Law and Innovation

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 IPKat about patent trolls/PAE/NPE and how the U.S. is willing (trying?) to tackle them.  Happy reading!  "At 6:30AM the planes started taking off from San Jose's airport.   Turns out the hotel is in a flight path.  Win.  Normally, this would have woken the AmeriKat but she was already wide awake.  Was it the thrill of turning a year older?  Unlikely.  Was it the jet lag?  Maybe.  Was it the excitement of being in a valley so inundated with innovation you can't swing a Kat without hitting a patent?  Most definitely.  January is almost always an incredibly bleak month in northern Europe (weather wise).  Cold, dark, rainy and miserable.  So the AmeriKat has decided to perk up her whiskers by taking a dose of California sun and American innovative spirit by relocating to Silicon Valley where she reports on the latest goings-on in the world of US patent litigation. Much ado...

Fresh and interesting article posted by WIPR  concerning a European patent for a "device for preparing a drink extracted from a capsule", owned by Ethical Coffee Company (ECC). As you all know, Nespresso machines brew espresso from coffee capsules, a type of pre-apportioned single-use container of ground coffee and flavorings. In the case at hand, ECC, a Swiss Company, also creating capsules compatible with Nespresso machines, is suing Nestlé, in Paris, for alleged patent infringement. In other words, ECC is not happy with the way Nestlé modified the Nespresso machines back in 2010, keeping competitors’ capsules out of them and, more importantly, violating the patented "harpoon mechanism". Happy reading! "The man who oversaw  Nestlé’s Nespresso brand of coffee machines  has sued his former employer for alleged patent infringement.   Ethical Coffee Company , which makes coffee capsules that can be used in the Nespresso machine, has claimed that...

Fresh and interesting article posted on TechCrunch about Facebook attempt to legally clone the features and technology of Snapchat. However, Facebook may be violating Snapchat's patent(s).  Happy reading! "Facebook released Slingshot , its second attempt at an impermanent sharing app, last Tuesday. The app borrows heavily, in concept and features, from Snapchat, as well as smaller startups like Frontback and Look. Slingshot and Facebook Messenger feature the same photo and video recording interface–a very user friendly mechanism where you tap the main button to take a picture, and hold that button to record a video. There’s just one problem: Facebook may be violating Snapchat’s patent , “Single mode visual media capture”  that was approved over a year ago. Representatives from both Facebook and Snapchat declined to comment for this story, but the patent appears to describe the way both companies’ apps record media: “An...

Fresh and interesting  article from the famous IPWatchdog website  about the meaning of 'patent trolls'; who can be considered as one, and how should we stop them. "With the enormous media focus on the so-called problem of patent trolls one might start to think that any patent owner can easily stand up to and take on industry giants to obtain lottery like winnings. Not so fast! The great irony is that if you want a larger entity to fold like a cheap suit and settle quickly you would be better off filing a frivolous patent infringement lawsuit using a dubious patent. You see, the great irony is this: Only when large entities get sued on completely frivolous patent claims do they settle right away. Now I’m not advocating that course of action, rather just observing the truth of the matter asserted.   On the other hand, if you have a strong patent that covers real technology, perhaps pioneering technology, and there are substantial damages, the tech giants ...

Fresh and interesting article from Health Issues India about the next fighting front in the war over intellectual property: Hepatitis C in India: "In recent weeks, the international non-governmental organisation Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) announced that it supports the ‘patent opposition’ which has been filed recently at India’s Patent Office by the Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK). The application aims to prevent US pharma company Gilead/Pharmasset from gaining a patent in India on sofosbuvir, a drug for hepatitis C, which will be launched here soon. Sofosbuvir is the first of several oral hepatitis C drugs expected to come to market in the coming year. It cures hepatitis C in a much shorter time period than today’s available treatment. Gilead is expected to charge around $80,000 for one treatment course of sofosbuvir in the US. As mentioned in this article in the Times of India, even if offered at a fraction of this price in dev...