Patent Lawsuit

Infinity Group Announced the First IP Bank in Suzhou,China and Worldwide at the World Economic Forum

Suzhou, China and Tel Aviv, Israel, September 14, 2010 --- Infinity Group, an RMB fund pioneer and the leader in cross border China RMB and dollar private equity funds, announced the creation of the first IP Bank in China and worldwide at the World Economic Forum’s 2010 Annual Meeting of New Champions in Tianjin, China. The IP Bank is a central location in China for ownership and licensing of intellectual property and proven technology. SIP from Suzhou is Infinity’s partner in China.

The IP Bank partners with entrepreneurs and Chinese companies with a global strategy to license, develop and commercialize the IP and proven technology. The IP Bank finances part of the initial commercialization with both dollar and RMB financing. It also provides management, legal structuring and marketing support for its partners. Companies, from outside of China with IP and proven technology, benefit from being able to penetrate a new market without the challenges presented by new territories.

The IP Bank owns the rights for the intellectual property and proven technologies, which originate from around the world, though currently mainly from Israel. The IP Bank aims to commercialize the IP and proven technologies in sectors such as medical device, agriculture, water, clean energy, materials, industrial solutions, imaging, IT and semiconductors. The activity of the IP Bank will follow the same structure as that which led to Infinity’s many successes including: Shellcase, WLCSP, Nanomotion and PPI. Last week, the IP Bank invested 5.2 million USD and became part of the controlling shareholders of publicly traded Maayan Ventures, a leading chain of technology incubators.

“The establishment of the IP Bank is another step in our currently seven year journey in China that continues at an impressive rate. Our ongoing presence in China with our many close friends, both in the business community and in the government, make Infinity a stable bridge for many companies, in and outside of the IDB Group,” said Mr. Avi Fischer, IDB Group deputy chairman and chairman of Infinity Group.

Infinity and the IP Bank are well aligned with the next five year plan in China as presented at the 2010 World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting of New Champions in Tianjin this week. Industrial agriculture, energy consumption, advanced manufacturing methods, IT related to efficiency, high end industries, and services have been slated in China as key sectors of focus for advancement.

“IDB and Infinity, with the support of SIP, have developed a novel business model for the international private equity/venture capital industry to capitalize on China’s rapidly increasing stream of IP import. China has a huge market and companies around the world are actively seeking new and untapped markets for their strong IP. The IP Bank provides the infrastructure and necessary experienced team of professionals, in offices in China, Israel and the U.S., for these two forces to collaborate, to the benefit of both, as well as those investing in their futures,” said Mr. Amir Gal-Or, managing partner of the Infinity Group, founder of the IP Bank and a regular speaker at the World Economic Forum.

Case disscuss for LED maker Nichia

Japanese LED maker Nichia has initiated one more patent infringement suit, this time in opposition to a Washington talk about hand Device Company referred to as Wilmar Corporation. The complaint filed in the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, accuses Wilmar of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,925 (’925 Patent), 7,531,960 (’960 Patent), 5,652,434 (’434 Patent) and 6,093,965 (’965 Patent).

 

The ‘925 and ‘960 Patents are members of precisely the same patent family. The two related patents describe a light emitting diode (100) that minimizes deterioration in emission light intensity by such as a phosphor in the coating resin (101) that handles the light emitting element (102). According to the ‘925 Patent, incorporating a phosphor in the LED reduces deterioration: The phosphor utilized in the light emitting system has excellent resistance in opposition to light to ensure that the fluorescent properties thereof encounter less alter even when utilized more than an extended period of time of your time whilst being exposed to light of large intensity. This helps make it possible to decrease the degradation of features throughout prolonged period of time of use and decrease deterioration on account of light of large intensity emitted through the light emitting element, to offer a light emitting system which experiences less coloring shift and less luminance decrease.

The 12th China Patent Award Evaluation Meeting held in Beijing

2010 Oct. 14th, The 12th China Patent Award Evaluation Meeting held in Beijing. After review the Committee's consideration, 181 patents were rewarded and 5 of them are China Patent Golden Award. All winning projects will public in the State Intellectual Property Office, the government website and China Intellectual Property News.

There’re some changes this time. Like the cycle turns from every two years to one year. And Gold Medal Award from the China Patent extended to China Patent Award of Excellence Gold Award, Excellence Award and the Chinese design Gold Award, Award of Excellence.

Patent Awards 2010 received a total of 431projects which come from 16 central ministries, 31 provinces, autonomous regions and Xinjiang as well as four industry associations recommended. Compared with the previous, the number of ministries recommended a relatively large increase, reaching 92. Design awards in 2010 from the previous 10 increased to around 79, which is a substantial increase.

Let’s look who are the 15 holders of patented gold projects:

Huawei, Sinopec, Sany Heavy Industry, IWNCOMM, in fact Purcell, Tsinghua University, step pharmaceutical, Visionox Technology, Huaxing Metallurgical, Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station, Jilin University, China Electric Power Research Institute, New World creatures, Tencent.

Respective these fifteen golds, 3 are sending by the Guangdong Provincial Intellectual Property Office, and two are from Shenzhen Huawei and Tencent. That’s   indicating that Shenzhen has really strong innovation ability. Meanwhile, there are 3 golds from the universities and research institutions, which we believe is still the intellectual work in this area of the infant. There are many involved in IT industry, such as Huawei's patent No. 00122430.1 "may smooth expansion of the data communication system.” This shows that this industry remains strong vitality.

Should Europe stop taxing patent?

This is not a new issue that EUROPE policy of innovation. Actually it was discussed many times in United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009.However, how innovation especially patent be treated due to the opinions of science. Is it true that our civilization more developed our future will more beautiful?

Let’s get some view from Bruegel Policy Brief(2010/02) ,by Bruno van Pottelsberghe. In his article Europe should stop taxing innovation he said:

After nearly 48 years of failure to create the EU patent, language issues and the design of a centralised patent-litigation court still dominate headlines. But behind these issues there are high financial stakes and control power to play for. The recent EU Council deal on an ‘enhanced’ European patent system does not solve the above problems, and has not eliminated lingering governance issues. The risk for Europe is that a final patent agreement might be reached that does not cure the system of its major ills, and thus does not bring about any significant improvement for those that need it most: entrepreneurs and innovative companies starting out on the innovation process. The creation of an effective single EU patent requires (i) English-only post-grant translation, (ii) the end of nationally granted patents, (iii) phasing-out of the current ‘European patent’, (iv) lower fees for young innovative companies, and (v) a radical shake-up of the governance of the European Patent Office.

Well, I think we all know the value of patent, so what should we to do?

Advanced Forum on Biotech Patents will holds in Boston

A new conference comes around, and this time is in our city. It’s was reported that the American Conference Institute (ACI) will be holding its 12th Advanced Forum on Biotech Patents on November 30 to December 1, 2010 in Boston, MA.

Let see what topics we may interested:

• Follow-on biologics:  Dissecting the legal, scientific and commercial realities of biosimilars and their impact on patent strategies;
• The future of diagnostic method patents:  Examining and analyzing the criteria for patentability handed down by the Supreme Court in Bilski -- to be presented in part by Kevin Noonan;
• Examining the new PTO initiatives:  How to benefit from the PTO's initiatives to eliminate backlog -- keynote by Sharon Barner, Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office;
• Focus on China and India:  Breaking Into and securing enforcement of biotechnology IP in burgeoning superpower economies;
• Developing key practice strategies for the European Union;
• Are genes patentable?  Examining the potential ramifications of Myriad and developing practical strategies to protect your IP;
• Uncovering potential inventor ship issues and resolving ownership uncertainties;
• The art of prior art:  Avoiding inequitable conduct claims through proactive drafting and disclosure;
• Navigating the intricacies of PTO patent practice;
• Antibodies:  Overcoming patentability hurdles and claim drafting strategies for new technological developments; and
• Overcoming ethical and practical challenges when patenting cutting edge technologies.

However, the sponsor said the registration fee ranges is from $2,295 (conference) to $2,895. Those registering on or before October 29, 2010 will receive a $200 discount. Do you and your company have this interest?

AUTM‘s new survey shows university patent vitality

On Oct.4^th, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) announced the outcomes of the survey displaying that university start-ups and licensing action remaining powerful in inventions even at the height of the country's worst economic turmoil since the Great Depression.

The AUTM survey discovered that 596 university start-ups had been established in 2009, a quantity that was close towards 2008 tally. Although the survey also discovered that licensing revenue declined 32.5% in 2009, AUTM attributed this drop towards actuality that universities had negotiated extraordinary partial royalty buyouts that appreciably boosted general royalties in 2007 and 2008, which was not repeated in 2009.When the quantity of licenses -- as opposed to licensing revenue -- is examined, the survey exhibits that the quantity of licenses actually rose by 5.6% in 2009.
The AUTM survey also discovered that in 2009 invention disclosures greater by 1% to 20,309; investigation expenditures greater by 4.2% to $53.5 billion; earnings from licenses strike $2.3 billion; 8,364 new U.S. patent software programs had been filed by survey respondents; and 3,417 U.S. patents had been issued to survey respondents. However, the quantity of issued patents was up from the 2008 total of 3,280, the 2009 tally was still nicely under that of FY2003, when survey respondents secured 3,933 patents.

AUTM President Ashley Stevens mentioned the survey reveals "that universities had been able to maintain their degree of start-up business creation [in 2009]," and noted that "majority of those start-ups are located during the licensing institution's home state, [which is] further evidence that the Bayh-Dole Act remains to possess the optimistic impact on local economies."

Case disscuss:Sky Windpower's kite falls

Sky Windpower  is a California company that markets high altitude wind capture technology. Sky will be the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,781,254 (’254 Patent), which is entitled “Windmill kite” and relates to a flying electric powered generator (FEG). The FEG is basically a kite with several rotors comprising aerofoil blades (their swept locations indicated by circles 5) attached to platform frame people (3, 4). Each rotor extends from a nacelle (6) that contains a gear box, a dynamo and a control mechanism to control the angle of the rotor.

According for the ‘254 Patent, the FEG solves problems of the before skill relating to platform stability and the need to winch right down the platform during times of weak or no wind. The Patent points out that having at least three strategically placed rotors susceptible to blade pitch control stabilizes the platform. In addition, the dynamos obtain power and function as motors to generate the rotors for short periods, thereby maintaining the kite aloft when there is no wind.
the inventor and owner of the ‘254 Patent，Bryan W. Roberts, has long been involved in two rounds of litigation having a company known as Baseload Energy over the validity of the patent and particular rights for the technology.
The first case between Roberts and Baseload to enter into a joint venture ended in a very Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement granted Baseload an alternative to take a nonexclusive license below the ‘254 Patent and contained pretty common releases from liabilities, claims, etc. for both parties, though the releases expressly excluded disputes arising from the alternative provision.
After the alternative lapsed during the fall of 2008, Baseload filed a lawsuit against Roberts in federal court in Washington, DC seeking a declaratory judgment the fact that ‘254 Patent is invalid and unenforceable. Roberts moved for summary judgment on the soil that Baseload’s claims have been barred by the Settlement Agreement.
The area court granted the motion and held the fact that conditions of the Settlement Agreement barred “all claims between the parties.”
Baseload appealed, and in a very recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed. The Federal Circuit held the fact that language of the Settlement Agreement do not release claims of infringement of the ‘254 Patent or the accompanying defenses of invalidity or unenforceability.
The Federal Circuit went on to hold that if infringement claims have been preserved, the associated defenses of invalidity and unenforceability have been also preserved.The Federal Circuit remanded true for the area court, where Baseload’s invalidity and unenforceability claims will go forward.



Acacia：a classic patent troll？

Acacia is mostly a traditional patent troll: the corporation buys up intellectual property or home from other companies, and then licenses or sues corporations making use of that IP. The corporation has announced that it has lately licensed 74 smartphone patents to Microsoft. These patents include technology devised by PDA pioneer, Palm, its one-time subsidiary, PalmSource, and its authentic operating system developer, Geoworks.

Early Palm devices, for example the landmark Palm Pilot, used a third-party operating system from Geoworks. Palm after created its personal system software, Palm OS. Back in 2002, Palm spun off Palm OS development, creating the subsidiary PalmSource. PalmSource was eventually bought by ACCESS, a company specializing in mobile device software. IP from the four companies—ACCESS, Palm, PalmSource, and Geoworks—is covered by Microsoft's new agreement with Acacia. Palm by itself licensed the technology from ACCESS, and was bought earlier in the yr by HP.
Some with the patents involved on this agreement are included inside a lawsuit filed by Acacia in March. the corporation is suing Apple, RIM, Samsung, and Motorola—though not Microsoft—for infringement of patents covering locations for example e-mail synchronization and also the provision of telephony attributes inside a personal computer.
Redmond has experienced run-ins with Acacia in the past, including a 2007 victory when an Acacia-owned patent covering boot-time performance enlargement was invalidated for obviousness. The decision to license these patents suggests the fact that software program giant believes these patents to possess more legitimacy compared to performance one. This is no surprise, given their origin—Palm's PDAs had been the obvious predecessors of today's smartphones.

Olympic Development sued Apple，AG，Sony for patent infrigement

A private Delaware company by the identify of Olympic Developments AG, LLC, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the California Central area Court Los Angeles Division versus several key technologies organizations including Apple Inc., Amazon.com, Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., DirecTV, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Nintendo of America, Inc., Sony pc amusement of America, LLC, Sony Electronics, Inc. and Valve Corporation. The lawsuit, in context with Apple specifically, seems to be concerning the profit of products through Apple's iTunes and App Stores through an apple ipad or iPhone inside a manner claimed in the patents-in-suit.

According to court documents, "this is typically a patent infringement action to stop Defendants' infringement of Plaintiff's United States Patent No. 5,475,585 entitled "Transactional Processing System" (the "''585 patent") and United States Patent No. 6,246,400 entitled Device for Controlling Remote Interactive Receiver (the"'400 patent"). Plaintiff will be the exclusive licensee of the '585 patent and '400 patent with respect towards Defendants. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Case progress-Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

It’s reported in patentdocs.org that The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) filed an amicus curiae brief on September 8th, urging the Federal Circuit to rehear en banc Eli Lilly's appeal of the Court's affirmance of an invalidity obtaining of U.S.NO.5, 464,826. The Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court determination that the states of the '826 patent were invalid more than the states of Lilly's U.S. Patent No. 4,808,614 below the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.

The '826 patent claimed methods for using gemcitabine for treating cancer, and also the earlier '614 patent disclosed but did not claim this use. The lawsuit in between the parties arose after sunshine filed an ANDA for generic gemcitabine, and sunshine Pharmaceuticals filed a declaratory judgment action that the '614 and '826 patents (both of which were outlined in the FDA's Orange Book) were invalid.