By:

Mukeh Jha
Manoj lalgiri
Rakesh Nomulu
Abhishek Bolaj
Harshita Singh
Shagun Sharma
Divesh Manglani
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Intellectual Property refers to creation of mind i.e. inventions, industrial

designs for article, literary & artistic work, symbols etc. Intellectual
property can include:
Patents
Trade marks
Copyright
Trade secrets
Geographical indications, etc..
 PATENTS

A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state

(national government) to an inventor or their
assignee for a limited period of time, excluding
others from making, using, selling, importing the
patented product or process producing that product
for these purposes.
WHAT IS PATENT INFRINGEMENT?

It occurs when someone violates the patent rights an inventor has in

his invention by making, using or selling the invention without the
patent owners permission (or if the patent has been licensed), in a way
not permitted by the license.
KIMBLE V. MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

In 1990, plaintiff Stephen Kimble obtained U.S. Patent No. 5,072,856 on a

toy that allows children and other persons interested in role-playing as
"Spider-Man" to shoot a spider web really, pressurized foam string from the
palm of the hand.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-720/
KIMBLE V. MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

Defendant Marvel Entertainment, LLC makes and markets products featuring Spider-Man.
Kimble sought to sell or license his patent to Marvel's corporate predecessor and met with
its president to negotiate a contract. But the company instead began marketing the Web
Blaster a toy that, like Kimbles patented invention, enables users to mimic Spider-Man by
shooting foam string.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-720/
KIMBLE V. MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT, LLC

Kimble sued Marvel in 1997.

Marvel agreed to purchase Kimbles patent in exchange for a Lump sum amount
($500,000) and a 3% running royalty on Marvels future sales of the Web Blaster. The
parties set no end date for royalties, and would continue for as long as customers wanted
to buy the product.
Marvel subsequently learned and realized that under the Brulotte doctrine it was not
obliged to pay royalties after the patent expired.
Kimble sued Marvel in 2010 for breach of contract and Marvel counterclaimed for a
declaration that it was no longer obligated to pay Kimble after the patent expired. Marvel
prevailed in the litigation. The case ended in the favour of Marvel on 22 June 2015.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/13-720/
ERICSSON VS. XIAOMI

In December 2014, Ericsson had filed a suit against Xiaomi in India for the alleged infringement of the
8 standard-essential patents. The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction on the sale,
manufacture, advertisement, and import of Xiaomis devices.
Xiaomi claimed that its latest devices in the Indian market (as of December 2014), the Mi3, Redmi1S and
Redmi Note 4G, contained Qualcomm chipsets, which implemented technologies licensed by Ericsson.
Xiaomi subsequently challenged the injunction before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which
issued temporary orders to allow Xiaomi to resume the sale, import, manufacture, and advertisement of
its mobile devices subject to the following conditions:
Xiaomi would only sell devices having Qualcomm chips.
Xiaomi would deposit Rs. 100 towards royalty for every device it imported to India from the date of the
launch of the device in India toJanuary 5, 2015. This amount was to be kept in a fixed deposit for three
months during the proceeding of the case.