal Dismissal of Patent Infringement Claims Against Each Other"

By: Francis Rey
Source: http://socialbarrel.com
Category: Patent infringement

Apple and Motorola Mobility have each appealed to a U.S. federal judge, following his June verdict to discard both companies’ patent infringement case.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Posner, of the Northern District of Illinois, dismissed the patent case involving Apple’s suit against Motorola, claiming the Droid and related software devices are breaching on its patents. Conversely, Motorola filed a counterclaim against Apple for the same reason, leaving both firms’ horns pushing against each other.

It was noted last month that Judge Posner dismissed the case “with prejudice”, rejecting requests from both companies under sanctions and ruling that neither party is allowed to resubmit the complaint.

However, according to reports published on Saturday, each firm still filed an appeal to Posner’s rulings on Friday.Apple and Motorola were not immediately available for comment.

A legal analyst and consultant who have been appointed for technological firms such as Oracle and Microsoft, named Florian Mueller, said in a blog post on Saturday, “Apple and Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility have both decided to appeal every single decision that Judge Posner made that wasn’t in their favor. They leave no stone unturned.”

Generally known for having been particularly precarious on these given types of cases, Posner declared that in the middle of other findings in the proceedings, the testaments presented by several knowledgeable witnesses were irrelevant. The presiding judge also trimmed down Apple’s four original patent infringement claims into one, eventually terminating the residual claim as its appeal for a sanction.

On the other hand, Posner rejected Motorola’s counterclaim against Apple for patent infringement and a request for sanction related to copyrights licensed under FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms.  He stated, “By committing to license its patents on FRAND terms, Motorola committed to license the [patent] to anyone willing to pay a FRAND royalty and thus implicitly acknowledged that a royalty is adequate compensation for a license to use that patent.”

In a report by Mueller on Friday, among other verdicts, Apple appealed to Posner’s directive to attack on the firm’s damages expert and the corresponding damages theories, including its claim for a sanction in respect to its patents.

Similarly, Mueller added that Motorola also appealed, among other verdicts, to some parts of Posner’s mandate, in which the judge also lashed out on the firm’s damages expert and the corresponding damages theories.

Aside from this domestic court dispute, the two clashing companies have another pending case filed before the U.S. International Trade Commission and other ongoing litigations in other several countries.

Source: http://socialbarrel.com/apple-motorola-patent-infringement/41132/

Patent infringement | "Mojang sued for patent infringement"

By: Joanne Carew
Source: http://www.itweb.co.za
Category: Patent infringement

Over the weekend, Minecraft game developer Markus Persson, who is also known by the moniker “notch”, had an interesting wake-up call, Red Orbit reports.

He tweeted the event. “Step 1: Wake up. Step 2: Check email. Step 3: See we're being sued for patent infringement. Step 4: Smile.”

DRM tech firm Uniloc is suing Minecraft's parent company, Mojang, as reported by the blog Boing Boing.

Mojang is actually among a group of 10 game developers, which also includes Electronic Arts, Polarbit, Distinctive Developments, Laminar Research, Gameloft, Halfbrick Studios, Madfinger Games, Square Enix and Full Fat Productions.

Lawsuits were filed on Friday before a court in Tyler, Texas, by Uniloc Luxembourg. The suit claims that US Patent No. 6 857 067, which Uniloc holds, is being infringed upon. The patent Uniloc filed in 2001 and was awarded in 2005 is described as a system for “preventing unauthorised access to electronic data...” The technology involves communication between a portable device and a licence registration. Essentially, the patent is over software and protocols that check that a person loading a game has the right to play the game. If the player is not a registered, licensed user, he will be locked out of the game.

Venture Beat states Persson seemed undeterred and confidently tweeted: “If needed, I'll throw piles of money at making sure Uniloc doesn't get a cent.”

He later posted an official blog entry expressing distaste for software patents and safeguarding ideas, saying: “There's no way in hell you can convince me it's beneficial for society not to share ideas. Ideas are free. They improve on old things, make them better, and this results in all of society being better. Sharing ideas is how we improve.”

The suit, filed on 20 July by Uniloc, specifically cites the Android version of Minecraft, called Minecraft Pocket Edition, as infringing on a Uniloc-owned patent involving applications “requiring communication with a server to perform a licence check to prevent the unauthorised use of said application, including, but not limited to, Mindcraft [sic]”.

According to Gaming Bus. Uniloc is a company that is infamous for having sued Microsoft back in 2003 in the federal court district of Rhode Island, only to finally settle for an undisclosed amount after an eight-year-long suit.

Initially, it won the suit in 2009 with a jury ruling that allocated it $388 million. However, five months later, a judge vacated the ruling, stating the jury “lacked a grasp of the issues before it and reached a finding without a legally sufficient basis,” instead ruling in favour of Microsoft.


Source: http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57109:mojang-sued-for-patent-infringement

Patent Infringement | "Apple, Google's Motorola unit each appeal patent rulings"

By : Today Online 
Source : http://www.todayonline.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Apple and Google's Motorola Mobility unit filed separate appeals of a federal judge's June 22 order dismissing their mutual patent- infringement claims.

United States Circuit Judge Richard Posner threw out the companies' claims about two weeks after he rejected each mobile- phone maker's damages theories and cancelled a jury trial that had been set for June 11 in federal court in Chicago. The appeal notices, which also involved earlier rulings, were filed there today.

That trial would have been the first between Apple, the maker of the iPhone, and Google, creator of the Android smart phone operating system, since the company completed its US$12.5-billion (S$15.7-billion) acquisition of Motorola Mobility in May.

Motorola was pressing a claim that Apple infringed a cellular technology patent, while Apple accused Motorola of violating four patents.

After rejecting each companies' theories on damages, Judge Posner agreed to hear arguments on whether either company was entitled to injunctive relief.

"Neither party is entitled to an injunction," Judge Posner said in a 38-page ruling on June 22. "Neither has shown that damages would not be an adequate remedy."

Because he had determined their damages theories were unsound, the case was over, he said. BLOOMBERG

Source : http://www.todayonline.com/Technology/EDC120722-0000020/Apple,-Googles-Motorola-unit-each-appeal-patent-rulings

Patent Infringement | "Josh Mendelsohn's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week"

By : Josh Mendelsohn 
Source : http://www.techdirt.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

When a group of entrepreneurs, early-stage investors, and others in the startup community started Engine Advocacy almost a year ago, we set out to help policy makers understand startups while also bringing awareness of the importance of the policymaking process back to startups. Techdirt was a guiding source.

This week, I offer my perspective gained in Washington as an Engine steering committee member learning about the sausage-making process. I've grown to respect and reject elements of lawmaking and bring that back to the startup world.

A recurring theme any reader of Techdirt can't miss is the horrible exploitation of the patent system. What started with Patent Trolls is beginning to turn the tech community on itself. But the courts are largely to blame as well, either through miseducation and ignorance or opportunism. This week, when the USPTO announced the introduction of third-party commenting, they presented some potential opportunities for startups to formally engage in the fight against overbroad patents. It will be important experiment.

Despite this step in the right direction, recent "reform" that moved the country to a first-to-file system requires startups to be vigilant and show proof of prior work or suggest why a patent should not be granted when overbroad. This significant burden has been painted as reform but it will provide cover to those who have been granted vague or overbroad protections.

On the same theme, the Techdirt team has another good post recapping the decision against RIM that assessed $147.2m in damages for accused infringement on a questionable patent. The cycle continues.

AT&T's ambiguity this week around plans to charge users an additional fee for accessing Apple's Facetime product over 3G/4G was also disappointing given the potential chilling effect it poses. Many users are already paying outsized fees for data plans that aren't keeping pace with technological development. Should carriers follow this path, they will limit user choice, establish further precedent for restricting content, and effectively double-charge users.

Further, Engine is generally concerned about the allocation and use of the nation's spectrum resources and committed to making sure innovative wireless technologies are not limited by poor policymaking. Engine recently co-hosted an event with Stanford's Center on Internet and Society and Gigaom emphasizing the importance of innovation and opportunity on unlicensed spectrum.

Finally, on a lighter note, Techdirt reported this week on three separate and equally laughable Olympic flaps all related to "brand" protection. These range from the brand police to the restaurant forced to change its name. Nevermind the White House's call for Americans to throw Olympics-related parties. The absurdity of the IOC has been an amusing theme this spring, though awash in the sea of brand-related marketing hype surrounding the events. But then again, this is an IOC that requires 3000 chauffeured cars for the events -- and each driver needs to be in black hat.

Snarkiness aside, Engine has been up to some pretty neat work. We'll shortly be issuing a policy briefing book to help educate congressional candidates as well as a detailed report helping demonstrate startups' massive impact on the U.S. economy. If you'd like to stay informed, sign up here. If your company would like to join our 300+ members, you can do so here. There's no cost to become a member, but signing up helps us understand where our membership is located and invite your company to relevant events -- say a district meeting with your member of Congress.

Source : http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120720/17272619779/josh-mendelsohns-favorite-techdirt-posts-week.shtml

Patent Infringement | "Google writes to Senate Judiciary Committee requesting certain Apple patents be made standard"

By : Raveesh Bhalla    
Source : http://phandroid.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Google has for long stated that the current software patents scene needs a serious revamp, and in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they have singled out Apple, stating that some of the Cupertino-based company’s patents be made standards.

    While collaborative [Standards Setting Organizations (SSOs)] play an important part in the overall standard setting system, and are particularly prominent in industries such as telecommunications, they are not the only source of standards. Indeed, many of the same interoperability benefits that the FTC and others have touted in the SSO context also occur when one firm publishes information about an otherwise proprietary standard and other firms then independently decide (whether by choice or of necessity) to make complementary investments to support that standard in their products. ... Because proprietary or de facto standards can have just as important effects on consumer welfare, the Committee’s concern regarding the abuse of SEPs should encompass them as well.

Apple, as you’d expect, don’t want anything of the sort and have countered with a letter of their own. They believe they have put in a lot of effort to innovate in their field, and are hence justified to patent certain features and designs, and oppose the infringement of those patents via litigation. If you want to read both the letters, head over to AllThingsD.

Source : http://phandroid.com/2012/07/21/google-writes-to-senate-judiciary-committee-requesting-certain-apple-patents-be-made-standard/

Patent Infringement | "P&G Sues Team Technologies, Alleging Patent Infringement "

By : Ben Fox Rubin   
Source : http://online.wsj.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Procter & Gamble Co. (PG) said it filed a lawsuit against Team Technologies Inc., a privately held maker of dental and medical products, alleging unauthorized use of patented P&G technologies.

P&G, a consumer-products giant, alleged that certain patents related to its Crest Whitestrips teeth-whitening products were infringed by Team Technologies' Oral Care Whitening Dental Strips and Ultra Whitening Strips.

"P&G has made significant investments in the innovations behind our Crest Whitestrips products. We treat infringements of our intellectual property rights protecting these innovations very seriously," Deborah P. Majoras, P&G chief legal officer, said. "By filing a lawsuit against Team Technologies, we are taking steps to protect this investment and our business."

A Team Technologies representative wasn't immediately available for comment. The company is a custom manufacturer of dental, medical, cosmetic and industrial products.

P&G--the maker of Bounty paper towels, Pampers diapers and other household staples--is embarking on a major cost-cutting effort to slim down its ranks and place a heavier focus on emerging markets, where it is seeing most of its sales growth.

Also Friday, P&G said it is buying the remaining 50% stake of a joint venture with Spain's Agrolimen Group for $1 billion, a move P&G said fits with its recent strategy shift to focus on its largest businesses such as feminine-care and baby-care products.

In April, the company said its fiscal third-quarter earnings fell as it saw higher commodity costs and charges tied to its massive restructuring plan damp results.

Shares recently were down 25 cents at $64.66. The stock is down 3.1% so far this year.

Source : http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20120720-710037.html

Patent Infringement | "Mojang, Square Enix, EA and Others Sued For Patent Infringement"

By : Johnathan Grey Carter  
Source : http://www.escapistmagazine.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

A small Texas-based company alleges that "Mindcraft" infringes on one of its many patents.

A company named Uniloc, which describes itself as "in the business of finding big ideas," has filed a suit against Minecraft developer, Mojang, claiming the Android edition of Mindcraft [sic] infringes on one of its patents. Similar suits have been leveled against EA, Square Enix and Gameloft.

The patent in question was filed in 2005, and is for "a system and method ... for preventing unauthorized access to electronic data stored on an electronic device." The vague patent, along with Uniloc's long history of patent litigation and its base in Texas (where state laws favor patent owners) have led many to label the company a "patent troll."

Mojang founder, Markus "Notch" Persson, is certainly unimpressed. He announced the lawsuit via an irreverent tweet and went on to state that Mojang would be facing down Uniloc on principle.

"Unfortunately for them, they're suing us over a software patent," he tweeted. "If needed, I will throw piles of money at making sure they don't get a cent."

Uniloc belongs to one, Ric "The Man in the Van" Richardson, an Australian inventor who, and I quote, "does much of his thinking in his van, which he dubs the 'DickMobile,' near his leafy property in Byron Bay." If his name sounds familiar, it's because Mr. Richardson was involved in a landmark legal battle against Microsoft which eventually lead a major change in how courts calculate reasonable damages in patent cases.

Source : http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118633-Mojang-Square-Enix-EA-and-Others-Sued-For-Patent-Infringement

Patent Infringement | "Apple, Motorola appeal dismissal of patent infringement case"

By : Marc Ferranti 
Source : http://www.computerworld.com 
Category : Patent Infringement 

Apple and Motorola Mobility, now a subsidiary of Google, have separately appealed the June decision of a U.S. federal judge to throw out their patent infringement case, according to reports Saturday.

Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed the patent case "with prejudice," last month, denying requests from both companies for injunctions and ruling that neither party could resubmit the lawsuit.

Apple had filed a suit against Motorola, alleging that devices such as the Droid and associated software infringed on its patents. Motorola brought a counterclaim that Apple was infringing its own patents.

In separate filings Friday, Apple and Motorola Mobility appealed Posner's rulings, according to published reports.

Apple and Motorola were not immediately available for comment.

"Apple and Google subsidiary Motorola Mobility have both decided to appeal every single decision that Judge Posner made that wasn't in their favor," said legal analyst and consultant Florian Mueller in a blog post Saturday. "They leave no stone unturned." Mueller has been tapped as a consultant for tech companies including Oracle and Microsoft.

Among other rulings in the case, Posner decided that testimony of various expert witnesses was inadmissible. Posner also pared down Apple's four original patent infringement claims to one, and then dismissed the remaining claim as its request for an injunction.

Posner, who has generally been sharply critical of patent infringement cases, also denied Motorola's counterclaim for patent infringement and request for an injunction against Apple related to patents that were licensed under FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) terms. "By committing to license its patents on FRAND terms, Motorola committed to license the [patent] to anyone willing to pay a FRAND royalty and thus implicitly acknowledged that a royalty is adequate compensation for a license to use that patent," Posner wrote.

Apple on Friday appealed, among other rulings, Posner's decision to strike Apple's damages expert and underlying damages theories and Apples entitlement to an injunction with respect to its patents, according to Mueller.

Motorola appealed, among other rulings, those portions of Posner's order in which the judge struck Motorola's damages expert and underlying damages theories, according to Mueller.

The two companies also have a case pending before the U.S. International Trade Commission and lawsuits ongoing in a number of other countries.

Source : http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9229437/Apple_Motorola_appeal_dismissal_of_patent_infringement_case

Trademark Infringement | "Sun Mark to appeal Red Bull trademark win"

By : Andy Morton 
Source : http://www.just-drinks.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 


An independent drinks company that lost a court battle with Red Bull GMBH over a trademark infringement has said it will appeal.

UK-based Sun Mark confirmed to just-drinks late yesterday it will fight Tuesday's (17 July) decision that its Bullet energy drink breached copyright on Red Bull's Bullit brand. The London High Court also said Bullet's slogan “No bull in this can” took unfair advantage of Red Bull's trademark.

Sun Mark declined to comment further, saying it did not want to prejudice future proceedings. In court, its lawyers had claimed Red Bull's Bullit trademark was registered in bad faith as the company had no plans to use it. Red Bull confirmed that the judge dismissed the claim.

Red Bull said it is “satisfied” with the judgement on Sun Mark and associated shipping firm Sea Air & Land Forwarding.

“Red Bull believes strongly in its IP rights and makes legitimate use of them in order to protect its brand value and to safeguard the company's assets,” the Austrian company said.

Food and drinks maker Sun Mark, set up in 1995, also manufactures Royalty Non-Alcoholic Ginger Beer and Robust energy drink.

Source : http://www.just-drinks.com/news/sun-mark-to-appeal-red-bull-trademark-win_id107636.aspx

Trademark Infringement | "Nike sues Fujian resident over trademark infringement of Kobe"

By : Whats on Xiamen 
Source : http://www.whatsonxiamen.com  
Category : Trademark Infringement 

After basketball legend Michael Jordan filed a trademark infringement suit over use of his name in China, NBA star Kobe Bryan is now in a similar dispute.

Fujian resident Hong Qinping registered "KB-Kobe" as well as the Chinese translation of Kobe as a trademark for use on handbags, suitcases and wallets - which drew the attention of Bryant's powerful sponsor Nike.

Nike then protested the registration with the trademark review board at the State Administration of Industry and Commerce.

Yet the board decided Nike's evidence failed to prove Byrant's reputation extends beyond the basketball court to other business domains. It concluded that Hong's trademark does not violate Nike's rights.

In response, Nike recently brought legal action against the review board in Beijing No 1 Intermediate People's Court. The case has yet to go to trial.

Source : http://www.whatsonxiamen.com/news26225.html

Trademark Infringement | "Monster Energy Assumes Consumers Can’t Distinguish Energy Drinks From Fish Tanks"

By : Laura Northrup   
Source : http://consumerist.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 

We thought that the company behind Monster Energy drink (and its lawyers) were done with petty legal action against anyone bold enough to use the word "Monster." We last reported on such action in 2009. Turns out that the, uh, monster was only sleeping, though, and the company has re-emerged to issue a cease and desist order to an aquarium keepers' forum, Monster Fishkeepers. That site has owned their trademark since 2005, but Monster Energy apparently claims to own the word "monster." And the letter "M."

Old-school Consumerist readers will remember that suing anyone attempting to name a product or company using the word "Monster" used to be the job of Monster Cable. We kept waiting for Monster Cable and the owner of Monster Energy Company to sue each other in a recursive loop of billable hours that would keep each other out of other companies' way, but it never happened.

And so they've gone after the Monster Aquaria Network, assuming that cans of energy drink and massive aquaria filled with rare fish are pretty much the same thing and that consumers will get confused.

Here's the message posted on a blog asking site users and other interested parties to help:

    On February 24, Monster Energy Company sent a cease & desist letter to MonsterFishKeepers.com in regards to their use of the marks MonsterFishKeepers, and the MonsterFishKeepers “M” symbol in connection with clothing, accessories, and stickers. It also requires us to drop the trademark applications that were pending at the time for said trademarks. Monster Energy claimed that the use of these marks constituted trademark infringement and would cause confusion with their own MONSTER™, MONSTER ENERGY®, and MONSTER “Claw M®” marks. MonsterFishKeepers.com asserted that an informed consumer would be unlikely to mistake the two brands as one is specifically marketed towards the keepers of large fishes in specialized online sites & aquarium stores while the other is more openly marketed in sports-related facilities and traditional retail stores.

    Later on, Monster Energy sent a series of demands including, but not limited to, abandoning the trademark applications for the MonsterFishKeepers “M” symbol marks as well as ceasing to use those marks in connection with apparel & accessories, refraining from using or applying for any marks containing the word “Monster” or the letter “M,” refraining from using the colors black & green on any MonsterFishKeepers.com or Monster Aquaria Network Websites or in connection with apparel & accessories, and pay Monster Energy Corporation its attorneys’ fees in connection with this matter. MonsterFishKeepers.com has no intention of agreeing to the bulk of Monster’s demands as these terms are extremely restrictive & unfair, not to mention downright ridiculous in some cases.

    As you know, we have been using our MonsterFishKeepers and the MonsterFishKeepers “M” design marks since March 30, 2005 and the marks were duly registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office since October 23, 2007. We strongly believe that the law is on MonsterFishKeepers.com’s side, but MonsterFishKeepers.com will not be able to fund the legal proceedings that would be needed to resolve this dispute with Monster Energy. Unfortunately for MonsterFishKeepers.com, Monster Energy can file an unlimited number of appeals even if MonsterFishKeepers.com wins the first round of the case; in the end, Monster Energy would certainly outlast MonsterFishKeepers.com in the legal proceedings after MonsterFishKeepers.com runs out of money since there is no way that such a small company could compete with such a large company in terms of legal fees. As such, we, the staff of the Monster Aquaria Network, ask that you, the reader & MonsterFishKeepers.com member & supporter, help us to convince Monster Energy Corporation to drop this issue immediately. We intend to contact them via any means possible to let them know that this is not acceptable as well as hit them at the bottom line by boycotting all Monster Energy Corporation products. We would greatly appreciate it if you would take a small amount of time out of your day to let Monster Energy know that what they’re doing is not going to be well regarded/well perceived by us as consumers of their soft drink products.

    In closing, we thank you for your continued support, and we hope that we will be able to enjoy many more years of fish-filled fun once this issue is resolved.

The site has a Change.org petition, and also encourages fans to contact the company and urge them to be reasonable.

Silly legal action from Monster Energy has been brought down due to consumer outcry before, such as when they pursued a Vermont craft brewery that served up a beer called Vermonster.

Source : http://consumerist.com/2012/07/monster-energy-assumes-consumers-cant-distinguish-energy-drinks-from-fish-tanks.html 

Trademark Infringement | "Know When to Trademark for a Business Advantage"

By : Deanne Katz  
Source : http://www.reuters.com 
Category : Trademark Infringement 

A trademark can be the most important asset you purchase for your business and knowing when to get one can be the difference between good branding and a perfect disaster.

The purpose of a trademark is to protect your brand from competitors. A strong mark uniquely identifies your business so that customers can instantly recognize your work.

It's not unusual for small business owners to register trademarks and it's important to make sure that you register at the right time for maximum impact.

It's tempting to leave trademark registration to a time in the future when you've established your business. But doing that leaves you open to several problems.

It might be that when you go to file your trademark, you discover that it's close to someone else's in the industry.

Generally the first to file is entitled to the trademark and later users are considered infringers. Realizing that someone else owns your mark after you've built brand recognition means starting from square one to find a new way to identify your business. It can be difficult to let go of a mark that you've put a lot of time and effort into making your own.

A more serious concern in delaying a trademark is that someone else in the industry may start to capitalize on your hard-earned reputation.

If you haven't registered a trademark it's difficult to enforce your rights in the case of infringement. While there is an automatic "trademark protection by use," it can be hard to show who used a mark first if there is a dispute.

Registering a trademark is clear documentation of use and can help to protect your rights.

It's not complicated to register a trademark but the amount of time needed to do a thorough investigation before filing can be significant. Finding an attorney who specializes in trademarks can ensure that your brand is protected.

Good business is often a matter of timing and registering a trademark is no different. Knowing when to trademark is just another piece of building a strong business.

Source : http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/18/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-freeenterprise-idUS426638143520120718