Law and Innovation

It is not just a watch. It is a masterpiece of intellectual property (IP) rights. It is not just a revolutionary product. It is the next chapter in Apple Inc.’s story. Apple believes in technology designed for the wrist (such as a smartwatch), but also in a strong design patent protection strategy. To protect this wearable, as a result of their investment, Apple applied for and received several design patents. Every detail is protected: the drawer where the watches are shown, the bracelet, the “slide-in” interchangeable strap system mechanism, the digital crown, the display, the charger, the retail box, etc. Future innovations will however continue to copy this kind of consumer products and challenge the Courts. In this context, developing and/or acquiring intellectual property rights may create a solid foundation for growth and success. Indeed, a winning exploitation of IP assets, including but not limited to know-how, patents, trademarks, aligned with your passion for innovati...

Apple’s success story is well-known: “Before 2007, mobile phones were bulky, inelegantly designed boxes with multiple buttons and protruding antennas”. The context hasn’t changed either: Samsung, faced with a crisis of design, “ made a deliberate decision to copy the iPhone’s innovative look and many of its other features, and its mobile devices became iPhone clones ”. And now we know the result: the petition for writ of certiorari (request for U.S. Supreme Court review) is granted, at least, to question 2 (see below). The tone in Apple’s brief opposition petition for writ of certiorari ("cert. petition"; a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to hear a case) seemed strong, but wasn’t good enough to convince the SCOTUS not to review the Federal Circuit's decision (786 F.3d 983). After a 120-year hiatus, the highest judicial body in the United States will, again, examine the valuation of design patents. Apple did however “win” regarding the scope of the d...

Fresh and interesting article posted on Apple Insider about the ongoing case between Apple and VirnetX and the jury verdict costing the American multinational technology company $625.6 million . It now seems that Apple is seeking a mistrial; in other words, t he right to a fair trial.  Happy reading!  "After objecting to the closing arguments made by Caldwell, Cassady & Curry attorneys representing VirnetX, Apple has now filed a motion for mistrial in the case that awarded a $625 million verdict after just a week of testimony and deliberation. According to a  report  by  Texas Lawyer , Apple's motion for mistral argues that VirnetX lawyers' closing remarks to the jury included "arguments outside the evidence and blatantly misrepresented the testimony of Apple's witnesses." The East Texas trial made headlines this week after a jury returned a  verdict  finding Apple guilty of willfully infringing on four VirnetX patents in product...

Fresh and interesting article posted on WIPR about the East Texas Federal District Court jury verdict that ordered Apple to pay $626 million to (patent troll) VirnetX for willfully infringing patents with FaceTime, iMessage, and VPN services. Time for a U.S. patent reform!? Happy reading! "A Texas court has ruled that Apple infringed four patents owned by licensing company VirnetX and has ordered the technology company to pay $625 million in damages. Yesterday, February 3, a jury at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that Apple’s FaceTime, iMessage and VPN On Demand services infringed the patents. All four patents cover an online secure communication network. According to the final order, VirnetX proved through a “preponderance of evidence” that Apple was liable for infringement. In total, the court  awarded  VirnetX $625.6 million in damages. Jason Cassady, principal at Caldwell, Cassady & Curry and representing VirnetX,  said : “...

Fresh and interesting article posted on The New York Times  about the third antitrust lawsuit Apple is facing on December 2 this y: "The Apple iPod iTunes Anti-Trust Litigation". U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers is presiding over the case. Happy reading! "SAN FRANCISCO — Three years after his death, Steve Jobs is very much a presence in courtrooms across the country. And that’s not necessarily good news for Apple. In December, the company is set to go to trial in the third major antitrust lawsuit it has faced since Mr. Jobs died. His emails will play an important role in the case, as they did in the last two. But lawyers will probably have to work hard to give his statements a positive spin. The potential damages — around $350 million — are a pittance for a company that in its last quarter had an $8.5 billion profit. Executives are often told by their lawyers to be careful what they put in writing for fear it will end up as evidence in a courtroo...

Fresh and interesting article posted on IPWatchdog about the history of Apple iDevices. Happy reading!  " Early on in his career with Apple, Steve Jobs conceived the idea of a personal computing device that a person could keep with them and use to connect wirelessly to other computer services. Almost 25 years later, Apple and Jobs would upend the world of personal computing by launching the iPhone smartphone, and a few years later a tablet computer counterpart, the iPad. According to the most recent sales figures available from Apple corporate analysis website AAPLinvestors.net,   the iPhone has achieved lifetime sales of 590.5 million units ; Apple has also sold 237.2 million iPads in just over three years since the release of that product. The iPhone has retained mass appeal despite the presence of the iPad and   Apple has even reverted to soft launches for new iPad products , evidence of the incredible hold that the iPhone still maintains over Apple’s core consum...

Fresh and interesting article posted on PatentlyApple about Apple, Cisco and AT&T filling amicus curiae  briefs supporting Microsoft in its appeal of a decision requiring it to hand over data about an Irish customer to U.S. law enforcement officials.  Happy reading! "Microsoft's case to prevent the United States government from using search warrants to demand data that is not stored in the United States has picked up a number of high-profile backers. Although Verizon, AT&T and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are supporting Microsoft's position, it was Apple and Cisco's legal teams that filed a joint amicus brief with the court in the Southern District of New York late on Friday. Apple makes the case that it offers iCloud services to customers for storing photos, contacts, calendars, documents and more. Because some of those servers are located outside the United States, Apple is subject to, or may become subject to, various foreign laws regarding ...

Fresh and interesting memo posted on the European Commission's website about frequently asked questions concerning these antitrust decisions on standard essential patents (SEPs) - Motorola Mobility and Samsung Electronics. I also recommend you this   Beginner's Guide To Standards-Essential Patent, Standard-Developing Organizations And [F]RAND Terms In The Smartphone Patent Wars. Happy reading and learning!  " What is an injunction? An injunction is a court order aimed at preventing the continuation of a patent infringement. Generally, it includes the prohibition to sell the product infringing the patent. Such injunctions can be preliminary – as a precautionary measure typically for the time of the assessment of the case on the merits by the court. Injunctions can also be permanent as a result of the decision on the merits by a court. What is a standard essential patent (SEP)? SEPs are patents essential to implement a specific industry standard.  Thi...