patent

Intellectual Property Analysis of Rolls-Royce’s U.S. Patent No. 6,071,077 referenced in Civil Action No. 10-cv-00457, Rolls-Royce Plc v. United Technologies Corp.

In May of 2010, Rolls-Royce fired the first salvo across the bow of Pratt & Whitney in what has become a back-and-forth contest between the two aerospace engineering giants. In the initial patent infringement suit, Rolls-Royce alleged that the design of Pratt & Whitney’s fan blades used in its GP7200 engine infringed on U.S. Patent No. 6,071,077, held by Rolls-Royce. In September, Pratt & Whitney responded not only with a denial of the allegations of infringement, but also with a countersuit stating that the ‘077 patent is invalid and unenforceable.

ShareThis

Intellectual Property Analysis of Abbott Labs’ U.S. Patent No. 6,175,752 referenced in Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., v. Dexcom, Inc.

These days, glucose isn’t the only thing that Abbott Labs (NYSE:ABT) is having to monitor. After developing a presence in the world of diabetes care through its MediSense division, Abbott solidified their market position with its acquisition of TheraSense in 2004, resulting in the formation of Abbott Diabetes Care. In an effort to defend its glucose monitoring division from new entrants, Abbott Diabetes Care initiated a costly legal battle with DexCom, Inc. that is still underway.

ShareThis

Intellectual Property Analysis of Apple Inc.’s U.S. Patent No. 5,519,867 referenced in Apple, Inc. v. Nokia Corporation ITC Review

According to a recent Bloomberg Businessweek report, Apple is the most sued tech company on record since 2008. One viable explanation could be that competitors are (understandably) jealous of the unmatched fervor stirred up by consumers at the slightest hint of a new or updated Apple product. Another explanation, however, may be that these plaintiffs have legitimate claims. Are Apple’s gadgets, hailed as revolutionary and groundbreaking by the masses, actually based on the work of others? The result of two recent ITC rulings may provide some insight into these questions.

ShareThis

Intellectual Property Analysis of Intellectual Ventures’ U.S. Patent No. 5,987,610 referenced in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Check Point Software Technologies Ltd. et al.

Intellectual Ventures, Nathan Myhrvold’s intellectual property licensing company, is no stranger to the world of patents and patent litigation. Though Intellectual Ventures purports to be a champion and protector of innovation, touting the Patent Office as a marvel of invention and as a well-run machine, in truth their behavior more accurately mimics that of a patent troll than that of a knight in shining armor.

ShareThis

Intellectual Property Analysis of Kodak’s U.S. Patent No. 7,202,982 referenced in Eastman Kodak Company v. Shutterfly Inc.

It is difficult to believe that an innovative company so pivotal to the rise of photography could be put out to pasture by misguided innovation management. Kodak, an iconic pillar of photography, has had a difficult time transitioning into the digital age. Despite its strong brand identity and extensive R&D efforts, Kodak finds itself becoming increasingly irrelevant as a market presence, grasping at straws and resorting to litigation in an effort to regain some semblance of the prominent position it once enjoyed.

ShareThis
Distribuir contenido