PATENT INFRINGMENT

KARTHIK S RAO
KUSHI KIRAN
NADIA TARANNUM
 ● WE ALL CARE ABOUT OUR DIGNITY🡺 WE VALUE OUR
INTELLECT
● WE ALL ARE SELFISH AND CARE ABOUT PROTECTING
OUR KNOWLEDGE
● THE WORLD IS KIND AND WE HENCE HAVE

WHY DOES IT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY*

●PATENT* INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
MATTER TO (SHOCKER!)  GIVES OWNER LEGAL RIGHT
EXCLUDE OTHERS FROM MAKING, USING,
ME? SELLING AND IMPORTING AN INVENTION
GIVEN FOR LIMITED PERIOD OF YEARS (20
USUALLY) NEED TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE INVENTION
● AND OF COURSE REMEMBER THESE 3 THINGS ARE
USUAL NOVELTY, NON-OBVIOUSNESS AND
INDUSTRIAL APPLICATION
*INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IS LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY BUT IT SORT OF PROTECTS YOUR MIND BLOWING IDEAS (OF
COURSE…AFTER THEY BECOME INVENTIONS)
*PATENT LITERALLY MEANS “LAY OPEN”
MOVING ON TO INFRINGEMENT
● IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T GUESSED ALREADY, WELL INFRINGEMENT IS A ****SPOILER ALERT!**** CRIMINAL
OFFENCE
● SO JUST FOR CLARITY, IF I USE OR SELL A PATENTED INVENTION WITHOUT PERMISSION/LICENSE FROM
THE PATENT HOLDER*BLINK EYES* PRISON JUST BECAME MY HOME

● ONE MORE THING, WHEN I SAY USE, I MEAN COMMERCIAL USE

● SO THESE PROHIBITED ACTS ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT PATENT, IT WILL BE MENTIONED IN CLAIMS OF THE
GRANTED PATENT
● SECOND ‘ONE MORE THING’, INFRINGEMENT IS ONLY POSSIBLE IN THE COUNTRY WHERE PATENT IS IN
FORCE…..PATENT GIVEN IN INDIA OTHER INDIANS JEALOUS CAUSE THEY CAN’T STEAL U.S GUY MAKES
MILLIONS CAUSE HE LIVES 8,431 MILES AWAY

● LUCKY IF YOU ARE THE PATENT HOLDER THOUGH, YOU CAN SUE THAT GUY FOR MILLIONS….JUST REMEMBER
TO DO IT WITHING 6 YEARS FROM DATE OF INFRINGEMENT

● IF YOU ARE THE GUILTY GUY AS USUAL, THEN YOU COULD TRY ALLEGING THAT THE PATENT IS NOT
VALID…PROVE THAT PATENT IS NOT SATISFYING NOVELTY OR NON-OBVIOUSNESS THINGY

● LAST ‘ONE MORE THING’, THE ONLY PROBLEM FOR PATENT HOLDER IS THAT HE BEARS THE BURDEN OF
PROOF TO SHOW THE OTHER GUY STOLE HIS STUFF
TYPES OF INFRINGEMENTS
● DIRECT DIRECTLY MANUFACTURE ALREADY PATENTED
PRODUCT…EASIEST WAY TO GET CAUGHT
● INDIRECT ENCOURAGE OR HELP ANOTHER GUY IN INFRINGING
A PATENT…OVERSMART GIMMICKS
● CONTRIBUTOR YOUR FRIEND IS INFRINGING AND YOU GIVE
HIM A PART OR COMPONENT WHICH HAS NO NON-INFRINGING USE
● LITERAL INFRINGING DEVICE IS 100% MATCHING THE WORDS
WRITTEN IN PATENT CLAIMS
BORED YET?
COURT SCENE #1: APPLE INC V.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.
● 4 JAN 2007 4 DAYS BEFORE FIRST iPhone APPLE FILES 4 DESIGN
PATENTS NEXT IN JUNE MASSIVE FILING OF COLOR DESIGN PATENT WITH
193 SCREENSHOTS OF VARIOUS IPHONE GUI
● WITH THIS MUCH PROTECTION APPLE SUES SAMSUNG WITH 38 PAGE
COMPLAINT IN 2011 NEXUS S, EPIC 4G, GALAXY S 4G, GALAXY TAB
INFRINGED APPLE’S IP
● APPLE GAVE SIDE-BY-SIDE IMAGE COMPARISON OF iPhone 3GS AND i9000
GALAXY S ALLEGED SIMILARITY IN PACKAGING AND ICONS FOR APPS
● BUT SHOCKINGLY, IMAGES WERE LATER FOUND TO BE TAMPERED! MAKE
DIMENSIONS AND FEATURES TO APPEAR EVEN MORE SIMILAR
● SAMSUNG COUNTER SUES APPLE IN 2011 ITSELF COURTS OF SOUTH KOREA,
JAPAN, GERMANY, BRITAIN, U.S  ALLEGED THAT APPLE IN FACT HAD
INFRINGED ITS PATENTS FOR “MOBILE-COMMUNICATION” TECHNOLOGIES
COURT SCENE #1: APPLE INC V.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.
● IN FAVOUR OF APPLE, US JURY ASKS SAMSUNG TO PAY MORE
THAN $1.05 BILLION FOR COPYING DESIGN FEATURES OF
iPhone AND iPad (2012)
● IN 2013, RETRAIL TAKES PLACE PENALTY REDUCED TO $600
MILLION (JURY ERROR) SAMSUNG SAYS IT SHOULD ONLY PAY
PROFITS RELATED TO COMPONENTS OF ITS PHONES THAT
INFRINGED APPLE’S PATENTS (ONLY $28 MILLION) APPLE
ARGUES THAT PATENT COVERS THE ENTIRE PHONE AND DEMANDS
STOPPING SALE OF INFRINGING SMARTPHONES
● 5 LONG YEARS LATER JURY DECIDES SAMSUNG WILL PAY
$533,316,606 IN DAMAGES
COURT SCENE #1: APPLE INC V.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.
Court scene #2: Nintendo of America,
Inc. v ilife technologies, Inc.
● IN2013, iLIFE, A MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY FIRM FILES LAWSUIT ASKING
$144 MILLIO NINTENDO’S Wii AND Wii U CONTROLLERS USE
ACCELEROMETERS TO TRACK HOW A PLAYER MOVES HANDS RELATIVE TO ENV.
● iLIFECLAIMS TO HAVE INVENTED THAT AND PATENTED FOR USE IN MEDICAL
MONITORS AUTO CALL AMBULANCE IF ELDERY PERSON FALLS OR BABY IS
AT RISK
● NINTENDOSAYS PATENT NOT WRITTEN CLEARLY TO COMPLETELY PROTECT THE
USAGE OF MOTION-SENSING TECH.
● IN2017, JURY SAYS 4 GAMES FOR NINTENDO’S Wii U FRINGED UPON
iLIFE’S PATENT 796, NAMED ‘Systems within a communications device
for evaluating movement of a body and methods of operating the
same’ NINTENDO TO PAY ROYALTY OF $10.1 MILLION
 COURT SCENE #3: POLAROID CORPORATION
vs EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

● In 1947, Edwin Land of the polaroid corporation unveiled a new process that would
change the direction of amateur photography. It was a one-step, one-minute process
that produced a fully finished photograph, something no one had ever seen before. This
process was the beginning of a new genre of creating photographs called instant
photography.
● Polaroid dominated the market for this unique and easy photographic process that was
a huge hit with amateur and professional consumers. Although many other companies
tried to enter this new industry of instant photography , The Eastman kodak company
ended up being polaroid's biggest competitor in this field of photography.
 COURT SCENE #3: POLAROID CORPORATION
vs EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
● Polaroid was prepared to deal with their competition, and by 1986, all of
Kodak’s instant photography films and cameras had been pulled from the
market, and Kodak ceased to manufacture any products that would directly
compete with Polaroid’s instant photography
● in fact, from 1963-1969, the Eastman Kodak Company had actually
manufactured Polaroid’s instant film for them. At this time, Kodak was
planning to introduce themselves to the market with a pack film design, but
later, after Polaroid released their SX-70 system in 1972, Kodak decided to
go in a different direction and follow Polaroid with an integral type process
instead.
COURT SCENE #3: POLAROID CORPORATION
vs EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY
● Although Kodak’s designs differed from polaroid's, polaroid filed a case
against kodak for the infringement of 12 patents. They claimed that during
the 10 years the Eastman Kodak Company produced instant photography
materials, they had cost the Polaroid Corporation $12 billion.
● The final charges, announced in 1990, did not amount to $12 billion, but at
$909 million. Kodak was found guilty of 7 out of 12 infringements. Hence,
they ended up up paying polaroid $909 million which became $925 million due
to interest. As part of the settlement, Kodak had to pay compensation for
all their customer who bought the cameras between 1976 to 1986 and
would no longer be able to buy film either.
COURT SCENE #4: EBAY INC vs
MERCEXCHANGE LLC
● Online auction site eBay uses practices in its online auction technology for which is patented by
MercExchange, which also covers eBay's "Buy it Now" function, which is over 30 percent of the
company's business. In 2000, eBay initiated negotiations to outright purchase MercExchange's
online auction patent portfolio.

● When eBay abandoned its efforts to negotiate, MercExchange sued eBay for patent
infringement and prevailed in a 2003 Virginia jury trial, which found eBay had wilfully infringed
the MercExchange's patents and ordered a payment of nearly $30 million in damages. Following
the verdict, MercExchange sought an injunction to prevent eBay's continued use of its
intellectual property, but the District Court denied the request.
COURT SCENE #4: EBAY INC vs
MERCEXCHANGE LLC
● The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court verdict
in 2005, stating that there was a "general rule that courts will issue permanent injunctions
against patent infringement absent exceptional circumstances." Following the reversal, eBay
took its case to the Supreme Court, where it prevailed. In the majority opinion the Supreme
Court concluded that a permanent injunction in patent infringement cases can be issued only if
the plaintiff can show that the issue satisfies a four-factor test.

● That test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that
considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is
warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction
COURT SCENE #4: EBAY INC vs
MERCEXCHANGE LLC
● ·The Supreme Court overturned the Federal Circuit's approval of the injunction, holding that
nothing in the Patent Act eliminated the traditional reliance on weighing the equitable factors
considered in determining whether an injunction should issue. But it also ruled that District
Court erred in denying an injunction on the basis that MercExchange does not itself practice
the patented invention.

● As the legal battle dragged on, MercExchange cut its workforce from more than 40 employees to
just three. MercExchange also was derided as a "patent troll" - inventors who use the threat of
injunctions to extract hefty legal settlements for violating patents of dubious value.
COURT SCENE 5: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 Civil
Suit concerns with three technologies in the field of
telecommunication relating to 2G and 3G devices viz Standard
Essential Patents (SEPs) which are subjected to FRAND terms (Fair,
Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory).:
● The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte injunction on the sale,
manufacture, advertisement, and import of Xiaomi’s 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.
COURT SCENE 5:ERICSSON VS
XIAOMI
● 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: on 16th
December 2014 to sell their devices until February, 2015.
● 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 to
January 5, 2015. This amount was to be kept in a fixed deposit for
three months during the proceeding of the case.
● only those devices can be sold by Xiaomi that use chipsets made by
the manufacturer, Qualcomm which is a licensee of the Ericsson.
COURT SCENE 5:ERICSSON VS
XIAOMI
● The Delhi High Court on April 22, 2016 revoked the interim injunction
on Xiaomi in the ongoing patent tussle with Ericsson in India.
● this development emerged as a result of Xiaomi telling the court that
it had already got a license for patents (Ericsson’s 3G patent -;
IN229632 and IN240471) through Qualcomm, which had in turn
secured license from Ericsson.
● Xiaomi averred that Ericsson had deliberately suppressed the
existence and contents of Multi Product License Agreement which it
had with Qualcomm wherein Ericsson had granted license in respect
of some of its patents to Qualcomm to make, use, sell and import and
therefore, the claim of Ericsson that it is not getting royalties is moot.
● Moreover and additionally, Xiaomi also averred that Ericsson was fully
aware that Xiaomi was using Qualcomm’s chips especially in view of
the documents and the fact that testing was conducted on a device
using Qualcomm’s chipsets.
 COURT SCENE 6:O’RILEY VS MORSE
● Samuel Morse was the inventor of an electromagnetic telegraph.
Morse owned the patent rights for his invention on the
electromagnetic telegraph issued in the year 1840 and further
reissued in the year 1848.
● Henry O’Reilly was an Irish-American businessman and a telegraphy
pioneer.
● O’Reilly signed a contract in the year 1845 with Amos Kendall an
agent of Samuel Morse, for a telegraph line from the eastern
seaboard to the Great Lakes.
● The uncertainty of the contract and O’Reilly’s aggressive elucidation
led to the conflict with Kendall, resulting in a court battle and the
consequential case O’Reilly v. Morse.
 COURT SCENE 6:O’RILEY VS MORSE

● Among the fourteen challenges of O’Reilly’ to the validity of Morse’s

patent, one of the argument was challenging the fact that Morse
was not the true and first inventor of the electro-magnet telegraph
which was rejected by the Chief Justice Roger Taney.
● The telegraphic machinery that Morse invented used a means of
communicating intelligible information to any distance by exploiting
the electro-magnetic force.
● The Chief Justice Roger Taney asserted that Morse improperly tried to
claim control over virtually all telecommunication technologies and
declared the 8th Claim of Samuel Morse’s patent on the
electromagnetic telegraph as void.
 COURT SCENE 6:O’RILEY VS MORSE
● The court held that the claim was too broad and reasoned that Morse
cannot claim a patent monopoly on an effect or on nature of law. The
claim was rather an idea and didn’t comprise any practical application
and implementation of the idea.

● Morse’s infringement lawsuit against Henry O’Reilly led to incorporation

of few criterias in the patent law. The decision in the Telegraph Patent
Case (1854) by the United States Supreme Court resulted in the
development of a law of “patent eligibility” in regard to claimed
inventions in the field of computer-software related art which implied
that abstract ideas besides its implementation are not patent eligible.