lawsuit

Intellectual Property Analysis of Celgard, LLC v. Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.

On February 22, 2013, Celgard, LLC filed a patent infringement claim against Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. The complaint accuses Sumitomo of infringing Celgard’s U.S. Pat. No. 6,432,586 (hereafter ‘586), which covers a separator technology for use in lithium ion batteries. Sumitimo is accused of willful infringement of the ‘586 patent particularly through its sale of separators to Panasonic for use in the Toughbook line mobile computers.

ShareThis

Alcatel-Lucent’s (Un) Happy Holidays

Alcatel-Lucent’s (ALU) financial troubles drove it to seek financing from Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs this quarter. Since the struggling telecom company is unable to slow its cash burn, ALU may use its 29,000 patent portfolio as security for $2.1 billion of senior secured financing. They include the intellectual property (IP) originally developed by Bell Labs. Earlier this year, ALU attempted to monetize its portfolio by announcing a preliminary deal with RPX, but as yet no formal deal has been announced.

ShareThis

Kodak: Cloaking Justice in Celluloid

While this just may be the next reel in the on-going saga of Kodak’s celluloid dream of destiny initiated when management shunned digital imaging in favor of believing that film would die a much slower death than the market had ordained, this movie is getting more unfocused each day. And to think that it’s all playing out under the cataract-clouded eyes of the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice – neither of whom could actually review this transaction for its anti-competitive effects EVEN IF the material identities of the participants were disclosed.

ShareThis

Kodak: Cloaking Justice in Celluloid

While this just may be the next reel in the on-going saga of Kodak’s celluloid dream of destiny

initiated when management shunned digital imaging in favor of believing that film would die a

much slower death than the market had ordained, this movie is getting more unfocussed each day.

And to think that it’s all playing out under the cataract-clouded eyes of the Federal Trade

Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice – neither of whom could actually review this

transaction for its anti-competitive effects EVEN IF the material identities of the participants

ShareThis

In regione caecroum rex est luscus or… In the jury of the blind, Velvin Hogan is King

'If this were my patent, could I defend it?' was the question jury foreman, Velvin Hogan asked himself when considering the Apple Samsung patent infringement suit. On August 24th, 2012 a nine person jury reached the verdict which awarded Apple slightly over $1 billion in damages. This is a grievous miscarriage of justice in which Velvin played an active role. Velvin does not understand that novelty and obviousness are what determine patent validity. His public opining reinforces the widespread ignorance of the broken patent system and the myth of Apple’s innovation.

ShareThis

Trolling is a Art - Intellectual Property Analysis of ArrivalStar S.A. et al v. Garmin International, Inc.

In May of 1993, Martin Kelly Jones filed his first patents on vehicle tracking systems and established the early priority dates of many of his modern-day patents. Since that time, Melvino Technologies Limited (MTL), the company that apparently owns Martin Kelly Jones’ patents, and ArrivalStar S.A., a company that licenses those patents, have deployed a classic non-operating entity business model.

ShareThis

Maxim Integrated Products v. The World

In the second half of 2011, the semiconductor company Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (MIP) sent letters to multiple companies asserting infringement on four of MIP’s mobile application patents. In 2012, MIP started filing lawsuits against many of those companies. Meanwhile, other proactive entities are filing invalidation suits against MIP. This tangled mess has quickly become a Gordian knot in need of cutting, and the corporations attempting to invalidate MIP’s patents have started doing so.

ShareThis

Not So Magic, Jack - Intellectual Property Analysis of Personal Voice Freedom, LLC v. YMAX Corporation et. al

On November 9th 2010, Personal Voice Freedom (PVF) filed an infringment suit against YMAX Corp. as well as its subsidiaries magicJack LP and TigerJet Network Inc. In an effort to fight off the case, magicJack filed for a reexamination of the asserted patent, US 7,336,654 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in November of 2011. The patent was reissued with amended claims and magicJack has subsequently appeared to enter a settlement agreement with PVF.

ShareThis

Apple v. Reality - Intellectual Property Analysis of Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

In the global Battle Royale of Apple and Samsung at the International Trade Commission, Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender should receive an honorable mention as being the quirkiest judge. Referencing a scatological joke from a Cheech and Chong album , Judge Pender’s quote reflects the growing frustration of the courts with two multinational corporations who simply can’t play nice. However, what was meant as harmless commentary could overturn his decision.

ShareThis
Syndicate content