August 2009

SAP Ordered to Pay Versata $138.6M in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 09/01/2009 - 00:00

September 1, 2009 - Enterprise software provider SAP has been ordered by a federal court to pay $138.6 million to Versata Software, a Texas-based company.

SAP's Business Suite products and other services was found to have infringed 5 Versata patents related to methods for configuring systems, pricing products in multi-level product and organizational groups, and multi-source transaction processing.

A Device Is Not a Machine

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 08/24/2009 - 14:54

As the reader may (should) remember, patentability of methods or processes now requires that “it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing” – the Bilski test. The term “particular machine” has remained largely undefined. Now, a district court in Arizona has sought to help fill this gap. (Research Corporation Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.)

Amazon Prevails in Patent Infringement Lawsuit with Cordance over Three "One-Click Shopping" Patents

Submitted by patentadmin on Sun, 08/23/2009 - 00:00

August 23, 2009 - A patent infringement suit that Cordance Corp. filed against Amazon.com Inc. in 2006 ended on August 18, 2009 when a jury in Wilmington, Delaware decided that Amazon didn't infringe two of the patents and that the third patent is invalid.

Microsoft Granted Expedited Hearing in i4i Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Submitted by patentadmin on Sun, 08/23/2009 - 00:00

August 23, 2009 - After filing a motion on August 18 to stay the injunction on its sales of Word - the result of a patent infringement lawsuit with i4i - Microsoft received a court date for its appeal. A three-judge panel at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) will hear Microsoft's appeal beginning on September 23.

Back To The Patent Office

Submitted by patentadmin on Fri, 08/21/2009 - 13:14

Patent litigation is costly and the price is not likely to decrease. Given this state of affairs, one might ask whether there is some way to limit or reduce the costs of enforcing a patent against infringers or – we shudder to think of it – defending against a charge of patent infringement. The answer to both parts of this question is YES and, more interestingly, in both cases the answer involves the use of patent reexamination.

Turn About

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 08/17/2009 - 13:19

Ten years ago, Amazon sued Barnes & Noble for allegedly infringing the now-infamous “1-click” patent. This suit created a frenzy among techno-geeks who vomited up a mountain of prior art and vituperative rant in an unsuccessful attempt to invalidate the Amazon patent. Now, Amazon is being sued by Cordance Corp. which has a patent on – you guessed it – a “1-click” ordering system. Cordance claims that its patent predates the Amazon patent.

A Lot Of ‘Splaining To Do

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 08/17/2009 - 12:43

Recently, a small software company, i4i Limited Partnership, won a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. i4i was awarded Two Hundred Million Dollars ($200,000,000.00) in compensatory damages plus Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) in post-verdict damages, prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest. Yes indeed, folks, a quarter of a BILLION dollars. This, in itself, is a joyous and newsworthy item. But, it gets even better.

Texas Judge Files Injunction Barring Microsoft from Selling Word

Submitted by patentadmin on Wed, 08/12/2009 - 00:00

August 12, 2009 - Judge Leonard Davis of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ordered a permanent injunction yesterday that, if it stands, will prohibit Microsoft from selling Word within the next 60 days. Microsoft has also been ordered to pay more than $290 million to the patent owner, Canadian firm i4i.

Heads or Tails

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 21:34

The ever increasing incidence of unauthorized uploading and downloading of copyrighted material on the internet has given rise to a very significant question, namely: ‘what court has jurisdiction over the offending parties?’ Stated in law school terms, if party A, in State B, enters an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work onto the internet and party C, in State D, where the copyright owner resides, prints a copy of this material, can the copyright owner sue party A in State D?

Pharma Firm BTG Files Patent Infringement Complaint with ITC against Apple, Dell and Others

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 08/11/2009 - 00:00

August 11, 2009 - Pharmaceutical company BTG PLC filed a patent infringement complaint with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in late July, seeking to block US imports of several electronics products that it claims infringe its patents related to increasing the storage on Flash memory chips.

Though BTG is focused solely on pharmaceuticals, the company was founded after World War II as a state-funded corporation which commercialized research from British universities.

Who Is an Inventor?

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 08/10/2009 - 20:34

Who is an inventor or, more specifically, a co-inventor? The law provides that “each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice.” Inventors A and B had jointly developed a belief that, under certain circumstances, stem cells would transdifferentiate into various other types of cells (the nauseating details are unnecessary). They were not, however, “scientifically certain” of their theory and lacked sufficient evidence to support a patent on their invention. Along comes Mr.

A Man Who Values His Reputation

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 08/10/2009 - 16:04

Large corporations are constantly railing against the alleged unethical conduct of NPEs (Non-practicing Entities, also pejoratively known as “trolls” and “those X!#?Z”) which have the temerity to sue when their patents are being infringed.

Now, in a surprising and long overdue turn of events, one of the NPEs has moved for sanctions against a large corporate defendant, claiming that the defendant’s allegations of inequitable conduct, leveled against the plaintiff’s founder and inventor, were a baseless smear campaign. (Intellect Wireless Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc. et al.)

General Patent Corporation Licenses Key Cell Phone Patent Owned by DTL to Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative

Suffern, NY - August 6, 2009 - General Patent Corporation (GPC), a leading patent licensing and patent enforcement firm, announced today on behalf of its client, Digital Technology Licensing LLC (DTL), that it has licensed DTL's key cell phone patent to Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. of Circle, MT.

General Patent Corporation Licenses Key Cell Phone Patent Owned by DTL to Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative

August 6, 2009 - General Patent Corporation (GPC), a leading patent licensing and patent enforcement firm, announced today on behalf of its client, Digital Technology Licensing LLC (DTL), that it has licensed DTL's key cell phone patent to Mid-Rivers Telephone Cooperative, Inc. of Circle, MT.

General Patent Licenses ACT Patents to Signature Cards

August 5, 2009 - General Patent Corporation (GPC), a leading US patent licensing and enforcement firm, announced today that it has licensed two patents of its client, Advanced Card Technologies LLC (ACT), to Signature Cards, LP of Richardson, TX.

"We've now licensed over 25 companies under the ACT patents," said Kathlene Ingham, GPC's Director of Licensing. "Needless to say, we are very pleased with the results we've been able to generate for our client."

The Cost of Free Music

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 08/04/2009 - 11:34

In elementary school and Sunday school, we were repeatedly instructed that it was good – maybe even a religious obligation – to share what we had. Unfortunately for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the federal court in Minnesota takes a decidedly different view. Capitol Records Inc. et al. v. Thomas.

Tell It to the Judge

Submitted by patentadmin on Tue, 08/04/2009 - 11:28

In litigation, failure to meet a deadline may sometimes be excused if the tardy party can show “good cause” for its untimeliness. In a recent case, Hill v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the plaintiff sought leave to amend its preliminary infringement contentions (PICs), explaining that the infringement theory upon which it was now relying was not previously available. The Court, not surprisingly, inquired as to the nature of this theory.