Application 20130346783, published yesterday in the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, covers a “method and arrangement for monitoring at least one battery, battery having such an arrangement, and motor vehicle having a corresponding battery.”
The companies said in their application that the invention is related to battery safety functions.
On Dec. 19, electric-car company Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA) said U.S. regulators reviewing battery-related fires concluded that Tesla’s Model S and charging system didn’t cause a fire in a Southern California garage last month.
Patent Suit Losers Should Pay Legal Costs More Often, Court Says
Patent owners who lose infringement lawsuits should have to pay the winners’ legal fees more often, a U.S. appeals court said in adding its views to a debate before Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington yesterday ordered a judge to analyze whether memory-cell maker Kilopass Technology Inc. should pay legal fees incurred by closely held competitor Sidense Corp.
The court must consider “whether Kilopass acted in bad faith in light of the totality of the circumstances” even if there’s no specific evidence of wrongdoing, Circuit Judge Kathleen O’Malley wrote.
The Federal Circuit, which handles U.S. patent appeals, has been grappling with how to crack down on owners who demand royalties on patents that may not be infringed or valid. The Supreme Court in October accepted two cases on the issue and Congress is considering legislation that would require losers in patent cases to pay winners’ fees.
The issue of legal fees is part of a broader debate over a rise in patent suits by businesses whose sole mission is to extract royalty revenue. Those entities, dubbed “patent trolls” by critics, filed 19 percent of all patent lawsuits from 2007 to 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office. A White House report said more than 100,000 companies were threatened last year with infringement claims.
“Too many patent owners are bringing claims that are meritless and then settling for a nuisance value with the expectation their claims would never be tested,” said Edward Reines, a lawyer with Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP in Redwood Shores, California, who also teaches at Stanford Law School. “The intrepid defendant who fights and wins ends up not being compensated for their fees.”
The case is Kilopass Technology v. Sidense Corp., 13-1193, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington).
Magna Strikes Back at TRW Over Vehicle Back-Up Camera Systems
Magna International Inc. (MG)’s Magna Electronics filed a patent-infringement complaint Dec. 23 against TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. (TRW) at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, according to a notice published Dec. 24 on the agency’s website.
Magna seeks a ban on the importation of vision-based driver-assistance system cameras. The company claims TRW’s cameras infringe two of its patents.
TRW filed a trade commission complaint against Magna in September over a patent for imaging-processing chips used in Magna’s driver-assistance technology. It asked the commission to block imports of Magna’s China-made Eyeris cameras.
The two companies also have patent lawsuits against each other pending in federal court in Michigan.
For more patent news, click here.
Amazon Is Told Plastic-based Pants With Deity Image Is Offensive
In a Dec. 26 e-mailed statement, the Reno, Nevada-based society said it finds the use of the image of the elephant-headed Ganesha “worn on one’s legs, crotch and hips” to be inappropriate.
The society said that the “Ganesha’s Dream” hot pants and bell bottoms were offensive and should be withdrawn. According to Amazon.com’s website, the pants are made by Teeki Inc. from recycled plastic through the use of solar energy.
Vernon, California-based Teeki says on its website that the pants are manufactured in California. The company also features images drawn from tarot cards, outer space, “deer medicine” and unicorns on its products.
The society earlier criticized the use of the Hindu deity Vishnu in an episode of ABC’s “Agents of Shield” television program, and persuaded Philadelphia-based Urban Outfitters Inc. (URBN) to quit selling socks with a Ganesha image. According to its website, Urban Outfitters is still selling tapestries, duvet covers and handbags with images of the elephant-headed Ganesha.
The group previously said it sought to erect a statue of the religion’s Lord Hanuman among monuments on the grounds of the Oklahoma Capitol. It said Dec. 20 that Hindus are “heartbroken” over the reported decision by a state commission to declare a moratorium on new monuments there.
Bed Bath & Beyond Told Not to Sell Fake Chambord Coffee Makers
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc., the Union, New Jersey-based housewares retailer, won’t be able to sell coffee makers bearing the “Chambord” trademark, except for those actually made by Bodum USA Inc.
According to an agreed-upon order filed in federal court Dec. 17, fake Chambord devices must be removed from stores.
Triegen, Switzerland’s Bodum AG’s U.S. unit had said that the housewares chain was selling coffee makers sold by one of the company’s competitors and using the Chambord mark without authorization. Hang tags on the offending merchandise indicated falsely that the fake products were Chambord coffee presses, and even included Bodum’s product identification number, according to court papers.
The Swiss company also accused the housewares chain of listing on its website the fake products as Chambord coffee makers.
Bodum sought awards of money damages, including profits Bed Bath & Beyond received from the sale of the allegedly infringing products, a court order for the seizure and destruction of all of the fake coffeemakers and promotional materials, and awards of attorney fees and litigation costs.
Under terms of the Dec. 17 order, the retail chain agreed to remove and destroy or send to Bodum’s counsel all the fake coffee makers, and to remove all references to the fakes as “Chambord” on its website.
The order didn’t discuss possible damages.
For more trademark news, click here.
Time Warner’s ‘Game of Thrones’ Most-Pirated TV Show in 2013
In 2013, there were 5.9 million downloads of the show made using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol, causing “Game of Thrones” to beat any other program by more than 1.7 million downloads, according to TorrentFreak.
Other frequently downloaded programs include “Breaking Bad,” which was downloaded 4.2 million times through BitTorrent; “The Walking Dead,” 3.6. million; “The Big Bang Theory,” 3.4 million, and “Dexter,” 3.1 million, TorrentFreak reported.
TorrentFreak said David Petrarca, director of “Game of Thrones,” has said that piracy gave the show “cultural buzz” that promoted the program.
For more copyright news, click here.
Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage
Nimble Says NetApp’s Trade Secrets Claims Aren’t Substantiated
Nimble Storage Inc. (NMBL), of San Jose, California, responded to the trade-secret misappropriation lawsuit filed Oct. 29 by Sunnyvale, California’s NetApp Inc. (NTAP), a provider of data storage and management products and services.
NetApp claimed that Nimble was recruiting NetApp employees to obtain trade secrets. Fifteen percent of Nimble’s workforce and half of its executive staff are former NetApp employees, according to the complaint.
Nimble trades on NetApp’s fame by telling customers that its technology teams include former NetApp employees, NetApp contended. The former employee downloaded confidential company information before they left and took it with them to Nimble, NetApp said.
In addition to trade-secret misappropriation, Nimble and the former NetApp employees were accused of conspiring to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act to give Nimble a competitive advantage. The ex-employees were also accused of violating employment contracts.
NetApp asked the court to bar the use of its trade secrets and to grant access to laptops, hard drives, external storage media and Nimble’s computer systems and servers to verify the extent and nature of NetApp materials stored there. The company also asked for money damages.
In its response, Nimble said that NetApp objected to “the loss of talent to a hot competitor on the verge of an initial public offering.” Filing such claims in an attempt to stem the loss of employees to competitors “is not a legitimate basis to initiate litigation,” according to Nimble’s Dec. 20 filing.
NetApp’s trade-secrets claims fail, Nimble argued. The company said that in NetApp’s suit there are “no well-pled factual allegations” that the ex-employees’ complained-of conduct occurred while they were at Nimble.
Nimble asked the court to dismiss the suit.
The case is NetApp Inc. v. Nimble Storage Inc., 13-cv-05058, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at email@example.com