+91-80-26860414

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Intellepedia – IP News Center

Patent: Case Note: Zenith Elecs. Corp. v. Exzec, Inc., 182 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir 1999)

The image depicts a finger demonstrating the working of a touch screen.

Author: Ken Aoki, Patent Agent, Japan CASE HISTORY Zenith and Elo Touch sued Exzec for infringement. Exzec counterclaimed Elo Touch violates the federal and state unfair competition laws. Elo Touch moved to dismiss the claims. The district court denied the motion. Elo Touch appeals. CASE FACTS • Zenith and EloTouch sued Exzec for infringement. o The patent covers computer touch panel. • Exzec counterclaimed based on the federal and state unfair competition laws. o federal law: 43(a) of the Lanham Act o state law: Illinois common law • Exzec alleges that Elo Touch made false representations: (1) of patent infringement; (2) of Exzec’s inability to design around the patents. • Elo Touch...

Continue reading

Copyright: Software Licensing Dispute Settlement

The image depicts a skull with an eye patch and bandana - pirate.

Business Software Alliance (BSA) announced a settlement deal with regard to separate software piracy claims against two Wisconsin based companies i.e. Argus Technical Services of Milwaukee and Total administrative Services Corporation (TASC) of Madison. As part of the settlement, Argus Technical services paid BSA $50,000 in damages for having unlicensed copies of Microsoft office software installed on its computers and TASC paid BSA $95,000 for having unlicensed copies of Adobe, Microsoft and Symantec office software installed on its computers. Also the companies have agreed to delete all unauthorized software on office computers, acquire any licenses necessary to become compliant, and...

Continue reading

Patent: Meda settles patent litigation with Cobalt

The image depicts FDA inspectors inspecting goods.

A patent infringement action was filed by Meda against Cobalt. This was a result of the latter's submission of an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) to the U.S. FDA for a generic version of Astelin in July 2007. Astelin is used for the treatment of allergic and non-allergic rhinitis. The product is protected by a patent in the U.S. which expires on 1 Nov, 2010, with paediatric exclusivity till 1 May, 2011. A settlement agreement was reached between Meda, through its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Meda Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Cobalt. Cobalt also admitted of infringement of Meda's patent. A license...

Continue reading

Patent: Case Note: Helifix Ltd. v Blok-lok Ltd.

The image depicts a construction site.

Nandan Pendsey, IP Attorney, San Diego, USA Anticipation and On Sale Bar Facts The ‘801 patent was for a “method of securing walls with a tie”. In January, 1993, representatives of Helifix attended the World of Concrete Trade show in Las Vegas where they displayed a brochure. The brochure describes the uses of ties both in “dry fix” and “dry chemical fix” methods of construction. In 1998 Helifx filed a suit for infringement and inducing infringement against Blok-lok and sought injunction. Analysis Blok –lok asserted that ’93 brochure anticipates the invention and that the invention was on sale in the trade show, more than one year before the critical...

Continue reading

Trademarks: Yahoo gets the first ever sound mark in India

The image depicts the purple Yahoo logo

An application for registration of a sound mark, a type of non-conventional trademark, was filed in the Trade Mark Registry at Delhi. The sound mark was filed by California-based Internet firm Yahoo! Inc. for its three-note Yahoo yodel. The Indian Trademark Registry finally granted its first ever sound mark for the Yahoo yodel on 18 August, 2008. This will prevent other companies or individuals in India from using the yodel. Image Source/Attribution here  (Governed by Creative Commons License CC BY – SA 2.0)...

Continue reading

Copyright: AP settles online copyright lawsuit with Moreover Technologies

The image depicts the New York Court of Appeals. The post is about AP settles online copyright lawsuit with Moreover Technologies.

A copyright infringement case was filed by AP, a not for profit news cooperative, in the U.S. District court in New York in October against Moreover Technologies Inc. and its parent company, VeriSign Inc. for improper usage of its copyrighted headlines, stories and photos. The defendant company used to aggregate and redistribute the news online. The defendants relied on the ‘fair use’ provisions of the copyright law which provides exception to copyright infringement when the copyrighted material is quoted for commentary, news reporting, etc., without taking permission from the copyright owner. However, direct reproduction of the copyrighted work is still...

Continue reading

Patent: Case Note: Rhone-Poulenc Agro v. Dekalb Genetics Corp., 284 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002)

The image depicts a sign containing the text 'Monsanto'. The post is about Rhone-Poulenc Agro v. Dekalb Genetics Corp.

Author: Ken Aoki, Patent Agent, Japan TOPIC State law/federal law, bona fide purchaser CASE HISTORY Appeal from a trial court decision dismissing infringement claims against Monsanto (sublicensee of DeKalb). CASE FACTS RPA granted a license to DeKalb with a sublicensing right. DeKalb sublicensed its rights to Monsanto. Later, it was found that DeKalb had fraudulently induced RPA to enter into the licensing agreement. RPA sued DeKalb and Monsanto for infringement. The court invalidated DeKalb’s right. Monsanto insisted on the bona fide purchaser defense. ISSUE Will the non-exclusive licensee be protected as a bona fide purchaser, when the grantor’s right was obtained by fraud and became void? HOLDING No  ANALYSIS The bona fide purchaser rule in 35 USC...

Continue reading

Patent: Case Note: TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23

The image depicts the US Supreme Court as this post is about Case Note: TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23

Author: Ken Aoki, Patent Agent, Japan CASE HISTORY The 6th Circuit reversed the district court’s decision for TrafFix. TrafFix appeals to the Supreme Court. CASE FACTS • MDI’s patent: dual-spring stand to keep signs upright despite adverse wind condition • After MDI’s patents expired, TrafFix copied MDI’s product and sold its products. • MDI sued TrafFix under trade dress infringement. ISSUE Whether the functional aspect of MDI’s product which was covered by expired utility patents can be protected under trade dress? HOLDING No ANALYSIS • Functional aspects are not protected by trade dress. • MDI’s utility patents suggest that the dual-spring mechanism is functional. o The dual-spring mechanism is the main feature claimed in the...

Continue reading

Patent: Case Note: Rosaire v. Baroid Sales

The featured image show a pump jack used to mechanically lift liquid out of the well. The post is about Rosaire v. Baroid Sales

Author: Nandan Pendsey, IP Attorney, San Diego, USA Issue Does the earlier experiment by Gulf Corp. invalidate the patents of Rosaire as the inventions were known or used? Holding Yes, as the earlier experiments constituted prior knowledge and use according to Sec 102 (a), they invalidated the patents. Rule 102 (a) Facts Rosaire and Horvitz patents relate to the methods of prospecting for oil or other hydrocarbons. The methods claimed involve the steps of taking a number of samples of soil from formations which are not themselves productive of hydrocarbons, either over a horizontal area or a vertical down. Rosaire alleged that Baroid was infringing its patent. Baroid...

Continue reading

Patent: Case Note: Inamed Vs Lubomyr Kuzmak

The featured image show Physicians perform laparoscopic stomach surgery. The post is about Inamed Vs Lubomyr Kuzmak

Author: Nandan Pendsey, IP Attorney, San Diego, USA Case Facts Inamed Corporation was a licensee of Dr. Kuzmak as Dr. Kuzmak had four patents covering   devices and methods for surgical treatment of obesity. The patent in question was directed to a method for performing gastric banding surgery using a calibration tube and electronic sensor apparatus. In 1998, Inamed tried to re negotiate the terms of the license and when the renegotiation failed Inamed terminated the contract on December 6, 1998. Dr Kuzmak sent a letter dated December 21, 1998 to Inamed asserting that Inamed was infringing atleast 3 out of the 4...

Continue reading

Subscribe For Intellepedia IP News Updates

Signup for our Intellepedia newsletter and get notified when we publish new articles on IP!