U.S. Postal Service and IBM Fend Off Patent Lawsuit

May 13, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – Last Wednesday a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld an earlier decision by the Court of Federal Claims, holding that the United States Postal Service and IBM did not infringe a shipping patent held by Uship Intellectual Properties LLC.

In the earlier case, Uship complained that the U.S. Postal Service infringed its U.S. Patent Number 5,831,220 for an “Automated package shipping machine.”  The ’220 patent covers a system by which all of the shipping steps, from calculating postage to printing a label and accepting payment, are automated and carried out by the machine.  IBM was later added as a third-party defendant when Uship learned that it created the machines for USPS.

Uship, headquartered in Austin, Texas, was founded in 2003 by Matt Chasen who came up with the idea when he was planning a move from Seattle to Austin.  Matt had extra space in his rented van and wondered how many other trucks crossed the country partially empty.  So, he set out to find a way to make it more affordable to coordinate shipping with others.

The patent specifically refers to a kiosk-type of machine on which a user can weigh a package, figure the postage and print a label.  However, the patent also spells out that the package is then “given to a human attendant, such as a check out clerk of a grocery or hardware store and the like, with the appropriate mailing label for validation of receipt of the item by the attendant.”  Because of this, the court held that the U.S. Postal Service and IBM are not infringing on the patent since the entire transaction at the U.S. Postal Service is conducted from the machine and not passed on to an attendant or postal worker.

On appeal, Uship made a plea to the appellate judge that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims misunderstood some of the factors relating to its patent.  The judge, however, was not convinced.  John M. Mesmarais, IBM’s attorney commented that he was pleased with the decision because it “limited the Uship patents to their proper scope.”

Uship’s counsel made no comment.

Tagged as: IBM, U.S. Postal Service, Uship

Aspex Eyewear Loses Appeal of Magnetic Sunglass Patent Lawsuit

April 23, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – A Federal Court of Appeals Judge upheld the decision made by a Florida District Court by holding that Aspex Eyewear Inc. is precluded from making a nearly identical patent infringement claim that it made in a previously failed patent infringement case against a different company.

In 2002, Aspex sued Altair Eyewear Inc., distributor of Tommy Bahama Sunglasses, believing Altair had been marketing and selling an infringing magnetic clip-on sunglass product.  The case concluded in 2007 when New York District Court Judge Stephen C. Robinson granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Altair.  Judge Robinson ruled that Altair products did not infringe on Aspex’s patents.  Aspex later appealed the case and lost.

More recently, Aspex sued Zenni Optical LLC basing its claims on the same patents at issue in the Altair Eyewear case, namely U.S. Patent Nos. 5,737,054, 6,012,811 and 6,092,896.   The patents owned by Aspex cover a design for sunglasses which involves a clear lens and a tinted lens that are interchangeable and held in place magnetically.

When Aspex brought the new action against Zenni Optical and another company over the same 3 patents, U.S. District Judge William Zloch mirrored the previous case by granting a motion for summary judgment filed by Zenni in 2012, citing the decision in the Altair case.

Aspex once again appealed the decision arguing that it had new issues to assert against Zenni Optical that had not been brought to light in the Altair case.  The Federal Circuit Court did not agree, however, and found that the two companies’ allegedly infringing clip-on sunglass lenses were virtually identical to the Altair case and that neither infringed on any of the Aspex patents.  “We affirm the district court’s ruling of collateral estoppel, for there is no material difference as to the claims now in suit, nor difference between the Altair and Zenni Optical products to which the claims are applied.”

Zenni’s legal team felt the decision was a victory not just for them, but for all eyewear consumers.   Apparently Aspex did not agree with the Appellate decision since it tried to bring the case to the Supreme Court in March in its petition for writ of certiorari, which was also denied.

Tagged as: Altair Eyewear, Aspex Eyewear, Zenni Optical

Samsung’s ChatON May be Off Due to Patent Infringement Allegations

April 9, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – Mobile Telecommunications Technologies LLC, a company headquartered in Lewisville, Texas, has filed a lawsuit in an East Texas Federal Court against Samsung Electronics.  Mobile Telecommunications claims that Samsung infringed on at least 3 of its patents for texting and other messaging services.

Samsung, who has been in the digital media business for over 70 years, offers its popular ChatOn messaging application.  ChatOn is Samsung’s latest “Communication Innovation.”  Basically, it allows its users to chat, text and email more easily with all other devices, operating systems and platforms.  It also offers a feature for sending pictures, videos, music, contacts, calendar entries and the sender’s location, to one or a whole group of people.

Mobile Telecommunications has alleged that ChatOn and some of Samsung’s other messaging services are infringing on at least 3 of its patents.  Mobile Telecommunications is seeking to prevent Samsung from selling its messaging services and also hopes to be awarded damages in the case.  The Complaint accuses Samsung of making a multi-billion dollar investment in the production of its electronic equipment.

If Mobile Telecommunications prevails in the lawsuit, it will also aim to prevent Samsung from continuing its applications for Hotmail, Microsoft Exchange and other email systems.  Mobile Telecommunications considers itself an innovator in messaging technology having registered the patents under its related entity, Skytel Communications, a pioneer in paging devices.

The Patents cited in the complaint are: Patent No. 5,809,428 ”Method and device for processing undelivered data messages in a two-way wireless communications system”, Patent No. 5,754,946 ”Nationwide communication system”, and Patent No.5,894,506 “Method and apparatus for generating and communicating messages between subscribers to an electronic messaging network”.

Since the patents were registered 13-14 years ago, at first appearance it may seem unlikely that the precise technology outlined in the patents still encompasses the technology that Samsung is now using.

At least 5 other lawsuits claiming patent infringement have been initiated by Mobile Telecommunications since 2012, including one against Blackberry, formerly Research in Motion Corporation, citing 6 of its patents.  The case, filed in Federal Court in the Northern District of Texas, is still pending.

Tagged as: Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, Samsung, Skytel Communications

Expert says Sony Infringed TV Interactive’s Automatic DVD Playback Patents

March 19, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – An expert testified in front of a San Francisco jury last Wednesday that Sony Corp.’s PlayStation 3 and at least one of the Blu-ray players it sells infringe on four patents related to DVD-loading technology that are owned by TV Interactive Data Corp.

San Jose, California-based TV Interactive argued in front of U.S. District Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California that Sony is using the same technology that its founder, Peter Redford, co-patented between 1997 and 2002.  The technology covered by the patents-in-suit allows DVDs and Blu-rays to start automatically when a DVD is inserted into the device, rather than requiring the user to press play.

Patent consultant and expert witness for TV Interactive Andrew Wolfe testified on Wednesday that after comparing the source code for the software in the PlayStation 3 and the BDP-S500 Blu-ray player to the claims in TV Interactive’s patent, he found that Sony’s devices infringe TV Interactive’s patents for automatic disc play.

Two of the patents-in-suit cover software technology for automatically playing DVDs and Blu-rays the other two refer to the hardware that allow the discs to play automatically.  Wolfe testified that the BDP-S500 infringes all of the claims of the four patents.  He also testified that the PlayStation 3 infringes all of the claims of the hardware patents and infringes the claims of the software patents when used to play DVDs and Blu-rays.

Sony told the San Francisco jury that TV Interactive knew about Sony’s alleged infringing technology in 1996, but strategically chose to wait to file a lawsuit against Sony, which Sony claims is unreasonable and should ban TV Interactive from being able to seek a judgment against it.

“TVI’s documents also confirm that DVD players were considered a target in 1996, but it made a strategic decision to ignore them so that publishers could increase sales targeting DVDs and other optical disc products while TVI tried to increase its ‘clout’ to force its technology into the DVD standard,” Sony said.

Sony also claimed that it is economically prejudiced by TV Interactive’s choice to wait to file the lawsuit.  Sony said that it continued to use the standard automatic playback technologies in its products and had TV Interactive filed the lawsuit sooner, Sony would have developed new technologies rather than continuing to pour money into the disputed technology.

Tagged as: Sony, TV Interactive Date Corp

HP, New Balance among 11 Sued for Infringing Vehicle-Tracking Patents

February 26, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – ArrivalStar SA filed a host of complaints in Florida federal court on Friday, claiming that various companies, including Hewlett-Packard Co., New Balance Athletic Shoe Inc. and Lacoste USA Inc. infringed patents related to vehicle-tracking technology.

ArrivalStar and Melvino Technologies Ltd., which owns the patents-in-suit and licenses them to ArrivalStar, filed a minimum of 11 lawsuits on Friday claiming that the various defendants infringed multiple patents related to technology that allows for the tracking and monitoring of motor vehicles.

Luxembourg-based ArrivalStar mostly named apparel and shoe manufacturers in its 11 lawsuits, which also included Nautica LLC, Quicksilver Inc., Allen-Edmonds Shoe Corp., and S&A Distribution Inc., which makes the Geox brand of shoes.  The company also targeted trucking company Willis Shaw Express Inc., transportation company Coyote LLC, and online flight tracking services FlightAware LLC and Flight View Inc.

In the complaints against the various retail stores, ArrivalStar alleged that the companies provide various online features that allow customers to check the status of their orders online and automatically receive email updates on orders such as order and shipment confirmation.  ArrivalStar claimed that these online features infringe three patents licensed to it by Melvino Technologies.

In the lawsuits against the online flight tracking service companies and the logistics companies, ArrivalStar claims that the companies have infringed six of Melvino Technologies’ patents.

All of the lawsuits claim direct and indirect patent infringement and ask for injunctions preventing the companies from infringing the patents in the future, damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

The complaint filed against Lacoste reads, “Lacoste’s direct infringement has injured and will continues to injure Plaintiffs unless and until a monetary judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiffs and/or the Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement.”

ArrivalStar is no stranger to filing patent infringement lawsuits.  The company has been filing waves of lawsuits against various companies since at least 2003.  Last October, it brought separate patent infringement lawsuits in Florida federal court against Nike Inc., Skechers USA Inc., Groupon Inc., Logitech Inc. and several other companies.

The company has filed well over 100 lawsuits in the last ten years.  Most companies see ArrivalStar as a patent troll trying to extort licensing fees, but the company claims it is just trying to protect the technology licensed to it.

Tagged as: ArrivalStar, Hewlett-Packard, Lacoste, New Balance Athletic Shoe

Facebook Accused of Infringing Patents with “Like” Button

February 7, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – Facebook Inc. has been hit with a lawsuit claiming that the website’s “Like” button and other features that allow users to share third-party content on personal pages infringe patents that were owned by a Dutch computer programmer, who died before he could launch his own social networking website.

The lawsuit, filed by Rembrandt Social Media LP in Virginia on Monday, targets Facebook in addition to the social medial bookmarking service AddThis, Inc.  Virginia-based AddThis is among the world’s largest social bookmarking services and partnered with Facebook to implement the sharing features in question.

The complaint alleges that Facebook is infringing patented technology developed by Joannes Jozef Everardus van der Meer.  Before his death in 2004, van der Meer had planned to incorporate his patented technology for a personal online diary into a social networking website.  Van der Meer had registered the domain name www.surfbook.com for this purpose.

After his death, van der Meer’s family assigned his patents to Rembrandt.  His family hoped that Rembrandt would be able to use his inventions in its social media websites and that van der Meer would get credit for his inventions.

When Facebook introduced the “Like” button in February 2009, it allowed users to place content from a third party on a personal page for their friends to view.   The “Like” button became one of Facebook’s most iconic features almost instantly.

In the complaint, Rembrandt claims Facebook is infringing two registered U.S. patents assigned to it titled “System and method for generating transferring and using an annotated universal address” and “Method and apparatus for implementing a Web page diary.”

In addition to the “Like” button, the complaint claims that nearly all aspects of the Facebook website were taken from van der Meer’s patents, including using advertising on personal diary pages in order to turn a profit.

“Although Mark Zuckerberg did not start what became Facebook until 2003, it bears a remarkable resemblance, both in terms of its functionality and technical implementation, to the personal web page diary that Van Der Meer had invented years earlier,” the complaint said.

Founded in 2004, Facebook is the world’s largest social media network.  At the close of last year, the website had more than 1 billion active users worldwide.

Tagged as: AddThis, Facebook, Rembrandt Social Media

Pfizer Claims Generic-Drug Makers Infringe Lyrica Patent

January 29, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – Pfizer Inc. and Northwestern University filed a lawsuit in Delaware against Wockhardt Ltd. requesting a judgment that Wockhardt is infringing the Lyrica patent and seeking an injunction prohibiting the generic-drug maker from producing a generic form of the drug.

Lyrica is designated as a medication to treat nerve pain caused by shingles and diabetes.  The drug was also approved for management of nerve issues such as fibromyalgia and certain seizures.  Lyrica is Pfizer’s second biggest moneymaker after Lipitor, generating more than $3.7 billion in revenues in 2007.

Mumbai-based Wockhardt filed an abbreviated new drug application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in order to obtain permission to produce a generic version of the pregabalin oral solution.  The company claimed that Northwestern’s patent for the drug is invalid or that, if the patent is valid, it would not be infringed by the generic form of the drug Wockhardt plans to manufacture.

Northwestern’s patent for Lyrica was granted in March 2001 and the university licenses the patent exclusively to Pfizer.  The patent expires in 2018.

In the complaint, Pfizer and Northwestern say that Wockhardt informed the company and the university on December 14th that it had filed the abbreviated new drug application for a 20-milligram-per-milliliter pregabalin oral solution.

Pfizer and Northwestern actively defend the patent for Lyrica and have filed lawsuits against several generic-drug manufacturers as abbreviated new drug applications are filed with the FDA.

In October 2011, Judge Gregory M. Sleet ruled that several generic-drug manufacturers, including Wockhardt, would infringe the patent under the doctrine of equivalents.  The manufacturers asked the Federal Circuit to review the trial judge’s ruling, claiming that he had adopted Pfizer’s position without even looking at the generic-drug manufacturers’ side.

The generics manufacturers claimed that there is no sign Judge Sleet “weighed, considered or comprehended” the arguments they made claiming that the patent is invalid due to obviousness.  The companies claimed that his decision was a “wholesale adoption” of Pfizer’s positions.

The generic’s makers, which included Wockhardt, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd., Cobalt Laboratories Inc. and others, claimed in their brief to the court that Pfizer should not have been allowed to argue infringement under the doctrine of equivalents because the claims of the patent were narrowed during prosecution.  They also claimed that the trial judge interpreted the claims of the patent too broadly.

 

Tagged as: Northwestern University, Pfizer, Wockhardt

Chip Maker Will Fight Record-Breaking Verdict in Patent Infringement Case

January 4, 2013, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County - Marvell Technology Group said it would fight the $1.17 billion in damages it was ordered to pay to Carnegie Mellon University by a Pennsylvania jury on Wednesday for infringing patents held by the university.

The Bermuda based technology company and its U.S. subsidiary, Santa Clara based Marvell Semiconductor Inc., known as MSI, were found to have knowingly infringed two of the university’s patents.  This could allow U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer to treble the damages.  The companies were also found to have contributed to infringement by their customers.

Marvell manufactures chips for hard disk drives that are used in computers, mobile phones and other wireless products.  Carnegie filed the lawsuit against Marvell in early 2009.  The patents in question cover fundamental technology that allows hard disk drive circuits to read data from high-speed magnetic disks with greater accuracy by filtering out noise and other unwanted electrical signals.

The technology was developed by a professor in Carnegie’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Jose Moura, and one of his former students, Aleksandar Kavcic.  Marvell plans to fight the $1.17 billion award, which is the fourth largest award ever granted in a patent infringement case.  All three verdicts larger than the verdict against Marvell were overturned on appeal.

First Marvell will attempt to overturn the verdict with post-trial motions, and if it is unsuccessful the company believes it has a strong case for appeal.  According to Marvell, it did not infringe patents granted to Carnegie in 2001 and 2002.  The company claims the decade-old technology covered by the patents in question is impractical to use in the chips it manufactures.

“Marvell and MSI strongly believe the theoretical methods described in these patents cannot practically be built in silicon even using the most advanced techniques available today, let alone with the technology available a decade ago,” Marvell said. “Rather, Marvell and MSI use their own patented read channel technology developed in house.”  Marvell is also planning to use the fact that Carnegie Mellon University was granted the entire amount it requested to attempt to overturn the verdict.  The company claims that the amount, which was decided by a hired expert, was based on questionable assumptions rather than facts.

Tagged as: Carnegie Mellon University, Marvell Technology

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide if Human Genes are Patentable

December 3, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County - The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will decide whether isolated human genes are patentable, a decision that will have far-reaching consequences for biotechnology companies, medical researchers, and consumers of medical services.

Myriad Genetics holds patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are being challenged by the Association for Molecular Pathology.  The Association for Molecular Pathology claims that isolated DNA, genetic coding removed from the body and separated from other material, is a product of nature making it ineligible for patent protection.
In addition to its claim that DNA is a product of nature, the association for Molecular Pathology claims the patents prohibit clinical testing of the genes and restrict patients’ access to medical care.

“Myriad and other gene patent holders have gained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,” the group argued in its appeal, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In response, Myriad Genetics claims that companies have been patenting generic material for over 30 years.  Without the promise of patent protection, the company claims it would not be able to convince investors to fund its research, which saves countless lives.

“Myriad devoted more than 17 years and $500 million to develop its BRACAnalysis test.  This case has great importance for the hundreds of millions of patients whose lives are saved and enhanced by the life science industry’s products,” said Peter Meldrum, President and CEO of Myriad Genetics.  Myriad’s patented BRACAnalysis test looks for mutations BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are linked to breast and ovarian cancer.  Women who test positive on the BRACAnalysis have an 82 percent increased risk of breast cancer and 44 percent increased risk of ovarian cancer.

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Myriad, claiming that the composition of matter claims by Myriad for BRCA 1 and BRCA2 are valid under Sec 101 of the United States Patent Act.  “The isolated DNA molecules before us are not found in nature,” Circuit Judge Alan Lourie wrote. “They are obtained in the laboratory and are man-made, the product of human ingenuity. While they are prepared from products of nature, so is every other composition of matter.”   The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in March and a decision is expected by June.

Tagged as: Myriad Genetics

Apple Ordered to Pay $368 Million in Patent Infringement

November 8, 2012, by Mandour & Associates, APC

Orange County – A federal grand jury in Texas has awarded VirnetX Holding Corp. $368.2 Million in a patent infringement lawsuit with Apple Inc.  The lawsuit against Apple Inc. was filed last year with the United States District Court in East Texas citing claims of infringement of four VirnetX patents by Apple’s popular Face Time application.

Apple’s Face Time application allows users to place video calls to other Apple devices that support the same feature.

The patents at issue are U.S. patent Nos. 6,502,135, 7,418,504, 7,921,211, and 7,490,151 which cover virtual private network technology.

The jury found that certain Apple products that support the Face Time communication feature, including iPhone 4, iPad 2, and iPod Touch, violate patents held by the Internet security software developer, headquartered in Nevada.  In addition to the sizable monetary award, VirnetX was also seeking a court-ordered injunction against the infringing devices.

After the jury reached its decision, VirnetX filed an additional lawsuit against Apple for the alleged infringement by more recent versions of Apple products against the same patents.  The iPhone 5, iPad 4, iPad Mini, and all other Apple computers and hardware that use the Mountain Lion Operating System, were named in the latest complaint.

VirnetX currently has a pending complaint against Apple with the United States International Trade Commission over several versions of Apple products which it claims infringe on U.S. Patent No. 8,051,181, which covers software technology that creates a secure system for Internet communication.

As a result of this week’s jury verdict against Apple, VirnetX stock soared twenty-eight percent to $33.61 per share, its biggest jump since 2009.  Stock shares with the company are reportedly up thirty-five percent this year amid investor speculation that the company will collect patent licensing fees from Apple and other technology giants.  In 2010, VirnetX won a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft over the same patents and currently has pending litigation against Cisco Systems, Inc.  That trial is scheduled for March 2013.

Regarding the victory against Apple, VirnetX Chief Executive Officer Kendall Larsen stated, “This victory further establishes the importance of our patent portfolio.”

Tagged as: Apple, VirnetX Holding

← Previous Entries

Page 1 of 912345...Last »