Related News:
Sony-L-3, Philips, Fox, Disney, Facebook, Savemore: Intellectual Property
Japan’s Sony Corp. was sued by a unit of U.S. defense contractor L-3 Communications Holdings Inc. and accused of infringing two patents for image sensors used in digital still and video cameras, computers and security systems.
L-3 asked for a jury trial, unspecified damages and a permanent injunction against infringing products, in an Aug. 27 lawsuit in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.
The New York-based company’s “extensive patent portfolio protects L-3’s considerable investment in its research-and- development efforts,” and Sony should pay license fees, L-3 said in court papers.
Sony is accused of infringing patents 5,541,654 and 5,452,004, which were issued in September 1995 and July 1996, respectively.
L-3, which reported $15.6 billion in sales last year, said in a statement yesterday that its Nova Engineering unit won a $52.8 million contract from the U.S. Defense Department to support a Marine Corps’ sensor systems program.
Mack Araki, a Sony spokesman in New York, said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation.
L-3 is represented by Steven J. Balick, Lauren E. Maguire and Andrew C. Mayo of Wilmington’s Ashby & Geddes PA, and John R. Emerson, Theodore G. Baroody and Donald E. Tiller of Haynes & Boone LLP of Dallas.
The case is L-3 Communications Corp. v. Sony corp., 10-cv- 734, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
Philips Wins Court Ruling Over Patents on Recordable CD-ROMs
Royal Philips Electronics NV, Europe’s biggest consumer- electronics maker, won a U.S. appeals court ruling that it didn’t misuse patents in its licensing program for recordable CD-ROMs.
Judges rejected arguments by Taiwanese disc maker Princo Corp. that Philips should be barred from enforcing its patent rights, according to a filing yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. Princo accused Philips of using an agreement with Sony Corp. to suppress Sony technology that would compete with an industry standard on the CD-ROMs.
Princo was using the argument to defend itself against patent-infringement claims brought by Amsterdam-based Philips before the U.S. International Trade Commission. The eight-year- old case was heard before the 10 active judges of the appeals court, who were asked to consider when patent owners should be penalized for exceeding their rights. The judges said the argument should be used sparingly.
“This court has not applied the doctrine of patent misuse expansively,” the judges said in the ruling. “In this case, we adhere to that approach.”
The case centered on an agreement reached between Philips and Tokyo-based Sony in the late 1980s and 1990s over competing technology they developed to ensure compact discs could be used on different machines. The companies settled on the Philips technology as the standard, while including Sony patents as part of an overall pool of inventions available in a single license.
Princo, based in Hsinchu, Taiwan, argued that, because of the agreement to not license the Sony technology separately, Philips was misusing its power.
“In this case the assertion of misuse arises not from the terms of the license itself but rather from an alleged collateral agreement between Sony and Philips,” the court wrote. “In that setting, the doctrine of patent misuse does not immunize Princo against the legal effect of its acts of infringement.”
Philips and Sony were within their rights to chose “not to compete with their own joint venture,” the court said.
The Federal Circuit decision may force defendants in patent cases to rely more on antitrust law as an argument of unfair behavior by patent owners, said Lance Reich, a patent lawyer with Woodcock Washburn in Seattle who was following the case.
“It’s hard to imagine a case where you have patent misuse and don’t have an antitrust violation,” Reich said.
The case is Princo Corp. v. International Trade Commission, 2007-1386, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington).
Salix, Norgine End Patent Infringement Suit Against Novel
Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Norgine BV settled a patent- infringement suit with Novel Laboratories Inc., the companies said in a statement yesterday.
Norgine, a Netherlands-based pharmaceutical company, owns patent 7,169,381, for a colon-cleansing compound. Salix, based in Morrisville, North Carolina, is the U.S. licensee for the patent.
In May 2008 they sued Somerset, New Jersey-based Novel, claiming a product for which Novel was seeking regulatory approval, infringed the patent.
Under the settlement agreement, Novel receives a license through September 2018 to intellectual property covering a generic version of the Moviprep colon cleanser. Under a separate agreement Novel will manufacture and supply Moviprep to Salix, providing the North Carolina-based company with a domestic source of the product.
Financial terms of the agreement weren’t disclosed.
The case is Salix Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Novel Laboratories Inc., 3:02-cv-02311-FLW-TJMB, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton).
For more patent news, click here.
Copyright
New Corp. Unit Sued Over Broadcast of Brad Pitt Motorcycle Fall
News Corp.’s Fox News Network unit was sued for copyright infringement over its use of footage of actor Brad Pitt falling off his motorcycle.
According to the complaint filed Aug. 25 in federal court in Los Angeles, Fox has used and rebroadcast video footage originally licensed only to Fox’s TMZ unit for a limited period of time.
Media2Air Inc. says it sent Fox repeated cease-and-desist notices, and was told by counsel for Fox that its use of the footage was permissible under copyright law. The work was available through a Fox website through July 2010, Meda2Air claims.
The complaint quotes Rupert Murdoch, News Corp.’s chairman, condemning copyright law’s “fair use” provision. According to the complaint, Murdoch has said of fair use he thinks courts “would bar it altogether.”
Media2Air says it’s damaged by Fox’s use of the footage, and asked the court for money damages, profits Fox realized in connection with its alleged infringement, attorney fees and litigation costs.
The company is represented by M. Cris Armenta of the Armenta Law Firm APC of Los Angeles.
The case is Media2 Air Inc., v. Fox News Network LLC, 2:10- cv-06346-CBM-JEM, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
Disney, Sanrio, DC Comics Sue Chicago ‘Bounce House’ Owner
The Walt Disney Co., Sanrio Co., and DC Comics sued a Chicago supplier of “bounce houses” for copyright infringement.
The bounce houses, sometimes known as “moonwalks” are inflatable enclosures commonly used at children’s birthday parties and other child-centered events. Chicago Moonwalks Inc. is accused of infringing a wide range of copyrights and trademarks associated with the three companies.
Among the copyrights and trademarks the company is accused of infringing are Disney’s Snow White, Cinderella and Ariel, Sanrio’s Hello Kitty, and DC Comics Batman.
According to the complaint filed Aug. 26 in federal court in Chicago, the moonwalks company is selling, renting and offering children’s party services that incorporate the characters belonging to Disney, Sanrio and DC Comics. Chicago Moonwalks is accused of deliberately infringing the trademarks and copyrights.
The moonwalk company’s actions have confused consumers into believing an actual connection or sponsorship agreement exists between itself and the copyright holders, according to court papers.
Disney, Sanrio and DC Comics asked the court to bar the Chicago company from further infringement, and seeks destruction of all allegedly infringing products and promotional material. They also seek damages of $200,000 for each trademark infringed, as much as $150,000 for each copyright infringed, additional damages as much as $2 million, and three times the profits the defendant realized from each act of infringement.
They also requested awards of attorney fees, litigation costs, and extra damages intended to punish the defendant for its actions.
The three content-owning companies are represented by Mark V. B. Partridge and Colin T.J. O’Brien of Partridge IP Law PC of Chicago.
The case is Disney Enterprises Inc., v. Chicago Moonwalks Inc., 1:10-cv-05405, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago)
Judge Suggests Minimum Damages in Righthaven Copyright Suit
Righthaven LLC, the entity that has sued more than 100 website operators for allegedly infringing copyrights to stories appearing in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, received a setback in one of its recent cases, the Las Vegas Sun reported.
Magistrate Judge Robert Johnson told counsel for Righthaven that an infringement suit against a website belonging to a Boston-based cat-fancier could be settled for “a lot less than four figures” according to the newspaper.
Although typical demands in the cases have been for $75,000 and forfeiture of website names, some cases have settled for $5,000 or less and some defendants have been able to hang on to their website names, the newspaper reported.
According to the newspaper, Las Vegas-based Righthaven is jointing owned by local attorney Steven Gibson and members of the family of Arkansas investment banking billionaire Warren Stephens, whose family also owns Stephens Media Inc. and the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
For more copyright news, click here.
Trademark
Facebook Seeks U.S. Trademark Registration for ‘Face’
Facebook Inc., the social-media company with more than 500 million users, has filed an application to register “face” as a trademark, according to the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The application specifies the mark would be used for telecommunication services, online chat rooms and electronic bulletin boards for “transmission of messages among computer users in the field of general interest and concerning social and entertainment subject matter, none primarily featuring or relating to motoring or to cars.”
Other recent trademark applications filed by the Palo Alto, California-based company are for “like” and “0.” Like is to be used for a variety of computer services, and “0.” for computer software development tools.
Sav Mor Pharmacy, Savemore Grocery Battle Over Trademarks
A Bahamian pharmacy has asked the nation’s Supreme Court to bar a Freeport, Bahamas, supermarket from using the name “Savemore,” the Bahamas Tribune reported.
The Sav-Mor Pharmacy, also in Freeport, claims the supermarket name will confuse the public and its suppliers, according to the newspaper.
Counsel acting for the supermarket told the Tribune that the words “save” and “more” are generic terms not entitled to protection.
For more trademark news, click here.
To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in Oakland, California, at vslindflor@bloomberg.net.
Rate These Stories
Rate this Page