EBC restrained from publishing its own injunction

Earlier we have reported about an injunction granted by the Lucknow District  against Westlaw India and Indlaw from infringing the copyrights of Eastern Book Company in their case reports "Supreme Court Cases". Report available here.

Now in an interesting move Legally India reports that the  Lucknow District court through another injunction restrained EBC from publicizing that they have been granted an injunction by the same court for alleged plagiarism.

Order: (translation available with Legally India). 

EBC granted injunction against Westlaw for infringing copyright

Thomson Reuters, the multinational information conglomerate based on New York along with its Indian operations- Westlaw India and Indlaw have been restrained by an ad interim injunction from infringing the Copyrights of EBC in their law report "Supreme Court Cases" known as SCC. 

EBC's right over head notes and editorial notes in SCC were earlier upheld by the Supreme Court in Eastern book company v D B Modak

In a lawsuit filed against Thomson Reuters / Westlaw India / Indlaw, the Lucknow District Court Judge, has passed an Interim Injunction on 22/8/2012 restraining the defendants, their assignee's, business franchises, licensees, distributors, agents etc from selling, distributing or otherwise make available to people either as CD- ROM's or through their website or any other means which would infringe the copyright of SCC during the pendency of the suit.

The learned judge after taking into account the affidavit filed by EBC and the contentions raised by them felt that there is a prima facie case as well as balance of convenience  in favour of the plaintiff  due to "exact tallying" of editorial notes by the defendants in their online journals 

14th September has been set out as the date for filing written statements and framing issues.

EBC v Thomson Reuters Order

Source

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

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

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.

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

Red bull Wins trademark battle

The energy drink company "Red bull" succeeded in its trademark infringement suit against Sun Mark Inc for  use of trademark  "Bullet" for their drinks and also for advertising slogan "No bull in this Can"

 The defendants, Sun mark and associated shipping sea Air & Land forwarding used the trademark "BULLET"for their energy drink. Red bull alleged that Sun mark's use has violated rights of Red bull in their mark "BULLIT" for energy drinks.

London High Court Judge, Mr Arnold siding with Red Bull's claim opined that Sunmark's use of "Bullet" is capable of creating a likelihood of confusion among the customers that it belong to Red bull. Further he added that use of  "no bull ...." slogan amounted to taking unfair advantage of repute of Red Bull.

But many including Sun mark's founder Dr Ranger finds Red Bull's acts as bully - boy tactics and unnecessary. Sun mark  now plans to prefer an appeal against this judgement and stated that Red bull's trademark bullit was registered in bad faith and the company had no plans to use it.

Source

In Re EMC: Another Blow to Patent Troll

Hardly one year after passing of the American Invents Act which addressed some of the irritating habits of patents trolls now it is the turn of US Court of appeal for Federal circuit to address the menace of patent owners who uses patent litigation as a tool to make money from companies rather than entering into actual business.

On May 4^th 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a blow to all Non-practicing entities who files multi- defendant cases as an effort to avoid the requirements of the America Invents Act. The Court in this case held that “Joinder” is not appropriate in multi-defendant patent infringement cases where only commanlity is alleged infringement of same patents. 

Oasis Research LLC, the plaintiff in the original suit is the owner of four US patents which deals with off-site computer data storage by allowing home computer users to remotely connect to an online service system for purposes of external data storage. Oasis Research LLC files a Multi – defendant patent infringement claim against the petitioners (defendants in original suit) as they offer online backup and storage though various websites.

The petitioners filed motions before the Eastern Texas District Court to sever the claims and transfer them to various jurisdictions. The District court denied petitioners motions reasoning that claims of Oasis LLC satisfy the transaction or occurrence test of Rule 20 of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Denying the reasoning given by the Texas Court, the Court of appeal points out that under the correct test of transaction or occurrence an existence of a single common question of law or fact alone is insufficient to satisfy the transaction- or- occurrence requirement. Thus mere fact that the infringement of same claims of the same patent does not support joinder, even though the claims would raise common questions of claim construction.

Further the joinder of independent defendants is only appropriate where the accused products are same in respect to the same patent. But commonality of patent alone is not sufficient to allow joinder. Commonality shall be supplemented with overlapping facts which give rise to each cause of action. Thus, if there is no actual link between underlying facts of each claim of infringement the independently developed products using differently sources are not to be considered as the part of the same transaction.

The 18 page ruling of the Court of Appeal is a serious financial blow upon the patent owners who count on using cheap litigation to win favourable settlements.