Orange County Patent Attorney - Orange County Patent Lawyer

Orange County - Nvidia and Intellectual Ventures recently acquired about 500 patents related to wireless communications. The companies split the cost of the patents which were purchased from IPWireless. IPWireless' parent company IPW Holdings was recently purchased by General Dynamics. In its agreement with Nvidia and Intellectual Ventures, IPWireless will still have "royalty-free" access to the purchased patents which include 3G/4G Long Term Evolution also known as 'LTE' technologies.

Nvidia has continued to grow in the 'technology chip' market and is broadening its portfolio from PC graphics processors to wireless networking chips. Nvidia's executive vice president and general counsel David Shannon stated "This acquisition complements our ownership of extensive fundamental patents in graphics, visual and mobile computing," and "these patents, acquired in collaboration with Intellectual Ventures, will help support our rapidly expanding efforts in the mobile business."

Nvidia is following in the footsteps of many technology giants today such as Apple, Facebook, and Google who are working to expand their intellectual property portfolios by purchasing patents in bulk from other companies. Nvidia's David Shannon summed up the importance of a strong portfolio by saying, "The acquisition of IP is a strategy every company is using right now. There are a lot of wars going on in this space, and it's always good to have more assets to defend across those kinds of wars."

These 500 patents are not the only major purchase by Nvidia. Last year Nvidia purchased Icera, a radio chips company based out of the UK, for $367 million. It has been said that Nvidia is closely following the actions of Qualcomm which is the current market leader for processing smartphone chips.

Shannon of Nvidia stated that he was approached by IPWireless who was shopping around for potential buyers of its patents and that's when he contacted Nathan Myhrvold, Founder and CEO of Intellectual Ventures, whose goal is to "invent and invest in inventions". After retiring from Microsoft Corporation, Myhrvold founded Intellectual Ventures which owns "tens of thousands" of patents.

A representative of Intellectual Ventures, Loria Yeadon stated, "This investment provides efficient access to important inventions and standards-essential patents and reinforces our leadership role in building an active market for invention."

Orange County - Apple and Samsung have a scheduled trial date of July 30, 2012 in a patent and trademark lawsuit involving smartphone and tablet products. However, a Judge has threatened to postpone the trial if the two giants do not minimize their claims against each other.

In an order given the first week of May, Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California stated "I think that's cruel and unusual punishment to a jury, so I'm not willing to do it. If you're going to trial in July, this is not going to be acceptable."

In April 2011, Apple initially filed a complaint claiming that Samsung had violated many of the patents and trademarks associated with the iPad tablet and iPhone smartphone. The South Korean company Samsung fired back with a counterclaim that stated Apple was likewise infringing on several of its patent and trademarks. Samsung also took it a step further and filed lawsuits against Apple in South Korea, Japan, and Germany. Not to be outdone, Apple fired back at Samsung in February 2012 alleging that Samsung was infringing on a whole new set of patents and trademarks since the original complaint was filed in April 2011.

This is Judge Koh's second attempt to get both companies to review and minimize the claims at issue. Although both companies have stated that they are willing to cooperate, the case stands with claims of infringement on 16 patents and 11 trademarks, with a total of 37 products accused of violations.

Apple's patent attorney stated "We will do whatever we need to do to hold the trial date." Meanwhile, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, stated "I would highly prefer to settle versus battle ... we just want people to invent their own stuff."

Orange County - Earlier this month, Watson Pharmaceuticals received a favorable ruling in a patent infringement lawsuit filed against it by Orange County-based Allergan. The 2009 lawsuit stems from Allergan's claims that while creating a generic version of an overactive bladder medication, Watson and its business partners infringed patents related to Allergan's Sanctura XR drug.

A United States District Court in Delaware ruled that several of the patents involved in the Sanctura drug are invalid, a decision which will greatly benefit Watson in moving forward with its plans to release the generic version of the drug. The abbreviated new drug application for the generic is still pending approval from the Food and Drug Administration.

In 2009, Allergan and its business partners, Endo Pharmaceutical Solutions and Supernus Pharmaceuticals, filed their complaint in Delaware that Watson and its business partners, Florida, Sandoz and Paddock Laboratories, had infringed on Allergan patents involving trospium chloride extended release capsules to treat the symptoms of overactive bladders in humans.

No comment was available from Allergan on the court's ruling of invalidity.

As health-care providers and consumers alike are trying to reduce costs on health-related products and services, many pharmaceutical companies are taking the opportunity to offer effective, yet much less expensive generic pharmaceuticals on the market. Recently, Watson has seen success from its introduction of authorized generic versions of Johnson & Johnson's Concerta medication to treat attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, as well as Pfizer's Lipitor, a medication for lowering cholesterol.

In an unrelated patent infringement complaint filed last month, Allergan filed claims against Watson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, seeking to prevent Watson from releasing its generic version of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.01%, which it claims infringes its patents for Lumigan, Allergan's drug to treat eye diseases such as glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Along with Duke University, Allergan filed yet another patent infringement lawsuit against Watson on March 30, seeking to prevent Watson from commercializing its generic version of bimatoprost ophthalmic solution 0.03%, which Allergan claims infringes its patents for Latisse, its drug used to grow longer, thicker, darker eyelashes.

Both the proprietary and generic drug industries are big business for pharmaceutical companies. In 2011, Allergan's proprietary versions of Lumigan and Latisse had U.S. sales of about $409 million and $80 million respectively and Watson reported a surge in its fourth-quarter profits after its introduction of the generic for Lipitor.

Orange County - Nest Labs has responded to a patent infringement complaint from Honeywell by calling its competitor "worse than a patent troll." Nest also vehemently denied infringing on Honeywell's thermostat patents, claiming that most of those patent are "hopelessly invalid."

Praised for its energy efficient Learning Thermostat, Nest was sued by Honeywell earlier this year for allegedly infringing seven Honeywell patents related to the operation and programming of patents. Nest CEO Tony Fadell responded to the infringement accusations by stating, "Honeywell is worse than a patent troll. They're trying to strangle us, and we're not going to allow that to happen." Fadell added that Honeywell makes a habit of trying to scare new competition out of the market. In the past, Fadell worked for Apple as the head of the team that created the first eighteen generations of the iPod and the first three generations of the iPhone.

No stranger to patent infringement issues, Fadell turned to a former Apple chief patent attorney for legal help. The patent attorney, who is joining Nest as Vice President and general counsel after serving as a legal advisor to the company for the past several months, says that he thinks Honeywell's patents are "not very impressive" and "not very relevant" to the technology Nest is using for its Learning Thermostat. Reportedly, Honeywell never contacted Nest prior to filing the lawsuit, and has rejected any attempts by Nest to discuss the pending litigation.

In its counter complaint to Honeywell, Nest contends that the Honeywell patents in question should be invalidated by prior art, and in some cases by Honeywell's own previous patents the company allegedly concealed from the USPTO. Furthermore, Nest claims that some of the Honeywell patents at issue require mechanical components that the Learning Thermostat doesn't even use. Accordingly, Nest maintains, all of those factors lead to "the inescapable conclusion that Nest Labs does not infringe a single valid claim from any of the asserted patents."

Nest was founded in 2010 by Fadell. Nest's Learning Thermostat is a self-programmable thermostat that programs itself based on memory and user lifestyle needs. The company's thermostat technology has been designed with the well-being of the environment in mind and at the same time can drastically cut energy costs.

Orange County - Software giant Microsoft has ended its partnership with German company Arvato over concerns about a possible patent infringement ruling in a case filed by Motorola Mobility. Arvato has been providing logistics services to Microsoft and is a subsidiary of German-based Bertelsmann.

Microsoft will reportedly move its logistics services to the Netherlands, resulting in dozens of lost jobs for Arvato employees.

The preemptive move apparently stems from an ongoing patent infringement allegations between Microsoft and Motorola Mobility. Later this month, a German court is scheduled to rule on a patent infringement complaint filed by Motorola against Microsoft over its H.264 video standard. In the complaint, Motorola alleges that Microsoft's Xbox 360, Windows 7, and Internet Explorer all violate patents related to the video standard. Motorola is seeking a injunctive relief order to ban Microsoft from selling the infringing products in Germany.

In response to the patent infringement claims, Microsoft is arguing that by suing over the H.264 patent, Motorola is not complying with reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms, or fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND). The FRAND terms are set by standard-setting organizations in the industry that set common standards in order to ensure compatibility and interoperability between the manufacturers in that industry.

Last month, Microsoft's deputy general counsel stated that Motorola hasn't held up its end of the bargain. According to Microsoft, on a typical $1,000 laptop, Microsoft must pay Motorola $22.50 in royalties for use of fifty patents related to H.264. Microsoft added that in order for the H.264 to be fully functional in its products, the company must license an additional 2,300 patents from other companies for which its pays two cents for each laptop to use those patents.

Motorola claims that it attempts to obtain licensing deals with any company that it becomes legally engaged with, even third parties. However, Motorola added that it has recently been left with no other option other than protecting its intellectual property through litigation.

The decision to move its logistics operations comes on the heels of Microsoft posting a $300 million bond in a United States court to delay any ban on imports that may come down from the German court. The bond should cove any revenue Motorola could lose during the time between the Germany ruling and any decision that comes from the U.S. court.

Orange County - The rule of thumb with tattoos has always been, choose it wisely because it stays with you forever. Now, mobile phone-maker Nokia wants to make sure its users stay with them forever by putting a permanent mark on the cellular phone industry. The company has reportedly filed a patent application for a tattoo that would vibrate when the user receives a call, text message, or email alert.

Nokia's tattoo patent would send a "perceivable impulse" to your skin whenever someone tried to contact you on your mobile phone. According to the application, filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the tattoo would act as a receiver to the magnetic waves that the phone would emit when a call, text, or email was coming through. As the magnetic waves are hitting the tattoo, a physical response is felt in the user's skin, alerting them that someone is trying to get in touch with them. Literally.

Users could sync their magnetic tattoos with their mobile phones much like they would sync a mobile phone with a Bluetooth device.

Other details from the patent suggest the possibility of customizing the palpable response depending on who the party that is contacting the user is, much like having a unique ring tone for each contact in your phone. For instance, if your boss is calling, you may customize the response to be a sharp tingling feeling, whereas if it is your spouse, you can customize it to be more of a pleasant sensation.

In order for the tattoo to receive the magnetic waves from the phone, the tattoo artist must apply it using ferromagnetic ink, an ink that includes compounds such as iron or iron oxide. Before the tattoo is applied, the ink is temporarily demagnetized by heating it to a high temperature. After the tattoo is completed, the user re-magnetizes it by waving a magnet over it.

In its filing, Nokia included a much less invasive version of the magnetic tattoo technology. Under that version, the user could wear a magnetic receiver that could be worn on the skin like a sticker, but would also vibrate when the user is being contacted.

Orange County - The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Broadcom Corporation's request for permanent injunction against certain Emulex products which were found to infringe on Broadcom's U.S. Patent Nos. 7,058,150 and 7,471,691. Broadcom, a worldwide leader in semiconductor solutions for wired and wireless communications and a FORTUNE 500 company in Irvine, CA, originally claimed that Emulex, a leader in converged network solutions from Costa Mesa, CA, infringed on twelve U.S. patents, however, the court found that Emulex had only infringed on two patents.

The basis for Broadcom's infringement claim for the '150 patent was Emulex's use of a "phase interpolator to optimize clock and data recovery in a high speed chip" and its infringement claim for the '691 patent was for "techniques used in fibre channel arbitrated loop networking." According to Broadcom, with this injunction Emulex will be prohibited to import, manufacture, use or sell the infringing products after 18-month "sunset" periods. For patent '150 the sunset period will run through April 12, 2013 and for the '691 patent the sunset period will run through June 16, 2013. With the injunction in place Emulex can continue to distribute and sell enjoined products such as its Ethernet controllers BladEngine2 and BladeEngine3 so long as the order for the product was placed before the sunset period. Also, during the sunset period Emulex must pay a royalty of 9 percent to Broadcom on any sales of the enjoined products.

In a statement from Arthur Chong, Broadcom's Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, he stated, "We are pleased with the Court's decision. The Court's decision recognizes the important principle that Broadcom should not have to compete against its own patents. Broadcom will continue to vigorously protect its intellectual property rights, including seeking permanent injunctions against its competitors' sale of infringing products where appropriate."

The CEO of Emulex, Jim McCluney stated, "Emulex is dedicated to protecting the interest of its customers. We have been working with our suppliers to implement design changes to the SerDes modules included in the impacted products." Emulex has stated it will claim approximately $600,000 for liability damages to Broadcom in addition to the $387,922 that Broadcom has already reported. Emulex has begun the redesigning process of the infringing products.

Orange County - Pacific Bioscience Laboratories (PBL), manufacturer and marketer of the Clarisonic Skin Care System products, has announced that it has reached a settlement with Orange County based Pretika Corporation in a lawsuit that included patent infringement claims and patent invalidity counterclaims regarding sonic skin care products.

In the pending settlement agreement, Pretika agreed to redesign certain models of its Sonic Dermabrasion Facial Brush sold in the United States. Pretika has also acknowledged the validity of PBL's U.S. Patent No. 7,320,691 entitled "Apparatus and Method for Acoustical/Mechanical Treatment of Early Stage Acne." The United States Patent and Trademark Office closed its reexamination of the '691 patent in July, confirming the original fifty-two claims and declaring an additional twelve claims sought by PBL as patentable.

In the patent infringement lawsuit, filed in early 2010, PBL alleged that Pretika committed infringing activities including the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation into the United States of infringing devices, which are covered under PBL's '691 patent. The complaint also contended that Pretika's infringement of the '691 patent has caused PBL substantial and irreparable injury, for which it sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages not less than the amount of reasonable royalty, interest, costs, enhanced damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

Pretika responded to the patent infringement claims by filing for a request for reexamination of the '691 patent at issue in May, 2010.

"We've worked hard to develop new breakthrough technology," stated David Giuliani, Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Biosciences Laboratories. "As a company established by a team of scientists and engineers, we understand the paramount importance of establishing and protecting our intellectual property," he added.

PBL has been credited for developing patents using its pioneering innovation to offer sophisticated, sonic technology to its Clarisonic Skin Care System, an invention of the innovator of Sonicare. According to PBL, the patents are crucial to the success of Clarisonic and reflect eight years of research and development, as they provide the user a premium experience in cleansing, stimulating, and clarifying the skin.

There was no comment available from Pretika Corporation regarding the settlement agreement.

Orange County - Global wireless control technology leader Universal Electronics has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Universal Remote Control in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The Orange County-based Universal Electronics is reportedly seeking an injunction against the alleged infringement in addition to monetary damages.

In its complaint, Universal Electronics is alleging that Universal Remote Control is infringing its United States Patent No. 5,414,426, entitled "Favorite Key Macro Command and Chained Macro Command in Remote Control, US Patent No. 5,568,367 entitled "Remote Control with Key Lighting," US Patent No. 5,614,906 entitled "Method for Selecting a Remote Control Command Set," and US Patent No. 6,587,067 B2 entitled "Universal Remote Control with Macro Command Capabilities."

"Universal Electronics has built a reputation as a trusted advisor in control technology applications," stated Paul Arling, the company's chairman and chief executive officer. "We spend significant resources in research and development, and are proud of our innovation and industry leadership in control technology. We have tried to resolve this issue amicably with Universal Remote Control, but unfortunately, our efforts were not successful," added Arling.

Last July, Universal Electronics sued Logitech, Inc., Logitech International S.A. and Logitech Europe S.A. for patent infringement, claiming that they had stolen the remote control-related technology for seventeen patents. That lawsuit further contends that while negotiations for a renewed licensing agreement didn't pan out, Logitech continued to sell the Universal Electronics products that were covered under the previous agreement without permission or reimbursement.

Headquartered in Cypress, CA, Universal Electronics designs, manufactures and markets technological solutions that enable consumers to control entertainment devices, digital media, and home systems. Founded in 1986, the company sells and licenses wireless control products through distributors and retailers under the One For All brand name. Universal Electronics' portfolio of over 130 patented technologies and database of infrared control software has been used by many Fortune 500 companies in the consumer electronics, subscription broadcast, and computing industries. Currently, the company has hundreds of pending patent applications for its technologies in the United States and other countries.

Due to its policy on pending legal issues, Universal Remote Control, Inc. was unable to comment on the allegations.

Orange County - Yahoo has recently accused Facebook of infringing on technology related patents including technologies related to advertising, social networking, and messaging. As the New York Times first reported, Yahoo has threatened to sue Facebook for patent infringement unless it agrees to pay licensing fees. Facebook is being accused of infringing on at least 10 to 20 patents although it has not been revealed exactly what patents are being infringed.

Yahoo, which launched in 1994, has patented or acquired more than 1,000 patents and is no stranger to patent infringement. In 2003, Yahoo sued Google for infringing on 60 patents stemming from having purchased Overture, a search based advertising company. After an attempted court battle in 2004, a settlement was reached in which Yahoo received an award of 2.7 million Google shares as well as Google's agreement to license several of the patents that it had infringed.

In an email to the E-Commerce Times, Yahoo spokesperson Micheline Tang recently stated, "Yahoo has a responsibility to its shareholders, employees and other stakeholders to protect its intellectual property," Tang continued, " We must insist that Facebook either enter into a licensing agreement or we will be compelled to move forward unilaterally to protect our rights." Meanwhile, a representative from Facebook stated, "Yahoo contacted us at the same time they called The New York Times and so we haven't had the opportunity to fully evaluate their claims."

Facebook has most recently been in the media for its upcoming $5 billion announcement regarding an IPO. In the light of this announcement, it has been speculated that Yahoo chose to threaten Facebook at this time as an incentive for Facebook to act quickly on its threat and avoid the negative media attention.

Although Facebook has been around for 8 years, Facebook has only about 56 U.S. patents in its portfolio.

Orange County - Orange County Inventors were awarded a total of 2,709 patents in 2011, 14 percent more than in the previous year. 2010 saw the biggest leap in patents granted to Orange County inventors, with an impressive increase of 33 percent over 2009.

Although the 2011 growth in patents slowed from 2010, Orange County's growth was still significantly higher than the nationwide growth, which saw an increase of only 1.4 percent from 2010. The total number of patents granted nationwide in 2011 was 246,698.

The increase may partially be due to the United States Patent and Trademark Office's efforts in reducing the patent application backlog by decreasing the amount of time the applications were pending.

In March, the USPTO will begin using the first-to-file system for approving patent applications, rather than the traditional first-to-invent process. In a first-to-file system, also called the "first inventor to file system, patent rights will be granted to the first person or inventor to file a patent application for that invention, regardless of the date of actual invention. The controversial new system of granting patents has many small businesses and independent inventors worried that their inventions will be overridden by large companies that have deep pockets to get patent applications in first.

The first-to-file patent application process was put into place in order to bring United States patent law in line with other countries' patent laws. The first-to-file system is included in the America Invents Act, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2011.

The list of top Orange County patent recipients and their 2011 vs. 2010 performance include:

1. Broadcom, Irvine - 1,074 patents; +24%
2. Allergan, Irvine - 133 patents; +27%
3. Western Digital, Lake Forest - 86 patents; +28%
4. AMO, Santa Ana - 75 patents; +83%
5. Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine - 40 patents; +33%
6. Newport Media, Lake Forest - 38 patents; +90%
7. Masimo, Irvine - 36 patents; +125%
8. Qlogic, Aliso Viejo - 34; -11%

The two newcomers to the 2011 list were Masimo and Newport Media, while BSH Home Appliance and Oakley dropped off the list.

For more information see this article by Jan Norman at the OC Register referencing this blog entry.

Orange County - Apotex Corp., Canada's largest pharmaceutical manufacturer, has paid Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and Sanofi SA nearly $445 million in damages to end a decade-long patent infringement lawsuit over Apotex' improper sales of its generic version of Plavix.

The Plavix patent battle began in 2002 with litigation over an illegal deal to delay the sales of generic Plavix, a criminal antitrust investigation by the United States Justice Department, the firing of a former Bristol-Myers CEO, and an investigation over alleged inflated sales numbers by the company.

In early 2006, Bristol-Myers and France's Sanofi, which at the time was Sanofi-Aventis, reached a confidential settlement with Apotex to pay the Canadian company at least $40 million to delay selling generic Plavix until at least 2011, when the drug's primary patent was to expire.

Eventually, federal authorities gained knowledge of the illegal agreement and launched a criminal antitrust probe in August 2006. As a result of the investigation, FBI agents raided the headquarters for Bristol-Myers and confiscated incriminating documents and some senior executives at Sanofi-Aventis were served grand jury subpoenas to produce additional documents.

As the investigation ensued and the deal among the companies fell apart, Apotex took the opportunity to do an "at-risk launch" of clopidogrel, a copycat version of Plavix. Drug distributors quickly began stocking large quantities of the pills, which were at a cost of 20 percent less than the patented Plavix.

Shortly after, Bristol-Myers and Sanofi-Aventis won their motion for an injunction to block any further sales of the generic version, however the federal judge granting the injunction refused to require that Apotex take back the existing pills in its distributors' inventory, which cost Bristol and Sanofi significant revenue.

The Plavix patent battle continued, with a federal judge blocking Apotex' claim that the Plavix patent was invalid. Apotex challenged the validity, but it was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in December 2008. Eventually, Bristol-Myers won a six-month extension on the patent's U.S. term by performing tests of Plavix in children. The case dragged on until October 2011, when Apotex was ordered to pay both companies for lost revenue and other damages.

Bristol and Sanofi are not the only companies to face the threat of generic substitutes competing for valuable market share. The patent for Lipitor, Pfizer's flagship cash cow drug, expired in November 2011, leaving the market wide open for generics that will come in a half the cost.

Orange County - The L'Oreal Group, one of the world's largest cosmetic and beauty companies, is suing the owners of Coppertone and Neutrogena for alleged patent infringement. The complaint, filed in a Wilmington, Delaware federal court, claims that the two defendants used L'Oreal's patented ingredients in their Coppertone, Neutrogena, Aveeno, and RoC brands of sunscreen.

The "acts of infringement have caused and will continue to cause damage to L'Oreal," the Paris-based company said in the complaint. Patent Attorneys for L'Oreal state that the company has patented mixtures of ingredients, known as the '150 and '354 patents, used to help stabilize its sunscreens with respect to UV radiation by adding a diphenylacrylate compound to its composition. Those particular compound mixtures appears in so-called avobenzone sunscreens and use the ingredient octocrylene, according to court documents.

L'Oreals patent infringement lawsuit is based on evidence that was presented in a prior lawsuit where Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc., which merged with Coppertone-owner Merck, accused Neutrogena, owned by Johnson and Johnson, of infringing on compositions containing the ingredients avobenzone and octocrylene. Thus, it became clear that those companies were aware of the L'Oreal patents that are the subject of this lawsuit and that they were using the compositions described in those patents.

L'Oreal is seeking a ruling from a jury trial that its patents have been infringed by Coppertone and Neutrogena and an injunction against the defendants continued infringement of the patents. The French-based company is also seeking unspecified monetary damages, including costs and attorneys fees.

In 2011, L'Oreal earned 2.51 billion euros on revenue of 20.3 billion euros. The company's stock rose 32 cents to 81.44 euros Monday in trading on the Paris stock exchange. L'Oreal was founded in 1909 by a young French chemist and today focuses its concentration on hair color, skin care, sun protection, make-up, perfume, and hair care products. Active in both the dermatological and pharmaceutical fields, L'Oreal is the top nanotechnology patent holder in the United States.

Representatives for the Coppertone and Neutrogena's owners, Merck and Johnson and Johnson were not available for immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Orange County - Last week, Eastman Kodak Company filed a patent infringement lawsuit against longtime competitor, Fujifilm Corp. In its complaint, Kodak is alleging that Fujifilm has infringed on Kodak-patented technology in a variety of its FinePix digital cameras.

Kodak's lawsuit, filed Friday in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, comes on the heels of separate patent infringement complaints against Apple and HTC Corp.. Those companies are being accused of using Kodak patented technology in iPads, iPhones, iPods, and HTC smartphones and tablet computers.

Kodak, which pioneered the world of photo processing, has licensed its portfolio of patents related to digital imaging technology to more than thirty companies, including LG, Motorola, Samsung, and Nokia for use in mobile media devices. Licensing its patents to these companies has been Kodak's last ditch effort to raise the funds necessary to keep the flailing company afloat. The company recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The patent infringement allegations against Fujifilm involve five patents relating to camera functions, such as the multi-format storage of images and quick reviews of the last captured images. Kodak is seeking a court-ordered injunction to halt the sale and manufacture of any Fujifilm products that are found to be infringing its technology. In addition, Kodak is also asking for unspecified monetary damages.

Christopher Veronda, a spokesperson for the company based in Rochester, New York, said that Kodak's "newly aggressive" approach to protecting its patents - several lawsuits in a matter of days - is indicative of the company's new strategy of treating its intellectual property as a business. That new approach will likely be a key part of Kodak's plea for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

In the consumer technology world, patent infringement battles have become commonplace with large companies embroiled in lawsuits for years. This recent batch of litigation is not the first for Kodak. It is reportedly pursuing other patent infringement claims against Apple, Research In Motion (RIM), and online photo business Shutterfly Inc.. Kodak's legal disputes with Apple, HTC, and RIM are being brought before judges for the United States International Trade Commission.

It will be interesting to see if Kodak's patent infringement claims have the legs to stand up in court. Could these allegations just be the company's futile attempts to raise revenue and reposition itself as a player in the digital market? Only time will tell.

Orange County - Microsoft and LG have recently signed a patent licensing deal that will cover smartphones, LG tablet computers, and other devices running the Android and Chrome operating systems, Microsoft announced at a press conference Thursday.

In the past, Microsoft has signed patent deals with technology companies, including HTC, Samsung, Suanta, Copal Electronics, and Wistron. The licensing agreement with Copal, which was reached in October, reportedly covers patents on the majority of Android and Chrome devices on the market.

"We are pleased to have built upon our longstanding relationship with LG to reach a mutually beneficial agreement," stated Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice president and deputy general counsel for Microsoft's Intellectual Property division. Gutierrez went on to say, "This agreement with LG means more than seventy percent of all Android smartphones sold in the United States are now receiving coverage under Microsoft's patent portfolio."

This most recent patent deal with LG brings the total number of licensing agreements that Microsoft has with manufacturers of Chrome-OS and Android-based devices to eleven. The specific terms of the deal between Microsoft and LG were not available, but the most likely scenario will be that LG will pay royalties to Microsoft for the use of its patented technology that Microsoft believes Android and Chrome OS devices could infringe on.

Gutierrez also expanded on his remarks via Twitter, saying that royalty-based licensing deals are the best way for the smartphone industry to avoid expensive patent litigation disputes.

Last fall, an analyst from Goldman Sachs estimated that Microsoft had the potential to receive $444 million in 2011 licensing revenue from Android manufacturers alone. The analyst also added that Motorola Mobility was appearing to be the last remaining Android OEM to sign a deal with Microsoft, clearly unaware of the upcoming deal with LG.

However, the deal with Microsoft and Motorola Mobility never happened. The two technology giants are now embroiled in a patent infringement lawsuit over the use of Microsoft-owned patents in Motorola's Android handsets. Last month, the United States International Trade Commission ruled that Motorola had infringed on a Microsoft patent in the manufacture of its handsets. A final decision in that dispute is expected to be reached in April.