Google Patent | "Google Patents 'Landing Strip' for Self-Driving Cars"

By: Mark Hachman
Source: http://www.pcmag.com
Category : Google Patent

Google Patent

Google has successfully patented a "landing strip" technology for its self-driving cars, providing a method for the cars to automatically slip into autonomous mode and find parking spots.

The "landing strip" appears to be little more than an embedded sensor in the ground, whether it be a radio, QR code, or some other means of transferring information to the car. The key, however, is the information and how the car uses it.

The patent, first noted by TechRadar, was approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Dec. 13.

Google first disclosed its self-driving car in Oct. 2010, already in an advanced stage of development. In October, Google's Sergey Brin, who is overseeing the autonomous car as part of his focus on developing research, said that technical challenges remain, as well as simply gaining permission from states to allow self-driving cars across their roadways.
Google Self-Driving Car Landing Strip Patent

Brin reported in October that his teams have already driven more than 1,000 miles without the need for a driver to manually take control of the vehicle, but that an aggregate total of 1 million miles was necessary. Sebastian Thrun, who leads the dedicated car team at Google, wrote that Google's cars have driven more than 200,000 miles without an accident.

Google's latest patent suggests a scenario where the car would actually stop and transition from an autonomous mode to a user-controlled mode. An image accompanying the patent suggests Google would use a giant QR code that could be painted on the roadway and scanned optically, although the patent text suggests that a RF, cellular connection, or other medium could be used. Google's cars use GPS technology to orient themselves, but in certain cases a GPS signal may not be accessible.

The landing "strip" could also be a parking spot, where an electric vehicle could charge.

Google also suggests that the landing strip could either contain a request to download new instructions, or communicate new data within the strip itself. Although Google uses lasers and other devices to detect objects and determine its own location, the patent suggests that it could update its databases, or receive instructions to move 100 feet forward, turn left 20 degrees, and proceed forward 100 feet.

"For example, the autonomous vehicle may be used as a virtual tour guide of Millennium Park in Chicago," the patent states. "In the example embodiment, the vehicle may have an instruction to drive to the Cloud Gate (Silver Bean) sculpture at Millennium Park. When the vehicle arrives, the autonomous instruction may tell it to wait in the location for a predetermined amount of time, for example 5 minutes. The instruction may then direct the vehicle to drive to the Crown Fountain at Millennium Park and again wait for 5 minutes. Next, the instruction may tell the vehicle to drive to the Ice Rink at Millennium Park and wait for another predetermined amount of time. Finally, the vehicle instruction may tell the vehicle to return to its starting position."

"In some embodiments, the vehicle instruction may be a fixed instruction telling the vehicle a single route and timing for the route," Google's patent added. "In another embodiment, the autonomous instruction may be a list of possible instructions presented to a human in the vehicle. The human may be able to select a point of interest and the vehicle will responsively execute the associated autonomous instruction. In a further embodiment, the vehicle instruction is a single command telling the vehicle to drive itself to one specific location."

One aspect that the patent apparently does not cover: using the landing strip as a transition from a self-driving region to a region where the user would need to take control of his or her own vehicle, such as a transition off of a freeway into a residential neighborhood.

Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2397706,00.asp

Apple Patent | "Apple-HTC patent case faces further delay at ITC"

By: Don Reisinger
Source: http://www.zdnet.co.uk
Category: Apple Patent

Apple Patent

HTC will be forced to wait a bit longer to hear what the US International Trade Commission has to say about its case with Apple.

The handset maker said on Wednesday that the ITC has delayed handing down its ruling until Monday. Wednesday's court date was set after the ITC delayed a ruling on 6 December. The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the delay.

Apple first filed suit against HTC in March 2010, alleging the company copied technologies found in the iPhone. HTC quickly followed that up with its own lawsuit, claiming Apple violates its own patents.

Source: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/intellectual-property/2011/12/15/apple-htc-patent-case-faces-further-delay-at-itc-40094652/

Patent News | "Patents and the Public Interest"

By: COLLEEN V. CHIEN and MARK A. LEMLEY
Source: http://www.nytimes.com
Category: Patent News


On Wednesday, in a case closely watched both by analysts and retailers, the International Trade Commission will decide whether the handset maker HTC should be allowed to import its products into the United States. The controversy? A claim by Apple that HTC infringed on two of the estimated 250,000 patents covering smartphone technology. If the commission agrees, it is likely to issue an “exclusion order,” which would in effect say “keep out” (of the United States) to HTC’s Android phones during the Christmas season.

It’s cases like this that have many people concerned that soon judicial decisions, rather than consumers, will decide what products make it onto Santa’s sleigh. While smartphone patent disputes are being waged around the world, with injunctions in play on several continents, the I.T.C. ruling has the potential to be the most significant one to date, given the size of the United States market. As patent law experts who appreciate the efficiency of the I.T.C.’s decision-making, we believe that a small change in how the commission does its job could yield big dividends for competition and consumers by reducing the disruption an exclusion order can wreak.

But first, some background.

The Apple-HTC dispute isn’t the only one at the I.T.C. with a potentially huge impact on consumers. Makers of GPS devices and flat-screens, and most major smartphone makers, are also embroiled in disputes there, all of them hoping that the I.T.C. will not prevent their products from being on the United States market.

How did this once-obscure trade court become one of the most important battlegrounds of consumer technology? The answer lies in part in the speed of the I.T.C., but even more so in the power it has to keep products out of the United States.

In 2006, the BlackBerry manufacturer Research in Motion was almost blocked from making its phones when NTP — a “patent troll” whose sole business is profiting from patents — sought to enforce some patents. Though a jury had awarded just $23 million in damages, R.I.M. agreed to pay NTP what later amounted to $613 million in licensing fees to avoid having its phones shut down by the court.

Later that year the Supreme Court’s eBay decision made it harder to impose such “holdup” fees by doing away with the practice of automatically awarding an injunction. After eBay, a court must consider the harms to the parties and the public that an injunction would present before deciding to grant one. This new case-by-case standard has gone a long way to solving the holdup problem that had beset the patent system.

But in the wake of eBay, both patent trolls and product companies like Apple have flocked to the I.T.C., where a federal ruling held that eBay’s new equitable test does not apply. The commission’s caseload has more than doubled, from 29 cases in 2005 to 64 and counting this year. And while the injunction grant rate in district courts has declined to around 75 percent for companies that make products and much lower than that for trolls, the I.T.C.’s injunction rate has held steady at 100 percent. The result has been to undo much of the desirable effect of eBay.

Although the I.T.C. is supposed to consider an exclusion order’s impact on competition and consumers relating to the effect of any exclusion order, it hasn’t given these so-called “public interest” factors many teeth. But it should. The I.T.C. has the power to tailor the remedy to fit the crime, for example delaying an injunction to allow a defendant to redesign its product, or even refusing to exclude the imports at all.

Tailoring remedies makes sense. When a patent holder doesn’t compete in the market or risk irreparable harm, fast-tracking the case to a district court to assess damages may be the better option. But when the dispute is between competitors, or involves a start-up or university seeking to commercialize its invention, an exclusion order should be the default.

Even in such cases, shutting out imports of an infringing product is not always the right answer. If the patent covers a small part of the product, the defendant could design around it, and if the defendant’s infringement was inadvertent, the I.T.C. could award an exclusion order but delay its start. During the delay period, the infringer could pay remuneration through a bond, allowing the patentee to get paid but not holding up a large product because of a small patent.

A delay would allow companies and consumers to adjust to the ruling. The alternatives — for companies to change their products every time they are sued, no matter how meritlessly, or to shut down production altogether — would drive up costs unnecessarily. (As is often said: companies can manage bad news, it’s the bad surprises that they hate. Just ask Samsung and HTC, which have had to design around patent injunctions in Germany and Australia.)

Congress could require the I.T.C. to consider these options. But it shouldn’t have to. The I.T.C. has proven to be adaptive to changing competitive conditions. The agency has the power to make fair, case-by-case decisions on whether and how to block products from entering the country. It should use that power.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/opinion/patents-smartphones-and-the-public-interest.html

Apple Patent | "Apple says Motorola patent win won't deter holiday sales"

By: Michael Grothaus
Source: http://www.tuaw.com
Category: Patent News

Apple Patent

Last Friday Motorola won a default judgment in Germany blocking the sale of iPad 3G's and all iPhones before the iPhone 4S in Germany. The court sided with Motorola after the company successfully argued that Apple violated one of its 3G patents. The ruling was a blow to Apple, especially since Germany is the largest EU market for iOS devices.

However, as AllThingsD point out, the ruling isn't as devastating to Apple in the short term as it has been made out. First, Apple is immediately appealing the ruling. Second, if they don't win the appeal they could possible license the 3G patent from Motorola. But most importantly, the ruling won't have much of a material impact (if any) on Apple's holiday sales in Germany. That's because the ruling only applies to the importation of new iOS devices into the country. Any iOS device inventory that is already in the country can still be sold.

No doubt with the holidays here Apple already made sure that Germany had a healthy inventory of iOS devices on hand, and if they believed there was a possibility that they would lose the case they probably stocked up inventory in the country more than usual. As an Apple spokesperson told AllThingsD, "We're going to appeal the court's ruling right away. Holiday shoppers in Germany should have no problem finding the iPad or iPhone they want."

Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2011/12/12/apple-says-motorola-patent-win-wont-deter-holiday-sales/

Motorola Patent | "Motorola wins German patent case ruling against Apple "

By: Reuters
Source: http://www.firstpost.com
Category: Motorola Patent

Motorola Patent

Motorola Mobility (MMI.N) won a preliminary injunction against Apple Inc (AAPL.O) in Germany, which could bar the sales of iPhones and iPads in the country.

A regional German court in Mannheim ruled on Friday that Apple Sales International — European sales subsidiary of Apple in Cork, Ireland — must stop selling or distributing mobile devices that infringe certain Motorola patents.

The ruling, which relates to cellular communications patents, could bar the sales of all Apple products that use the patents such as iPhone 4 and iPad 3G, Germany-based patent expert Florian Mueller said.
“The ruling targets Apple’s European sales organization but relates only to that entity’s sale to German customers,” Mueller added.

Motorola Mobility said it has been negotiating with Apple and offering the company “reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007.”

Motorola Mobility “will continue our efforts to resolve our global patent dispute as soon as practicable,” it said in a statement.

To enforce the injunction, Motorola Mobility has to pay about 100 million euros as bond.
Apple, which has other patent infringement cases pending in Germany, said it plans to appeal.

“We are going to appeal the court ruling right away,” Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. “Holiday shoppers in Germany should have no problem finding the iPad and iPhone they want.”

Source: http://www.firstpost.com/tech/motorola-wins-german-patent-case-ruling-against-apple-153542.html 

Apple Patent | "Apple suffers major patent setback in Germany"

By: Reuters
Source: http://www.theage.com.au
Category: Apple Patent

Apple Patent

Motorola Mobility won a preliminary injunction against Apple in Germany, which could bar the sales of iPhones and iPads in the country.

A regional German court in Mannheim ruled on Friday that Apple Sales International - European sales subsidiary of Apple in Cork, Ireland - must stop selling or distributing mobile devices that infringe certain Motorola patents.

The ruling, which relates to cellular communications patents, could bar the sales of all Apple products that use the patents such as iPhone 4 and iPad 3G, Germany-based patent expert Florian Mueller said.

"The ruling targets Apple's European sales organisation but relates only to that entity's sale to German customers," added Mr Mueller, who works as a consultant and is currently doing a study for Microsoft.

Motorola Mobility said it has been negotiating with Apple and offering the company "reasonable licensing terms and conditions since 2007".

Motorola Mobility "will continue our efforts to resolve our global patent dispute as soon as practicable," it said in a statement.

To enforce the injunction, Motorola Mobility, which is in the throes of being taken over by Google, has to pay about 100 million euros ($US133.8 million) as bond.

Apple, which has other patent infringement cases pending in Germany, said it plans to appeal.

"We are going to appeal the court ruling right away," Apple spokeswoman Kristin Huguet said. "Holiday shoppers in Germany should have no problem finding the iPad and iPhone they want."

Apple is locked in mobile patent infringement battle with a number of companies, including Samsung Electronics and HTC, in many countries. It recently failed in a court bid to stop US and Australian sales of Samsung's Galaxy line of products.

In its case against Motorola Mobility, Apple offered to license the patent.

"But Motorola rejected the offer as Apple sought to limit the amount it would have to pay for past infringement," Peter Misek, an analyst with Jefferies & Co said, adding that the key issue is the penalty size for Apple's infringement for the past four years, which may run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Source: http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/apple-suffers-major-patent-setback-in-germany-20111210-1ooqn.html#ixzz1gCwRiVIJ

Patent News | "Fight over human genes patents goes to the US Supreme Court"

By: Karen Barlow
Source: http://www.abc.net.au
Category: Patent News


MARK COLVIN: The fight over human genes and whether they can be patented for medical research has gone to the US Supreme Court.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation filed their appeal today.

They argue that genes are products of nature and cannot be sequestered by private companies.

The case concerns Myriad Genetics - a biotech company that holds patents on two genes which can help reveal susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer.

There's concern that their monopoly position stymies research and restricts patient access to tests and treatment but the biotech sector and patent lawyers say there are safeguards.

Karen Barlow reports.

KAREN BARLOW: If there's a good news story about breast cancer it's usually about genetic testing and research.

It's the great hope for a prevalent and debilitating disease.

But behind the scenes the genes that trigger some of those cases have been patented by the private company Myriad Genetics and public advocacy groups say that's going too far.

LUIGI PALOMBI: What happens is if you have a patent on the gene you can control everything that happens with that gene.

KAREN BARLOW: Luigi Palombi is an ANU visiting fellow and consultant on intellectual property law.

LUIGI PALOMBI: So you can control its use in research, you can control its use in the development of a medicine, you can control its use in the use of a diagnostic etc. etc. And yet all you've done is discovered a link between a gene and either a disease and some sort of other ailment or its function in the human body.

KAREN BARLOW: Luigi Palombi says that's not good enough to qualify as an invention and he says that's what the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation is asking the US Supreme Court to rule on.

LUIGI PALOMBI: The whole argument revolves around whether the removal of the human gene puts the gene into a different state to the point that it can be claimed as an invention.

All of the scientific evidence suggests that it shouldn't be. I mean what the scientists are saying is that a gene inside a human body and that same gene outside of the human body is essentially the same thing.

KAREN BARLOW: The Supreme Court filing is in part an appeal against a lower US court ruling in July that companies can take out human gene patents.

It also mirrors Federal Court action in Australia against Myriad Genetics, which is due to begin in February.

Myriad's Australian legal counsel has been sought for comment. In the meantime, the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys is backing Myriad's claim to patent human genes.

The institute's Tania Obranovich.

TANIA OBRANOVICH: The issue I think of whether somebody owns some limited right over a gene or not is less important, what is important is that no-one can abuse that monopoly and secondly that the public does have access or that if someone tries to abuse that monopoly that there are safeguards in place.

What would be a greater tragedy would be if there is no possibility of monopoly and then no-one develops the technology and then no-one has access at all.

What would be a greater tragedy or the greatest tragedy would be if that test had never been developed because there had for example not been patents allowed over the technology; that would be a catastrophe for the community.

KAREN BARLOW: There's also been an effort to change Australian law.

Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan is trying to outlaw human genetic patents.

But a senate inquiry earlier this year recommended against a private members bill that would stop gene patents.

Senator Heffernan says supports today's legal action and is still hoping legal change will happen in Australia.

BILL HEFFERNAN: Well everyone will say they have sympathy with what we're on about but don't want to take the step because they say it will dismantle research. Well in fact it'll encourage research and if you're a researcher at Westmead Hospital locked up in a room on a six month contract doing research and you run into someone else's patent on a gene, you haven't got the resources to take them to court etc.

And so we took evidence during the inquiry that it in fact was impeding research but of course the bankers and lawyers and the gold seekers don't agree with that, they want the party to continue, which is for 30 odd years as the American government said in the recent court case in America that they've misinterpreted the law. Clearly the law says you can't patent discovery, hence no-one patented the moon when they discovered it.

KAREN BARLOW: The US Supreme Court case load is heavy and it may be some time before the human gene patent appeal is heard.


Source: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3386897.ht

Patent News | "When prescription drug patents expire, the market is flooded."

By: Jim Lewis
Source: http://norfolk.injuryboard.com
Category: Patent News

Millions of people use prescription medications daily for a wide array health issues from asthma to high cholesterol to migraines. And the cost of those medicines is about plummet.

When drug companies develop a new drug, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), typically grants exclusive rights to the company for a set period of time. When that time expires, other companies are able to make the same drug and the end result is an influx of cheaper generic versions.

A generic drug is defined as “a drug product comparable to brand/reference listed drug product in dosage, strength, mode of administration, quality and performance as well as intended use.” Simply put, a generic drug is a branded drug that uses a different name.

The key benefit is that generic drugs are less expensive than branded versions by 20 to 80 percent.

Over the coming months, seven of the world’s best-selling medications are scheduled to go “off patent.” In doing so, brand-name drugs lose out to generic versions which slashes costs in favor of patients. In fact, a flood of generics is expected to continue for the next decade, as more than 100 brand-name prescription drugs lose market exclusivity.

A prime example involving a patent expiration is the drug Lipitor – a cholesterol lowering drug – which lost patent protection just last week. Pfizer plans to aggressively market the drug in the first six months of competition against generic manufacturers. Ranbaxy Laboratories and Watson Pharmaceuticals (WPI) are both offering a generic form of Lipitor. Only two generics are permitted during the first 180 days. When other generics roll out, around June, prices are really going to drop.

In the coming months other popular drugs including Lexapro (anti-depressant), Singulair (asthma) and Plavix (blood thinner) will also lose their patents.


Source: http://norfolk.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/when-prescription-drug-patents-expire-the-market-is-flooded.aspx?googleid=296598

Apple Patent | "Court Redaction Error Shows Apple Licensed Scroll Patent to Nokia"

By: Bryan Chaffin
Source: http://www.macobserver.com
Category: Apple Patent

A redaction error in court documents released on Monday revealed that Apple licensed its ‘381 scrolling patent to both Nokia and IBM. The licensing deal could make it harder for the company to collect an injunction against Samsung’s Android devices, even if they are found to infringe on the patent.

Most of Apple’s and Samsung’s legal filings and briefings have been filed under seal, but Judge Lucy Koh has released some of those documents with small and large passages redacted. What happened over the weekend is that a PDF of a document was released that contained a major flaw: Though the document appears redacted, viewers could copy and paste the contents of the file into a text editor and see all of the redacted material…

Redacted!

…which is what both The Verge and Reuters did. Both organizations got a copy of the document before it was corrected and were able to read the whole kit and caboodle.

Key among the state secrets intellectual property revealed is the nugget that Apple licensed the ‘381 patent to Nokia and IBM. This is somewhat of a surprise in that Apple claimed a recent cross-licensing deal between itself and Nokia retained the “the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique.”

Even more surprising was the revelation that Apple had offered Samsung licensing terms on the patent as recently as November 2010, five months before it filed its suit against Samsung. There was no indication of why those licensing negotiations were terminated, who terminated them, or the terms Apple was seeking.

The ‘381 patent cover’s Apple’s method of allowing a list or other screen to scroll off the edge of a touch-interface device and then snap back into place once the user releases his or her finger. Apple has long held that this is one of the crown jewels of its iOS patents that make iOS what it is, but a licensing deal with Nokia and IBM effectively tells the courts that Apple is willing to play ball and allow others to pay for the right to use the concept.

Samsung’s Android devices use that same method for scrolling, but Android itself doesn’t. Google used a different method to indicate the end of a screen with the stock version of Android—a bar flashes at the end of the screen when you reach it—in part because of the strength of Apple’s ‘381 patent.

Samsung and HTC decided to modify Android on their devices to forego Google’s default end-of-the-scroll method and use something Apple has claimed violates ‘381. Apple then brought complaints against both firms to the U.S. International Trade Commission, as well as this civil lawsuit in the U.S.

Last Friday, Judge Koh declined Apple’s request for a preliminary injunction against Samsung based on design patents Apple has claimed Samsung infringes upon, and the redaction error occurred on documents released in that case.


Source: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/court_redaction_error_shows_apple_licensed_scroll_patent_to_nokia/

Apple Patent | "Report: Apple offered Samsung a license on key iOS patent"

By: Edward Moyer
Source: http://www.zdnetasia.com
Category: Apple Patent

Apple Patent

Despite Apple's apparent intellectual-property war on iPhone and iPad lookalikes, it appears the company has licensed at least one key iOS software patent to Nokia and IBM--and that it offered a license to current court rival Samsung as well.

Nilay Patel at The Verge reports that a court order released last week contains confirmation of the Nokia, IBM, and Samsung information. The Verge was apparently shown the text behind blacked-out portions of the court order, which denied Apple's request for a preliminary injunction against the sale in the U.S. of a clutch of Samsung devices Apple claims are essentially knock-offs of the iPhone or iPad.

The court order presents the licensing information as a point in Samsung's favor, quoting a previous legal case as saying, "...the fact that a patentee has previously chosen to license the patent may indicate that a reasonable royalty does compensate for an infringement...".

In the case, Apple claims Samsung is infringing the very patent it previously failed to license, a patent that covers the iOS operating system's "scrollback" feature, which governs how an iOS device visually indicates when a user has scrolled beyond the limits of a Web page.

Patel points out that at the time of a patent settlement with Nokia last summer, Apple said it had maintained control over "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique" but that scrollback is one of iOS' most distinctive features.

Patel notes that it remains unclear why the November 2010 Apple-Samsung settlement talks that included the scrollback licensing offer to Samsung fell apart, or which company may have put the kibosh on the deal. It's also not clear if the two companies are currently engaged in settlement talks.

The willingness to license such a feature would seem to run counter to Steve Jobs' desire to "go thermonuclear war" on makers of Android-based devices, Patel says, and would seem to suggest a less draconian attitude on Apple's part toward its stewardship of iOS and the iconic devices that are powered by it.

Source: http://www.zdnetasia.com/report-apple-offered-samsung-a-license-on-key-ios-patent-62303104.htm

Patent News | "Program to cut costs, length of patent cases"

By:Thomas Olson,
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Category: Patent News

Executives at Calgon Carbon Corp. didn't envision a decadelong court fight in 2001 when the Robinson-based company sued a competitor for infringing on its patent.

And they certainly didn't expect the federal court in Chicago to declare Calgon Carbon's patent invalid, nor to go on and settle the competitor's counter claims for $4.3 million last January.

"The lawsuit was a big distraction for management and cost us in time and money," said senior vice president and general counsel, Richard Rose. "Part of the reason we decided to settle was to avoid another couple of years of litigation."

If that patent litigation were filed today in Pittsburgh, however, the case would not drag on for years and rack up expensive attorneys' fees. That's because of a patent pilot program recently instituted here.

The Western Pennsylvania federal court was among 14 in 10 states selected for the program by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, from among the nation's 94 federal court districts. The court began hearing patent disputes in October under the program authorized by Congress in January.

"The idea of the pilot program was to develop courts around the country where judges would develop expertise in patent litigation," said Chief District Judge Gary Lancaster, who heads the program here.

Under the program, he and three other Western Pennsylvania federal judges will hear patent cases whenever one of the district's other nine judges randomly assigned to them opts out. Previously, judges generally could not decline to hear cases.

The patent expertise the four judges develop at the Downtown court could become a magnet for patent cases, which otherwise can be filed in any jurisdiction where a patented product or device is sold. The court's program also could grow the city's stable of patent attorneys and add to the city's economy.

"In patent cases, attorneys come in from New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington," said Lancaster. "And they come in groups, which adds business for our hotels, restaurants and taxicabs."

The judge noted that visiting attorneys hire local counsel from Pittsburgh law firms to stay abreast of case developments, which should add to local firms' patent attorney ranks and revenue.

Patent judges oversee the process of attorneys asserting their claims and counter-claims. Juries decide whether a patent is valid and has been infringed upon, as well as any damage amounts.

Patents are important for corporations and other holders to protect, especially those engaged in high-technology fields, such as drug or chemicals manufacturing, experts say.

For instance, Bayer Corp. in Robinson holds about 38,000 patents worldwide. Its crop science business sued Dow AgroSciences in federal court in Delaware in early November, claiming Dow infringed on seven Bayer patents for herbicide-tolerant plants.

"(Patent) protection is essential for Bayer's crop science and material science businesses, which require research and capital investment, manufacturing scale and long lead times to reach full production," spokesman Bryan Iams said.

When Westinghouse Electric was a multi-industry conglomerate years ago, it employed 26 in-house patent attorneys in 1986 and more than 40 in the 1970s, said Vaughn Gilbert, spokesman for the Cranberry-based company that now focuses on nuclear power. The old Westinghouse owned the third-highest number of patents in the country for much of the 20th century, Gilbert said.

Most patent lawsuits end with the two parties agreeing to a settlement, but patent litigation typically drags on for about two years regardless of how it's resolved, said attorney James Singer, an intellectual property partner at Pepper Hamilton LLP's office, Downtown.

"Patent litigation is very expensive because it requires a lot of technical analysis" involving paid technical experts, such an engineers and scientists, said Singer, who's been a patent attorney for about 13 years.

The process of discovery — during which each party requests factual information from the other — adds to the time and money spent on cases, he said, especially because parties usually object to providing information they believe will reveal competitive advantages.

"These cases involve highly technical trade secrets, and neither the defendant nor the patent holder wants to disclose their trade secrets in court," said attorney Alan Towner, head of the intellectual property practice at Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, Downtown. So the parties "stonewall" each other's requests through time-consuming legal maneuvering.

The patent pilot program expedites the usual court hang-ups through "local patent rules," which the Western Pennsylvania federal court adopted in 2005. They were the main reason the court was among those chosen for the program.

"Local patent rules automatically impose a protective order, which protects each party's confidential information" from being discussed in open court, Towner said.

The rules also place time limits on the parties, said Pepper Hamilton's Singer. For instance, a patent holder must assert its specific claims within 30 days of a case's initial conference with the judge, then the defendant must reply within 14 days.

"So you get right to the meat of a case, rather than spending months arguing about procedures," Singer said.

For example, Singer represented a large-screen television maker in 2008 that brought a patent-infringement lawsuit in the Western Pennsylvania court against a competitor. Held to the local patent rules, the parties resolved their difference by settling in about a year.

"The case could have gone on for another six months," he said.


Source: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_770290.html

Apple Patent | "Apple wins small victory in patent battle as Australian court extends ban on Galaxy tab sales"

By: Kristen Gelineau
Source: http://www.canadianbusiness.com 
Category: Apple Patent

Apple Patent

SYDNEY - Apple Inc. won a small victory on Friday in its global patent battle with rival Samsung, after Australia's highest court temporarily extended a ban on sales of Samsung's Galaxy tablet computers in the country.

Samsung Electronics Co. is desperate to begin selling the Galaxy in Australia in time for Christmas sales, but the High Court's decision means the device can't go on the market until at least Dec. 9.
 
Apple  took Samsung to court in Australia after accusing the Suwon, South Korea-based company of copying its iPad and iPhone. In October, a Federal Court judge ordered Samsung to halt sales of the device ahead of a trial. Samsung appealed, and on Wednesday, a full bench of the Federal Court threw out the earlier ruling and said Galaxy sales could resume on Friday.

But Apple immediately appealed that decision to the High Court, which on Friday said the temporary injunction against sales would be extended for another week while it considers Apple's latest arguments.

"Samsung believes Apple has no basis for its application for leave to appeal and will vigorously oppose this to the High Court," Samsung said in a statement.

The legal back-and-forth is all part of a larger, international battle over the technology giants' competing tablets. Cupertino, California-based Apple struck first when it sued Samsung in the United States in April, alleging the product design, user interface and packaging of the Galaxy "slavishly copy" the iPhone and iPad. Samsung hit back with lawsuits accusing Apple of patent infringement of its wireless telecommunications technology.

The companies have now filed lawsuits in 10 countries. Courts in several nations, including Germany and the Netherlands, have issued rulings that favour Apple.

Apple spokeswoman Fiona Martin declined to comment on Friday's ruling, instead issuing a general statement blasting Samsung.

"It's no coincidence that Samsung's latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging," Apple said in the statement. "This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we've said many times before, we need to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Source: http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/59999--apple-wins-small-victory-in-patent-battle-as-australian-court-extends-ban-on-galaxy-tab-sales

Samsung Patent | "Samsung scores win in patent case"

 By: Reuters | Times Of India
Category : Samsung Patent



 

Samsung Patent News

SYDNEY: Samsung Electronics is set to resume selling its Galaxy tablet computer in Australia as early as Friday, after the South Korean technology firm won a rare legal victory in a long-running global patent war with Apple.

An Australian federal court unanimously decided to lift a preliminary injunction, imposed by a lower court, on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- but granted Apple a stay on lifting the sales ban until Friday afternoon.

"It's hard to expect the ruling to have a major positive impact on Samsung's tablet business or legal cases in other countries as Apple could appeal ... and sales won't be restored anytime soon," said Song Myungsub , an analyst at HI Investment &Securities in Seoul.

"Apple will continue to dominate the tablet market as Amazon appears to be the only viable threat at the moment and other vendors, including Samsung, continue to struggle."

Lawyers for Apple declined to comment after the ruling, but getting a delay in lifting the temporary sales ban could give time for an appeal to be launched.

The ruling is, however, a timely boost for Samsung ahead of the busy pre-Christmas shopping season. While the Australian market is not large, it is a key launch market for Apple products outside the United States.

"Samsung's Christmas elves will be rushing to prepare Galaxy Tab orders," said Tim Renowden , analyst at research firm Ovum. "The well-regarded Galaxy Tab series provides some of the leading alternatives to Apple's iPad."

Apple was granted an injunction against Samsung in October, temporarily barring Australian sales of the Galaxy 10.1 tab, which had been seen as the hottest competitor to Apple's iPad until Amazon.com launched its Kindle Fire.

Amazon said this week it saw a surge in sales of its tablet devices on the crucial "Black Friday" shopping day after Thanksgiving .

Apple and Samsung have been locked in an acrimonious battle in 10 countries involving smartphones and tablets since April, with the Australian dispute centring on touch-screen technology used in Samsung's new tablet. REUTERS


Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/Samsung-scores-win-in-patent-case/articleshow/10939646.cms

Patent News | "Lipitor's patent loss is consumers' gain"

By: By Duke Helfand, Los Angeles Times
Category : Patent News

Lipitor Patent News

For millions of Americans, prescription drugs are about to get a lot cheaper.

Patents on some of the most popular medications will expire over the next few years, giving consumers access to less expensive generic versions — and costing the pharmaceutical industry an estimated $100 billion in lost sales through 2015.

Lipitor, a cholesterol-fighting medication that is the top-selling prescription drug of all time, lost its patent protection Wednesday. The drug's manufacturer, Pfizer Inc., already has slashed its price to as little as $4 a month for privately insured patients, the majority of Lipitor users. That's down from typical co-pays of $25 to $45.

In the months to come, patents will expire on other popular drugs including Lexapro, used to treat depression, and Plavix, which is widely prescribed for blood thinning. Asthma sufferers will be able to get generic versions of Singulair next summer.

Experts say the timing is largely coincidental but will pay big benefits: Prices typically fall as much as 90% when generics come on the market.

"It's great news for patients because they are going to experience savings that I call the patent dividend," said Michael Kleinrock, director of research development at the IMS Institute for Healthcare Informatics, which tracks the pharmaceutical industry.

Wisconsin retiree Gloria Schmid, 68, said the lower price would help her afford her Lipitor prescription on a tight budget. She has been paying $63 a month for the medicine even with insurance.

"That would be marvelous," Schmid said of the savings. "As you get older, your resources get to be less and less. That's what worries me."

But the patent expiration pose a challenge for the drug companies, which have come to expect large payoffs for their patented medicines.

IMS estimates drug companies will lose $100 billion in revenue over the next four years, and that will diminish the money available to develop the next generation of popular drugs. Generics make up 79% of all prescription medications dispensed in the U.S.

In addition, much of the pioneering pharmaceutical work underway is for treating diseases that afflict fewer people, such as certain cancers, and probably won't lead to drugs with huge sales figures.

"The era of blockbuster drugs is gone," said Alexander Kandybin, a partner and health specialist at Booz & Co., a management consulting firm in New York. "The pipeline will not replace that revenue. It's inherently unpredictable how the industry is going to evolve over the next five years."

Drug makers also are encountering tougher regulatory scrutiny, growing competition from manufacturers in the U.S. and overseas and resistance from cost-conscious health insurers.

To counter these forces, drug companies are fighting to protect the markets they already have.

Pfizer has rung up an estimated $80 billion in sales of Lipitor and has launched an aggressive campaign against generic competition.

The New York drug maker is offering sharp discounts on Lipitor through pharmacy benefit companies, as well as producing an "authorized" generic version and charging just $4 monthly co-pays for privately insured customers who get discount cards to purchase the brand-name pills.

Right now there are just two other players. For the next six months, Ranbaxy Laboratories of India and Watson Pharmaceuticals of New Jersey get to market generic versions of the drug. Lipitor prices for those without insurance are not expected to drop sharply until next June, when other drug makers can bring their versions to market.

A Pfizer spokesman said consumers can expect to buy brand-name Lipitor for less than they pay for a generic version.

"Our strategy during the 180-day period is to help patients who want to stay on Lipitor have access to the brand after loss of exclusivity," spokesman MacKay Jimeson said. "Our programs, which are designed to offer Lipitor at or below generic cost during the 180-day period, will not increase costs for the significant number of payers participating in our programs."

Analysts have suggested that Pfizer could retain as much as 40% of its Lipitor volume in the coming months. But revenue will eventually plunge in the same way the price of other brand-name drugs fall when they lose their patents.

Other prescription drugs facing patent expirations next year are Actos, Seroquel, Diovan and Geodon.

"It's going from competing for dollars to competing for pennies," said Joel Hay, a professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy at USC. "That's got the brand-name industry in a quandary."

As generics come to market, patients' savings will vary based on several factors, including whether they have health insurance and how they obtain their medicine.

The uninsured will also benefit. Patients who take the coronary drug Plavix, for example, now pay an average of $172 a month at the pharmacy, according to the IMS healthcare institute. Generic versions could cut that bill to less than $20 if the past is any guide.

Source: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-drug-patents-20111201,0,3498646.story

Samsung Patent | "UPDATE 3-In Australia, Samsung scores rare patent win vs Apple"

By: Amy Pyett and Narayanan Somasundaram
Source: http://www.reuters.com
Category : Samsung Patent 

Samsung Patent

SYDNEY, Nov 30 (Reuters) - Samsung Electronics Co is set to resume selling its Galaxy tablet computer in Australia as early as Friday, after the South Korean technology firm won a rare legal victory in a long-running global patent war with Apple Inc.

An Australian federal court unanimously decided to lift a preliminary injunction, imposed by a lower court, on sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- but granted Apple a stay on lifting the sales ban until Friday afternoon.

"It's hard to expect the ruling to have a major positive impact on Samsung's tablet business or legal cases in other countries as Apple could appeal ... and sales won't be restored anytime soon," said Song Myung-sub, an analyst at HI Investment & Securities in Seoul.

"Apple will continue to dominate the tablet market as Amazon appears to be the only viable threat at the moment and other vendors, including Samsung, continue to struggle."

Lawyers for Apple declined to comment after the ruling, but getting a delay in lifting the temporary sales ban could give time for an appeal to be launched.

The ruling is, however, a timely boost for Samsung ahead of the busy pre-Christmas shopping season. While the Australian market is not large, it is a key launch market for Apple products outside the United States.

"Samsung's Christmas elves will be rushing to prepare Galaxy Tab orders," said Tim Renowden, analyst at research firm Ovum. "The well-regarded Galaxy Tab series provides some of the leading alternatives to Apple's iPad."

Apple was granted an injunction against Samsung in October, temporarily barring Australian sales of the Galaxy 10.1 tab, which had been seen as the hottest competitor to Apple's iPad until Amazon.com Inc launched its Kindle Fire.

Amazon said this week it saw a surge in sales of its tablet devices on the crucial "Black Friday" shopping day after Thanksgiving.

Samsung is the world's top smartphone maker, but a distant second to Apple in tablets. The intensifying legal battle has undermined its efforts to close the gap.

Apple also filed a preliminary injunction request in Germany on Monday to ban sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1N, a re-designed version of 10.1-inch Galaxy model, whose sales are already banned in that market.

"We believe the (Australian) ruling clearly affirms that Apple's legal claims lack merit," Samsung said in a statement, adding it would soon make an announcement on the market availability of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia.

Justice Lindsay Foster told the court he would grant a stay on orders until Friday 4 p.m. (0500 GMT), noting Apple would have to go to the High Court if it wanted this extended.

BATTLE IN 10 COUNTRIES

Apple and Samsung have been locked in an acrimonious battle in 10 countries involving smartphones and tablets since April, with the Australian dispute centring on touch-screen technology used in Samsung's new tablet.

Apple successfully moved to block Samsung from selling its tablets in Germany and a case in the Netherlands has forced Samsung to modify some smartphone models.

The quarrel had triggered expectations that some of the pair's $5 billion-plus relationship may be up for grabs. Samsung counts Apple as its biggest customer and makes parts central to Apple's mobile devices.

The legal battle in Australia doesn't stop at tablet computers. Samsung has sought to block sales of Apple's latest iPhone 4S, which went on sale early last month, by filing preliminary sales injunction requests in four countries, including Australia.

An Australian court has agreed to hear that case in March and April, with sales allowed to continue as normal ahead of the hearing on alleged patent infringements.

Shares in Samsung, valued at around $140 billion, were flat in a Seoul market down 0.5 percent.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/30/apple-samsung-australia-idUSL4E7MU06H20111130

Patent News | "Lipitor goes off patent today, Pfizer vs Ranbaxy-led Indian pharma's war for blockbuster drugs intensifies"

By: Divya Rajagopal
Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com
Category : Patent News

MUMBAI: Indian pharma companies' quest to make millions from the sale of copycat versions of blockbuster drugs may turn out to be a flop show as innovative companies raise defences to protect their turf. The world's biggest-selling drug is going off patent today in the United States and Ranbaxy Laboratories, India's third-largest company, is still struggling to get approvals from the American regulator.

Ranbaxy, which has exclusive rights to the off-patent version of Lipitor, Pfizer's blockbuster cholesterolbusting drug, has built its business model around the generic version of Lipitor and its success rides on how much money it can make on sales of the copycat version of the drug. Till the time of going to the press, there was no word on whether a settlement had been reached and whether Ranbaxy will be able to launch its version of Lipitor soon.

As the clock ticked away on Tuesday, and rumours of Ranbaxy's settlement with the US Food and Drug Administration made the rounds, company executives declined comment and huddled together in last-minute confabulations with the US authorities. Arun Sawhney, MD of Ranbaxy, was defiant in an analyst call last week. "A lot of our plans are ready. The reality will be out soon," he said. ETlearns that officials from the USFDA had re-inspected the pharma major's Tonsa plant in Punjab which supplies key ingredients for atorvastatin, the medical name for Lipitor, indicating a possible settlement.

Failure to launch the generic version of Lipitor will devastate the company, which has spent millions of dollars in product development and legal costs. It will also raise a huge question mark over the Indian pharmaceutical industry's capability to generate big bucks out of high-value products going off patent in the next five years.

"Ranbaxy has lost the plot," said Surjit Pal, analyst at Elara Capital, which on Tuesday cut the company's EPS target to Rs 15 from Rs 25. Its report told investors to sell the stock, the second such recommendation on Tuesday after Deutsche Bank. "There is nothing left for Ranbaxy with regards to Lipitor now," said NR Munjal, managing director, In-Swift.

'Pfizer won't let Bestseller Lipitor go away so easily'

Munjal's company supplies active pharmaceutical ingredients to Pfizer. The anti-cholesterol Lipitor, which contributed close to $10 billion to Pfizer's revenues, is the world's biggest-selling drug and has generated sales of over $131 billion for the American drug giant. No other drug in the history of pharma has achieved similar numbers. "Pfizer will not let this product go away," said the promoter of one of the leading suppliers of Pfizer.


Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/lipitor-goes-off-patent-today-pfizer-vs-ranbaxy-led-indian-pharmas-war-for-blockbuster-drugs-intensifies/articleshow/10924284.cms

Patent News | "Raleigh company wins patent round"

By: STAFF WRITER DAVID RANII
Source: http://www.newsobserver.com 
Category : Patent News

Shares of BioDelivery Sciences rose Monday after the Raleigh company reported that the U.S. Patent Office rejected a patent infringement claim against the company.

BioDelivery reported that the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has rejected all 191 claims by MonoSol RX that the manufacturing process for BioDelivery's oral pain patch for cancer patients, Onsolis, infringed on MonoSol patent No. 7,824,588. However, the ruling didn't deal with all the claims Indiana-based MonoSol made.

"This is a very significant and positive development for BDSI and its commercial partners involved in this case," CEO Mark Sirgo said in a prepared statement. "We intend to continue to aggressively pursue whatever actions are necessary to defend our position and expect that all of MonoSol's claims will ultimately be defeated."

MonoSol sued BioDelivery for patent infringement in federal court in New Jersey in November 2010, seeking unspecified damages and an injunction barring future infringement of MonoSol patents. BioDelivery maintained that it is not infringing on MonoSol's patent and contended that the company's patent is invalid.
In September, MonoSol amended its complaint to include two additional patents, which BioDelivery also maintains it is not infringing.

Source:  http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/29/1677369/raleigh-company-wins-patent-round.html#ixzz1f5LUOEcL

Patent News | "Patent for Lipitor set to expire this week"

BY Tracy Connor 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Monday, November 28 2011, 10:57 PM
Category: Patent News

Lipitor Patent News

The nation’s best-selling drug is about to get a lot cheaper.
The patent for the cholesterol-buster Lipitor runs out Wednesday, when at least one generic is scheduled to hit the market.
That’s a tough pill for drug giant Pfizer to swallow — but good news for Bronx cashier Emily Flores, whose insurance no longer covers medication.
Last week, she drove to a lower-cost pharmacy in Westchester to fill her prescription and was stunned by the price of the brand-name statin.
“They wanted 500 dollars and change for a 90-day supply. I was devastated,” she said. “I told them, ‘I was expecting you to have a generic.’ He said, ‘Not yet.’”
Flores, 63, left empty-handed and talked with her doctor about taking an alternative drug to prevent a heart attack or stroke.
“But now I might be able to afford it,” she said.
New York-based Pfizer rakes in $11 billion a year from Lipitor, thanks to the two-decade monopoly that ends this week.
Only two generics will be on the market for the first 180 days, and prices are expected to drop 10% in that time. When the rest of the generic equivalents roll out in June, the real discounts kick in.
During the 180-day period, Pfizer hopes to stop customers from bolting by keeping down retail costs for the brand-name drug.
It’s touting a co-pay card that patients can use to lower a $50 copay to $4, and a new low-cost mail-order service.
The company also is trying to cut deals with insurance companies to offer Lipitor as cheaply as generics.
It’s even exploring the possibility of applying for over-the-counter status for Lipitor — though the feds have shot down similar efforts by other statin makers.
At Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, Dr. Robert Ostfeld welcomes the expiration of a patent that has kept prices too high for some of his patients.
“Generics are nearly, if not completely, identical to the non-generic version,” the cardiologist said.
“It’s sad when patients have to legitimately choose between paying rent and taking a statin.”
Jadwiga Szyr, 62, a program manager at a Brooklyn senior center, has been forced to make tough choices.
When her insurance stopped covering Lipitor, she couldn’t afford the $180 a month her pharmacy charged. She switched to a different statin, which she says has been less effective.
“I would like to go back to taking the Lipitor,” she said. “Maybe I can now.”



Source Url: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/patent-lipitor-set-expire-week-article-1.983733?localLinksEnabled=false

Koha trademark grab: Trust hopes commonsense prevails

By: Sam Varghese
Source: www.itwire.com

The Horowhenua Library Trust, birthplace of the Koha integrated library system, says it will hope for the best but prepare for the worst as it continues to try and regain the rights to its own trademark in New Zealand.

Trust spokesperson Joann Ransom told iTWire today that it would prepare its objection to the granting of the Koha trademark to the American defence contractor, Progressive Technology Federal Systems/Liblime, hoping that, in the meantime, PTFS would do the right thing and transfer its application to the Trust.

As reported in iTWire, the trademark grab came to media attention a few days back when the Trust appealed for donations to object to the granting of the trademark. The original developer of Koha, Chris Cormack, has expressed anger and sadness at the US firm's actions.

Yesterday, the Trust said that PTFS had expressed its willingness to hand over the trademark to a non-profit which represented the Koha community. There is only one such organisation, and it is the Trust.

Koha is free software distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence and is widely used around the world. The trademark grab will not affect the code but, if it is finalised, it would mean that the software would have to be distributed under another name. Koha is a Maori word that means reciprocity in giving gifts.

"The Koha global community have been in this position before of waiting for PTFS to do something it said it would do i.e. handing of the koha.org domain back into community hands," Ms Ransom said. "They never did it but gained many precious months to redesign the website while the community waited. The URL now clearly relates to Liblime Koha (which is a fork from the main branch) and is a totally different product from Koha."

She said lawyers who had offered to help the Trust on a pro bono basis would prepare the objection, hoping that PTFS would do the right thing and transfer its application to the Trust. The Trust has three months to file its objections.

"The community really do want to resolve this issue quickly and with the right outcome," Ms Ransom said. "I do not know if PTFS are getting grief in the US from the public but I do know that here in NZ it is a very big deal from a number of different angles. It won't just go away. In summary, we are hoping for the best but planning for the worst."

Asked what she thought about the government official who had made the decision to award the trademark to PTFS, Ms Ransom said she was not impressed.

"If it a box checking exercise, and I fear it might be, then they probably did it by the books. However, surely common sense and informed judgement should come into this process," she said.

"I sent background paperwork to IPONZ (the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand) very early on and had numerous conversations with staff at IPONZ about the merits of our counter-application. Sadly, the information we had been given by IPONZ turned out to be wrong and the PTFS application was approved at the the 11th hour."

Asked for his input, well-known free software activist and GPL expert Bradley Kuhn said the GPL was a copyright licence, and was basically silent on trademarks.

"Only if a trademark licence in some way directly restricted the permission granted by GPL would the trademark licence somehow even have a chance to cause a GPL violation," he told iTWire.

"Indeed, it seems to me that a trademark lawyer, a copyright lawyer, and a GPL expert would probably have to sit down and have a rather long discussion to decipher this situation to come to a final conclusion about whether a GPL violation has occurred merely because of the trademark shenanigans."

Kuhn said he had no specific advice for the Koha community at this time.

"What I *do* have advice for is projects who *aren't* currently facing such problems: I recommend that such projects work with someone to get their trademark registered and publish a trademark policy for their project. This is an important issue that projects should address early in their life, before they face problems."

He said the Software Freedom Conservancy, for which he currently works as executive director, offered help to its member projects with both trademark registration and policies.

PTFS was contacted on Thursday for comment. The company is yet to respond.

It is not uncommon for US firms to attempt to gain a commercial advantage in smaller countries. In 2003, for example, the US company DE Technologies sent letters to a dozen New Zealand firms alleging they were infringing its patents and demanding annual licence fees.


Source: http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/51377-koha-trademark-grab-trust-hopes-commonsense-prevails?start=1

Patent firm IPCom says to stop HTC German sales

By: Reuters
Source: www.ibnlive.in.co


Berlin: German patent firm IPCom plans to halt as quickly as possible the sale of all HTC smartphones in Germany, another blow to the Taiwanese firm just two days after it shocked markets by cutting its fourth-quarter outlook. IPCom said on Friday it would enforce an injunction based on a Mannheim court decision from February 2009 after HTC, the fourth largest smartphone vendor globally, withdrew its appeal, which was due to be decided on next week.

"IPCom now intends to execute this injunction in the shortest possible time," the company said in a statement. "We will use the right awarded by the courts, likely resulting in HTC devices disappearing from shops during the crucial Christmas season."

HTC confirmed it pulled the appeal on Friday and said it thought it was redundant as a German patent court has questioned the validity of the patent in question. Analysts and lawyers said the withdrawal gives HTC time to battle against two other patents which could have been decided upon next week, while it can still try to delay the original injunction.
Patent firm IPCom says to stop HTC German sales

"While HTC can try to oppose the enforcement of the injunction, my research shows that the odds are very long against HTC on this one," said German patent expert and blogger Florian Mueller.

Under fire

Possible sales halt in Germany, one of the largest smartphone markets in Europe, comes at a time when HTC struggles to hold on to its position on the smartphone market. "This represents an unwelcome distraction during an already difficult quarter for HTC," said CCS Insight analyst Geoff Blaber.

Late last month, HTC warned that revenue would fall by up to 8 per cent in October-December from the third quarter, and this week it flagged a much bigger drop, citing tougher competition and the global downturn. The stock has fallen 30 per cent in eight straight trading days.

The popularity of Apple's iPhones and Samsung Electronics's Galaxy line-up, recession-weary shoppers and long-running lawsuits have taken the gloss off what was one of the industry's biggest success stories. IPCom has battled for years against HTC and Nokia in European courts.

IPCom had acquired Bosch's mobile telephony patent portfolio, created between the mid-1980s and 2000, which includes about 160 patent families worldwide, including some of the key patents in the wireless industry, such as patent 100, which standardises a cellphone's first connection to a network.

Source: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/patent-firm-ipcom-says-to-stop-htc-german-sales/206410-11.html

Cyber Monday Deals 2011 Bear Motion (Trademark) Genuine Leather Case for Apple Ipad 1 (first generation) – Black iPad

By: Editor
Source: http://gadget411news.com

• We assure that this case is built of 100% true Cowhide Leather. Best Grain
• three-in-one Top quality Leather Case Answer for iPad one
• Meticulously developed for iPad one – all ports and functions are accessible
• Extra security strap to securely hold iPad in spot – No Much more Sliding Out Assured
• Comfortable leather safety inside out.

Bear Motion is registered trademark of Pro Ebiz LLC and is completely distributed by Pyrus Electronics. Bear Motion trademark is protected by US Trademark Regulation.
If you lookup Leading Grain Leather on Wikipedia, you will learn that Best Grain leather

Waiting around in string just for getaway promotions or hunting your own with your jammies?
A whole lot of holiday fiends do it all, having explained that progressively visitors are picking the globe-broad-web. Total, true business in direction of getaway year are anticipated that would rebound three p.c or just significantly less instead of The calendar year 2010, having explained that e-commerce company are expected to leap far more than fifteen %.
And as a outcome Thirty-7 pct . of buyers pointed out with a Countrywide Record price tag Federation survey that they are likely to obtain numerous reward ideas e-commerce proper now. Slowly and gradually, grow to be light swapped our company’s quirks. Enhanced earlier, 30.9 percent of clients paid for present ideas e-commerce. Employing the coming of medicines and then touch display telephones, and emerging mobile products has acquired less complicated.
“It’s a chore to go to get over the busiest hunting interval of your 12 month interval,In . pointed out Daniel delaware Grandpre, ceo regarding dealnews.world wide web . “On the web is quite easy.In .
And fairly reduced massive complete day other than Cyber Monday – generally the Sunday families rise up at the Thanksgiving gluttony and then knowledge Festive is surely under a calendar thirty day period off of.
A 12 months in the past, e-commerce consumers squandered $ one million in the course of Cyber Monday, a everyday checklist just for and rising cell gadgets, yet it have a related excellent appropriate now, aside from Transport Day during 12 ,. Seventeen knives it.
Intended for promotions, is it would not second finest day’s hunting even soon after Black Friday, delaware Grandpre pointed out.
Comfortableness, amount of money and then options are often going usually the ambigu-digit, year-more than-year advancement in e-commerce organization, Sucharita Mulpuru pointed out with a Forrester getaway prediction.
“The crucial skills regarding e-commerce, making use of cost successful uncertainness, the want to fork out totally, and then went on offer-facet price will lead to the most recent resilient and strong emergence 12 month period just for e-commerce holiday genuine enterprise next yr,In . this woman submitted.
But the fact is, individuals shop online together with holds fork out 21 pct . much much more than adult men and ladies who mall completely to get, NRF Communication Vice President Ellen Davis pointed out.
To shop online is always only a very small proportion regarding genuine enterprise – Forrester assessments e-commerce enterprise need to be $ 59.Just a number of million correct now. By $ 465.six million in complete genuine company envisioned towards holiday year, identified by your Countrywide Checklist price tag Federation prediction, that might be decrease than amongst each and every last 6 getaway money.
Fiscal experts and then genuine watchers repeat the financial climate is bringing about individuals to keep stingy employing cash. Indeed, we are heading to purchase a less quantity of merchandise, 14.Much more effective, established by Deloitte’s somme holiday survey, which is beneath in the direction of fifthly 12 month period of time uninterruptedly. Within 2007, absolutely everyone is finding 22.1 certain present suggestions.
Primarily i’m a huge only a number of excellent present ideas for all our family members ensuing in nil prolonged electrical energy present suggestions all above the internet family members. Who wishes to attach a new associate with the stance concerning reciprocating at any time person are not able to really rather purchase this?
Gian Fulgoni, govt chairman concerning comScore Inc., and that tunes e-commerce, pointed out middle-income consumers preserve an eye on the most expose regarding e-commerce company, 43 pct ..
But even so , lower-cash flow website visitors that also may be the younger, and as a result tech-savvy, are usually escalating a lot a lot more speedily, Fulgoni pointed out. Individuals types Millennials normally constructive within the economic local climate, really, he was quoted stating.

Source:  http://gadget411news.com/cyber-monday-deals-2011-bear-motion-trademark-genuine-leather-case-for-apple-ipad-1-first-generation-black-ipad/03619

Patent firm IPCom says to stop HTC German sales

By: Tarmo Virki
Source: http://www.moneycontrol.com

German patent firm IPCom plans to halt as quickly as possible the sale of all HTC smartphones in Germany, another blow to the Taiwanese firm just two days after it shocked markets by cutting its fourth-quarter outlook.
IPCom said on Friday it would enforce an injunction based on a Mannheim court decision from February 2009 after HTC, the fourth largest smartphone vendor globally, withdrew its appeal, which was due to be decided on next week.
"IPCom now intends to execute this injunction in the shortest possible time," the company said in a statement.
"We will use the right awarded by the courts, likely resulting in HTC devices disappearing from shops during the crucial Christmas season."
HTC confirmed it pulled the appeal on Friday and said it thought it was redundant as a German patent court has questioned the validity of the patent in question.
Analysts and lawyers said the withdrawal gives HTC time to battle against two other patents which could have been decided upon next week, while it can still try to delay the original injunction.
"While HTC can try to oppose the enforcement of the injunction, my research shows that the odds are very long against HTC on this one," said German patent expert and blogger Florian Mueller.

UNDER FIRE
Possible sales halt in Germany, one of the largest smartphone markets in Europe, comes at a time when HTC struggles to hold on to its position on the smartphone market.
"This represents an unwelcome distraction during an already difficult quarter for HTC," said CCS Insight analyst Geoff Blaber.
Late last month, HTC warned that revenue would fall by up to 8 percent in October-December from the third quarter, and this week it flagged a much bigger drop, citing tougher competition and the global downturn.
The stock has fallen 30 percent in eight straight trading days.
The popularity of Apple's iPhones and Samsung Electronics's Galaxy line-up, recession-weary shoppers and long-running lawsuits have taken the gloss off what was one of the industry's biggest success stories.
IPCom has battled for years against HTC and Nokia in European courts.
IPCom had acquired Bosch's [ROBG.UL] mobile telephony patent portfolio, created between the mid-1980s and 2000, which includes about 160 patent families worldwide, including some of the key patents in the wireless industry, such as patent 100, which standardises a cellphone's first connection to a network.

Source: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/wire-news/patent-firm-ipcom-says-to-stop-htc-german-sales_625090.html

Smartphone sector in a patent arms race

By: JONATHAN NORWOOD
Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca


In recent times, an increasingly competitive and litigious smartphone industry has spawned a patent arms race, and the need for participants to bulk up their proprietary patent portfolios.
Specifically, an eruption of patent lawsuits has occurred between almost every major developer of smartphone hardware and software in the industry. In many respects, companies are buying insurance against future legal action, injunctions, etc.

Early in 2011, a consortium led by Apple and Microsoft paid an astounding $4.5 billion for more than 6,000 patents owned by the now defunct Nortel Networks.

For anyone without a calculator handy, that equates to roughly $750,000 per Nortel patent. To put the intensity of competition for Nortel’s patents into context, Google opened the bidding at just $900 million (Nortel’s creditors will be happy), and was ultimately shut out completely.

Not to be without a dance partner, Google recently purchased Motorola and its 17,000 patents for $12.5 billion in cash, as well as a thousand or so patents from IBM for an undisclosed sum. This may work to put a lid on the patent race/bidding frenzy in the near term, because Google was really the one driving it.

How much is at risk? Consider the lost sales associated with the EUs recent halt of Samsung’s new Galaxy Tab because the design was too much like the iPad. Similarly, Apple has sued HTC for infringement this year and HTC has in turn counter-sued, claiming the iPhone violates several of its patents. The list goes on.
The mindset has really become one of “if you sue me, I’ll sue you back,” because the odds are that if you hold enough patents, your competitor will be infringing upon one of them.

By the same token, if you don’t have a patent war chest of your own, you are without any leverage. The result has been an increase in demand for such patents, followed by a spike in their valuations.
Consequently, large, cash-rich companies such as Google, Apple, and Microsoft have been patent stockpiling, or buying up patents to protect themselves from being sued.

It is believed that at the crux of the war was Google’s relatively late entry into the smartphone space and the robust growth in its Android operating system.

Because it was largely without a wireless patent portfolio, it had to acquire one in order to protect itself against litigation and to put it on a more level playing field with other wireless giants.

In other words, Google may very well have a great future in the wireless space, but it was essentially without a past in terms of intellectual property.

The winners will ultimately be the lawyers, and the perennial dogs like Nortel, Motorola, and even Eastman Kodak that have seen their enterprise values resurrected by their underlying patent portfolios. Smartphone maker Research in Motion, with its languishing BlackBerry brand, has also been rumoured to be a takeover target, in large part because of its patent library.

Pure play patent companies or patent trolls such as Wilan and Mosaid (who hold patents but never actually plan to manufacture or sell related products) also stand to benefit from valuation lifts over time. They simply sue anyone else trying to manufacture devices that appear to be based on their patents, and may very well become takeover targets themselves.

However, it is ambiguous as to whether their competitive edge will be hurt by their traditional prey, now beefing up their own patent portfolios.

Some industry watchers have been critical of the patent race, suggesting that the resources being allocated toward the collecting of old patents will crowd out investment in new innovation and research and development.

While there may to be some truth to this, the move away from PCs to mobile devices is irrefutable, and too much is at stake, especially for those that are late to the game.

Most of the large players are also sitting on enormous cash balances, so they have plenty of powder dry and itchy trigger fingers.

Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/36321-smartphone-sector-patent-arms-race

Netgear, Merck & Co., Yahoo!, BMW, MBI: Intellectual Property

By Victoria Slind-Flor
Source: http://www.businessweek.com

(This is a daily report on global news about patents, trademarks, copyright and other intellectual property topics.)

Nov. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Harris Corp. a maker of communications-related electronic equipment, sued Netgear Inc. for allegedly infringing network-security patents.

According to the complaint filed Nov. 21 in federal court in Orlando, Florida, Netgear infringed six patents related to network security access control.

The complaint lists a number of products from San Jose, California-based Netgear that allegedly infringe the patents.

In dispute are patents 6,504,515, 7,916,684, 5,787,177, 5,974,149, 6,189,104, and 6,397,336.

Harris, based in Melbourne Florida, asked the court for an order barring further infringement and awards of money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.

The case is Harris Corp. v. Netgear Inc, 6:11-cv-01866, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Orlando).

Source:  http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=5399137754124668671#editor/target=post;postID=5983106273294211412

SHC to hear rice trademark case today

By: Shahid Shah
Source:  http://www.blogger.com

KARACHI: The Sindh High Court (SHC) will hold hearing in the case filed by Rice Exporters Association of Pakistan against Basmati Growers Association to decide trademark registration dispute on Thursday (today).

A similar case is pending in Delhi High Court. If it decides the case in 2012 and the court in Pakistan fails to decide, Pakistan will lose around $1 billion a year, President BGA Hamid Malhi told The News on Wednesday. “Pakistan exports basmati rice of $1 billion, which can increase to $2 billion if trademark is with us.”

Delhi High Court held a hearing on November 8.

Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) is also a party to the case in the SHC.

In 2008, trademark registrar in Pakistan had given trademark of basmati to BGA, which was challenged in the SHC in September that year. REAP says the custodian of trademark should be the government of Pakistan and not any private association.

But Malhi said growers are the right people to hold the trademark as they have long term interest in the crop. “Traders may be trading rice today, chickpeas tomorrow and leather day after tomorrow.”

About the Indian claim about trademark, he says they do not have contiguous area of basmati and they do not produce much of it.

In order to comply with Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) regime of the World Trade Organisation, the Ministry of Commerce has asked the stakeholders in rice trade to resolve the trademark registration issue, which has pitted REAP and BGA against each other.

Zahid Khuwaja, a senior REAP member, told The News that with trademark rights in their hands, rice growers would regulate the exporters’ trade.

“There should be no single ownership and the government of Pakistan should control it.”

Basmati is one of the oldest and finest varieties of rice cultivated in the sub-continent.

In India, first the matter of rice certification was handed over to All India Rice Exporters Association but later on the demand of all stakeholders it was given to APEDA.

Source: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=78963&Cat=3 

EU Court Backs Longer Patent Protection for Combined Drugs

By: Stephanie Bodoni and Aoife White
Source: http://www.bloomberg.com

The European Union’s highest court backed extended patent protection for drugs and vaccines that are effective against multiple diseases.
“The fundamental objective” of the EU rules in question “is to ensure sufficient protection to encourage pharmaceutical research, which plays a decisive role in the continuing improvement in public health,” the EU Court of Justice, based in Luxembourg, said in a ruling today.
The case seeks to provide the pharmaceutical industry with clarity on how to interpret EU rules on so-called supplementary protection certificates, or extended patent protection, for multidisease drugs or vaccines. The value of even a few months of extra protection for a blockbuster drug can’t be understated, said Jonathan Radcliffe, a lawyer at Mayer Brown LLP in London.
Extending patent protection would help drugmakers just as the competition from generic drugs reaches its peak. Through 2016, drug companies face loss of exclusivity on products with more than $170 billion of sales, according to Bloomberg Industries research. Next year drugs producing almost $50 billion in revenue face potential competition.

Medeva SPC

The extended patent protection, or SPC, can only be given to the company that owns the patent on a drug’s active ingredient. Today’s case arose after a unit of Medeva Holdings BV, which belongs to Celltech Pharma Europe Ltd., was refused such SPCs in the U.K. for multi-disease vaccines that consisted of patented and non-patented active ingredients. A judge in London sought the EU court’s guidance on how to interpret the region’s SPC rules.
The EU court adopted a narrower approach than many drug companies expected by reiterating that only one SPC can be given per patent, Radcliffe said in a phone interview.
“It could have a chilling effect on the strategies life- sciences companies will have to adopt, and on their revenues,” said Radcliffe, adding in some cases multiple SPCs have been granted per patent.
The cases are: C-322/10, Medeva BV v. Comptroller-General of Patents; C-422/10, Georgetown University, University of Rochester, Loyola University of Chicago v. Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-24/eu-court-backs-longer-patent-protection-on-medicines-for-multiple-diseases.html

Google getting out of the green energy business?

By:IP BIZ
Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com

From Reuters' Google quits plans to make cheap renewable energy :

In 2009, the company's so-called Green Energy Czar, Bill Weihl, told Reuters that he expected to demonstrate within a few years working technology that could produce renewable energy at a cheaper price than coal.

"It is even odds, more or less," Weihl said at the time. "In three years, we could have multiple megawatts of plants out there."

A Google spokesman said that Weihl had left Google earlier this month.

Before joining Google in early 2006, William E. Weihl was CTO at Akamai Technologies.

Source: http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2011/11/google-getting-out-of-green-energy.html