Samsung's victory in Japan

After its defeat in the US market in one of the most bitter patent litigation, Samsung won the patent litigation against Apple as the verdict of a Tokyo court on Friday dismissed Apple Inc's claim that Samsung had infringed on its patent. This verdict is the latest ruling in the global legal battle that surrounds the two smartphone giants in the patent litigation.

"We will continue to offer highly innovative products to consumers, and continue our contributions toward the mobile industry's development," a statement came from the company after the verdict. It is still not clear on the part of the Apple whether it would prefer an appeal against a judgment. The lawsuit was filed by Apple in August last year.

Around the world, Samsung is still party to several patent suits filed by Apple over whether Samsung smartphones, which relies on Google Inc.'s Android technology, illegally used Apple designs, ideas or technology.

This victory came as a good news for Samsung, after its defeat in the similar patent litigation a week before, in which it was decided by a jury in California that Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a tap of a finger.

Source

Out of the US market soon?

After its victory in the landmark patent litigation $1.05 billion verdict against Samsung Electronics Co., the Apple Inc., on Monday provided a the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh a list of eight Samsung products it wants to be out of the US market and banned, which also includes the popular Galaxy model smartphones.

The list of the products that Apple wants out are all smartphones: Galaxy S 4G, Galaxy S2 AT&T, Galaxy S2, Galaxy S2 T-Mobile, Galaxy S2 Epic 4G, Galaxy S Showcase, Droid Charge and Galaxy Prevail.

Galaxy Tab 10.1 was banned from the U.S. market earlier in the last week of June this year, after it was found to be likely to violate a "design patent." 

Though, the jury found that Samsung computer tablet didn't infringe that particular patent, but it was found that it infringed three Apple's software patents, including the popular "bounce-back" and pinch-to-zoom features. Therefore, Samsung is now asking for that ban to be lifted after this finding.

20th September is the date scheduled for hearing and discussing Apple's demands for the sales bans. 

Source

Apple vs. Samsung: Is the verdict pro-consumer?

The victory of Apple against Samsung in the famous patent case indicates the arrival of hard days for its rivals. Samsung has termed its defeat as loss to consumers; on the contrary, Apple has termed its victory as the gain for the American patent system and innovation. The judgment is symptomatic of the high investment in innovation to be made by Apple’s rivals, which indicates higher costs for everyone.

Though, Samsung will have to pay $1.05 billion to Apple. But ultimately, it is its customers, who will have to pay higher prices as the device manufacturers pay more to Apple for license of the technology they already use. It would result in several Samsung and Android devices going out of the market, whereby the consumer will face shortage of choice.

Following are the devices that will be adversely affected:

1.      Galaxy S,

2.      Galaxy S II,

3.      Nexus S,

4.      Mesmerize,

5.      Vibrant,

6.      Fascinate,

7.      Skyrocket,

8.      Continuum,

9.      Prevail,

10.  Infuse,

11.  Gem,

12.  Mesmerize,

13.  Indulge,

14.  Replenish,

15.  Epic 4G Touch,

16.  Droid Charge,

17.  Nexus S smart-phones

18.  Galaxy Tab and

19.  Galaxy Tab 10.1

The verdict may result in a gain for Apple in terms of market share and profits in the form of sharp rise in its share prices after the verdict. But the verdict does not lie in the favour of consumers for many reasons.

Choice and competition must prevail in the market, which is not going to be the aftermath of the decision. This may make the losers unite to take revenge from Apple to often beat Apple in whichever way they can.

Further, as observed by Judge Richard Posner in an earlier Apple versus Motorola case, Apple often adopts patent litigation as a tool not for safeguarding breakthrough innovation, but to stall and delay competitors. 

Conclusively, there is an open question. Does the verdict favour the market and consumers of smart-phones?

Apple vs. Samsung: remarkable day for Apple

In a much awaited judgment that has been a landmark one in the IP realm, to be precise, patent realm, the US court jury has ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion. There is a room for appeal against the judgment.

Giving brief insights of the case, Apple Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., in April 2011, claiming $2.5 billion. Samsung Electronics Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million.

In its verdict, the US court jury in California rejected all Samsung's claims against Apple. However, the jurors also decided against some of Apple's claims involving the two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the full $2.5 billion Apple demanded.

The U.S. trial was the latest skirmish between the two tech giants as they have filed similar lawsuits in eight other countries, including South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain, France and Australia.

In the home court ruling, Samsung won global patent battle against Apple as judges in a Seoul court held that Samsung didn't copy the look and feel of the iPhone and ruled that Apple infringed on Samsung's wireless technology. But they also held that Samsung had violated Apple's technology behind the feature that causes a screen to bounce back when a user scrolls to an end image. Both sides were ordered to pay limited damages.

Before the US Court's verdict against it, Samsung had also lost previously in European court, where judges ruled that Samsung patents were part of industry standards that must be licensed under fair terms to competitors.

News Source

Yamaha applies for "BOLT "trademark

Yamaha, the motor cycle giant, applies for a trade name  " BOLT" to be used in a future motorcycle. There is no indication till now whether this is intended to facilitate the Olympic  hero Usain Bolt. Application is said to be made immediately after extra ordinary performance of Bolt in London Olympics.

According to the application name is to be used on  "motorcycles and structural parts". This trademark if granted is expected to create a lot of problems especially in  parts industry where  the term bolt is a common expression.

Source- Visordown news

Supreme Court to hear Novartis case from sept 11

Supreme Court will hear final arguments in the patent appeal between the Swiss drug company Novartis and Indian patent office. The hearing is expected to last for two months had been first scheduled for last Wednesday. 

Novartis has first challenged the Patent office in 2006 after its application for their cancer drug "GLIVEC" was refused patents by the Chennai Patent office on the ground that drug is not a new invention as it is just an amended version of an existing compound and therefore hit by section 3(d)  of the Indian patent (amendment) Act,2005.

Section 3(d)  of Amended Act states that

" The mere discovery of a new form of  a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of that substance or the mere discovery of any property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant "

Novartis challenged the constitutional validity of the said section before the Madras High court as well as appealed against rejection of patent application before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. 

Writ petition on constitutional validity raised the issues of arbitrariness and non compliance with TRIPS. But the Madras High upheld validity of the section 3(d)  and noted that :

" The argument that the amended section must be held to be bad in law since for want of guidelines it give scope to the statutory authority to exercise power arbitrarily has to be rejected since we found that there are in- built materials in the amended section and its explanation itself would control/ guide the discretion to be exercised by the statutory authority"

With regard to Non compliance with TRIPS Agreement, court held that the appropriate forum to decide that issue would be WTO Dispute Settlement Body.

Full judgement available here

In 2009, on its appeal against  decision of Chennai patent office IPAB held that though the claim covered under the patent application is novel and inventive it fails the test under section 3(d)  which required a demonstration of significantly enhanced efficacy.

Novartis against this order of IPAB appealed to the Supreme Court in 2009 which has now entered into  stage of final hearing. The decision of this case is very important to the Indian Generic medicine industry and is also particularly relevant in the light of grant of its first compulsory license.

Source

Trademark Infringement Suit over Kyuss Lives ! decided

In a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by former Kyuss guitarist Josh Homme and bassist Scott Reeder against their ex-bandmates, vocalist John Garcia and drummer Brant Bjork, involving the use of the latter pair's current incarnation, Kyuss Lives !, judge S. James Otero of the United States District Court Central District of California has given the verdict on 20^th of this month. According to the judgment, Kyuss Lives ! has been allowed to the Defendants to be used as a signature for live performances, but not for recordings.

"The court will issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from using the Kyuss mark in any capacity unless the word 'Lives' follows the word 'Kyuss' in equally-prominent lettering," says the verdict.

In his statement, Bjork previously claimed that Homme and Reeder had only trademarked the Kyuss name after Bjork had left the band in 1993, thus giving rise to issue as to whether the pair can be held liable for stealing the title.          

News Source

Apple vs. Samsung: Trial to be over soon.

The most popular and most complex patent lawsuit between two giants, is about to be over. Apple and Samsung both have finished presenting evidence in the patent infringement trial, involving the technology in each company’s smart-phones and tablet computers.

Both sides seem to be submitting closing arguments on 21^st August, before the jury in U.S. District Court in San Jose begins its deliberations the next day. On 17^th of this month, which was the last day of testimony, both sides presented rebuttal witnesses to reinforce their sides. 

News Source 

Copyright drama in Gujarat theatre

The writer-director duo, Vihang Mehta and Suresh Rajda, who rocked Gujarat theatre (with hits starting from 'Chhinna' in 1979 to 'Flat No. 44'), for over two decades scripted a copyright battle in Gujarati rangbhoomi. Mehta has alleged that he wrote the Gujarati play 'Ame Janiye Chiye Tame Kaun Chho', which has been stolen by Rajda, who recently staged the Gujarati play 'Dial Wrong Number', which according to Mehta, is an unauthorized adaptation of his play 'Ame Janiye Chiye Tame Kaun Cho', constituting an infringement of copyright.

The additional district judge (ADJ) of the Vadodara district court M V Zala has granted a stay over adaptation of any of the 18 full-length plays and 10 one-act plays penned by Mehta. The court has also granted an ex-parte interim injunction on performance of 'Dial Wrong Number'.

The IP advocate Avadhoot Sumant of Satya Vidhi & Company represented Mehta.

News Link 

Patent cases in 2012: Spinal Generations, LLC v. Atlas Spine, Inc.

On 20th January, 2012, a new patent infringement suit was filed (Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-06383) by Spinal Generations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Atlas Spine, Inc., alleging that the defendant has infringed the patent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was granted patent for “Interbody cage system” (patent no. US7588599). Below is embedded the complaint PDF.

Copyright tussle compels Google to alter search results

It may be a thrash for the torrent hosting websites. But, it was a victory day for the big media companies as they won a battle against online piracy on Friday. The event of their victory emerged when Google agreed to alter its search algorithms to favour web sites that offered legitimate copyrighted movies, music and television.

With the beginning of next week, algorithms of the Google would take into account the number of valid copyright removal notices, that are received by the web sites. As a result, the web sites facing multiple, valid complaints about copyright infringement may appear lower in Google search results.

The move of Google came as victory news for the entertainment industry, as it was, for years pressurising Google and other Internet sites to act against online piracy.

This announcement from Google came after more than six months of a much heated tussle between big media companies and technology companies. The entire tussle involved the proposed legislation intended to crack down on pirated online content, particularly by rogue foreign Web sites.

However, Google has denied removing pages from copyright-infringing web sites from its search engine unless it receives a valid copyright removal notice from the rights’ owner.

According to the statements of Google, it had received copyright removal requests for over 4.3 million web addresses in the last 30 days, according to the company’s transparency report, which was more than what it received 2009.

WIPO launches IP Facts and Figures 2012

WIPO has launched 2012 IP Facts and Figures, which provides an overview of intellectual property (IP) activity based on the latest available year of statistics. Due to the time involved in collecting and reporting statistics to WIPO, most national and regional IP office statistics refer to 2010. 

Four types of industrial property, namely patents, utility models, trademarks and industrial designs has been covered in the publication. The publication focuses on application data only, which is the most often used measure of IP activity. 

The data used in the report have been taken primarily from the WIPO Statistics Database, which is based on WIPO’s Annual IP Survey and on data compiled by WIPO in processing international applications filed via the PCT, Madrid and Hague systems. 

See complete report

CC appointed new Regional Project Managers for Africa and the Asia-Pacific

According to the sources, Creative Commons added in its staff crew Tobias Schonwetter and Alex Gakuru (as new Regional Project Managers for Africa) and Jane Hornibrook and SooHyun Pae (as new Regional Project Managers for Asia-Pacific).

The Regional Project Managers at CC support and foster CC’s community in their regions. Creative Commons has volunteer teams operating in over 70 countries, all of whom work to support and promote the adoption of CC in their local jurisdictions, while at the same time providing valuable expertise and input to CC’s work globally.  

About Creative Commons (CC).
Creative Commons is a non-profit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools.

It provides free easy-to-use copyright licenses that provide a simple, standardized way to give the public permission to share and use authors’ creative works, with the conditions of choice of the authors. CC licenses allow changing copyright terms from “all rights reserved” to “some rights reserved.”  The CC licenses are not an alternative to copyright. They work alongside copyright and enable authors to modify their copyright terms to best suit their needs. 

Trial Day: Apple alleges that Samsung copied the icons of iPhone

According to sources, in the yesterday’s court proceedings, the Apple Inc. alleged that Samsung Electronics Co. changed the design of its smart-phone icons in order give it resemblance to the icons on the iPhone. In the support of its claim, it presented an internal Samsung document to a jury in California.

In the excerpts of a 2010 internal Samsung report, which was presented by the Apple Inc., the Samsung did a side-by- side comparison of its icon designs next to those of the iPhone. As per the recommendations of the report, Samsung altered icons that weren’t as user-friendly as those on Apple’s devices.

Susan Kare, a former Apple graphics designer said in the court that the icons for the companies’ current competing products are “confusingly similar”, both being square with round edges and displayed on the device in rows of four. She also told the jury that while visiting the office of Apple’s lawyers, she mistook a Samsung smart-phone for an iPhone.
Source

Google should pay $750 per book, says authors in copyright case

Authors suing Google for copyright infringement for  digitization of their works in Google books case have made a filing in a federal court in Southern District of New York to make an order requiring the internet giant to pay $750 per book it copied, distributed or displayed as a part of Google book project.

In its filing  president of Authors Guild, Scot Turow urged the court to rule that Google's unauthorized digitization of works does not amount to fair use. Current motion claims that Google has implemented its library project for commercial reasons to gain competitive advantage over its competitors, Microsoft and Amazon which were also digitizing books but with permission of authors.

On the contrary Google's spokesman took a stand against this view and puts that "Google library project constitutes fair use within copyright law by allowing the users to identify interesting books and find ways to borrow or buys those books and acts much like a card catalog in digital age.

 Google books project began seven years ago, where millions of books where scanned and converted into digital format after entering into agreements with libraries. Further details of project is available here.

Soon after the launch of this project, the authors across world came against it claiming copyright infringement. They claim that scanning in real sense means copying and  thus unauthorized digitization of their works by Google amounts to copyright violations.On the other hand Google always maintained its position that The Books Project amount to fair use within copyright legislation.

It was in mid 2005,  the  Authors Guild and American Association of Publishers filed a suit against Google in a Federal Court of New York to prevent them from digitizing works. The case was sooner declared to be a Class action suit.

In May 2011, a settlement package offered by Google amounting to $127 million USD was rejected by a Federal Judge.

Current motion filed by Authors guild was a  response to Google's motion on 27/7/2012 seeking dismissal of the long running case by claiming that authors have not suffered any economic harm owing to its copying and displaying of digital copies.

Source

Apple v. Samsung: Early Days of iPhone in the Courtroom

In the famous multibillion-dollar patent showdown, Apple Inc, on Friday, deployed two of its executives as ammunition, including a software chief who assembled the design team for the original iPhone. 

In the court room, the Apple Software Chief Scott Forstall narrated the early days of iPhone development. According to the testimony the secret design work was codenamed as the “Purple Project”. He further added that he pinned a note on the door of the dorm, “Fight Club,” a reference to the movie’s screed to ensure what happened behind closed doors remained there.

The entire aim of the testimony was strengthening Apple’s legal argument and to prove that it was too much involved to develop products such as the iPhone and iPad, which have been “slavishly copied” by rival Samsung. Forstall further added that there was need of secrecy as Apple was making a new phone “out of whole cloth.”

Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller, used a video slide showing that Apple spent more than $1 billion on U.S. advertising on the iPhone and iPad between 2008 and 2011 and told the jury how Samsung’s copying has fostered consumer confusion and made it harder to market Apple products.

Facing the questions from the rival as to whether the iPhone 5, (set to be released in September), would have a different design than the iPhone 4S, Schiller declined to discuss the design, saying it was confidential.

The trial continued on Friday after the U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Apple’s bid to end the case immediately with a judgment in its favor.

Koh also condemned Samsung’s legal team for its “theatrics” and “sideshow,” but refused to stop the trial. The trial resumes Monday morning with the testimony of another Samsung executive and several Apple experts.

Source

EA Files Copyright infringement suit against Zynga

Electronic Arts Inc,an American developer, marketer, publisher and distributor of video games on Friday filed a copyright infringement suit against Zynga, a Social games service provider from San Francisco. EA inc claims that Zynga's  "Ville" game violates their rights over " Sims social", an EA game that runs over Facebook.

EA filed a complaint before a Federal court in San Fracnsico alleging that Zynga's lately released Facebook game "VILLE" contains original elements of their game "Sims social" . EA claims that Zynga has " Willfully and intentionally copied and misappropriated the original distinctive expressive elements of Sims social". 

Launched in August 2011 Sims social is claimed to be viewed and used by several millions of users over Facebook. Lucy Bradshaw in his statement called Zynga's new game as unmistakable infringement of sims social. He claims that " the copying was so comprehensive that the two games are to an uninitiated observer, largely indistinguishable " . He claims the case to be a matter of principle and alleges that Zynga has violated copyrights of other companies in several instances.

EA arts calls its step to be a a stand intended to protect the value of original creative works of the industry as well as of those who work tirelessly to create them.

Zyng's counsel, Reggie Davis,  in his statement denied the claims put forwarded by EA and calls it unfortunate and " lack of understanding of basic copyright principles by them". The Ville according to him is the newest branch of Ville franchise including Cityvill, YoVille and CastleVille and introduces new features which are unknown to the entertainment industry. Further he makes clear their intention to defend the case to the " Fullest extent possible and win with the players".

Smartphone Patent War: Apple versus Samsung

On 15^th April, 2011, Apple sued Samsung, alleging that the later copied the look and feel of its iPhone and iPad in its product Galaxy S line. Apple said “Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smart phone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products,” according to the Wall Street Journal

This suit was later expanded to include 13 more products, including the Galaxy Tab 10.1, Nexus S 4G, and the Droid Charge.

Samsung filed a countersuit, targeting Apple for infringing on five patents relating to wireless networking technology (though it later dropped one countersuit that was filed in a U.S. federal court to simplify its proceedings).
In 2010 Apple had also dragged HTC (for 20 instances of patent infringement) and Motorola (alleging that its multi-touch smart-phones use Apple-owned intellectual property) in the patent battle. By August, 2011, there were 19 ongoing lawsuits (at present the number of lawsuits is more than 50) in 12 courts in nine countries on four continents.
Judgment of Various Courts across the Globe.

Country	Judgment	At present
Germany	Court blocked the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Europe, with the exception of the Netherlands. Later the court tightened its ruling and only applied the ban to sales within Germany	Appeal by Samsung
Australia	Samsung agreed not to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia until it settles an ongoing patent dispute with Apple.
Netherlands	A Dutch court in The Hague, imposed a ban on the Galaxy smart-phones but not the tablets, at the request of Apple.

Apart from the abovementioned courts, the parties are also fighting in France, Japan, USA, International Trade Commission (ITC), United Kingdom, Italy and South Korea.

Current Status.

In the lawsuit pending before a US District Court, on 1^st August, 2012, Apple said in its filing with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh that a July 31 statement from Samsung’s lawyer, (wherein Samsung intended to convey to jurors, through the media, arguments contesting Apple’s central allegations that Samsung copied the iPhone and iPad) was “bad faith litigation misconduct”, which was meant to prejudice the jury. Hence, it requested the court to issue sanctions granting judgment that Apple’s asserted phone-design patent claims are valid and infringed by Samsung.

Samsung, in an 2^nd August filing, countered that Apple’s request should be rejected because Samsung’s statement was protected free speech.

The court dismissed Apple’s request for a judge to punish its lawyer’s public disclosure of evidence excluded from trial

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

Another Tamil Film gets copyright cover

Another Tamil film,  "Mirattal" has managed to secure a John Doe Protection order from Madras High Court last Tuesday  prior to its release barring any one from uploading the film or any part of it in any websites without  authorization of  the producers.

John Doe orders or Ashok Kumar Injunctions are granted against persons/ infringers whose identity is unknown at the time when injunction is sought. Tamil movie "3" was the first movie in India to obtain a  John Doe order which started the debate on utility of blocking the entire website containing pirated materials. Madras high court later came up with a clarification that only specific urls containing the film name are only hit by this order and not the entire website.

According to Times of India, R Subbiah J, on Tuesday issued an interim injunction restraining at least 12 websites and telecom companies from putting "Mirattal" or any part of the film online as well as  five John Doe's against prospective yet unidentified copyright infringers. The said orders are not applicable against uploading trailers or songs of the film.

Tirupati Temple to keep Laddu GI

Indian Express has reported yesterday that Tirupati Venketeshwara Temple has won the rectification petition filed against granting of GI status to their deity offering, "Tirupati  Laddu".

India's richest temple was granted GI tag for their unique deity offering in September 2009. Grant of GI was severely criticized on several grounds and specifically on giving monopoly status on a religious offering.  Registry's order was challenged by Mr Praveen Raj, an IP enthusiast and former Patent examiner at Patent and Design Office, Chennai . Praveen in his claims indicated that TTD'd claims violates Section 9 and 11 of GI Act.

Indian Express now reports that the on Monday, Mr Chinnaraja G Naidu, Assistant Registrar of Trademarks and GI, Chennai has uphold TTD's claim over GI and even fined Mr Praveen Raj.

Source