"Man of Steel " stays with DC comics

DC Comics, famous comic book publishers would retain their rights to "Superman comic" after a Judge ruled that the heir's of one of the Super hero's co creators signed away their ability to reclaim copyrights 20 years ago.
Super man - the Man of steel, was introduced by Shuster and Jerry Sigel as a comic book series in 1938 and since then have been entertaining reader irrespective of age.
DC Comics sued the heirs of artist Joe Shuster in 2010, seeking a ruling that they are not entitled to reclaim Superman's copyrights, stating that Shuster's sister and brother have relinquished their right to reclaim copyrights in 1992 in exchange for annual pension payments from DC Comics.
The ruling means that DC comics and its owner Warner Bothers can retain all rights to continue using the character in books, films, television and other mediums. This is particularly relevant as new superman film "Man of Steel" is to be screened in 2013 

Source:  www.hollywoodrepoter.com  

DC Books Win Copyrights Over Superman

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

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

No relief for ITM Trust in trademark infringement case

Bombay High court rejected an application for relief in a trademark infringement law suit filed by the educational trust ITM  and its trustees against Educate India Society.

ITM trust, a registered public trust engaged in educational activities has filed for an permanent injunction against Educate India Society for infringement of their trademark " Institute of Technology and Management" and "ITM". 

ITM Trust argues that they were registered with the charity commissioner since October 1993 and have established various educational institutions and offered various courses in the field of technology, management and their institutions were notified as ITM university by the Chattisgargh government and also  recognized by AICTE for several years.

ITM trustees claims that only recently they came to knew about the use of their registered trademark by Educate India Society, that too from a student who was seeking admission with their institute. They claim that since their trademark is registered and is still operative, the court shall grant them an injunction against TM infringement.

The defendants, Educate India society is also operating educational institutions since 1996 in the fields of technology, management and law and also have been notified as private university by the Haryana Government as ITM university in Gurgaon. Their institutions are also recognized by AICTE and UGC. 

Bombay High court Judge ,Justice Bhushan Gavai after considering all the relevant factors have rejected the injunction application stating that it is difficult to believe that students of this era seeking admission for higher education would be confused or deceived by any similarities in trademarks of both the parties.The students seeking admission for higher education are bound to look into all the credentials of the institutes concerned and should apply their mind to find the best institute of the basis of available information.

Find full judgement here 

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