What is Intellectual Property
The term intellectual property encompasses various types of creations of mind, like inventions. An intellectual property could be anything like a music composition, a movie, book, painting or even a brand name. According to the concept of intellectual property, such creations of mind are intangible or non-monetary assets with commercial value. The owners of such non-monetary assets (creations of mind) are assigned some exclusive rights over their creation, so that they benefit financially. However, it is not possible to recover or replace an intellectual property that is stolen. If stolen, the interests of the owner, over his/her creation will get affected. So, there must be laws to protect the moral as well as material interests of the owner over his/her intellectual property. IP law deals with the rights assigned to owners of intellectual property.

Intellectual Property Rights
As mentioned earlier, the creators or owners are granted certain exclusive rights over their creations or works. Such exclusive rights are called intellectual property rights. These rights help them benefit from their creations and also enable them to protect their work. In that way, intellectual property is like any other real property which is financially beneficial for the owner. The monetary benefits are said to encourage people to come up with new inventions and creations. Intellectual property rights also enable the owners or creators to protect their work. These rights can be related to Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to this statute, "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author". So, owners of intellectual property can benefit through protection of the moral and material interests of their creations.

Types of Intellectual Property Rights
An intellectual property can be either artistic or commercial. The artistic works come under the category of copyright laws, while the commercial ones (also known as industrial properties), include patents, trademarks, industrial design rights, and trade secrets. Copyright laws deal with the intellectual property of creative works like books, music, software and painting. Industrial properties cover those created and used for industrial or commercial purposes. As stated earlier, intellectual property is categorized into various types as per the nature of work. The most common types are copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets. So, these rights safeguard the interests of the owners of IP. If you are an author, who has written a new book, you can apply for a copyright for your work. Likewise, patents can be obtained for inventions. Once you establish your IP right, you can protect your work legally.


Copyrights: A copyright is a right conferred on the owner of a literary or artistic work. It is an exclusive right to control the publication, distribution and adaptation of creative works. The right lies with the owner-cum-copyright holder for a certain period. As the time lapses, the work can be republished or reproduced by others. Usually, in most countries the timespan of a copyright extends through the entire life of the owner and lasts up to a period of about 50 to100 (70 years in the U.S.) years after his/her death. In case of anonymous works, the right lasts for 95 years from the date of first publication or 120 years from the date of creation. Trademarks: A trademark is a symbol generally used to identify a particular product, which indicates its source. A trademark can be a combination of words, phrases, symbols, logos, designs, images, or devices, used by an individual, legal entity or business organization to distinguish their products from others. For example, you can identify the products of Nike Inc., from the logo, which is embossed on their products. Once registered, trademarks are protected legally and the owners can sue persons for unauthorized use of their trademarks. Patents: Patents are rights related to new inventions. Such rights are conferred on persons who invent any new machine, process, article of manufacture or composition of matter and biological discoveries. In order to be patented, the invention should fit into specific criteria, which may differ from country to country. In general, the invention must be new and should be useful or can be applied in industries. The person who receives a patent for his invention has an exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling or distributing the patented invention without permission. Generally, the time limit of a patent is 20 years from the date of filing the application (for the patent). Industrial Design Rights: These rights protect the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian, but have an aesthetic or ornamental value. It may refer to the creation of a shape, color, pattern or a combination of all these things. It can be an industrial commodity or a handicraft. The design can be either two-dimensional (based on pattern, colors and lines) or three-dimensional (as per shape and surface). An industrial design right is conferred after considering factors like novelty, originality and visual appeal. The person who has an industrial design right has the exclusive right to make or sell any objects in which the design is applicable. The right is conferred for a period of 10 to 25 years. Trade Secrets: Trade secrets are the designs, practices, formulas, instruments, processes, recipes, patterns, or ideas which are used by a company to gain an economic advantage over its competitors. The owner of a trade secret does not possess any right over anyone who gains access to that secret independently, but he can prevent the use of the trade secret by anyone who has learned it through the owner. For example, an employer can protect trade secrets through contracts with his employees. Trade secrets differ from other types of intellectual property rights, because it is the responsibility of the owner to keep the secret and it is not protected through government policies. Once the trade secret is leaked, it can be used by any person.



CASE NAME: THE "DONALD DUCK AS PRIOR ART" CASE APPEARING PARTIES: KARL KROYER & DUTCH PATENT OFFICE CASE DESCRIPTION: There is a famous story about a Donald Duck story being used as prior art against a patent on a method of raising a sunken ship. A 1949 Donald Duck story used the same technique. . The Danish inventor Karl Krøyer came up with a very creative solution to quickly raise a sunken ship full of sheep: pump buoyant bodies into the ship to achieve sufficient upward lift to bring the ship back to the surface. The solution was so creative he got a patent on it. In a 1949 Donald Duck story, titled The Sunken Yacht, a ship is raised by stuffing it full of ping-pong balls. That kind of prior art could kill the patent. But whether the story was actually used by a patent office to refuse the patent (application) remains unclear.

The invention has been used in practice on several occasions. The most famous one, shown in the photograph on the left, was in 1964 in Kuwait. On September 14, 1964, the freighter Al Kuwait capsized at the docks in Kuwait's harbor. The ship was carrying 5,000 sheep that started decomposing in the harbor‘s water. Since this threatened to contaminate the city of Kuwait's drinking water supply, the ship had to be raised as quickly as possible. Bringing in cranes would have taken too long, and with such methods there is a significant risk that the ship will break. The Danish inventor Karl Krøyer came up with a method of raising this sunken ship by filling it with buoyant bodies fed through a tube. On December 31, 1964, he filled the ship with 27

million plastic balls made of expandable polystyrene foam and weighing 65 tons. The balls had been airlifted from Berlin to Kuwait. The total cost to save the ship was $345,000, saving the insurance company most of the $2,000,000 insured value of the ship, according to a contemporary New York Times article (8 March 1965, page 58). Other sources describing the event are magazines "Popular Science", April 1965 (page 118-119); "Die BASF" vol. 15 no. 3, 1965 (page 148-156); and "Chemistry", September 1966.

Figure 1 of Krøyer's patent 1

According to the patent claim, buoyant bodies 1 are inserted into a sunken vessel 4 through a tube 3 from a salvage ship 2.

THE JUDGEMENT: Inventor Karl Krøyer received patents for this method in the United Kingdom and Germany. The story is usually told as relating to the Dutch patent Krøyer applied for. This application was not approved. According to the story, the Dutch Patent Office found an old issue of the Donald Duck magazine which showed the same invention. Since an invention has to be new to be patentable, the application was refused The Donald Duck story

In 1949 the Donald Duck story The Sunken Yacht (by Carl Barks) shows Donald and the nephews raising a ship by filling it with ping pong balls shoved through a tube, as can be seen below in the images cited from that story.

Images from 'The Sunken Yacht', © 1949 W 1

Since ping pong balls are buoyant bodies, and they were fed to the yacht through a tube, the Donald Duck episode discloses the same technique as that which is claimed in the patents. Consequently, the Duck story has to be considered novelty-destroying prior art: given the story, any Patent Office would have rejected Krøyer's patent application. It remains an open question whether the Dutch patent office in fact used this document as prior art to refuse the patent application. Regrettably the files of the cases have been destroyed by now, and the Dutch patent attorney who represented the inventor has passed away several years ago. According to some sources, Krøyer himself remembered the Donald Duck story from his youth. This is incorrect as Krøyer (born 21 August 1914) was 35 by the time the Duck story was published.



CASE NAME: violation of Mattel‘s trademark by Bratz dolls and 'breach of copyright' APPEARING PARTIES: MATTEL INC. & BRATZ DOLLS

CASE DESCRIPTION: The founder of Bratz dolls, Carter Bryant, was a designer at Mattel before starting his own company and the original Bratz dolls were developed while still being employed for Mattel. The fiercest rival Barbie has ever faced, the Bratz dolls were some serious competition for Mattel, causing a 15% decrease in domestic sales in 2007 alone. The dolls – with their huge lips, pug noses, almond-shaped eyes, edgy clothes, and more ―realistic‖ figures have been huge on the tween scene, making upwards of $700 million since debuting in 2001. A U.S. District Judge found that such violations has taken place; and on top of halting all production of the dolls, he also ordered that MGA to reimburse its vendors and distributors for the cost of the dolls and all shipping charges for sending them back. The lawsuit lasted 4 years. THE JUDGMENT: This case, aside from seeming like the ultimate girl fight, is an interesting way to understand the complexities of copyright and trademark laws. The strongest defense against a copyright claim is fair use, a concept which basically balances the rights of a creator against other interests of the ―infringer.‖ But because Bratz creator was working at the Mattel at the time of the dolls creation, this was a difficult defense to work on.


Mattel, maker of Barbie, has been awarded $100 million (£54.4 million) in a copyright case against the manufacturer of the popular Bratz dolls. Sales of Barbie have suffered since Bratz hit the shelves seven years ago The toy maker contended it owned the rights to the drawings and models of the Bratz dolls, which had become one of Barbie's top competitors, because former Barbie designer Carter Bryant had created them while still under contract with Mattel. Mr Bryant had entered into a contract with California-based MGA, licensing Bratz to them in September 2000, a month before he left Mattel. MGA launched Bratz dolls in June 2001 and they quickly became Barbie's top rival, achieving annual sales of more than $1 billion (£543.9 million) A 10-person California jury unanimously decided in July that Mr Bryant was in breach of his contract. However, the award fell far short of the more than $2 billion (£1.09 billion) in damages Mattel had demanded. Mattel shares dropped three per cent in after-hours trade after news of the damages award became public. Mattel CEO Bob Eckert said in a statement after the award: "Mattel has pursued this case first and foremost as a matter of principle. We have an obligation to our employees and to our shareholders to defend ourselves against competitors who engage in unfair business practices against us." Barbie has been losing market share since Bratz came on the market. Barbie's worldwide gross sales fell six percent between April and June 2008 as the company's net profit fell 48 percent to $11.8 million (£6.4 million). The doll's sales in the US were down 21 percent.


CASE NAME: The Da Vinci Code Case-COPYRIGHT ISSUE APPEARING PARTIES – Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh vs. The Random House Group Limited CASE DESCRIPTION: The case against the publishers of The Da Vinci Code was brought by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of a non-fiction work, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, which was first published in 1982. Messrs. Baigent and Leigh claimed that The Da Vinci Code was an infringement of their copyright in their book. At the center of the dispute was a ‗hypothesis‘ presented in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail concerning the early Christian legend of the holy Grail. (The theme of the quest for the lost Grail – i.e. the cup, or chalice, used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper – was a popular theme in medieval tales of chivalry and has inspired countless writers, film-makers and historians through the ages.) The core of the authors‘ hypothesis in The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was that references to the Grail in early manuscripts were disguised references not to the chalice, but rather to holy blood or Sang real, i.e. to the bloodline of Jesus Christ, and to the belief that this bloodline – through marriage between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene – had continued and merged with the French Merovingian dynasty. In their book, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh argue that the Holy Roman Church and its successors had sought to suppress this bloodline, but that a powerful secret sect, the Priory of Sion, was formed to protect this ―grail.‖ Baigent and Leigh used six known ‗indisputable‘ historical facts, or supposed facts, though their conclusion was the result of ‗historical conjecture‘ based on those facts. This quasi-historical approach was also the basis of various other published hypotheses as to the merging of Christ‘s bloodline with the Merovingian bloodline. Dan Brown is a popular fiction writer, and his book, The Da Vinci Code, has been the number one best-selling novel in Europe and U.S. for months. The Da Vinci Code is a murder mystery. It opens with the death – in Paris‘ Louvre museum – of the Grand Master of the Priory of Sion, Jacques Sauniere. Seeking to solve his murder, the heroes of the story are led on a Grail quest, in which they must unravel a series of puzzles based on the history of the Priory of Sion and on the secret behind Christ‘s bloodline. There was no doubt that Dan Brown had drawn on The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Indeed, there was a clear and explicit reference to the book in The Da


Vinci Code, and the name of one of the characters, Sir Leigh Teabing, was based on an anagram of the names of the two authors. THE JUDGEMENT: The court held that, while the evidence was clear that Dan Brown and his primary researcher (his wife) had drawn on The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail to a greater extent than Brown had acknowledged, this did not mean that they had infringed copyright in the book. Rather, they had used The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, and other books, to provide general background material for the writing of The Da Vinci Code


CASE NAME - Amazon's 1-Click Patent APPEARING PARTIES- v/s Inc CASE DESCRIPTION: Amazon was granted a 411 patent for 1-click technology on September 28, 1999. Also known as one-click buying, the technology allows customers to make an online purchase in a single click—without having to manually input billing and shipping information every time they purchase a product. Instead, 1-click uses a billing address and credit card or other payment info that is kept on file in the users accounts. Amazon developed the patent to cope with the frustrations presented by ―shopping cart model‖ purchase system for electronic commerce purchasing events. There have been several patent disputes surrounding 1-click technology, including a patent infringement lawsuit filed against Barnes & Noble in 1999—only a month after Amazon‘s patent was issued. Barnes & Noble offered a checkout option called ―Express Lane,‖ which also enabled shoppers to make a purchase with one click. Amazon moved preliminary injunction. Barnes and Nobles contentions that it did not infringe claims of Amazon‘s patents and granted preliminary injunction. Barnes and Noble filed an appeal to the Federal circuit Court. The lawsuit was settled in 2002.


CASE NAME: VOLKSWAGON- BUYING THE COMPANY BUT NOT THE IP RIGHTS APPEARING PARTIES: VOLKSWAGEN & ROLLS-ROYCE CASE DESCRIPTION: In an extraordinary oversight, VW had failed to seek the rights to the Rolls-Royce brand name as part of its pitch for the company. This was despite Rolls-Royce directors having made it clear that BMW was their preferred custodian of the Rolls-Royce brand name. RRMC and BMW had already established a joint venture to produce jet engines - with BMW providing the financing and Rolls-Royce the expertise - which was three years away from realizing profits. The situation led to a protracted, expensive and acrimonious legal battle before the European Commission, in which VW questioned RRMC's moral right to control the brand name. The lesson: do your due diligence The important lesson from this extraordinary case is that bidding for a company does not automatically give the potential purchaser the rights to produce that company's product. Had VW conducted an extensive due diligence audit, it would have discovered where the IP rights were held and understood the nuances of associated contracts that allowed production of the key asset: the Rolls-Royce car.


CASE NAME: INFRINGEMENT OF REGISTERED TRADEMARK APPPEARING PARTIES: APPLE VS. PROVIEW CASE DESCRIPTION: Proview International Holdings registered the 'IPAD' trademark in the EU, China, Mexico, South Korea, Singapore, Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam between 2000— 2004 before Apple conceived its smash hit tablet computer.

Proview Electronics (Taiwan), a branch of Proview International Holdings, agreed to sell on the "global trademark" in 2006. The rights were sold to a company called IP Application Development (i.e. 'IPAD'), for $55,104. In 2010, Proview began the process of suing Apple for trademark infringement over the 'iPad' brand. The reasoning behind the legal action was that trademarks for the Chinese market were not included in the rights sold by Proview's Taiwan arm. Those had been filed by Proview (Shenzhen) in 2001.

Apple applied to have ownership of the two relevant Chinese trademarks transferred to its name before it began selling the iPad in China. The Chinese trademark office rejected the application because the trademarks are owned by Proview Technology (Shenzhen), another affiliate of Proview International. Apple then sued Proview Technology (Shenzhen), asking the court to declare the US company the rightful owner of the IPAD trademarks in China. The Shenzhen Intermediate People‘s Court rejected that request. At the same time, Proview Technology (Shenzhen) sued Apple resellers in the southern Chinese cities of Shenzhen and Huizhou, Chinese authorities raided retailers and seized iPads in several cities, as Proview notified regulators around the country of trademark violations.

Proview also threatened to ask Chinese customs to stop the exportation of iPads, which are made in that country.


The companies had undergone a mediation process in the High Court in Guangdong, China, to resolve the million-dollar trademark, which Proview registered in 2001.
Apple has agreed to pay $US60 million to settle a trademark dispute with Chinese manufacturer Proview Technology over the 'iPad' name. With the trademark dispute out of the way, Apple finally launched its latest popular tablet in China, its second largest market outside the United States. Last quarter, Apple’s revenue from China was $US7.9 billion, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s total inflow.



CASE DESCRIPTION Parle Agro wanted to diversify into confectionery so it created a subsidiary "Parle Confi" and launched "Mintrox" and "Buttercup" in conjunction with the words "Parle‖

PARLE PRODUCTS CONTENTION ―Two groups from the same family, carrying on business in distinct and separate fields could not trample upon the field of business activity of another so as to use any trade name or market any product which would be similar to the registered trademarks of that other‖ PARLE AGRO CONTENTION In response, Parle Agro contended that Parle was a "house mark" and that the same could be used by members of the family of Parle to denote the lineage for any business – confectionery and biscuits or beverages They can carry on the business of confectioneries and biscuits by virtue of the object clause in its Memorandum of Association. Therefore they can use the word "Parle" for products manufactured by their confectionery division. COURT STAND Company or a business house which manufactures an array of products would require separate brands for each product Enhance recognition of the product and distinguish it from the others In the absence of Parle Products having a registered trademark "Parle Confi" the use of that mark by Parle Agro could not per se be forbidden


BOMBAY HIGH COURT JUDGEMENT Two concepts that came out from this case are   House Mark Product Identification Mark

THE JUDGEMENT The Court held that the Parle Agro shall not be restrained from using the word Parle/Parle Confi on their products as they have a distinct product identification mark for each product. However the Court has ordered Parle Agro that for selling its products, Mintrox and Buttercup under the Parle and Parle Confi names, it has to specify in clear font on the package of Mintrox and Buttercup that the product belongs to the Jayantilal Group and is not related to Parle Products Private Limited. IMPLICATIONS OF THE DECISION:   Bring more clarity in the concept of house mark in India. Impact on Family owned businesses splitting.


CASE NAME: A law suit filed by Novartis in the Chennai High Court, challenging the Indian Patent Office for denial of its patent application for Glivec. CASE DESCRIPTION:

Glivec (Gleevec in US) (Compound-imatinib mesylate) by Novartis is patented in 35 countries & helpful in Chronic Myeloid Leukemia The corresponding Indian Application for Glivec in India 1602/MAS/1998, titled, "Crystal modification of A N-phenyl-2-Pyrimidineamine derivative, processes for its manufacture and its use" was filed by Novartis on July 17th, 1998.

Various interest groups filed a pre-grant opposition to the Indian Application 1602/MAS/1998 under the provision of section 25(1) of the Indian Patent Act. Chennai Patent Office rejected Glivec patent application in January 2006, on the grounds that the application claimed 'only a new form of a known substance.'

Challenge to the Indian Patent Office: Novartis filed a legal petition in the Chennai High Court challenging the Indian Patent Office for: Denial of its patent application for Glivec Constitutional validity of section 3(d) of Indian Patent Law.

Novartis stated that the Section 3(d) was not compatible to the agreement on Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and that it was vague, illogical and arbitrary. It said the provision conferred "uncanalised" discretionary power on the patent controller, who would apply his own norms that might not be uniform, while deciding the efficacy of the substance submitted for patent. Justice R. Balasubramanian and Justice Prabha Sridevan of the Madras High Court ordered to transfer the case to Appellate Board (2nd April, 2007) Novartis disagreed with the appointment of the former Controller General of the Indian Patent Office to the IPAB. Novartis filed another petition in the High Court in Chennai for a new technical member of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). 16

The Madras High Court dismissed two petitions filed by Novartis AG and Novartis India Limited.

Novartis could not prove the enhancement in efficacy of the particular polymorphic form of the known moiety as compared to the known efficacy of the compound. Novartis' case suffered as they had produced a bioavailability study conducted on rats while the drug was admittedly in the market for many years and was consumed by humans. For a new form of a known substance to be patented, it must offer significant advantage over the known substance in terms of efficacy. A patent application in such cases, should clearly furnish the comparative data with regard to efficacies of the known substance and its new forms respectively.


CASE NAME: Copyright infringement by mp3 music CASE DESCRIPTION : A major battle over cloud-music services has been resolved, and on balance, it looks like a pretty solid win for the small music-locker service run by MP3tunes. However, the service and its founder Michael Robertson were found liable for infringing copyright on hundreds of songs, because it didn‘t go far enough in responding to takedown letters sent by the music label EMI. This a high-impact case with ramifications that go way beyond Robertson‘s relatively small music-locker service. Three tech giants-Apple (NSDQ: AAPL), Google (NSDQ: GOOG), and Amazon-have all launched cloud-music services lately, and Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN) and Google both did so without the recorded-music industry‘s consent. The fact that MP3tunes was found to have mostly been protected by a legal ―safe harbor‖ in this case bodes well for those other music services in any future legal battles. Where MP3tunes won. For the most part, the service was found to have been protected by the ―safe harbor‖ rules of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. Essentially, that law says that if an online service follows a few rules-like responding to takedown notices and terminating the accounts of repeat infringers-it can be immunized from copyright lawsuits over the actions of its users. MP3tunes kicked out repeat infringers (153 deleted accounts in all) and responding promptly to DMCA takedown notices. Today, the DMCA safe harbor looks stronger than ever. The mp3tunes ruling is the third federal court ruling finding that an online service that followed the ―rules of the road‖ couldn‘t be shut down with copyright lawsuits. Other recent DMCA ―safe harbor‖ wins were a 2009 ruling in favor of video-sharing service Veoh and, earlier this year, YouTube‘s win against Viacom (NYSE: VIA). Both the Veoh and YouTube rulings are now being argued to appeals courts (and we can expect the mp3tunes case to take the same route.) The big takeaway here is that it‘s content companies, not online services, that are going to have to be the ―copyright cops‖ of the digital age-and they‘ll have to absorb the costs of that policing. The judge overseeing the case ruled that EMI‘s vague demand that MP3tunes simply take down all EMI content wasn‘t good enough to get MP3tunes in trouble. The record label had to send legally proper takedown notices that included the exact web addresses (the URLs) of the allegedly infringing content. ―If enabling a party to download infringing material was sufficient to create liability, then even search engines like Google or Yahoo! (NSDQ: YHOO) would be without DMCA protection,‖


writes U.S. District Judge William Pauley. ―In that case, the DMCA‘s purpose-innovation and growth of internet services-would be undermined.‖ (The full order is embedded below.) Where MP3tunes lost: This case protected mp3tunes against vague allegations of piracy by the record labels. But there were also some very specific requests that came in the form of three letters sent in 2007, some months before this lawsuit was filed. In those letters, EMI asked MP3tunes to remove hundreds of songs it said were downloaded illegally through Sideload, the MP3 search engine that was part of MP3tunes. Even though MP3tunes quickly disabled the links to those songs, preventing more users from accessing them, it didn‘t go into users‘ lockers to actually delete the songs. Today‘s order says that mp3tunes should have taken that extra step and actually deleted the files from users‘ lockers. Because it didn‘t, MP3tunes is liable for infringing copyright, specifically for the songs mentioned in EMI‘s takedown notices. The ruling also dings founder Michael Robertson, who is named as a defendant, personally. Robertson was a user of mp3tunes and Sideload as well as founder of the company. Robertson was found liable for EMI songs that he personally downloaded with Sideload. However, that‘s not much; EMI claims that 171 of its recordings were ―sideloaded‖ by mp3tunes executives and employees in total, which means Robertson downloaded dozens of songs, at most. Robertson, by the way, has a history of high-stakes copyright litigation. His first venture,, was sued by Universal Music Group and ultimately shut down. How much will MP3tunes be on the hook for: We don‘t know how many songs were in the takedown notices, but it‘s in the hundreds. The first of three letters is known to have 350 EMI songs listed; but the record available doesn‘t state how many songs were in the second two letters. Because copyright infringement has enormous cash penalties, being found liable for infringing hundreds of songs is still potentially devastating; even unintentional infringement can be penalized by up to $30,000 per work. So the company could still be facing a potential multimillion dollar judgment, despite the fact that it won the overall case. Robertson sent out a statement calling the ruling ―definitely a victory for cloud music and MP3tunes‘ business model after a multi-year litigation battle.‖ He added: ―Those in the industry that are building or contemplating personal music service like Amazon, Google, Groove shark and Dropbox will surely have renewed confidence in offering similar unlicensed services.‖ As to the part of the case that mp3tunes lost, Robertson writes ―even in those areas we would suggest that the facts are inconsistent with the court‘s ruling and are exploring appeal options.


CASE NAME: PATENT INFRINGEMENT OF APPLE BY SAMSUNG CASE DESCRIPTION: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between AppleInc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smart phones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smart phones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the device patent wars extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. Apple sued its component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsung's Android phones and tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung, infringed on Apple‘s intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple's complaint included specific federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and unjust enrichment. Apple's evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone 3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. However, the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting misleading evidence to the court. Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung's patents for mobile-communications technologies. By summer, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British High Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., all in June 2011.[ After a year of scorched-earth litigation, a jury decided Friday that Samsung ripped off the innovative technology used by Apple to create its revolutionary iPhone and iPad. The jury ordered Samsung to pay Apple $1.05 billion. An appeal is expected.

Apple Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit in April 2011 and engaged legions of the country's highest-paid patent lawyers to demand $2.5 billion from its top smart phone competitor. Samsung Electronics Co. fired back with its own lawsuit seeking $399 million. But verdict, however, belonged to Apple, as the jury rejected all Samsung's claim against Apple. Jurors also decided against some of Apple's claims involving the two dozen Samsung devices at issue, declining to award the full $2.5 billion Apple demanded. However, the jury found that several Samsung products illegally used such Apple creations as the "bounce-back" feature when a user scrolls to an end image, and the ability to zoom text with a finger tap. As part of its lawsuit, Apple also demanded that Samsung pull its most popular cell phones and computer tablets from the U.S. market. A judge was expected to make that ruling at a later time. During closing arguments at the trial, Apple attorney Harold McElhinny claimed Samsung was having a "crisis of design" after the 2007 launch of the iPhone, and executives with the South Korean company were determined to illegally cash in on the success of the revolutionary device. Samsung's lawyers countered that it was simply and legally giving consumers what they want: Smart phones with big screens. They said Samsung didn't violate any of Apple's patents and further alleged innovations claimed by Apple were actually created by other companies. Samsung has emerged as one of Apple's biggest rivals and has overtaken Apple as the leading smart phone maker.


  


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful