Trademark Infringement | "Stanley Furniture Sues Whalen, Costco for Trademark Infringement"

By: Karen M. Koenig
Source: www.woodworkingnetwork.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

GREENSBORO, NC - Stanley Furniture has filed suit against Whalen Furniture Manufacturing Inc. and retailer Costco Wholesale Corp. for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement and unfair competition in regards to its MyHaven™ furniture collection. MyHaven is part of Stanley Furniture’s Young America division of youth furniture.

Filed Sept. 10 in U.S. District Court in North Carolina, Stanley’s suit claims that Whalen Furniture, doing business as Bayside Furnishings, “willfully and knowingly violated and infringed Stanley’s trademark rights in MyHaven with the intention of deceiving and misleading customers, and defendants have wrongly traded on Stanley’s goodwill and reputation.” The company states it has “suffered actual monetary damage” as a result, though a dollar amount has not yet been determined.

Stanley Furniture stated in court documents that while it promotes the fact that its Young America line of youth furniture is manufactured in America, the “infringing items” by Whalen are “manufactured overseas and in turn sold primarily through big box retailers at discount prices,” resulting in Stanley's claims of unfair competition. Whalen is selling its My Haven bunk beds through Costco.

The suit also specifies that Whalen’s My Haven bunk beds feature design and ornamental elements that are “substantially identical” to those on Stanley’s MyHaven bunk bed. “The intentional copying presumptively establishes secondary meaning for the trade dress associated with Stanley’s MyHaven bunk beds and a likelihood of confusion between Stanley’s genuine products and the infringing My Haven bunk beds,” the transcript states.

The case was referred to mediation on Sept. 11. As of Sept. 12, no reference to the My Haven bunk beds could be found on either Whalen Furniture's, Bayside Furnishings' or Costco's websites.


Source: http://www.woodworkingnetwork.com/news/woodworking-industry-news/Stanley-Furniture-Sues-Whalen-Costco-for-Trademark-Infringement-169510676.html

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 Litigation | "Apple, Kodak, Home Shopping Network:Intellectual Property"

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

Patent Litigation

Apple Inc. (AAPL) won a round of a U.S. International Trade Commission case brought by Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) over patented technology in the iPhone and iPad tablet computer, its second U.S. legal victory in a month over its largest smartphone competitor.

Apple didn’t violate Samsung’s patent rights, ITC Judge James Gildea said in a notice posted on the agency’s website. The judge’s findings are subject to review by the full commission, which has the power to block imports of products that infringe U.S. patents.

The judge’s findings follow a federal jury’s ruling in San Jose, California, on Aug. 24 awarding Apple more than $1 billion in damages, after finding that Samsung copies the look and some features of the iPhone. The California jury rejected claims that Apple infringed other Samsung patents.

Gildea said there was no infringement of any of the four patents in the ITC case, and also determined that Samsung had not proven it had a domestic industry that used the patents, a requirement that is unique to the trade agency. The judge didn’t provide the reasons behind his findings. The opinion will be public after both sides get a chance to redact confidential information.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said the company had no comment.

Apple, based in Cupertino, California, has its own ITC complaint pending against Samsung, and the judge in that case is scheduled to release his findings Oct. 19. The two companies, which together make about half the smartphones sold in the world, are embroiled in more than 30 lawsuits spanning four continents.

The issue of how to handle patents related to industry standards has arisen in other cases before the trade agency, with no clear resolution. Companies that help establish standards that let various devices work with each other pledge to license their relevant patents on fair and reasonable terms.

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, in a filing with the ITC on other cases, argued that such patents should be treated differently than other patents, and any dispute over licensing fees should be resolved in district court.

Most of the patents asserted in the legal battles over smartphones and tablet computers don’t involve standard- essential patents.

Samsung’s case against Apple is In the Matter of Electronic Devices, Including Wireless Communication Devices, 337-794, and Apple’s case against Samsung is In the Matter of Electronic Digital Media Devices, 337-796, both U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-17/apple-kodak-home-shopping-network-intellectual-property.html

Trademark Infringement | "Samsung Galaxy S3 Ad Slams IPhone 5"

By: cmvlive
Source: http://cmvlive.com
Category: Trademark Infringement

Trademark Infringement

Samsung has made fun of Apple in the past, making fun of Apple fans on queue and calling them sheep. Now, in a Samsung Galaxy S3 ad, it slams Apple’s new iPhone 5, which the Cupertino firm has recently launched a few days ago.

Samsung’s ad reads, “It doesn’t take a genius”, followed by a specs comparison of the smartphones. The S3’s spec sheet fills up most of the ad, while including only a few features of the iPhone 5. In other words, the Samsung Galaxy S3 is made to look extremely superior compared to the new iPhone.

Another ad was launched in The New York Times. The ad’s tagline reads, “On Sept 12th the next big thing was revealed.” Below it is a photo of the Galaxy S3. Underneath the image reads, “The Next Big Thing is Already Here.”

We can’t help but notice that Samsung is venting out its recent defeat against Apple. It’s understandable that the Korean tech giant’s rage, after being ordered by the jury to pay the Cupertino firm more than $1 billion in damages for trademark infringement. All of Samsung’s claims against Apple were dismissed. Although we understand where they’re coming from, we don’t think this will win the hearts of the consumer. It might even affect handset sales.

Apple sold out its existing pre-order stock of the iPhone 5 in the first day it was available for pre-order. Many believe that the new iPhone will be the hottest-selling device in to date. Although Apple’s new flagship is turning out to be a huge success, Samsung isn’t doing too bad with the Galaxy S3. It is also a highly successful device, shipping 20 million units after going on sale for just 100 days. We wish the Korean firm would just focus on making its devices more innovative, rather than slamming its rival.


Source: http://cmvlive.com/technology/gadgets/samsung-galaxy-s3-ad-slams-iphone-5

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 Litigation | "Federal judge hands Samsung setback against Apple"

By: Peter Svensson 
Source: www.mercurynews.com
Category: Patent Litigation


NEW YORK -- In a preliminary move, a federal judge has denied Samsung's request for a ban on imports of the iPhone, iPad and iPod.

It's another setback for Samsung in a globe-spanning legal battle, where each company is accusing the other of violating its patents.

A judge at the International Trade Commission in Washington ruled Friday that Apple (AAPL) doesn't violate four Samsung patents. The judge also found that the patents don't apply to any domestic industry. That will make it harder for Samsung to press the case before the full commission, says patent litigation expert Florian Mueller.

Three weeks ago, a jury in San Jose ruled that Samsung owes Apple $1.05 billion for violating patents on features of the iPhone and iPad.

"Apple at the ITC is bulletproof," said Rodney Sweetland, a lawyer at Duane Morris in Washington, who specializes in trade cases. "Nobody can get any traction against them there. The lesson is, if you want to get relief against Apple, it's going to have to be in a foreign forum where it doesn't have the clout or the cachet it has at the ITC or the northern district of California."

Gildea said there was no infringement of any of the four patents in the ITC case, and also determined that Samsung had not proven it had a domestic industry that used the patents, a requirement that is unique to the trade agency. The judge didn't provide the reasons behind his findings. The opinion will become public after both sides get a chance to redact confidential information.

"We remain confident that the full commission will ultimately reach a final determination that affirms our position that Apple must be held accountable for free-riding on our technological innovations," Adam Yates, a Samsung spokesman, said. "We are proud of our long history of innovation in the mobile industry and will continue to defend our intellectual property rights."

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said the company had no comment. Apple has previously won cases brought against it at the trade agency by HTC and Google (GOOG) Motorola Mobility, two other manufacturers of phones that run on Google's Android operating system. Apple lost its case against Motorola Mobility, and won an order that forced HTC to remove a feature from its phones.


Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21546807/federal-judge-hands-samsung-setback-against-apple

Trademark Infringement | "Can a Company Trademark the Colors On Its Web Site?"

By: John Villasenor,
Source: www.forbes.com
Category: Trademark Infringement


Earlier this month, a federal appeals court ruled  that the contrasting red soles on shoes from designer Christian Louboutin are sufficiently distinctive to warrant trademark protection. The ruling adds an important chapter to the history of color trademarks, and has broad implications that go well beyond the fashion industry. To what extent, for example, might colors on web sites be eligible for trademark protection?

A trademark is “a word, phrase, symbol, and/or design that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.” Examples of famous trademarks include the Nike swoosh symbol, the McDonald’s Golden Arches, and the phrase “Intel Inside.” In the landmark 1995 Qualitex ruling involving the color of dry cleaning equipment, the Supreme Court held that U.S. trademark law as established under the 1940s-era Lanham Act “permits the registration of a trademark that consists, purely and simply, of a color.” Color alone, wrote the Court, can at least sometimes “meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm’s goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function.”

Mr. Louboutin started coloring shoe outsoles in the early 1990s, choosing red because he considered it “engaging, flirtatious, memorable and the color of passion.”  Over the subsequent years, the red soles became a widely recognized identifier of the Louboutin brand. “When it comes to women’s shoes made for style rather than walking,” Reuters wrote in 2007, “Christian Louboutin footwear with their distinctive red soles lead the pack, according to a survey of wealthy American consumers.”

In 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Louboutin a trademark  for a “lacquered red sole on footwear,” and in 2011, when the company learned that Yves Saint Laurent was selling shoes with both a red sole and a monochrome red “upper,” it filed a trademark infringement claim in a New York federal district court. After the court refused to grant an injunction against Yves Saint Laurent, Louboutin appealed.

In a September 5 ruling that both Louboutin and Yves Saint Laurent described as a victory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held  that Louboutin’s lacquered red outsole is “a distinctive symbol that qualifies for trademark protection,” but only when contrasted with a different color used for the other visible portions of the shoe. In other words, Yves Saint Laurent’s monochrome red shoes walk free, and Louboutin’s trademark survives, though with a narrower scope.

What does this mean for the ability to trademark colors on web sites? Consider the thick, red, horizontal stripe at the top of CNN’s web site. A person seeing a computer from the other side of a room who might not be able to read the print on the screen would nonetheless be likely to recognize that it was displaying a page from the cnn.com domain. In the context of online news sites, CNN’s red stripe placed across the top of the screen plays an important role in brand identification.

But does it establish trademark rights? The answer turns, among other things, on whether the stripe’s color and placement are distinctive (most likely, yes), whether its use by competitors would create customer confusion (quite possibly), and whether it steers clear of being functional (maybe).

A product feature cannot serve as a trademark “if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.” This functionality doctrine is intended to avoid granting trademarks that would give a single company control over a useful feature, and thus impede competition. Under some circumstances color can have an important functional role – for instance, if it is used to identify the type of medication contained in a gelatin capsule. Preventing a generic drug maker from choosing the same capsule color as the brand name manufacturer could create confusion for both pharmacists and patients.

More subtly and controversially, some courts – including the Second Circuit that issued the Louboutin ruling – have viewed product features that are “aesthetically functional” as ineligible for trademark protection. Even a feature that is not functional in the traditional sense can be aesthetically functional if allowing it to be trademarked “significantly undermines competitors’ ability to compete in the relevant market” .

It could be argued that CNN’s red stripe is not functional in either the traditional utilitarian sense or aesthetically. After all, a competing news site barred from using it could choose to use a green stripe, or no stripe at all. But there is also a case to be made in favor of functionality: Unlike the sole of a shoe, which has a function tied to its non-color attributes, color in a web site can help visitors navigate the site.

Another issue is the limited number of basic colors to choose from when designing a web site, and the limited number of basic shapes they can be used to fill. What would happen if there were no more colors left to trademark? In the 1995 Qualitex ruling, the Supreme Court considered and rejected depletion as an argument against granting trademark protection for colors. At some point, the Court reasoned, color choices become functional and thus ineligible for protection. And, the Court wrote, when “a color serves as a mark, normally alternative colors will likely be available for similar use by others.”

That may have been true for dry cleaning equipment manufacturers in 1995, and for makers of fiberglass insulation in 1985 and outboard motor companies in 1994. But is it well matched to an era when almost every company has a web site, and in some industries, such as online news, or, for that matter, high end shoes and jewelry, there can be dozens or hundreds of competing companies? In this context, the assumptions of the Qualitex Court regarding depletion may warrant reexamination.


Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2012/09/15/can-a-company-trademark-the-colors-on-its-web-site/

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 Litigation | "Apple's Mobile Patent Portfolio for Insights into New iPhone Technology & Litigation Activity"

By: Press release.
Source: www.reuters.com
Category: Patent Litigation


PHILADELPHIA, PA, September 11, 2012 - The Intellectual Property & Science business of Thomson Reuters, the world's leading provider of intelligent information for businesses and professionals, today released the results of its study of Apple, Inc.'s mobile technology patents. The findings, which are featured in the Thomson Reuters paper, "Inside the iPhone Patent Portfolio,"detail patent and litigation activity across Apple's 1,298 mobile patents and provide insight into possible future incarnations of the iPhone.

Following are among the key findings in the report:

Top Technology Areas: Apple filed 416 smartphone-related patents since the launch of the iPhone in 2007. Another 279 have been filed for mobile camera patents; 232 were filed for user interface technologies; 149 have been filed for image display; and 88 were filed for battery/power control. Antenna (75), calendar (31), contact management (15), and voice control (5) technology were also among the patents within Apple's portfolio.

Patents to Watch: Among Apple's mobile-related patents, individual technologies that stand out as key indicators of what future smartphone design may hold include a fuel cell system that will allow a portable device to stay charged for days or weeks, and an educational content display feature that allows users to interact with text to see images of what the word(s) mean.

Litigation - Behind the Scenes of the Patent Wars: To provide insight into the ongoing smartphone "patent wars," the report tracks all active IP litigation between 2008 and 2012, noting a rapid rise in Apple's recent IP litigation.  By June 2012, the company had already filed nearly as many patent suits as it did in 2010 and 2011 combined.

"With Apple expected to launch its iPhone 5 this week, the company's patent portfolio gives us a unique perspective into what may be unveiled on September 12th, or years down the road as part of a future product iteration," said Bob Stembridge, an intellectual property analyst at Thomson Reuters and author of the report. "The recent and rapid increase in Apple's IP litigation activity is indicative of just how valuable intellectual property can be to an organization and the lengths to which an organization will go to defend the inventions it's worked so hard to develop."

Data for this report were aggregated using Thomson Reuters Derwent World Patents IndexR (DWPI) to identify global patent activity for Apple, Inc. in the Derwent Manual Code category for portable, hand-held mobile radio telephones. Additionally, Thomson Reuters IP Monitor was used to identify active IP litigation for the company. Researchers analyzed the total number of unique inventions issued in published patent applications and granted patents between January 2000 and August 2012. Active IP litigation was analyzed between January 2008 and June 2012.


Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/idUS97399+11-Sep-2012+HUG20120911

Trademark Infringement | "Apple alleges trademark infringement by Polish online grocer"

BY: MICHAEL SANTO

Source: www.examiner.com

Category: Trademark Infringement

Apple has previously sued for trademark infringement over such ludicrous things as the GreeNYC campaign's logo or items that use the word "Pod" in their name but that are totally unrelated to MP3 players.

The bulls-eye, this time, is focused on a Polish grocery store. The store is using a .pl top-level domain name, which makes a lot of sense considering its country of origin. The problem lies in the rest of their website's domain name.

The site is A.pl. A brief look at how that might be pronounced would probably clue you in on at least one thing that Apple is - or might be - upset about.

On Tuesday, the Polish patent office said that Apple had filed a complaint against A.pl, accusing the website of riding on its trademark in three ways. The Polish patent website also detailed the complaint against A.pl: its name is too similar, 2) it is trading on Apple's reputation, and 3) it has a logo that is similar to Apple's.

The logo, in fact, appears to be at a subsidiary of A.pl's, at fresh24.pl (seen above), rather than directly at A.pl.

As has been pointed out before by patent and trademark attorneys, to maintain the validity of its trademark, Apple needs to aggressively pursue those that it considers scofflaws, even if a connection to its trademark seems to be on the more ridiculous side.

Polish patent office spokesman Adam Taukert said, "(The) Apple brand is widely recognized and the company says that A.pl, by using the (sic) name that sounds similar, is using Apple's reputation."

Meanwhile, A.pl CEO Radoslaw Celinski rebutted the complaint, saying that "The accusation is ludicrous."

A date for a hearing has not yet been set.

Source: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5275751898949626712#editor/target=post;postID=5750594095844836774

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 Litigation | "Mylan settles Detrol LA patent litigation PBR Staff Writer "

By: Drug Discovery & Development News
Source: http://drugdiscovery.pharmaceutical-business-review.com
Category: Patent Litigation


Mylan and its subsidiary, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, have signed a settlement agreement with Pfizer, Pharmacia & Upjohn Company and Pfizer Health related to Detrol LA patent litigation.

The litigation is related to Mylan Pharmaceuticals' abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) for Tolterodine Tartrate ER capsules, 2mg and 4mg, the generic version of Pfizer's Detrol LA, indicated for the treatment of overactive bladder with symptoms of urge urinary incontinence, urgency, and frequency.

The settlement dismisses the pending litigation and allows Mylan to start selling the generic product on 1 January 2014, or earlier under certain limited circumstances, and 1 March 2014, subject to final FDA approval.

The agreements are subject to review by the Federal Trade Commission and the US Department of Justice. Other details of the settlement were not revealed.

Source: http://drugdiscovery.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/news/mylan-settles-detrol-la-patent-litigation-100912

Trademark Infringement | "Apple, Samsung, Reddit, DirecTV: Intellectual Property"

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


If Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent litigation is the “thermonuclear war” over smartphone technology and design that co-founder Steve Jobs pledged to his biographer, Noreen Krall is its field marshal.

Krall has become a familiar sight in courtrooms around the world as Apple’s chief litigation counsel. Her greatest victory came Aug. 24, when a California jury ordered Samsung Electronics Co., the biggest smartphone maker, to pay Apple more than $1 billion for infringing patents related to the iPhone.

“There is no historical precedent for what Noreen Krall is doing,” said John Thorne, who ran Verizon Communications Inc.’s intellectual-property team before joining Kellogg Huber in Washington this year. “Good generalship produces results like Noreen has gotten. She’s mastering big decisions, like which law firms to hire, how to manage resources, how much of Tim Cook’s time to take.”

Krall, 47, and her boss, General Counsel Bruce Sewell, have amassed a team of lawyers from inside Apple and some of the top U.S. law firms to fight Samsung, HTC Corp. (2498) and Google’s Motorola Mobility unit over Google’s Android mobile operating system and the smartphones and tablets that run on it.

Her job includes understanding the patent rules and court procedures in more than three dozen jurisdictions, making sure arguments are consistent, providing feedback and keeping her team motivated. She observes her lawyers’ arguments from benches or public seating in the back of courtrooms, leaving with them at the end of the day.

Kristin Huguet, a spokeswoman for Apple, said Krall and other officials wouldn’t comment for this story.
Krall, a New York native, was trained as an electrical engineer. Two of her daughters are in college pursuing engineering degrees.

Before moving to Apple, Krall spent five years managing Sun Microsystems Inc.’s 14,000 patents as chief intellectual- property counsel.

Krall joined an Apple team that viewed Android device makers as a threat to its core business of selling distinctively designed consumer electronics at a premium price and with industry-leading profit margins.
She is a founding member of a group of female intellectual- property lawyers called the Chipsters that puts on events to share tips on being powerful women and mothers in male-dominated Silicon Valley.

A finalist this year for the annual Global Counsel Award for intellectual-property lawyers, selected by corporation lawyers and law-firm partners, she’s a shoo-in for next year, said Thorne, the former Verizon lawyer.


Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-11/apple-samsung-reddit-directv-intellectual-property.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