Neology and 3M Resolve Patent Litigation

The agreement resolves patent infringement litigation Neology, a Smartrac N.V. subsidiary, initiated against 3M and Federal Signal Corporation relating to businesses purchased by 3M from Federal Signal Corporation in September 2012.
The agreement gives Neology, Smartrac and 3M access to each other’s RFID products in the transportation market – Neology will have access to 3M’s multi-protocol readers and 3M to Smartrac’s and Neology’s tags and technology in the transportation market. This positions the companies as suppliers of 6C RFID technology to the industry. The agreement also includes a confidential financial arrangement.

Given the superior communication protocol and open platform of the 6C RFID technology, the companies will provide their customers the path to interoperability via the ISO 18000 6C standard.

Francisco Martinez de Velasco, Chief Executive Officer of Neology, stated: “We are very pleased and excited about the agreement. Our patented cutting edge technologies allow us to manufacture superior products and provide excellent integration services tailored to our customers’ needs. We are confident we will become a valuable supplier to 3M and its subsidiaries and look forward to advancing the 6C standard.”

Dan McGurran, Business Director, 3M Motor Vehicle Systems and Services, said “3M is pleased to have reached an agreement that will allow both companies to solve the transportation market’s pressing need for interoperability via the ISO 18000 6C technology. This will improve the efficiency of tolling and enhance the motorist experience.”

Christian Uhl, CFO of SMARTRAC, further noted, “We believe that our companies will mutually benefit from this agreement and we are delighted that we have been able to identify new opportunities to pursue together. We look forward to continue and intensify the collaboration and relationship between Smartrac and 3M.”

Read more: http://electronicsfeed.com/news/4509

Apple May File a New Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against the Samsung Galaxy S4

The court rejected Apple’s motion to add the Samsung Galaxy S4 to the list of products infringing on the Cupertino, California company’s patents.

apple_vs_samsung

The Apple vs. Samsung Patent War Continues

The decision was handed down yesterday by U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal, who said that adding another Samsung product to the case would be a “tax on the court’s resources,” according to Bloomberg.

Adding another product to the case is a “tax on the court’s resources,” Grewal said in the ruling. “Each time these parties appear in the courtroom, they consume considerable amounts of the court’s time and energy, which takes time way from other parties who also require and are entitled to the court’s attention.”

Apple’s lawyers had their own reply though: Josh Krevitt told the judge that excluding the Samsung Galaxy S4 from the list of products infringing on Apple’s patents would require the Cupertino company to file a new lawsuit, since the “Samsung products covered by the case will be out of date by trial next year.”

Shortly after the Samsung Galaxy S4 was unveiled, the Cupertino company found that the product infringes five Apple patents related to Siri, data sync, and graphic use elements.

The patent lawsuit is scheduled for next spring. Both parties are allowed to list 22 products that infringe on patents. Apple was bidding to include the recently released high-end Android handset among the 22 already listed.

 

http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/news/apple-may-file-a-new-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-the-samsung-galaxy-s4/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=apple-may-file-a-new-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-the-samsung-galaxy-s4

InterDigital Receives Initial Determination in USITC Patent Infringement Investigation of Nokia, Huawei and ZTE

WILMINGTON, Jun 28, 2013 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE via COMTEX) — InterDigital, Inc. IDCC +1.04% , a wireless research and development company, today announced that it has received notice that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) overseeing the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC or Commission) Investigation No. 337-TA-800 of Nokia, Huawei and ZTE has issued an initial determination (ID) finding no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The ALJ found that one of InterDigital’s asserted patents was infringed, but the asserted claims of that patent were found to be invalid in light of prior art. He further found that four of InterDigital’s patents were not proven invalid but are not infringed, and that the remaining two asserted patents were invalid and not infringed.

Importantly, the ALJ indicated that the respondents have not prevailed on any equitable, FRAND, or license defense. The ALJ also determined that InterDigital satisfied the domestic industry requirement as to all asserted patents.

“We strongly disagree with the ALJ’s determinations with regard to noninfringement and invalidity. We will petition the ITC for review of the ID, and we are confident that the strength of our portfolio will, in due course, result in a favorable outcome,” said William J. Merritt, President and Chief Executive Officer of InterDigital.

InterDigital will promptly file for review by the full Commission. The Commission has established a date of October 28, 2013 for issuing a final determination, and has been active in reviewing ALJ initial determinations.

The company will be hosting a conference call to discuss the ID on Tuesday, July 2 at 8:30 AM Eastern Time. For a live Internet webcast of the conference call, visit http://www.interdigital.com and click on the link to the Live Webcast under the Events section on the homepage. The company encourages participants to take advantage of the Internet option.

For telephone access to the conference, please call 888-684-1278 within the United States or 913-981-5572 outside the United States. Please call by 8:15 a.m. Eastern Time on July 2 and ask the operator for the InterDigital ITC discussion.

An Internet replay of the conference call will be available on InterDigital’s website under the Events and Presentations section on the Investors page. In addition, a telephone replay will be available from 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time on July 2 through 11:30 a.m. Eastern Time on July 7. To access the recorded replay, call (888) 203-1112 or (719) 457-0820 and use the replay code 6971280.

About InterDigital

InterDigital develops fundamental wireless technologies that are at the core of mobile devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry’s most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks and a richer multimedia experience years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world’s leading wireless companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ and is included in the S&P MidCap 400 index.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/interdigital-receives-initial-determination-in-usitc-patent-infringement-investigation-of-nokia-huawei-and-zte-2013-06-28

U.S. charges Chinese wind company with stealing trade secrets

Pigeons fly past the company logo of Sinovel Wind Co., Ltd. outside its head office in Beijing, January 6, 2011. REUTERS/Soo Hoo Zheyang

LOS ANGELES | Fri Jun 28, 2013 7:43am EDT

(Reuters) – Chinese wind turbine maker Sinovel Wind Group Co (601558.SS) and two of its employees were charged with stealing trade secrets from U.S.-based AMSC (AMSC.O) by the Department of Justice (DoJ) on Thursday.

A federal grand jury in the Western District of Wisconsin returned an indictment leveling theft charges on Sinovel, two of its employees and a former employee of AMSC, a Devens, Massachusetts-based company that provided wind turbine design, engineering services and power electronics and controls to Sinovel. Authorities said the theft allegedly cost AMSC $800 million. (r.reuters.com/jud39t)

Sinovel officials were not immediately available for comment.

In 2011, AMSC, which mainly supplies electrical systems used in wind turbines, filed several lawsuits in China against Sinovel alleging the illegal use of AMSC’s intellectual property.

AMSC, which was formerly known as American Superconductor Corp, said at the time it wanted to recover more than $1.2 billion in damages.

“The fact that Sinovel has exported stolen American intellectual property from China back into the United States – less than 40 miles from our global headquarters – shows not only a blatant disrespect for intellectual property but a disregard for international trade law,” AMSC Chief Executive Officer Daniel McGahn said.

AMSC called on President Barack Obama’s administration and Congress to re-evaluate the U.S. trade relationship with China.

AMSC said that, over the past two years, more than 500 staff worldwide have lost their jobs following Sinovel’s “egregious and unlawful behavior.”

The defendants indicted include Su Liying, the deputy director of Sinovel’s Research and Development Department, Zhao Haichun, a technology manager for Sinovel and Dejan Karabasevic, a former AMSC employee.

Sinovel, once AMSC’s largest customer, contracted with an AMSC employee in Austria to get the software designed for Sinovel’s turbines.

“The Sinovel case is a classic example of the growing insider threat facing our nation’s corporations and their intellectual property,” said FBI Executive Assistant Director Richard McFeely.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-sinovel-doj-idUSBRE95R0FM20130628

Facebook responds to Eminem song publisher’s claim it violated copyright laws; view court details

eminem.jpg

Eminem’s song publisher Eight Mile Style, based in Ferndale, received Friday a response from Facebook about a copyright infringement lawsuit. (AP photo)
DETROIT, MI – Facebook and an advertising agency hired by the social media giant denied Friday allegations by Eminem’s Ferndale-based song publisher Eight Mile Style that it violated a song’s copyright.

Facebook and its Oregon-based advertising agency Wieden + Kennedy Inc. submitted to a Detroit court a written response to the allegations that states music used in a commercial wasn’t similar to an Eminem song called “Under the Influence.”

An excerpt from the written response, obtained by MLive Detroit, that defends the music used in a Facebook commercial called “Airplane:”

“Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim fails because the music contained in the Commercial is not substantially similar to protectable expression contained in the musical composition “Under the Influence.”

The Facebook/Wieden + Kennedy Inc. response mentions that “any infringement that allegedly occurred was de minimis>”

These defendants had until Friday to respond to Eight Mile Style’s legal complaint issued May 21, and will likely now wait indefinitely to see if a judge believes the plaintiff has a case.

The plaintiff claims the music used in “Airplane” is “substantially similar to the Eminem “Under the Influence” song and mentions that “any ordinary observer would absolutely recognize the music as being a copy of the Eminem/D12 composition.”

“Under the Influence” was written and composed by Marshall Bruce Mathers III (Eminem) and his D12 members.

The song was featured on Eminem’s third studio album, “The Marshall Mathers LP,” Slim Shady’s most commercially successful album to date (22 million copies sold), according to the plaintiffs’ 10-page complaint.

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint as a “longtime fan of Eminem” who reportedly referred to himself as “Slim Shady” on a personal website he created in 1999.

Facebook and its advertising agency deny the claim, but do mention in Friday’s response to the allegations that “Mr. Zuckerberg respects Eminem as a musical artist.”

Eight Mile Style, according to a PR Newswire release, owns and controls 225 compositions on multi-million dollar selling albums, including all of rap artist Eminem’s first four solo albums.

 

http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2013/06/facebook_responds_to_eminem_so.html

Public transit agencies deride ‘patent trolls’

June 28, 2013

By JASON KEYSER

Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) — Public transit agencies nationwide are being targeted with questionable lawsuits by so-called patent trolls squeezing settlements out of financially strapped public entities unable to mount legal defenses against claims they are infringing on intellectual property protections, industry representatives said Thursday.

Lawsuits or threats of legal action have been lodged against at least 23 transit providers in some of the nation’s largest cities, including New York, Boston and Chicago. Opponents say the claims are frivolous and are stifling innovation, draining resources and costing taxpayers millions.

“We are seeing this huge onslaught of patent lawsuits,” said James LaRusch, chief counsel for the nonprofit American Public Transportation Association, which has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to protect its hundreds of member agencies.

Critics of the practice deride the firms as “patent trolls” because they appear to do little genuine business or technology development beyond buying up patents and using them to demand licensing fees from other companies.

Known in technical jargon as patent assertion entities, they have also gone after private sector companies but are increasingly targeting public and governmental agencies, including utilities, cities, the U.S. Postal Service and now transit providers. The resulting settlements are draining already depleted public coffers.

That shift is alarming some in Congress, where several pending bills could help limit the damage from frivolous claims. The head of the Federal Trade Commission is seeking an investigation of such firms and their business practices.

“This type of litigation undercuts the purpose of the patent system and exploits the fact that public agencies are at a disadvantage in defending themselves,” said U.S. Rep. Daniel Lipinski of Illinois, the state’s senior member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

The Chicago-area Democrat wrote to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez this week to urge her to follow through with an investigation that would determine the scope of such activity and identify which companies are the most prolific filers of such legal claims.

The claims against transit companies have largely challenged the use of GPS-based tracking systems that alert customers to bus and train arrival times at stations and online.

The transit industry association is challenging the validity of the patents cited in the claims, but says many agencies have no choice but to settle to avoid litigation costs that can reach $2 million to $3 million even if they’re successful.

The American Public Transportation Association believes there are only two companies targeting transit agencies with lawsuits. It is aware of 11 formal lawsuits and 12 other threats of legal action but believes there are many others that have not become public due to confidentiality clauses in the settlement deals.

The lawsuit his group filed Tuesday in federal court in Manhattan identifies the two companies as ArrivalStar S.A. in Luxembourg and its affiliate Melvino Technologies Ltd., an offshore firm in the British Virgin Islands.

Dowell Baker, a Lafayette, Ind., law firm that represents the two companies did not respond to a phone message seeking comment Thursday.

One of the law firm’s claim letters, sent to the Toledo Area Regional Transit Authority in February 2012, says it represents a founder of ArrivalStar who invented tracking technology used in public transportation and shipment of cargo and packages.

“ArrivalStar has licensed its technology to over 180 companies,” the claim letter says. “Although many of these licenses were granted in settlement of patent infringement actions filed by ArrivalStar, many resulted from amicable business negotiations.”

LaRusch, of the American Public Transportation Association, disputed the assertion that the companies have developed any technology.

“They don’t develop anything. They don’t produce anything. Their reason for being appears to be simply to file claims against people who go out and create things,” he said.

 

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/06/28/law/public-transit-agencies-patent-trolls

Drugs patent bill clears first hurdle

A bill to guarantee public access to patented drugs, vaccines and genetic tests and to allow Australia to export cheap versions of lifesaving medications to developing countries passed the lower house of Parliament on Tuesday night.

The Coalition was expected to vote against the proposals, despite support for the changes from the pharmaceutical. The bill clarifies the ”Crown use” provisions of patent law, the circumstances in which federal, state or territory governments can use patented inventions without the permission of the patent owner.

The proposals would also allow Australia to export generic versions of patented drugs to developing countries to tackle outbreaks of diseases such as malaria, HIV and TB.

Coalition innovation spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella said it supported the intent of the bill, but the government had not consulted widely enough, and had rushed consideration of the bill.

Advertisement

Mrs Mirabella said the proposals were not consistent with Australia’s free trade agreement with the United States, and a World Trade Organisation decision that generic drugs could only be exported to countries which were WTO members.

The Labor proposal does not carry this requirement, allowing drugs to be exported to countries such as East Timor, which is not a member of the WTO.

But the parliamentary secretary for innovation, Yvette D’Ath, said Labor’s approach was consistent with that of other WTO members, including Canada, Norway and Switzerland.

”Arguably, non-WTO members are the countries that need our help most,” she said.

Liberal MP Dennis Jensen said countries such as East Timor could sell the drugs on to make a profit.

It would then proceed to the Senate, where it would likely pass with the support of the Greens.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/drugs-patent-bill-clears-first-hurdle-20130626-2ovrr.html