Google, MGM Resorts, Nestle: Intellectual Property
Google Inc. was accused by Skyhook Wireless Inc. of copying its location-finding software and then strong-arming phone makers into using Google’s product.
Skyhook said it filed a lawsuit in state court in Massachusetts that claims Google interfered with contracts Skyhook had reached with phone makers including Motorola Inc. In a separate complaint in federal court in Boston, Google is accused of infringing four Skyhook patents related to ways to establish the precise location of a smartphone.
Closely held Skyhook pioneered an approach to tracking a smartphone’s location by measuring its proximity to Wi-Fi hotspots instead of relying on global positioning satellites or cell towers. The lawsuit claims Google threatened to rescind phone makers’ rights to use Google’s Android phone software on devices containing Skyhook’s software.
In dispute are patents 7,305,245, 7,414,099, 7,433,694 and 7,474,897, issued between December 2007 and January 2009.
In the patent case Skyhook is represented by Morgan Chu, John C. Hueston, Samuel K. Lu, Ofer Bleiweiss, S. Albert Wang and Blake B. Greene of Los Angeles-based Irell & Manella LLP, and Thomas F. Maffei and Douglas R. Tillberg of Boston’s Griesinger Tighe & Maffei LLP.
The patent case is Skyhook Wireless v. Google Inc., 10cv11571, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts (Boston).
Irish Health Minister Announces Cuts in Off-Patent Drug Prices
Ireland’s government reached agreement with the Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers for price reductions of as much as 40 percent for some of the most commonly prescribed off- patent drugs in Ireland, Mary Harney, Minister for Health said yesterday in a statement.
The price reductions will take effect on Oct. 1 and are expected to deliver full-year savings of more than 25 million euros ($32.5 million) for the health service, according to the statement.
IBM Gets Patent for Movie Plot Manipulation by Theater-Goers
International Business Machines Corp., the world’s largest computer services company, received a patent on a technology that could let movie viewers determine a plot outcome.
Patent 7,784,069 covers the technology for selecting divergent storylines using branching techniques. The patent took almost seven years from the time the application was filed to be issued.
According to the patent, theaters and movie companies could increase revenues if viewers return to see a film with variable outcomes. The privilege of voting for a particular storyline branch could be provided for free or by purchase.
Votes for any particular outcome could be weighted and purchased on a variable or flexible cost structure.
The patent notes that studios are already frequently producing alternative endings to films and providing them in DVD versions. This contrasts to a presentation of the film in a theater that is “essentially static,” according to the patent.
Armonk, New York-based IBM applied for this patent in December 2003 with the assistance of Cahn & Samuels LLP of Washington. The patent was issued Aug. 24.
For more patent news, click here.
Copyright
MGM Grand Hotel Seeks Court Ruling It Didn’t Infringe Copyrights
MGM Resorts International’s MGM Grand Hotel asked a federal court in Nevada to declare it’s not infringing the copyrights of a New York artist.
The dispute arose after the company hired Tony Chi to design its Skylofts luxury boutique hotel on the top two floors of the MGM Grand in Las Vegas. Chi specified that for in-room art, he wanted “pop art” and selected several supergraphic images of orange and blue flowers sent him by a vendor, Deanna Postil & Associates Inc. of Malibu, California, according to the complaint filed Sept. 14 in federal court in Las Vegas.
The vendor then supplied the art, and assured the hotel that all the work was original, commissioned from a Los Angeles artist, and the copyrights were clear, the hotel said in its pleadings. The paintings were then installed in the Skylofts, according to court papers.
Donald Sultan, a New York artist known for his pop-style canvases complained in August 2010 that the art in the skylofts infringed the copyrights for his “Orange Flowers” and “Blue Flowers” works. The hotel said he demanded $500,000.
The complaint contains side-by-side color images of Sultan’s paintings and the room art that the hotel bought from the vendor. The hotel contends that Sultan’s works “contain several elements that appear in nature, are commonly used in pop art” and aren’t protected by copyright law.
The hotel asked the court to declare it isn’t infringing Sultan’s copyrights, and that the room art in dispute isn’t “substantially similar” to elements in his work that is protectable under copyright law.
Deanna Postil & Associates is a co-defendant in the suit, as the art supplier’s contract specified it would indemnify the hotel in connection with any copyright-infringement liability related to the art it supplied, according to court papers. Postil didn’t respond immediately to an e-mailed request for comment.
MGM Grand is represented by Michael J. McCue and Jonathan W. Fountain of Lewis & Roca LLP of Phoenix, Arizona.
The case is MGM Grand Hotel LLC v. Sultan, 2:10-cv-01574, U.S. District Court, District of Nevada (Las Vegas).
French Internet Providers Lose Bid to Block Piracy Authority
A group representing French Internet-service providers lost a bid to block the implementation of anti-piracy enforcement efforts.
The Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest administrative court, ruled yesterday that the request by the French Data Network to intervene in the matter was inadmissible.
FDN has criticized the law on Internet copyright protection as too vague and lacking controls to guarantee the presumption of innocence. The criticism came even after the law was revised following France’s highest legislative court rejecting it last year for failing to protect Internet users’ civil liberties or ensure they aren’t deprived of service.
None of these criticisms “were of the type to give birth to serious doubt on the legality of the law,” Judge Bernard Stirn wrote in yesterday’s decision.
Baidu, 14 Others Ordered to Remove Infringing Videos From Sites
China’s General Administration of Press and Publication ordered 15 Chinese video-sharing sites to remove infringing videos and to take a look at copyright issues, the CriEnglish.com China news website reported.
The sites under government scrutiny include Youku.com, ku6.com and Baidu Inc.’s video.baidu.com, according to CriEnglish.com.
They will have until Sept. 21 to comply with the press supervisory agency’s requests, CriEnglish.com reported.
More than 1,198 infringing websites in China have been shut down since 2005, according to the news website.
For more copyright news, click here.
Trademark
Nestle’s Haagen-Dazs Sues Ex-Franchisee for Infringement
Nestle SA’s Haagen-Dazs unit sued a former franchisee for trademark infringement.
Steven Itkin, the operator of a Staten Island, New York, franchise was accused of selling non-Haagen-Dazs items as genuine Haagen-Dazs items. According to the complaint filed Sept. 14 in federal court in Minnesota, Itkin also failed to pay moneys required under a franchise agreement, and didn’t cease operation following his receipt of a termination notice from Haagen-Dazs.
Included in the complaint is a color photo Haagen-Dazs says was shot in Itkin’s shop, showing that Itkin “crudely covered portions of marketing collateral that displayed the Haagen-Dazs mark” with the mark of a competitor. He is also accused of continuing to use some of the Haagen-Dazs trademarks, such as “Sorbet Sipper” and “Baristo” in close proximity to a competitor’s products.
Itkin’s rights to use the Haagen-Dazs trademarks ended when the franchise agreement was terminated, according to court papers. His actions and alleged infringement are causing the ice cream company, its trademarks and the public “irreparable harm” because of the confusion this creates, Haagen-Dazs said in its court papers.
Haagen-Dazs asked the court to order Itkin to quit using the company’s trademarks, to fulfill all post-termination obligations in the franchise agreement, and to relinquish the company operations manual and all trade-secret materials. Additionally, it seeks money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.
The ice cream company is represented by Kerry Bundy, Christopher J.K. Diedrich and Molly J. O’Connell of Minneapolis- based Faegre & Benson LLP.
The case is Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Co. v. Steven Itkin, 0:10- cv-03924-ADM-SRN, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota (Minneapolis).
Liverpool FC’s ‘Liver Bird’ European Trademark Opposed
The Liverpool Football Club’s European trademark registration of the “Liver Bird” emblem has been challenged by a resident of the Liverpool suburb of Fazakerley, the Liverpool Daily Post reported.
The Liver Bird, an emblem used in the city’s coat of arms since 1797, should not be “privatized,” trademark protester Alfie Hincks told the Daily Post.
He says the symbol is in common use in the city and is willing to spend more than 700 euros ($910) to file an application seeking its cancellation, according to the Daily Post.
As a result of a deal with the soccer team, the government of the city of Liverpool is pursuing a separate trademark application with the U.K.’s Intellectual Property office, the newspaper reported.
For more trademark news, click here.
To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in Oakland, California, at vslindflor@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net.
Rate this Page