SAWWAVE targets global wireless communication market

SAWWAVE, a local SME specializing in wireless hardware, is out for global expansion on the back of the support from the state-run Small and Medium Business Administration.

SAWWAVE’s patent wireless technology, called “electro-polarization,” is used for setting WiFi access points that support more clients than traditional wireless networks.
 

SAWWAVE’s synchronized orthogonal multi polarization antenna for u-Farm service in Hokkaido, Japan

Known for its practical applications for public facilities and online tools of learning at schools, the firm has been working with buyers from abroad such as Japan, Indonesia and Malaysia, officials said. 

“We’re regularly joining overseas exhibitions where the demand for our product and technology is high,” a SAWWAVE official said. 

Most noticeable of the firm’s achievements is the “u-Farm” service in Hokkaido, Japan. The service is designed to lessen the elderly’s disadvantages followed by the lack of information and internet access.

SAWWAVE is also working hand in hand with the Japan Highway Public Corporation to introduce mobile WiFi service that enables simplified roaming and seamless handovers.

The firm’s patent technology has been recognized by the SMBA and was registered as one of the government-authorized, outstanding products in 2013

http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20140629000283

Patent controller's draft 'Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications' evokes good response

The Indian patent controller's draft 'Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals', issued in April this year, has evoked tremendous response both within and outside the country as a large number of national and international pharma associations, experts and patent law firms have submitted their suggestions and comments to the patent office. 

After examining these suggestions and comments, the Indian patent controller will incorporate the relevant suggestions before finally issuing the final document on 'Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals'. 

Earlier in April this year, the Indian Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks had issued the draft 'Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications in the field of Pharmaceuticals' to help the Examiners and the Controllers of the Patent Office in achieving consistently uniform standards of patent examination and grant of patents.

These guidelines are supplemental to the practices and procedures followed by the Patent Office as published in the ‘Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure’, “Guidelines For Examination of Biotechnology Applications” and the “Guidelines For Processing of Patent Applications Relating to Traditional Knowledge and Biological Material”.

The major pharmaceutical associations which had submitted their comments included Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA); European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade; European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA); International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA); Japan Intellectual Property Association (JIPA); Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association (JPMA); Assocham; Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO);  Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI); FICPI; US-India Business Council (USIBC); etc. 


http://www.pharmabiz.com/NewsDetails.aspx?aid=82431&sid=1

United States: Whither Bilateral Patent Prosecution Bars?

Patent practitioners involved in both litigation and prosecution might take comfort in the growing trend away from bilateral patent prosecution bars incorporated into protective orders. Defense attorneys have long contended, especially in cases brought by Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), that any bar against patent prosecution should apply unilaterally to the NPE's counsel. NPEs generally do not develop products, and are therefore unlikely to maintain confidential information about technology that could be inadvertently used by defendant's counsel during prosecution. Courts are now beginning to accept this argument, and patent litigators should consider fighting attempts to impose bilateral prosecution bars where they might otherwise not have.

A recent order in the Eastern District of Texas explains numerous reasons against the imposition of a bilateral patent prosecution bar. Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13-cv-447 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2014). In Smartflash, the magistrate judge found that a unilateral prosecution bar was appropriate, even though the plaintiff argued that a bilateral one was needed because plaintiff's confidential information could contain plans for future products. The magistrate judge explained that the possibility of future product plans potentially being contained in the confidential information is not sufficient to impose a bar on defendants' counsel. The magistrate judge went on to explain that the parties in the case are not similarly situated, and that since the plaintiff does not currently sell any products, there is no corresponding risk of inadvertent disclosure and misuse, limiting the prosecution bar to plaintiff's attorneys who review defendants' highly sensitive information.

A similar result was recently ordered in the District of Delaware, where Judge Stark rejected a bilateral prosecution bar in favor of a unilateral prosecution bar against counsel for plaintiff. DN Lookup Technologies v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 11-1177-LPS (D. Del. June 11, 2012). In DN Lookup, Judge Stark described how he was not satisfied that the plaintiff was going to produce highly confidential information of a type that would justify making the prosecution bar bilateral. The plaintiff pointed to licensing and strategy documents that the plaintiff was going to produce, but in the court's view, those materials would not be the kind of information that could be of use or misuse by defendants in a presentation or application to the USPTO. The court was also not persuaded by the plaintiff's suggestion that it had some type of source code sought by defendants, or that it would somehow be inequitable to have a unilateral bar. Judge Stark also explained that the parties are not similarly situated, because the plaintiff is a non-practicing entity whereas the defendants make products.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/318622/Patent/Whither+Bilateral+Patent+Prosecution+Bars

Samsung infringed Apple patents, ordered to pay $119M — but it's a mixed verdict

After nearly three days of deliberations, a federal jury handed down the verdict in the latest Apple/Samsung patent infringement case. The results? A legal win for Apple Inc. (but probably not as big as they were hoping) and a damages award of $119 million. That relatively low award (Apple had sought $2 billion) will likely be seen as a business win for Samsung.
The jurors found Samsung to have infringed on only two patents, and one of those was a mixed bag, with some devices infringing and some not. They also found that Samsung was willful in its infringement, which upped the total damages awarded.
Samsung had its own vindication in the verdict. Apple was found to have infringed on one of Samsung's patents, for which the Korean electronics company was awarded $150,000 in damages, a sum that probably wouldn't cover the salary of a single lawyer involved in the case.

Here's the tally in the case:

• '647 patent (Quick Link): This was the technology that found things in text that could be links, such as phone numbers, and linked them to apps like the dialer. It was the major win for Apple, with Samsung found to infringe a key technology.

•  '959 patent (Universal Search): This patent covered a universal search feature, and Samsung was found not to have infringed on any of the devices. 

• '414 patent (Calendar Sync): Samsung also successfully defended itself on charges that it infringed on this patent, which covered background syncing for calendars and email.

•  '721 patent (Slide to unlock): This patent covering the slide gesture to unlock a phone was the most mixed. Samsung was found to infringe on some devices, not all. 

• ‘449 patent (“Apparatus for recording and reproducing digital image and speech”): This was a patent that Samsung asserted against Apple in its countersuit. It was the only one that stuck, resulting in a $150,000 damage award.

Read related post(s) :
http://patentinfringementindia.blogspot.in/2014/04/google-helping-samsung-win-patent.html

 

Aurobindo Pharma lands in patent litigation cases in USA

Three multinational drug makers - The Medicines Company, Hospira and Kowa Company Ltd - in separate cases - have dragged Indian firm Aurobindo Pharma to court on allegations of patent infringement.
According to the petition copies, Hospira has alleged that Aurobindo's Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to make generic version of dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injection would infringe its patented drug Precedex.

Aurobindo officials were unavailable for comments. However, a market analyst said that "these patent infringement cases are not uncommon for generic drug maker. The product launch will depend on the outcome of the court and US FDA approvals".

 Hospira filed the petition in the US District Court of Delaware. The drug is used for the sedation of initially intubated and mechanically ventilated patients during treatment in an intensive care setting. Similarly, the Medicines Company in a separate petition filed in the District Court of New Jersey alleged that the Indian drug maker's ANDA would infringe on it's drug - Angiomax- on two counts. Angiomax (bivalirudin) is used as an anticoagulant in patients with unstable angina undergoing percutaneous translurninal coronary angioplasty.

Resource: Business-Standard

Europe warns Google, Samsung on abusing phone patents

The European Commission says Motorola Mobility — which Google is selling to China's Lenovo — has abused its market position in Europe by refusing to grant crucial technology licenses to rival Apple, then suing Apple for infringement. 

However, the Commission's antitrust chief, Joaquin Almunia, said that he would not levy any fine this time, because European national laws have issued conflicting rulings in patent and licensing suits. 

Almunia is seeking to compel smartphone technology giants to license patents on reasonable terms, rather than using them as a tool to stymie competition. He said recent court battles around the world ultimately hinder innovation and harm consumers. 

In a related case, Samsung also avoided a fine for denying use of patents to Apple, by agreeing to submit future disagreements to arbitration.

Google helping Samsung win the patent infringement battle against Apple

Google has provided funding to help Samsung defend itself against Apple's patent-infringement claims, emails between the two companies revealed Tuesday.

Google patent attorney James Maccoun, in deposition testimony presented by Apple in court here, authenticated emails between Google and Samsung from 2012 that said that the Internet giant would "defend and indemnify" Samsung over its use of technology that Apple said infringed its patents. The emails said Google would help shoulder some of the cost for the defense, as well as for any damages should Samsung lose its battle.

Read more....