Chinese writers sue Apple for copyright infringement

Apple is all over news again after a group of Chinese writers filed a copyright infringement against them in Beijing for unauthorizedly selling electronic version of their book  via App store.

Writers demanded a compensation of 1.6 million USD for violating their copyrights 34 different works. writers allege that the applications involved unlicensed electronic version of their book which have been heavily downloaded, causing huge economic loses to them while bringing profits to Apple as well as the application developers.

Apple however took the plea that they are a not the proper party to the suit and appealed for application developer to stand for the trial. 

Earlier same court have order Apple to pay 8270.30 USD as compensation for economic losses suffered by the Encyclopedia of China Publishing House for copyright infringements

Motorola drops one ITC Patent case against Apple

Motorola Mobility, the unit of Google Inc. (GOOG)’s has become ready to to withdraw a patent-infringement complaint it filed in August against Apple Inc. (AAPL) at the U.S. International Trade Commission. However, it did not come with any reason for such step.

Motorola Mobility reserves the right to refile claims against the AAP, and it denied the existence of any agreement between the two companies, according to filing on the ITC’s electronic docket. Also, a notice of dismissal was filed in a companion civil lawsuit filed in a federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

California based Apple, and Illinois based Motorola Mobility, have been fighting about smartphone-related patents since around 2010 after licensing talks failed. Apple is claiming that Motorola Mobility violated obligations to license some of its patents on fair terms. A non-jury trial on the same issue is scheduled to begin in the first week of November this year, in a federal court in Madison, Wisconsin. 

In the case that has been withdrawn, Apple was accused of infringing seven Motorola Mobility patents on features including interactive voice commands, location reminders, e-mail notification and phone/video players. Motorola Mobility said that it hoped the filing of the suit in August and the threat against Apple’s iPhone would push the two sides into settlement talks.  

In the order passed yesterday by the ITC Judge Thomas Pender said that he will make a decision by Dec. 21 on that issue. 

News Link

Samsung fights back

In a move which may give Samsung Electronics, a much needed relief, Samsung  on Tuesday  filed a new lawsuit against Apple in a US court, contending the iPhone 5 has infringed on Samsung's patents. In a statement, Samsung said: "we have little choice but to take the steps necessary to protect our innovations and intellectual property rights."

In another major relief for Samsung on Tuesday, a US court removed a sales ban against Samsung Electronics's Galaxy Tab 10.1 won by Apple Inc in a patent dispute, allowing the South Korean electronics maker to sell the product in the United States.

Injunction had been put in place ahead of a month-long trial that pitted iPhone maker Apple against Samsung in a closely watched legal battle that ended with a resounding victory for Apple on many of its patent violation claims. 

However,  jury found that Samsung had not violated patents that was the basis for the tablet injunction and Samsung argued the sales ban should be lifted. Will Samsung be able to gain some ground, or will it bite the dust for patents infringement? We shall have to wait and watch.

Amazon urges the US court to remove charges of false advertising

In a filing yesterday before a US court, Amazon asked the judge to remove an allegation of false advertising imposed by Apple last year. Last year, Apple launched legal action against the Amazon Appstore for Android, alleging that the it is a trademark violation of Apple's App Store. Apple had also also alleged that Amazon's use of the word Appstore in marketing material is false advertising.

Apple's App Store provides iPhones, iPads and iPods powered by Apple's iOS operating system and a huge range of software for the reassuringly expensive gear. On the other hand, Amazon's Appstore solicits programs for its Kindle tablets and other manufacturers' devices powered by Google's Android system.

Amazon asked the judge to throw out the false advertising allegation, claiming that it had no proper place in a trademark suit, and that "app store" is a generic term.

A hearing on Amazon's motion is due at the end of October. 

News Source 

Trademark for music icon refused to Apple

In a setback to Apple, it lost an appeal to protect its famous music icon after trademark judges ruled that consumers were likely to confuse it with a mark now owned by MySpace. 

On Tuesday, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) upheld an examiner’s decision to refuse Apple trademark protection for the famous orange music mark that appears on iPhones and computer screens. It refused on the grounds that it was too similar to another mark:

 According to sources, the mark on the right was issued in 2008 to a music service called iLike which let users download and share music. In 2009, MySpace obtained iLike and shuttered it earlier this year. 

Refusing the contentions of the Applicant, the Board performed a “likelihood of confusion” analysis to conclude that an average consumer would muddle the marks:

"In view of the facts that the marks are similar, the goods and services are related and are encountered by the same classes of consumers, we find that applicant’s double musical note and design for “computer software [..]” is likely to cause confusion with the registered mark comprising a double musical note and design [..] for listening to MP3’s and for sharing MP3’s and music playlists with others".

However, Apple can still appeal against this decision to a federal district court. 

News Link

Judgment Copy

Apple embarks on a winning spree

In a setback for Google and another win for Apple, a German court has found Google-owned IT company Motorola guilty of infringing Apple patents on the design of smartphones and tablets, a court spokesman said on Thursday. The court ordered Motorola to pay a yet-to-be-specified fine and pull the infringing devices, from the market.

This particular patent involves a feature known as "overscroll bounce" or "rubber-banding" that pulls a written text or image back to the centre of the screen to signify to the user that the end of a list or menu has been completed. Motorola had won a similar patent case in western Germany last July and has one month to appeal the decision.

 It would be interesting to see, what would be the outcome of the appeal. On the other hand for Apple, it has been a winning spree, till now. In August, a California court decided in favour of Apple in a patent case against Samsung, awarding the iPhone maker about one billion dollars in damages.  

The case is just one of many patent battles that technology companies have waged worldwide, but especially in Germany where patent protection laws are particularly strict. This case might just give Apple, the required boost to sell its latest IPhone, which has got a mixed review.

Contributed by

Abhishek Kukreti

Mirror Worlds lost the patent infringement suit

It was again a victorious day for Apple Inc. (AAPL), when it won in an appeal against a verdict regarding the issue of U.S. patent-infringement of the invention by a professor of Yale University on how documents are displayed on a computer screen.

The question arose in the case was, whether Apple was responsible for infringement of patents owned by Mirror Worlds LLC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington gave the verdict, upholding a lower-court decision that tossed the 2010 jury verdict.

The suit began in 2008, when Mirror Worlds, founded by Yale University computer-science Professor David Gelernter, sued Apple’s alleging that its Mac computers infringed its patents. Apple challenged the validity of the patents and argued against the infringement. The jury held Apple responsible for infringing three patents and awarded damages of $208.5 million for each, (a total of $625.5 million). In court papers, Apple argued that the amount was too high and that it was improper to add the damages.

Later the U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis in Tyler, Texas, overturned the October 2010 verdict, holding that Apple was not liable for infringement of the patent and that Mirror Worlds had failed to establish its case. The court also said the damage award was too high, while also upholding the validity of the three Mirror Worlds patents.

The trial looked into the Spotlight, Time Machine and Cover Flow features in Apple’s Mac operating systems.

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

Source 

Time for Trademark Oppositions

After a number of patent battles now its time to watch how Samsung and Apple fights over trademark.

Apple on May 2010 filed a TM application vide application no with USPTO for International registration  of a logo titled "Made for iphone" vide application no: 85025627 which contains a small image of an iphone along with the word mark "Made for iphone".

Now after two years of registration with the USPTO, Samsung along with Acer has challenged the registration of the mark in the Canadian Trademark Office

According a document provided by the Canadian Trademark office Samsung and Acer has filed their opposition on October 2011 and has been granted an extension for formally making their case which is due for 20th of November.

Source: Patently apple

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

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 

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

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

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).

Setback to Kodak

In a patent suit involving Kodak on one hand and Apple and RIM on the other,  Kodak has faced setback, when the patent controversy regarding digital image previews was decided against it. The patent described a system for previewing images on digital cameras and was considered as one of the most valuable one in Kodak's portfolio.

When it began?

It was in January 2010, when Kodak filed a suit and thereby made an attempt in obtaining licensing fees from RIM and Apple for using technology, which according to it was relating to the way digital images are previewed on a screen. According to Kodak, the same technology was patented by it. Kodak was seeking over $1 billion from Apple alone. 

Decision given. 

The International Trade Commission (ITC), in consensus with a judge’s ruling ruled that neither Apple nor RIM has violated Kodak’s patent for digital image preview inviting an injunction to prevent imports of defendants products to the market

Consequences ahead. 

This decision can be a grave setback to the Plaintiff as it has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January. It had the hope of selling its patents in order to revive the company. Now without the image previewing patents the value of its patent portfolio could fall significantly giving more trouble to already bankrupted company.

Source

RIM ordered to pay $147 million for patent infringement

San Francisco District court has ordered Researchers in Motion (RIM), makers of Blackberry to pay $147 million as damages for infringing patents of Mformation technologies. Mformation took Blackberry to court on an allegation of violating their patent on “remote management of device from server” which is used in blackberry mobiles.

Court ordered RIM to pay $8 per every mobile device already sold in use which amount to $147 million when summed up. Thankfully court didn’t take into consideration any of the current and future sales, which if taken up would have resulted in much higher damages.

In a statement, RIM said that it is disappointed by the outcome, and is evaluating its options.

"RIM has worked hard for many years to independently develop its leading edge Blackberry technology and industry leading intellectual property portfolio, and RIM does not believe that the Mforemation patent in question is valid"

This decision is the second biggest loss for RIM in patent infringement suits, after March 2006 settlement with NTP Inc
It would be interesting to watch how RIM proceeds with the case, whether to go for review or appeal or to settle the issue ignoring its current drop in market.

source