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....

Patent Infringement

US Government Tells : Farmer who Buys Commodity Soybeans Cannot Replant Those Beans Without Committing Patent Infringement
                                                                                                                                  -By Dennis Crouch

Bowman v. Monsanto (SCOTUS 2013)


In its Latest filed brief, the US Govt. has agreed with Bowman that violation of use restrictions on commodity GM soybeans cannot result in patent infringement.


Innovation patents – added occasion where you can speak up

IP Australia is looking to get comments on how the development patent technique is functioning.

Considering 2001, The country gives two forms of patent: the typical patent with a regular period of 20 yrs and also an invention patent with a term as much as eight years.

An advancement patent require show simply an innovative aspect over the prior art to be legitimate. As per the Full Court in Delnorth, this requires a big difference that the folk experienced in the art will understand makes a significant engagement to how the item / approach functions. As the Utmost Court accepted, this is nothing like the original step demand for an accepted patent. See moreover the SNF scenario.

Based on IP Australia’s web-site:

Considering the fact that the Delnorth (09) final decision in the Federal Court, fairly evident minor upgrades to inventions has been patentable. There has been unique growth of innovation patent applications for particular technologies. There is some proof that larger companies may be having the innovation patent process to increase the life of their patents and purposely targeting competitors.

ACIP already is undertaking a review into the advancement patent system overall. The consulting paper with this (IP Australia’s) review describes:

The Advisory Council on Intellectual Property is basically running a review of the Advancement Patent process altogether. In the mid term, this provides valuable observations and suggestions for developments.

For the short term, however, there is certainly a demanding need to address emerging risks of the Advancement Patent system getting used in ways which would result in undue expenses to consumers and to businesses that contest with owners of Innovation Patents. As an example, you can find a need to ensure that Innovation Patents will never unsuitably expand the life of pharmaceutical drug patents and hold back the presentation of less expensive common medicines, resulting in improved costs to consumers and a rise in govt expense through the Pharmaceutical Profits Method.

As a result, the Government plans to change the Patents Act 1990 to boost the tolerance for innovation to the same level in terms of Standard Patents (Attachment A applies). This method is in keeping with the second tier patent systems operating in countries for example Germany and also Japan.

If you want more news regarding the Patents in India go to http://www.ttconsultants.co.in/blog

Related Links :

Patent Watch Services in New era

Amendments in Patent acts in India - Topics to be discussed

Legal Process outsourcing

Patent with Prior Art Fundamentals