Patent Infringement | "No Disqualification of Expert Who Met With Opposing Counsel Before Being Retained"

By: DOCKET NAVIGATOR 
Source: http://docketreport.blogspot.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

The court denied plaintiff's emergency motion to disqualify an expert who had met with plaintiff regarding this same case, discussed hypothetical arguments regarding claim interpretation with plaintiff's counsel, and then was hired by defendant a week later. "[A]fter [plaintiff's counsel]. . . explained [plaintiff's] position about how the claims should be interpreted . . . [the expert] proposed an argument [defendant] might make in response. [The expert] recalls that [counsel] did not want to discuss the subject any further and did not respond with anything of substance. [Plaintiff's counsel] recalls that she responded in a substantive fashion as to how [plaintiff] would address this hypothetical. . . . [T]he hypothetical posed by [the expert] and [counsel's] unsolicited response thereto do not constitute confidential information sufficient to disqualify [the expert] from consulting for [defendant]. . . . [T]he nature of the relationship and of the information allegedly disclosed instantly is much too abbreviated to warrant such a drastic sanction."

Source: http://docketreport.blogspot.com/2012/10/no-disqualification-of-expert-who-met.html

Patent Infringement | "Microsoft to add Google Maps to patent infringement claims in Motorola lawsuit"

By: Tyler Lee  
Source: www.ubergizmo.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

It looks like Google Maps could be in trouble as Microsoft has expanded their patent case against Motorola, and have added Google to the mixF, considering that Google now owns Motorola Mobility. To that extent Microsoft has also added a patent infringement claim on Google Maps, stating that they believe that Google’s service infringed upon a patent Microsoft owned back in 1995 which still has a good 3 years left. The lawsuit was announced in Germany and it was noted that should Microsoft be successful in their claims, Google Maps could no longer be made available in Germany next year along with every Android device that relies on it.

Supposedly every Android manufacturer has licensed Microsoft’s patent portfolio, but according to FOSS Patents’ Florian Mueller, Google opposed Motorola’s licensing of Microsoft’s patent portfolio which has ultimately led to the lawsuit. We’re not sure how this will play out, but safe to say Microsoft’s victory will have an extremely huge impact on Android devices so we’ll keep our eyes peeled for more information when it has been made available.


Source: http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/10/microsoft-to-add-google-maps-to-patent-infringement-claims-in-motorola-lawsuit/

Patent Infringement | "Microsoft finally sues Google directly for patent infringement"

By: Surur
Source: http://wmpoweruser.com
Category: Patent Infringement


For the first time ever Microsoft has dropped the proxy battle and has attacked Google directly.

Today in the Munich Regional Court  Microsoft announced that it would amend its complaint against Motorola, Google’s owner, to add Google Inc., the operator of the server infrastructure that powers the Google Maps Android app, as an additional defendant.

The current case target’s Google Maps, and mainly deals with delivering maps from an online repository, in this case Google’s Maps server, and then Geotagging.

Previous German patent rulings in Apple’s and Microsoft’s favour have already required Motorola to pull all of its Android-based devices from the German market.  The company has a bad track record in Germany, and Fosspatents note that if Motorola had not been purchased by Google they would have purchased a license a long time ago, like Samsung, HTC and a range of other Android OEMs.

If Google loses this case it could affect many more companies than just Motorola.  Microsoft has told the court they are willing to settle if Motorola takes out a license. It seems the ball is now in Google’s court.


Source: www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=blogsearch&cd=10&ved=0CFQQmAEwCQ&url=http://wmpoweruser.com/microsoft-finally-sues-google-directly-for-patent-infringement/&ei=DpZ3UN3bBMXyrQed1YD4Cw&usg=AFQjCNGrtl07XDgjjr39v39gtEAaUk78Cw&sig2=JQTN-q_4VDrPVX-HNaIWmQ

Patent Infringement | "$100m Creative lawsuit over iPod led Apple to “patent it all” "

By: Mark Tyson
Source: http://hexus.net
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

In 2006 Apple lost a patent infringement lawsuit initiated by Singapore based Creative Technology. Creative are mainly famous for their PC soundcards (and strategy of “driver obsolescence”) but at this time the company was one of the pioneer manufacturers of portable MP3 players. After the lawsuit Steve Jobs reportedly gathered his senior managers and declared “we're going to patent it all”. From that time on, just before the launch of the first iPhone, Apple’s internal corporate strategy has evolved. Now it has been revealed that Apple spends more money on patent activity than on R&D.

Creative submitted a patent, to the US patent office in 2001, describing a portable media player user interface. It is this patent, awarded in 2005, which barbed Apple and its fledgling iPod media player. After this painful 100 million dollar fine Jobs decided to patent absolutely everything the company came up. You can see Mr Jobs showing off the first iPhone, in the Macworld 2007 presentation below. He ends a section describing the interface of the new smartphone with the phrase “And boy, have we patented it!”

Nancy R. Heinen, Apple’s general counsel at the time this all happened, said Steve Jobs’ “attitude was that if someone at Apple can dream it up, then we should apply for a patent”. Shortly after this time Apple engineers had to take part in monthly patent sessions with lawyers making sure all their inventive thoughts and aspirations got a patent applied to them. Ms Heinen added that “Even if we knew it wouldn't get approved, we would file the application anyway," she continued to explain, "if nothing else, it prevents another company from trying to patent the idea.”

In the last decade Apple has been granted more than 4,000 patents and taken part in many fierce and protracted patent battles. How might things have been different if Creative had lost the patent case in 2006?


Source: http://hexus.net/business/news/legal/46469-100m-creative-lawsuit-ipod-led-apple-patent-all/

Patent Infringement | "Motorola wins patent infringement case against Microsoft in Germany"

By: CBR Home
source: http://mobility.cbronline.com
Category: Patent Infringement




Previously Motorola lost three other patents infringement cases against Microsoft in Germany

Google's Motorola Mobility unit has won a patent infringement case against its rival Microsoft in a German court, the latest in the series of ongoing dispute over patents between both the companies.

The regional court in Mannheim ruled that Motorola did not infringe a Microsoft patent which allows software applications to work with a phone's radio antennas on different handsets.

Microsoft had ealier alleged that Motorola had violated patents related to software application programming interfaces (APIs) used to allow software developers to write a set of code to interface with different mobile devices' radio antennas.

Microsoft associate general counsel David Howard said that this decision does not impact multiple injunctions the company has already been awarded and has enforced against Motorola products in Germany.

"It remains that Motorola is broadly infringing Microsoft's intellectual property, and we hope it will join the vast majority of Android device makers by licensing Microsoft's patents," Howard said.

Previously, Microsoft had won three patent cases against Motorola in Germany, banning some of Motorola's phones from sale.

In February this year, Microsoft had asked EU antitrust regulators to intervene in a patent dispute with Google and Motorola, saying that Motorola is aggressively enforcing patent rights against rivals to stymie competition.

In May this year, a German court in the southern city of Mannheim had ruled that Microsoft has infringed two Motorola Mobility patents, can no longer sell its products locally.

A German regional court in May 2012 ruled that Motorola's Android-based devices infringed Microsoft's patents relating to transmission of long text messages by displaying multiple SMS messages.

Recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, US had ruled that Motorola cannot enforce a patent injunction that it obtained on Xbox 360 ban against Microsoft in Germany.


Source: http://mobility.cbronline.com/news/motorola-wins-patent-infringement-case-against-microsoft-in-germany-081012

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

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

Patent Infringement

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

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

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


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

Patent Infringement | "HP resolves patent infringement lawsuit"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Patent Infringement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patent Infringement

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Patent Infringement | "Could patenting fundamentals be right?"

By: RAGHAVENDRA S.
Source: www.thehindu.com
Category: Patent Infringement


The turf battle between two mobile phone companies, who between them sell more than half the smartphones sold worldwide, are locked in more than 50 courtroom battles in 10 countries, captures the degree to which the control over patents have become synonymous with technological innovation. The latest verdict from a U.S. court in favour of Apple, upholding its claim that Samsung has violated six of its seven patents, has made even non-geeks take notice of the all-out war between the two companies.

Apple is suing Samsung with infringement of four of its design patents and three utility patents, whereas Samsung is counter suing Apple with five of its patents pertaining to wireless communication (3G and 4G LTE patents).

Certain technologies start off as innovation of one company, and evolve into the de-facto industry standard for others to follow — this has been historically true. For instance, in the automation industry companies did not sue each other for ‘replicating’ cars having a chassis and four circular wheels.

Apple’s claim that the design of Samsung’s smartphone and tablets with thin rectangular cuboid bodies, and the rounded square icons as a violation of its design of the iPhone and iPad would seem unreasonable when seen on a similar scale. Nonetheless, with the current verdict and the patent system, these design patents are being upheld and might be a setback, impacting the range of choice for consumers.

Design patents are applicable to the ornamental design of functional equipment. Apple holds the physical design patent for its iPhone and iPad. Four design patents, the ornamental designs of iPad, iPhone in white and iPhone in black, and the round square icons on the screen of these gadgets, are the infringements Apple is accusing Samsung of, and as a proxy other Android-based smartphone makers. In the latest ruling from the court in San Jose, California, the jury has agreed on the violation of all but the patent for iPad design, yielding a sweeping victory for Apple with $1.05 billion in damages and a prospective ban on a range of Samsung products. The striking similarity in the design of Samsung gadgets, both physical design and interface at many places, with that of Apple products is now the biggest problem for Samsung. The injunction of banning certain Samsung smartphones and tablets in other countries might get stronger with the U.S. court verdict, affirming the stance taken by the German court in August 2011, banning Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in German markets.

The interface for touch-based devices available today invariably has some basic functionalities such as multi-touch recognition and tapping screen for zooming and scrolling. Apple is again staking claim and has successfully got a ruling against Samsung in the U.S. court for patent infringement as it had the utility patent for these algorithms.

Apple has three utility, or application, patent violations in the lawsuits against Samsung. Patents on interaction features with touch-based devices such as enlarging documents by tapping the screen, ‘bounce-back’ feature when scrolling beyond the edge of a page and the technique of distinguishing between single and multi-touch were used to show that Samsung had copied from Apple.

These features Apple is suing Samsung for have become an industry standard so to speak. With the trend of rulings in favour of Apple, it will render a double impact: One is, of course, it will mandate research and innovation leading to better technologies. Secondly, it will also make it a fierce battle of Intellectual Property and patents between companies as a means of getting an edge over competitors.

Innovation, at times, needs to be measured in more ways than design patents. Making products affordable by building upon an existing trend is also one of the means of sustained innovation. Apple could be using the arsenal of its patents to tie down the galloping Samsung smartphone business.

Claims of design and utility patent infringement of fundamental ideas, although legally validated hasn’t easily sunk in among the consumers. In India, Samsung smartphones outnumber any other vendor including Apple, and it has naturally left a distaste for this entire saga among consumers.

In one of the utility patent infringement, Apple is suing Samsung for the ‘Slide to unlock’ feature. Graphics are being circulated on social networking sites, that Apple has then violated Maruti Suzuki’s Omni, which also has a ‘slide to unlock’ feature to open the side door. Not to equalise domains, but some ideas are very fundamental and to patent these basic ideas is a regression in innovation.

With the current legal framework and the Intellectual Property Rights regime, one can only hope to see more innovation and better competition and not innovation to kill competition.

Source: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/gadgets/article3874760.ece

Patent Infringement | "iPhone 5 Rumors: GooPhone i5 Suing Apple Over Patent Infringement"

By: Jobs & Hires
Source: www.jobsnhire.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

Due to the all of the rumors and leaked video footage of what appears to be Apple's iPhone 5, a Chinese company by the name of GooPhone has created an iPhone 5 clone they are calling the Goophone I5. The Company is even going as far as to try and sue Apple over a patent issue involving the company's upcoming smartphone.

According to a report by CNET, GooPhone may have taken out a patent on the design of a new smartphone they created which is based simply on the leaked images of the iPhone 5.

GooPhone released their Android-based smartphone just a day ago, and is attempting to put legal claims on the design.

The GooPhone is going to have the same specs as the nexus 7 tablet, quad core tegra 3 processor, 1gb of RAM, and an HD display. It will run android 4.0.

However, the iPhone 5 has yet to be released although some speculate that its release date may be on September 12th.

Just recently a federal court decision ruled that Samsung owes Apple more than $1 billion in restitution. Samsung plans to appeal the decision, saying it never attempted to steal anything from Apple's iPhone.

One commenter on Goophone's YouTube account wrote, "the clone wants to sue the original...THIS IS THE FUTURE!"

Although it is difficult to determine as to whether not GooPhone will actually be able to sue Apple over patent-infringement,

Goophone is the smartphone business of Shenzhen Shenma Lianzhong e-Commerce. The company was founded in 2011 and has more than 500 employees, according to its website. It also sells a clone of a Samsung Galaxy smartphone.

Unknowingly both companies could indirectly negatively affect the U.S. market for smartphones during the holiday season. This affect could trickle all the way down to business as they began to prepare for the rush of customers for the holiday season.

If the GooPhone is made accessible to the U.S.,(you can currently purchase the phone online) customers who cannot afford the iPhone 5 or those who are looking for an efficient alternative might seek the GooPhone over Samsung's Galaxy S3, Nokia Lumia 920 and Apple's iPhone 5.

Source: http://www.jobsnhire.com/articles/2818/20120906/iphone-5-rumors-goophone-i5-suing-apple-video-of-goophone.htm

Patent Infringement | "Hologic Announces Verdict In Patent Infringement Suit "

By: Hologic, Inc.
Source: www.heraldonline.com
Category: Patent Infringement


BEDFORD, Mass., Sept. 5, 2012 — /PRNewswire/ -- Hologic, Inc. (Hologic or the Company) (NASDAQ: HOLX), a leading developer, manufacturer and supplier of premium diagnostics, medical imaging systems and surgical products dedicated to serving the healthcare needs of women, today announced the jury returned a verdict in the patent infringement suit between Hologic and Smith & Nephew (S&N).

On June 9, 2010 and November 22, 2011, S&N filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging infringement of U.S. Patents 7,226,459 and 8,061,359 by the use and sale of the MyoSure Tissue Removal Device (MyoSure). The two patent suits were consolidated into a single action culminating in a jury trial which commenced on August 20, 2012. On September 4, 2012, the jury in the trial returned a verdict in S&N's favor.

As a part of this verdict, the jury awarded S&N the sum of $4 million as damages for lost profits. Hologic, in connection with the acquisition of Interlace Medical, Inc. (Interlace Medical), the developer of the MyoSure product, is indemnified up to a previously defined dollar amount by the former Interlace Medical shareholders for potential associated liabilities.

"We are disappointed in and strongly disagree with the verdict in this case," said Mark Casey, Hologic's Senior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel. "This is but the first step in a multi-phase process and there remain several issues to be decided by the Court which could impact the applicability of this verdict.  We intend to continue to market and sell the MyoSure product and, if necessary, will pursue the appellate process to ensure the right of women to have access to this best-in-class treatment for the removal of uterine fibroids."


Source: http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/09/05/4239159/hologic-announces-verdict-in-patent.html

Patent Infringement | "Apple Didn’t Infringe Mirror Worlds Patent, Court Rules"

By: Susan Decker and William McQuillen
Source: www.bloomberg.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infingement

Apple Inc. (AAPL) won its appeal of a U.S. patent-infringement verdict related to a Yale University professor’s invention on how documents are displayed on a computer screen.

Apple didn’t infringe patents owned by Mirror Worlds LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington said today in a ruling posted on its website. The court upheld a lower-court decision that tossed the 2010 jury verdict.

“The evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding of infringement for all of the asserted claims,” the appeals court wrote in today’s decision.

Closely held Mirror Worlds, founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter, sued in 2008, alleging Apple’s Mac computers infringed its patents. Apple challenged the validity of the patents and whether they were infringed.

The jury said Apple was infringing three patents and awarded damages of $208.5 million for each, for a total of $625.5 million. Apple argued in court papers that the amount was too high and that it was improper to add the damages.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis in Tyler, Texas, overturned the October 2010 verdict, saying Apple didn’t infringe a patent and Mirror Worlds had failed to establish its case. The court also said the damage award was too high, while also upholding the validity of the three Mirror Worlds patents.

The trial focused on the Spotlight, Time Machine and Cover Flow features in Apple’s Mac operating systems. Cover Flow lets users scroll through album cover art when browsing for music in their iTunes libraries. The feature also works for documents, pictures and other material stored in a computer. Spotlight searches the computer’s hard drive while Time Machine automatically saves copies of files.

The case is Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Inc., 11-1392, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The case is Mirror Worlds LLC v. Apple Inc., 08cv88, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Tyler).

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/apple-didn-t-infringe-mirror-worlds-patent-court-rules-1-.html

Patent Infringement | "Commercial insurance is limited for patent infringement"

By: Rodd Zolkos
Source: www.businessinsurance.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Commercial insurance available for patent infringement or intellectual property violations is limited, a risk management consultant said.

“There's not much out there for limits,” said Richard S. Betterly, president of Betterly Risk Consultants Inc. in Sterling, Mass. “For a larger company, it's not an easy thing to insure. For a smaller company, it's insurable but cumbersome.”

In an April review of the intellectual property insurance market in the Betterly Report, the company said coverage available “is the province of highly specialized sources such as Lloyd's, Liberty International and ProSight Specialty, with two exceptions.” Those are patent infringement indemnity coverage available through Chartis Inc. and coverage offered by ThinkRisk Underwriting Agency, backed by Great American Insurance Co., for infringing the aesthetic design of products.

“It's still rather a challenging thing to buy” with “rather low limits,” Mr. Betterly said. “That's not to say there isn't coverage at the captive level that's invisible or coverage that's buried in a general liability policy.”

While intellectual property policy limits of $25 million used to be commonly available, today's “carriers, I think, are just scared to death of the risk,” he said.

Betterly's April report said efforts to obtain coverage in intellectual property infringement cases through commercial general liability policies rarely succeed.


Source: http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120902/NEWS06/309029983?tags=|75|302

Patent Infringement | "Apple files new Samsung patent action in US"

By: AFP/ac
Source: www.channelnewsasia.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

NEW YORK: Apple has filed a fresh patent infringement action in the United States against Samsung, alleging that the South Korean company is continuing to steal its technology despite a recent court ruling.

The new claim was filed in San Jose, California on Friday and it says that Samsung, which last month was fined US$1.05 billion by an American court for "willfully" infringing Apple's patents, is still using its rival's technology.

"Despite that lawsuit, Samsung has continued to flood the market with copycat products," Apple said, adding four of Samsung's most recent releases -- including the flagship Galaxy S III smartphone -- to an earlier complaint filed in February.

"Apple will suffer and is suffering irreparable harm" because of the alleged infringement, said the maker of the iPhone and iPad.

The new US claim is the latest chapter in a long-running global patent war between the smartphone giants, which have accused each other of stealing intellectual property for their own products.

Apple won US$1.05 billion on August 24, when a California jury found the South Korean electronics giant infringed dozens of patents held by Apple.

However a Japanese court on Friday rejected the US tech giant's claim that Samsung stole its technology.

Apple had sought damages and sought to block sales of some Samsung products in Japan, where both firms have seen their popularity rise in a market traditionally dominated by domestic powerhouses such as Sharp and Sony.

But the claim was rejected and Tokyo District Court's three-judge panel also awarded legal costs to Samsung.

Source: http://www.democrats.org/splash/get-his-back?b

Patent Infringement | "Apple v Samsung Patent Infringement – What it Means for Seattle Businesses"

By: Timothy McCormack
Source: http://www.blogger.com
Category: Patent Infringement

Patent Infringement

It can be costly to infringe the intellectual property rights of another. On August 24, 2012 Apple won its patent case against Samsung. The nine-member jury awarded $1.05 billion to Apple and rejected Samsung’s countersuit – finding the Samsung patents not-infringed by Apple.

For Seattle businesses, this case presents an important lesson – taking shortcuts in the design and implementation of a product is not prudent. In addition to the $1.05 billion, Apple will ask the court for an injunction against Samsung, which if granted, would require Samsung to immediately suspend sales of the infringed products in the United States as Samsung files its appeals.

What Was Infringed?
The jury found that Samsung infringed six of Apple’s patents. Regarding software, Samsung infringed; (i) Apple’s bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image; (ii) Apple’s pinching and zooming scroll feature; and (iii) Apple’s tap-to-zoom feature. Regarding design, Samsung infringed: (i) Apple’s iPhone’s face, screen and speaker slot; (ii) the ornamental design and shape of the iPhone’s face, rounded corners and bezel; and (iii) the icon arrangement on the home screen. The jury found no infringement regarding Samsung’s tablet. Samsung’s infringement included 21 of its smart phones.

Additional Damages
The jury also concluded that Samsung willfully infringed on five of the patents. Willful infringement is the deliberate disregard of intellectual property rights of the valid patent holder.(1) It is a question of fact and involves a determination as to an infringer’s state of mind.(2) In determining the question of willfulness, the jury looks to whether the infringer acted in disregard of the infringed patent with no reasonable basis to believe it had a right to do the acts in question.(3) In short, the jury found that Samsung executives either knew or should have known their products infringed on the listed patents. Because Samsung’s infringement is identified as “willful” there is potential for punitive damages against Samsung. In patent cases, the judge is given the responsibility of determining whether to award punitive damages based upon a set of factors outlined in law. In this case, the statute would limit potential patent damages to three-times the damages calculated by the jury. However, the trade dress damages are not limited.

Apple has also asked for an injunction to stop Samsung’s ongoing infringement. US patent law places the decision on whether to grant injunctive relief in the hands of the district court judge. The briefing on injunctive relief will take several weeks and was announced to begin on September 20. Whether an injunction will be granted depends upon the four “eBay factors” defined by the US Supreme Court in 2006. When granting injunctive relief, the judge has a lot of discretion. Some courts have issued broad injunctions, ie., “stop infringing the patent”, while other courts issue much more narrow orders directed only toward the particular products that infringe. If an injunction is issued, there is still the question of whether relief will be stayed pending appeal. Stayed pending appeal means that the injunction will not take place until after appeals have been concluded. Normally an infringer generally has no right to continue infringing while the case is on appeal. However, courts will stay injunctive relief when the stay prevents great potential harm and/or the appellant has a strong case on appeal.

Intellectual Property: Philosophies Divided
Apple and Samsung stand on two sides of the intellectual property debate. Apple argues for broad protection of all its intellectual property. Samsung views this as a danger to consumers as they claim it will lead to higher prices and fewer choices.

Apple:
We are grateful to the jury for their service and for investing the time to listen to our story and we were thrilled to be able to finally tell it. The mountain of evidence presented during the trail showed that Samsung’s copying went far deeper than even we knew. The lawsuits between Apple and Samsung were about much more than patents or money. They were about values. At Apple, we value originality and innovation and pour our lives into making the best products on earth. We make these products to delight our customers, not for our competitors to flagrantly copy. We applaud the court for finding Samsung’s behavior willful and for sending a loud and clear message that stealing isn’t right.

Samsung:
Today’s verdict should not be viewed as a win for Apple, but as a loss for the American consumer. It will lead to fewer choices, less innovation, and potentially higher prices. It is unfortunate that patent law can be manipulated to give one company a monopoly over rectangles with rounded corners, or technology that is being improved every day by Samsung and other companies. Consumers have the right to choices, and they know what they are buying when they purchase Samsung products. This is not the final word in this case or in battles being waged in courts and tribunals around the world, some of which have already rejected many of Apple’s claims. Samsung will continue to innovate and offer choices for the consumer

Conclusion
Samsung and Apple were once friendly competitors. This case turned them into bitter enemies. The outcome is damaging for Samsung because 21 of its leading smart phone devices have been found infringing.
It is important to note however that the South Korean court in Seoul ruled on Friday contrary to the American court. The Korean court held that Samsung has not violated the iPhone design. The foreign court stated that though Samsung’s flagship Galaxy smartphone looks very similar to Apple’s iPhone, Samsung has not violated the iPhone design. The South Korean judge said it would be difficult to conclude that consumers would confuse the iPhone with the Galaxy given the fact they clearly have the respective company logos on the back of each model, and consumers also factor in operating systems, brand, applications, price and services when buying a phone. “There are lots of external design similarities between the iPhone and Galaxy S, such as rounded corners and large screens … but these similarities had been documented in previous products,” stated the judge at the Seoul Central District Court.

The foreign court’s decision highlights the difficulty in determining the outcome in patent infringement cases. Apple won the first battle in the United Sates, but it remains to be seen if they’ll win the larger war.

If a Seattle company is thinking of releasing a similar product to their competitor, it is important they seek counsel from an experienced intellectual property attorney. This advice is important for non-tech companies as well, including companies selling products (shoes) camera bags or other widgets. The attorneys’ fees will be far smaller than multi-million dollar judgments, or in this case, a billion dollar judgment.

Source: http://blog.seattlepi.com/timothymccormack/2012/08/27/apple-v-samsung-patent-infringement-what-it-means-for-seattle-businesses/