South Korea Starts Sweeping Investigation Into Patent Abuse

The 271 Patent Blog: Peter Zura features South Korea's move to curtail patent abuses by companies foreign and domestic in his recent post entitled South Korea Launches "Largest-Ever" Antitrust Probe on Patent Abuse. Zura calls out a quote from Mobile Business Briefing to help explain the situation:

Companies with market dominance and widespread technologies that have become industry standards will be targeted,” said Kim Jun-beom, director of the FTC’s market supervision team. “Foreign companies that have a large influence on the domestic market also will be targeted.” Although the government's specific targets are unknown, experts say the probe will likely cover large domestic firms such as Samsung, LG and Hynix Semiconductor. The investigation is thought to be part of a crackdown by the government on alleged abuses by large corporations, including alleged unfair practices toward smaller companies. “Local small and midsize enterprises have suffered considerable damage from patent-related abuses by large domestic and foreign companies,” Kim said.

Whoa, nelly! Talk about a bucking bronco of an announcement and one that should help home-grown Korean medium and small (SMEs) businesses compete on a more even playing field than is currently the situation. The probe is not limited to outside businesses, mind you, and Zura notes that the investigation will target Korean businesses for wrong-doing starting in the middle of September with other potential unfairly competing companies coming next.

IPWatchdog.com: A major non-practicing entity (NPE) has garnered some careful attention from IP pundit Gene Quinn, the President and Founder of IPWatchdog.com, who pulls no punches in voicing his thoughts on the company's tactics in his topical piece, Mother of all Patent Trolls, Acacia Research, Gets More Funding. Quinn quips:

Technology companies have for far too long engaged patent trolls in a game of hunter and huntee, where the part of the prey is played by the technology giant who seeks to make and sell inventive products and offer innovative services. Much like the deer in the woods, who are not armed, they are shot by the hunters (i.e., the patent trolls) who are armed. Since patent trolls have nothing to fear in terms of a counterclaim (because they are not making or selling anything) they can fire at will without concern of being fired upon. In short, the strategy that technology companies employ is one that is likely to being shot at ever increasing rates. Add onto that the fact that in many situations the technology companies actually lose and lose big in patent infringement litigation, and add in the factor that they frequently settle, and it is hard to criticize any business person for making the choice to be a patent troll. In fact, being a patent troll seems like an almost guaranteed way to make money these days.

And, it could certainly be argued that business are in the business of making money, so NPEs that show strong tendencies towards profitability might attract a certain kind of investment-minded person that is looking only at the bottom line and not taking into account the ethical/moral concerns that Quinn seems to be focusing in his piece. Be sure to read all of the above linked work for more thoughts on why NPEs/patent trolls who "greatly overstate their case and send cookie cutter, non-specific and intellectually dishonest demands to technology giants" should be reigned in.

The CIPA Congress, IP in the New Decade, which takes place in the Lancaster Hotel, London on 30 September and 1 October, is extra sweet this year due to an offer by the crew at IPKat to pay for the admission of one lucky soul who wins their competition. The value of the prize is a non-measly 1075 pounds Sterling and should be a great way for the less-monetarily endowed to attend this excellent IP event sans cash outlay. You can find more on the contest rules here and read all the pertinent details courtesy of Jeremy Phillips in his related article, Now you can win without even going to court.

Patent Baristas.com: Stephen Albainy-Jenei comments on a CBS piece featured in this very blog the other day in his August 10th entry, CBS News Highlights Growing Backlog at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Here's what Albainy-Jenei shares with the gentle reader regarding the well-known admission of the USPTO's terrible pendency troubles:

...[W]ith an average wait time of 36 months and a backlog of 700,000 applications, Patent Office Director David Kappos says speeding up the process will help the economy. “The backlog is indeed our biggest problem. It represents innovations trapped in this agency that otherwise could be creating jobs.”

Kappos wants to cut the waiting time from 36 to 20 months and the backlog in half but he needs more money to hire an additional 1200 patent examiners and update computers. “It’s no taxpayer dollars at all– all the fees we collect come from patent applicants.”

Congress sets the fees charged by the patent office. The legislative branch also does not permit the patent office keep all $2 billion in its annual revenue, by diverting $200 million dollars a year for other federal budget items.  Legislation that would end fee diversion and empower USPTO to adjust its own fees is pending.

There is also a note to the effect that patent applicants would be willing to pay additional costs to process their submissions if it would mean a quicker turn-around, which would be a boon to time-sensitive innovations that are only valuable if capitalized on post haste.

Fashionista.com: Only a few days ago, New York Senator Charles E. Schumer penned a bill in the US Senate called the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act that would re-write the rules of fashion intellectual property with more protection for innovative fashions that qualify as "the most original design." Lauren Sherman has more on the subject in Why the New Intellectual Property Bill Might Tranform the Fashion Industry. She writes on the bill's long genesis:

The bill was passed by the House of Representatives in April 2009. It was then amended with input from different groups within the fashion industry, and is now being presented to the Senate. If it passes in the Senate, it will become a law. (As long as the President signs off on it, that is.)

We know that the law will help to protect original designs from piracy, but how? Susan Scafidi, an intellectual property attorney and author of the popular fashion law blog Counterfeit Chic, broke it down for us. PS: If you’re interested in fashion and intellectual property law, you should be following Scafidi. She teaches a fashion law course at Fordham Law School and has been instrumental in launching Fordham’s Fashion Law Institute, where she serves as Director.

This would be quite the sea change in a marketplace where designs are *expected* to be pirated and copied and could create additional innovations in the lower segments of the fashion world which have only been duplicating leading ideas at knock-off prices and qualities in the past.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: How Fifty Percent Of China's 'High Tech' Companies Are Actually Fake by Vincent Fernando at Business insider - Money Game.

Berne Convention Paved The Way To Modern IP Protection

Helium: D. Vogt tackles the contents of The Berne Convention, which is one of the seminal pieces of legislation that laid out intellectual property protections and rights. In his aptly titled piece, Intellectual Property law: Rules governing the Berne Convention, Vogt writes on many aspects of this 19th Century legal work that still rings true down through the years, including this historical passage:

The Berne Convention was the product of a public campaign by the French International Literary and Artistic Association (ALAI), an organization founded several years before by Romantic writer Victor Hugo to call for stronger legal protections for writers. Copyright laws were not a new invention during the 1880s: indeed, in America, the foundations of both copyright and patent law is enshrined in Article I of the Constitution. However, at the time copyright laws were simply a lengthy series of national legislative initiatives. Not only did the specifics of these laws differ in varying countries, but it was understandably difficult to enforce one's copyright privileges in foreign countries. A French work, for instance, would be protected by French copyright law only in France, but not in neighbouring Germany or Britain.

From Vogt's writing, it's easy to see how having a unified approach to copyright law in Europe would help spawn additional creative works by the likes of Victor Hugo because the publication of protected books would then be directly coupled with the collection of royalties. The protected works would also be subject to the rule of law which  previously lacked the authority to pursue the theft of IP in a unified, meaningful way. Be sure to read the rest of the piece at the above link for more details on the origin of modern European (and, arguably, American) copyright law.

TechCrunch.com: An ex-software programmer has turned against the hand that once fed him: his patents, that is, and has decided that patents for software applications need to be banished immediately, if not sooner. Vivek Wadhwa is the coder-turned professor in question and in his topical Why We Need To Abolish Software Patents he explains the thinking behind his radical proposal. He writes:

Patents make a lot of sense in many industries; they are needed to protect the designs of industrial equipment, pharmaceutical formulations, biotechnology products and methods, biomedical devices, consumer products (toothpaste, shampoo, contact lenses, etc.), advanced materials & composites, and of course, widgets (lighting fixtures & elements, batteries, toys, tools, etc.). But in software these are just nuclear weapons in an arms race. They don’t foster innovation, they inhibit it. That’s because things change rapidly in this industry. Speed and technological obsolescence are the only protections that matter. Fledgling startups have to worry more about some big player or patent troll pulling out a big gun and bankrupting them with a frivolous lawsuit than they do about someone stealing their ideas.

Wadhwa backs up his claims with a variety of facts and figures, including a report by Pam Samuelson that suggests the biggest winners in the software patent game are the lawyers and non-practicing entities (NPEs). Ideas like Wadwha's aren't all that uncommon but there is always more than one side to any story, or opinion, and there are certainly reasons why protecting software innovations is important to the health of American tech industry and smaller, entrepreneurial ventures that use patents to increase the likelihood that they will attract investment monies.

PC World: Spansion, a company that specializes in flash memory, is launching a campaign to convince the U.S. International Trade Commission (US ITC) that Samsung is infringing on some of its protected technology. Agam Shah offers up some details of this latest foofarah in the world of memory manufacturing by way of his timely piece, Spansion Complaint Seeks to Bar Samsung Memory Imports. Here are the relevant passages:

Spansion filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission against Samsung for infringing on four patents. The company is seeking a block on the importation to the U.S. of devices such as MP3s, smartphones and tablets that use Samsung's allegedly infringing flash memory.

A Spansion spokesman declined to comment on which products those may be. However, Apple's iPad and iPhone 4 use Samsung flash memory.

Spansion also filed other complaints in the U.S. District Courts in the Eastern District of Virginia and the Northern District of California. In the court cases, Spansion is seeking damages to the extent of profits made by Samsung from the allegedly infringing products.

Samsung has been in other legal hot water of late for similar complaints but doesn't appear to have learned a lesson from the previous claims of patent infringement. Interestingly, Shah notes that Spansion is only recently out of bankruptcy, which could explain why they are feeling a bit frisky these days: frisky enough to take on one of the heavies in the industry in a continuation of their 2008 filing.

CBS Evening News: Inventors are fed up enough with the huge patent application backlog at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and some are even taking their products directly to market without any legal protection at all. Joint authors Phil Hirschkorn and Rebecca Jarvis provide the gentle reader with more information on this dangerous, but necessary, practice by inventors who can no longer afford to wait for the government to play catch up. Patent Backlog Frustrates Inventors features one inventor who has already gone through the process of trying to gain protection via official channels but is less enthusiastic about the process after losing the exclusive rights to one of this unique safety devices:

Entrepreneur Aldo DiBelardino started developing lightweight "Spekx" eyewear four years ago in an office above his garage in Virginia Beach, Va. He gave CBS News an exclusive sneak peek at his invention before they went on sale.

"They provide you goggle-like protection, but they provide you the style and convenience of sunglasses," DeBelardino says.

DiBelardino is preparing to start selling them this summer. But the trouble is, he does not have a patent to protect his invention. He applied for one in April.

"Until I get a patent, I have a very limited ability to defend myself in the marketplace against copy activity," he explained.

DiBelardino knows that from personal experience. His first commercial venture -- the X-It Ladder -- a compact fire escape ladder for the home was copied by Kidde, the biggest fire extinguisher maker in the United States. After DeBelardino refused to sell the company his idea, it produced a knockoff that ate into his market share. In 2002, DiBelardino sued Kidde for patent infringement and won a $17 million settlement, the bulk of which went to attorneys fees, and had to give up the exclusive rights to his invention.

DiBelardino has decided to directly sell his product to the public, which is much more risky than gaining IP protection via a patent, but he explains why he is taking this extreme step: "'I'm taking a big risk, but the reality is I have no other choice,' DeBelardino says. 'The way the marketplace works, I can't be sitting on the sidelines as well, because by the time the patent would possibly issue, my opportunity window could close.'"

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Intellectual Property Protection In China at Chinese Language Software.

Microsoft & Salesforce.com Combine IP Portfolios, Let Bygones Be Bygones

PCMag.com:  Chloe Albanesius reports on the recent detente between Microsoft and Salesforce.com in her topically-titled piece, Microsoft, Salesforce Settle Patent Infringement Suit. She writes on the deal worked out between the two software companies over a disputed patent infringement:

Microsoft announced Wednesday that it has settled its patent infringement suit against Salesforce.

Under the terms of the deal, Salesforce.com and Microsoft will have access to each other's patent portfolio. Salesforce will have broad coverage for Microsoft patents covering products and services as well as back-end server infrastructure.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Microsoft said Salesforce was compensating the software giant "based on the strength of Microsoft's … operating systems, cloud services, and customer relationship management software."

So, a royalty payment for past use and an on-going cross-licensing agreement for the patented software in question. Good on ya' Microsoft and nice to see an out-of-court settlement that makes both sides happy.

The Washington Post: FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz gives remarks concerning the on-going Intel case that bans the computer chip company from a number of practices which got it in trouble with Federal authorities in the first place. Staff writer Jia Lynn Yang informs the gentle reader of Chairman Leibowitz' comments in her related piece, Intel's business practices restricted under antitrust settlement with FTC. She writes:

Capping a decade-long push by the federal government to check the power of this country's biggest tech companies, the Federal Trade Commission is banning Intel from a slew of practices deemed unfair and deceptive as part of an antitrust settlement over charges that the firm exploited its dominance in the chip market to elbow out competitors.

The FTC doesn't have the authority to fine the company -- unless it violates the terms of the settlement -- but the agency outlined a deal Wednesday restricting Intel's business practices in ways that go further than past cases in which the firm has been accused of not playing fair with rivals. Officials said the deal would benefit consumers buying computers by increasing competition in the chipmaking business.

"This is an exceptionally important case," FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz said. "And the commission was deeply troubled by Intel's actions."

The public still has 30 days to comment on the proposed settlement before the FTC enacts it. Check out the rest of the story via the link above, including the terms of the agreement.

Wired.com: A former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst and software developer is releasing "a simple, useful software tool" for CIA analysts in an open source format after fighting for a number of years over the intellectual property rights. Noah Shachtman reports on Matthew Burton's brave move in his recent article, CIA Software Developer Goes Open Source, Instead:

Burton, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst and software developer, speaks today at the Military Open Source Software Working Group in Virginia. It’s a gathering of 80 or so national security tech-types who’ve heard a thousand stories about good ideas and good code getting sunk, because of squabbles over who owns the software.

Burton, for example, spent years on what should’ve been a straightforward project. Some CIA analysts work with a tool, “Analysis of Competing Hypotheses,” to tease out what evidence supports (or, mostly, disproves) their theories. But the Java-based software is single-user — so there’s no ability to share theories, or add in dissenting views. Burton, working on behalf of a Washington-area consulting firm with deep ties to the CIA, helped build on spec a collaborative version of ACH. He tried it out, using the JonBenet Ramsey murder case as a test. Burton tested 51 clues — the lack of a scream, evidence of bed-wetting — against five possible culprits. “I went in, totally convinced it all pointed to the mom,” Burton says. “Turns out, that wasn’t right at all.”

Burton tried to navigate the complex rights attached to the ACH software, but in the end decided to just open source his code to get it into the hands of the people who need it most. Good or bad, Burton is a software rainmaker and might be setting a precedent for future programs that need to interoperate with top secret software: the type that is nigh impenetrable from a licensing agreement point-of-view.

Asia Times: Keya Acharya's timely post covers concerns by one of the world's most lucrative drug markets in light of a number of recent agreements that could negatively impact the citizens most in need of medical assistance. Trade pact worrying India's drugmakers exposes the trouble in all its disturbing glory:

Their ongoing negotiations remain shrouded in secrecy, but there are already reports that India and the European Union (EU) will have a free-trade agreement ready by the end of August, and that they will be putting signatures to it before the end of 2010.

Yet it is a potential development that is causing more nervous chatter than joyous jitters in India, where drug manufacturers in particular have raised concerns over India's trade interests and intellectual property rights (IPR) issues.

India's US$7.5 billion drug industry is among the world's top five bulk medicine producers. It is also among the world's 20 top pharmaceutical exporters, with its export business growing at 17.8% per year.

There have been previous discussions of trying to reach some kind of mutually-agreeable arrangement that would allow Third-world and developing nations to have special access to production of generic medicines that would encourage them to play fairly with protected formulations while at the same time providing life-saving medications to millions of needy patients. If you have any thoughts or comments to add, please do so, as we're always open to interesting conversations that spring up around controversial topics.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Amazon, the Latter-Day Robber Baron by Diane Francis, Editor at Large of the National Post via The Huffington Post.

Atari Returns To Life Thanks To Valuable Intellectual Property

LA Times: One of the original video game companies is back in business after traveling a somewhat sad and tortuous path through almost 3 decades of acquisitions and sell-offs. Ben Fritz covers Atari's return to life in his topical piece, Atari reboot is underway, and notes that intellectual property had a lot to do with the company's revitalization. He writes:

"It was like an old onion that smells really bad and every time you peel away one problem, you find another," said Chief Executive Jeff Lappin, a game industry veteran known for turning around troubled companies.

Together with President Jim Wilson, Lappin is looking to largely bypass the shrinking multibillion-dollar business of selling video games at retail stores and instead to leap into the fast-growing but still small digital side of the business. In the next few months, Atari will roll out a major online initiative with updated versions of old favorites such as Missile Command and Centipede that can be downloaded or played on social networks like Facebook.

It's also building out a licensing program that includes not just consumer products, but also movies based on its classic games. Two are already in development at different studios.

"I look at us as basically a start-up, but one with a brand everybody in the world knows and a great library of intellectual property," Lappin said.

There you have it: IP to the rescue, yet again! And you'll be able to enjoy a variety of old faves from Atari on a number of new platforms, including Facebook and other social websites.

The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel: The good folks at TMCC interview Jeanne Hamburg , a Member of the firm and Chair of the IP Internet Law Group at Norris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A. about her practice in the field of intellectual property law. Here's a select question and answer set from the piece that should get the gentle reader started:

Editor: Please tell us more about cybersquatting.

Hamburg: Cybersquatting is the bad faith use of a trademark in a domain name. A cybersquatter uses someone else's trademark to attract attention to the infringing domain name, to the detriment of the trademark owner. For example, the cybersquatter may be trying to direct traffic away from the trademark owner's website to its own. For instance, let's say I'm a manufacturer of blue jeans, and I purchase the domain name www.levisbluejeans.com. Clearly, I am seeking to capitalize on the goodwill of the Levi's brand in order to encourage sales of my own blue jeans (which are not Levi's brand jeans).

Cybersquatting can usually be dealt with most effectively in a uniform domain name recovery proceeding, or UDRP. A UDRP is an arbitration that generally takes no more than two or three months from commencement to decision, and it is instituted in any one of the number of arbitral forums that were approved for the resolution of such disputes by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. Such forums include the National Arbitration Forum, or NAF, in the United States and the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, in Switzerland. A UDRP is cheaper and faster than a federal court case, which can be brought under a law called the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or the ACPA.

However, if there are other acts of trademark infringement, sometimes the client will opt for a federal court case, which gives the client the opportunity to both collect damages for trademark infringement and to receive immediate injunctive relief. One of the limitations of a UDRP is that there is nothing preventing a persistent cybersquatter from registering another variation on the trademark owner's mark and doing the same things all over again. Under the ACPA, a federal court can issue an injunction stating that the cybersquatter may not use any variations of the trademark owner's mark on the web in domain names.

By contrast, the arbitral panel in a UDRP case is limited to ordering transfer of the particular domain name in issue to the trademark owner. As a practical matter, however, a UDRP can be an effective deterrent. And, importantly, a federal court case is obviously going to be a lot more expensive and time consuming than a UDRP.

Hamburg's answer might seem a big long-winded to some, but a complete and informative answer is just what this blog aims to serve up. Read the remaining questions and answers in Your Domain: Trademark And Copyright Issues In The Online Marketplace, which can also be downloaded for reading off-line or on other devices in *.pdf format.

TopSpeed: If you haven't heard the latest news on the Ford/Volvo/Geely deal, here it is courtesy of Alexander in his recent article, The deal is complete: Geely gets Volvo, Ford gets $1.8B:

After what seemed like an eternity of paperwork and projections, the deal between Ford and Geely for Volvo is finally complete. Originally, the purchase price for Volvo was $2B, but it seems that the sale was completed at $1.8B. Back in March, Geely paid Ford with a note of $200M and some cash. Today, Geely paid off the remaining $1.3B to gain ownership of the Swedish builder, but the final purchase price including closing adjustments will not be revealed until later this year.

As part of the agreement, Ford will continue to supply Volvo with powertrains, stampings, and other vehicle components for differing periods. They have also reached an agreement in terms of intellectual property; both brands will deliver their business plans and establish the proper use of each other’s intellectual property.

Not only does Ford get some much-needed dollar capital, they also get residuals in the form of an on-going deal to produce some of the parts for Geely's versions of the Volvo marque line-up. And some said a Chinese company would never own a prime, world-wide car brand!

Deccan Chronicle: And for a somewhat touching story about the difficulties faced by women hoping to invent and protect their resulting IP, check out Boys pip girls in patent projects.

One such inventor and BE graduate, Ms G. Muthulakshmi, said she and her friends had sincerely worked on a project and invented a currency identifier for visually challenged persons but failed to get the patent.

“Though we completed our project successfully, we did not get the patent. Soon after we finished college, one friend got married. Two of us got held up with our jobs. We were unable to catch up and were forced to abandon the project,” said Ms Muthulakshmi. Apart from engineering college students, anyone can approach the four-year-old CIPR department at the Anna Varsity for help in registering their innovations and getting patents.

Sad to say, indeed. Women need more opportunities, in the form of focused programs, if possible, to help them capitalize on their special skill sets that allow them to perform admirably as entrepreneurs and innovators. The Centre for Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) in Chennai, India, is doing its part to help: are we doing the same here in the United States?

Bonus piece o' the day: More Students Misunderstand The Fundamentals Of Plagiarism by at The Huffington Post.

Michigan Denies Tax Break To Video Gamer Producer Over Question Of IP Control

Freep.com: Intellectual property ownership is at the center of a tax credit dispute by a video game developer who moved to Michigan to take advantage of its favorable climate for game makers. Katherine Yung reports on the CEO of Scientifically Proven, Nathaniel McClure, and his battle to get what he's got coming in her topical piece, Game maker Scientifically Proven sues Michigan. She writes:

McClure, CEO of the video game developer Epicenter Studios in Sherman Oaks, Calif., moved his family to Farmington Hills last year because of Michigan's generous tax incentives for video game development. He now employs 15 people at a new company, Scientifically Proven Entertainment, which is creating a "Man vs. Wild" video game based on the Discovery Channel show. The Farmington Hills-based company has also been providing internships for would-be game designers at Michigan State University.

The state's tax credits for video games debuted in April 2008 but no one has yet received approval to claim them, according to Ken Droz, a spokesman for the Film Office. McClure is among the first to apply.

McClure said state officials have refused to meet with him, leaving him with few options but to file a lawsuit July 15 in Oakland County Circuit Court. Both the Film Office and the Treasury Department declined to comment.

A representative for the State of Michigan says that McClure simply doesn't qualify for the tax because he doesn't own the intellectual property related to the Discovery Channel show.

In a June 8 letter to McClure, Janet Lockwood, who was Michigan's film commissioner at the time, said state officials denied a tax credit to McClure's company because it does not own or control all of the intellectual-property rights involved in producing the "Man vs. Wild" video game. "An applicant with less than overall control over the project is not an 'eligible production company' eligible for the credit," Lockwood wrote.

She said that the video game's publisher, Crave Entertainment, may apply for the tax credit because it appears that the company does own or control the intellectual property rights.

Find out why McClure thinks he's got a good case due to the wording of the related clause in Michigan's ta law by reading the rest of Yung's piece via the link above.

AFP: US Trade Representative (USTR) Ron Kirk recently reiterated the Obama Administration's push to bring Chinese IP protection and enforcement into alignment with US policies and desires. From US to press China on controversial technology policy come more details of this on-going effort to squeeze China into taking US interests to heart, especially those of protecting American innovations and products/services based on a protected status. Also of interest is a China-biased government procurement policy that is seriously crimping foreign (read: US) business interests in the world's most populous nation:

The United States said Wednesday it would continue to press China on its drive to develop homegrown technology that threatened global intellectual property protection and market competition.

Despite assurances from Beijing, President Barack Obama's top trade official said Washington would raise the issue at upcoming bilateral trade meetings.

"We did address it and we were pleased that we got them to at least agree to be more transparent but we do not have final resolution of that," US Trade Representative Ron Kirk told reporters.

"That is going to be one of the top items that we continue to engage China on," he said, commenting on criticism by the top US business lobby on Chinese industrial policies promoting indigenous innovation.

Look for the USTR and the US Chamber of Commerce to increase the pressure on China as the number of pirated American products continues to increase, despite promises by Beijing to the contrary.

PatLit: Jeremy Phillips' timely piece, Interest on damages for infringement not a correctable error, explains how a small "slip" created a serious headache for the litigants in a UK patent trial. Here's the introductory paragraph to get started on:

Yesterday's decision of Mr Justice Floyd (Patents Court, England and Wales) in the latest round of Leo Pharma A/S and another v Sandoz Ltd [2010] EWHC 1911 (Pat) (see earlier post here) picks up following the trial of an action in which Leo Pharma's patent infringement claim against Sandoz was upheld. A draft order before the court included a provision that 'The Defendant shall pay to the Claimants any sums found due on the taking of said inquiry into damages or account of profits together with interest at the judgment rate (being 8%) from the date of this Order".

Read on to find out the rest of the story, and also check out Jeremy's previous post on the court case in question: Unfortunate, but curable.

Harvard Business Review: Why China Might Never Protect IP by Chris Meyer & Julia Kirby highlights the difficulties facing those optimists who see China as just a hop, skip and a jump away from a realistic and robust IP enforcement regime. Mid-way through the piece, the authors present a case study on what things portend for IP rights in China:

The world's drug companies have a trove of accumulated research. The successful research is disclosed as part of the licensing process. The research leading to dead ends, however, sits alongside the Ark of the Covenant in the warehouse from Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark. In your Godlike view, which would be better for the economy, keeping it there or disclosing it to the world of researchers? Certainly there would be cases in which one scientist's ceiling would become another's floor, and a recombination of knowledge would accelerate progress — once again at no marginal cost. And if you add non-economic considerations like, say, the benefits of accelerated drug discovery, there's a huge welfare gain to the world's population. In a society truly based on information economics, the non-disclosure of drug research might properly be prosecuted as stealing.

Well, then. Should hard-won knowledge be "free" for the taking by under-developed, or developing nations? And if that's the supposition of nations like China, will they be willing to crack down on IP theft in the future once they get rolling on ascendancy to 1st World nation status?

CongressDaily - Tech Daily Dose: Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner speaks out on the Google-Yahoo! search deal in Japan with some very real sentiments against the antitrust-worthy arrangement. Juliana Gruenwald features Heiner's remarks in her July 27th piece, Microsoft Blasts Yahoo Japan-Google Deal. To whit:

In a blog post, Microsoft Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Dave Heiner argued that the deal will "eliminate search competition in Japan--in paid advertising and natural search results." He noted that Google accounts for about 51 percent of paid search advertising in Japan, while Yahoo Japan accounts for 47 percent, with their natural search results "almost as high. ... If Google is permitted to proceed with its plan, it would gain nearly complete control over search and search advertising in Japan through contract, not organic growth."

Heiner said this deal is bigger than the 2008 deal Google and Yahoo, which owns part of Yahoo Japan, abandoned after the Justice Department said it would file an antitrust lawsuit to block it. While he notes that Google has said the latest deal already has been approved by Japanese authorities, Heiner said, "It will be interesting to see over the next few weeks if that is really accurate."

Here's to hoping some common sense comes to the rescue, Japanese-style!

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Study About IP On The Human Genome Shows That Patents Hindered Innovation by Mike Masnick at TechDirt.com.

i4i Gains Additional Legal Support For XML Patent In Microsoft Ruling

PC Magazine: Microsoft's on-going patent battle with Canadian firm i4i over the inclusion of an XML editor in Microsoft's Word application has reached yet another dead end. Chloe Albanesius reports on the matter in her topical piece entitled In Blow to Microsoft, Validity of i4i Patent Upheld. She writes on Microsoft's bid to defend itself against what it views as improperly interpreted patent law:

"We continue to believe there are important matters of patent law that still need to be properly addressed, and we are considering our options for going forward," Kevin Kutz, director of public affairs for Microsoft, said in a statement.

The case dates back to 2007, when i4i sued Microsoft for infringing on its XML editor patent. In August 2009, a District Court in Texas handed down a $290 million judgment against the software giant and ordered Microsoft to remove Word from the market within 60 days.

Microsoft appealed, but lost in December. At that point, Microsoft said it would remove the infringing XML editor from all copies of Word by January 11, but still filed a second appeal on Jan. 8. In March, the court issued a preliminary ruling that said the original judgment should stand, and in April, it rejected Microsoft's request for an en banc review.

Microsoft could still appeal to the Supreme Court, a viable but slim possibility.

To the Supreme Court, then! Check out the rest of Albanesius' piece for the details of i4i's side of the story and look for a motion from Microsoft to continue to fight the good fight in the weeks or months to come.

Intellectual Property Watch: The mandated 3 year review of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been performed and the results of the deliberation confirm the rights of consumers to use gadgets and snippets of video footage in certain situations. Leslee Friedman informs the gentle reader what these confirmations mean for the general public in her related piece, Review Of US Digital Millennium Copyright Act Brings New Exemptions. Here's a choice passage, or two:

The United States Copyright Office this week completed its statutorily required review of the landmark Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Included in the ruling were three major exemptions: a renewal on the exemption for cell-phone unlocking, a new exemption for the jailbreaking of smart phones technology, and the use of visual media clips for transformative, non-commercial works [vidding]. The ruling has resulted in a flood of optimism from a range of open-access advocates.

These exemptions will have to undergo new scrutiny in order to be renewed through the same process in three years, but for the moment, the vidding exemption opens up new ground for professionals working on presentations, artists, and educators to grapple with visual media while being certain they are covered by Fair Use Doctrine, according to sources.

The ruling has excited groups and individuals in favor of a more "open access" environment, including the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) and the Organization for Transformative Works (OTW). The implications of "jailbreaking" apply somewhat heavily to products made by Apple so time will tell if the USPTO decision on the DMCA will negatively impact Apple's bottom line or not.

The Huffington Post: Author, professional speaker, and founder of InnovationCoach.com Robert F. Brands' timely article, Redefining Innovation's True Reward: Amassing Intellectual Property and Value Creation takes a supportive stance on the ability of intellectual property protections to invigorate and increase entrepreneurial efforts. He writes:

...Intellectual Property will drive the future. As we move past the Industrial Age and the Age of Technology, the future era will focus on process that drives IP -- and the real value it delivers. It is imperative to build and protect IP through the use of patents. Patents protect and define the innovation so they are the key step to commercialization and enhancing value.

It is essential for every company to keep a patented Intellectual Property portfolio. The IP portfolio of Airspray doubled in value because of the patented technology that turned liquid hand soap into foam. Airspray realized -- and its fiscal results proved -- that the regular and persistent renewing, refreshing and updating of patents was well worth the cost.

Hear, hear! If IP can help the biggies like Coca-Cola, which Brands holds up as a shining beacon of the profitability that a strong and innovative company can achieve when they put IP ahead of all else, then it certainly can boost small businesses' bottom lines, too. Find out about Coke's successful renewal under a strong, IP-centric leader in the early 80s by reading Brands' entire piece at the link above.

IPWatchdog.com: Ever since the US Supreme Court ruled on Bilski, the IP community has been agog and many sectors that will be directly impacted by the decision have been scrambling to make policy decisions to comply with the long-awaited instruction. Gene Quinn's Patent Office Releases Interim Bilski Guidelines provides insightful guidance from the USPTO on what the examiners will be using to stay within the new interpretation of business method and software patents. To whit:

The Patent Office explains that it is their understanding of the Supreme Court decision in Bilski that the Court intended to “underscored that the text of Sec. 101 is expansive… [and] business methods are not “categorically outside of Sec. 101’s scope…”

The Notice also reminds examiners are reminded that Sec. 101 is not the sole tool for determining patentability where a claim encompasses an abstract idea, and specifically states that “Section 101 is merely a coarse filter and thus a determination of eligibility under Sec. 101 is only a threshold question for patentability.” This should hardly be considered new, or refreshing, but the way that the Patent Office and many patent examiners have interpreted business methods and computer implemented methods over the last few years suggests that this change in examiner guidance could be monumental. It really ought to not be monumental because this guidance merely directs the patent examiners accurately on the law, and patent eligibility under Section 101 has always been merely a threshold question. Patent examiners and the Patent Office for years have not treated it that way, largely ignoring basic principles of patent law. This guidance should put an end to that and there is real reason for optimism.

At least UPSTO Chief Kappos and crew are getting their ducks in a row, but are all the other affected parties so ready to address the new rules of the software/business method patent game?

The Hill: In a separate, and somewhat related piece, USPTO Chief Kappos comments on the collection of fiscal year 2010 fees and highlights the need for the Congress to help his organization get adequate funds to address on-going pendency problems and high examiner turnover. Here's a snippet from the press release, Ensure USPTO has access to all of its fee collections:

Without urgent congressional action to amend its current year appropriations, USPTO cannot invest its fee collections this year to make a dent in the backlog, hire new examiners, pay for overtime and make critical investments in IT infrastructure. Without help from the Congress, American companies, universities, and independent inventors hoping for patent approval to commercialize their new technologies and create new private sector jobs will have to wait unnecessarily for their patents to be granted.

Thankfully, a simple, and completely budget-neutral solution has been proposed by the administration that would allow USPTO access to all of its collections this year. But it requires fast Congressional action to maximize its effectiveness. I urge Congress to act swiftly on the administration’s request and help accelerate the pace of our economic recovery, for the sake of local businesses and entrepreneurs in each and every district of our country.

True, 'dat! Without funding, the USPTO can not hope to keep up with current incoming patent applications, yet alone eliminate the millions of already-filed applications stacked to what must be sky-high levels awaiting the overworked examiner corps to take action.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Nvidia Loses to Rambus in Latest Patent Suit by Michelle Maisto at eWeek.com.

Stem Cells For Eye Transplants Receives Patent Protection

TopNews: A patent award covering growing stem cells for use in the growth of new corneas should help patients with various diseases of this critical component of the eye by allowing a new cornea to be implanted without fear of tissue rejection. Jayden Roberts reports on the details of this recent, important intellectual property protection in his topic piece, Scientists Get The Patent Of Growing Stem Cells For Eye Transplants. He writes:

In a major achievement, the scientists have managed to get a patent for growing stem cells of the cornea. The cells will be grown on a synthetic material, called Mebiol Gel, which will be used in the process of transplant.

For a long time scientists across the world have been trying to get the patent. The declaration was made by the researchers at Sankara Nethralaya and Nichi-In Biosciences Sankara Nethralaya and Nichi-In Biosciences on Friday.

The new procedures have been devised and patented by these two institutes. A synthetic substance was used by the researchers for growing the corneal limbal stem cells in order to reduce the chances of viral infections. Moreover, biological materials have a greater chance of rejection.

A boon for people suffering from conditions that would leave them blind without a new cornea! The technology should bring in plenty of revenue for the scientists who finally received the exclusive rights to the Mebiol Gel process. Check out the rest of the article for a few more details on this most excellent medical discovery.

FierceBiotech: Major drug company Lilly hopes to make up some expected slack in its patented product pipeline to keep the coffers full of  blockbuster-medicine revenue.  The topical article, Lilly CEO: Pipeline to soften patent losses, by Maureen Martino, explains Lilly's plan to remain profitable even after the expiration of the patents protecting its current stable of best-selling drugs. Here's the scoop:

Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY) is looking to its pipeline to fill the gaps left by a number of high-profile drugs comping off patent. In October 2011, blockbuster Zyprexa will fall to generic competition; additionally, about three-quarters of Lilly's current revenue comes from eight drugs that will lose patent protection between now and 2017. "We have the challenge of replenishing our product portfolio from our pipeline," says CEO John Lechleiter (photo) in a USA Today interview. "Fortunately, we have the most exciting pipeline today in our history."

It *is* exciting that Lilly has been able to fund on-going research and development efforts to keep the pipeline of upcoming formulations full and should help the company remain a good pick for investors in the years to come.

The TTABlog: John L. Welch's specialty is the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), hence to name of his blog, and his recent piece entitled Sidestepping American Fertility, TTAB Finds "PAO DOCE WRAPS" Generic for Bakery Products addresses yet another ruling by the Board on a case hinging on a grammatical interpretation. Welch explains this semantic investigation:

Once again taking a tough stance regarding genericness, the Board rejected Applicant's American Fertility-based argument in affirming a refusal to register PAO DOCE WRAPS on the Supplemental Register, finding the term to be generic for "bakery products." In re Leonard’s Bakery, Ltd., Serial No. 77556405 (June 28, 2010) [not precedential].

Examining Attorney Brian P. Callaghan relied on websites using "pao doce" and "wraps" generically for various bakery products [Apparently, Pao Doce is a Portuguese holiday bread.], analyzing the evidence under the Gould standard. Applicant did not dispute the meanings of "pao doce" and "wrap," but it contended that PAO DOCE WRAPS is a phrase, not a compound word, and therefore that the Gould standard does not apply.

A certain blow to the company producing the Pao Doce Wrap products but the ruling sets an additional precedent for generic terms' inability to be protected under US trademark law and should provide meaningful guidance to companies, and their IP lawyers, in the future.

AGIPNews: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) officials got down to business earlier this past week in Geneva, Switzerland, to grapple with the goal of "reaching agreement on an international legal instrument (or instruments) to ensure the effective protection of traditional knowledge (TK), traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) and genetic resources (GRs)." The topical Experts Break New Ground in Traditional Cultural Expression Talks informs the gentle reader about the progress made towards protecting traditional knowledge as valuable intellectual property:

A press release by WIPO stated that their work focused on what is considered to be the most mature of the three subjects - TCEs - covered by the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC).

Last May, the IGC agreed on arrangements for intersessional working groups (IWGs) to support and facilitate the IGC's negotiations by providing legal and technical advice and analysis, including, where appropriate, various options and scenarios. Member states agreed that delegations at the IWGs would be limited to one technical expert each.

This new format – this is the first such mechanism for the IGC’s negotiations - resulted in an intense drafting session on TCEs at this week’s first meeting of the IWG. Experts, participating in their personal capacities, engaged in lively and active discussion. The specific expertise of the participants and the relatively small size of the meeting contributed to its success.  In addition to experts from WIPO member states, indigenous experts and NGOs also took part in the informal and open-ended drafting groups.

Fantastic protection for knowledge previously left out of the realm of IP law enforcement which should encourage indigenous peoples to seek formal recognition of cultural wisdom that might have previously only been protected by word-of-mouth and family ties.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: My analysis of the Facebook lawsuit by edbear at his CAPS blog.

House Small Business Committee Touts Trade Agreements’ Favorable Affects For American Small Businesses

TradingMarkets.com: The House Small Business Committee today announced a the findings of a report on how trade agreements affect American small businesses and the general tenor of the news is upbeat. Here's a snippet from the related press release, Small Business Owners Report U.S. Trade Agreements Help Protect Intellectual Property:

Ranking Member Sam Graves (R-MO) said, "Protecting intellectual property is critical to our economy, jobs, and consumers. A violation of intellectual property laws directly affects a company's brand, market share, bottom line, ability to export, and creates a number of safety concerns for consumers. It's very easy to see the trickle-down effect this has on an economy. It is important that the United States maintains an aggressive strategy to protecting these highly valued assets."

Witnesses from industries such as music, technology and manufacturing discussed the important role that intellectual property has played in growing their business. Witnesses also explained how their businesses have been adversely affected by counterfeiting and piracy.

The Honorable Mr. Graves wouldn't lead the gentle reader astray, no sir. Check out what industry witnesses had to say about Mr. Graves' supportive words on the US' continued enforcement of intellectual property laws at home, and abroad, via the linked piece above.

CNN Politics: The White House's new IP enforcement plan is starting off in an old, familiar direction: eastwards. Towards China, that is. Mackenzie Green is on the spot with a topical piece entitled China will be focus of new U.S. anti-piracy initiative that clarifies IP Czar Espinel's careful targeting of a long-time IP infringement offender. From Green's piece:

Washington plans a "comprehensive review" of its support of U.S. business efforts to prevent intellectual property theft overseas, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel told the House Committee on Foreign Affairs at a hearing.

Espinel singled out China, saying that "due to the scale and scope of manufacturing, its industrial policies and its potential as an export market, it's fair to say that China raises a particularly troubling set of issues."

"Therefore, China will be a significant focus of our enforcement efforts as we address intellectual property infringement abroad," she said in her opening statements to the committee.

"Whether it's coordinating our law enforcement personnel overseas, developing a strategy to go after foreign-based websites, or using trade policy tools to address the competitive disadvantages that we face, China will be a priority," Espinel elaborated.

As our largest import provider, China stands squarely in the gunsights of US IP enforcement troubles and with piracy levels approaching 100 percent for certain electronic and software products, the nation needs to get some serious help reforming its weak IP protection laws.

AFP: And the US is not the only major power concerned with China's laissez faire attitude towards protecting the innovation of entrepreneurs: the European Union (EU) has had about all it can stomach and notes apprehension by EU businesses who are "increasingly worried about doing business in China, citing intellectual property protection as a major concern." From Shanghai we learn what European Union Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht recently said regarding China/EU trade relations:

"European companies are increasingly worried," De Gucht told reporters at a trade event at the European Union pavilion at Shanghai's World Expo.

"Most of it has to do with the protection of intellectual property because the core of our economy is of course intellectual property," he said.

The indigenous innovation policy forces European companies to register as Chinese companies to participate in the public procurement market and to bring their intellectual property "into the open", De Gucht said.

The EU is in talks with Beijing to improve conditions for European businesses, but De Gucht also said the bloc was working on measures to demand reciprocity in procurement markets

Chinese companies currently enjoy a very comfortable path towards winning government procurement contracts, as the law singles out domestic solutions as more desirable than those coming from overseas, regardless of which solution best fits the situation. Read the remaining portions of EU trade chief says China business concern rising and learn more about why De Gucht & Co. are bucking for a level playing field in China.

PopEater: Robert Burck, better known as the Naked Cowboy of Times Square, New York, is suing the woman billing herself as the "Naked Cowgirl" for infringing on his trademark image and goodwill. Zach Dionne reports on what the hullabaloo is all about in the insightful Naked Cowboy's Manager: 'Naked Cowgirl Is Basically a Criminal'. He writes:

The Naked Cowboy of Times Square (alias Robert Burck) recently filed a lawsuit against lewd imitator Naked Cowgirl in Manhattan federal court. The Cowboy's case rests on the fact that Sandra Brodsky has infringed his copyright and damaged his brand since 2008, Burck's manager, Todd Rubenstein, tells PopEater.

Rubenstein says Brodsky, who also goes by the name Sandy Kane, assumes Naked Cowgirl doesn't fall under the registered trademark of the Naked Cowboy, and "she is sadly mistaken."

"It's infringement; she's basically stealing intellectual property. She's gonna lose," Rubenstein tells us of the lawsuit. "And then she'll probably continue doing what she's doing, she'll be found in contempt of federal court, and she'll be incarcerated. That's the sad part about it."

Rubenstein says Burck's image as the Naked Cowboy is one of international renown and deserves the respect given to other Times Square attractions like "the Empire State Building" or "the Statue of Liberty." Get the details on a Naked Cowboy/Cowgirl duet record deal gone bad and other related gossip on the Naked Cowgirl's "lewd" behavior by clicking through to the real deal.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: BioPatent Design Conference 2010: Munich, Germany by Stephen Albainy-Jenei at PatentBaristas.com.

Developing Nations Fight For Access To Patent-protected Medicines

AllAfrica.com: Isolda Agazzi reports on the difficulties poor countries face when trying to source drugs at reasonable prices due to the constraints of intellectual property protections in her topical piece, Intellectual Property Rights Remain A Barrier to Drugs. She writes on the current status of reduced-cost medicines for a variety of developing nations:

Middle and low-income countries were given a 10-year extension to adopt IP laws on pharmaceuticals. India, for example, the largest producer of generics for developing countries, adopted such a law in 2005.

LDCs were given a 20-year deadline that will expire in 2016 -- even though the WTO is currently undergoing an LDCs needs assessment process, focused on the priorities of individual countries.

"Some African countries are developing their production capacity but we are concerned about the 2016 TRIPS deadline -- not only for production but also for import -- because of the threat of prices rising," added Childs.

The WHO essential medicines list now contains 423 drugs, among which only 20 are still patented, most being second line ARVs. "This is the biggest public health challenge. And the third line ARV will be even more costly," stated Dr Hans Hogerzeil, WHO Director of essential medicines and pharmaceutical policies.

For nations seeking additional access to IP-protected medicines there *are* a number of possible routes, but looming overhead is the 2016 deadline that might put the hurt on newer efforts to provide these much-needed drugs to millions of people who would otherwise not be able to afford them.

Boston.com: Jonathan Saltzman's US says scientist gave data to China reveals a possible case of mistaken intention, or maybe a real live instance of industrial espionage, depending on who's doing the investigating. Here's some of the pertinent bits that tell the tale of one Kexue Huang, of late an employee of the Dow Chemical Co. and currently a scientific researcher for biofuel company Qteros.

Huang, 45, who worked for Dow in Indiana for five years until he was fired in early 2008, was arrested on July 13 in Massachusetts, where he now lives, on 12 counts of economic espionage to benefit a foreign government or instrumentality, Assistant US Attorney Scott L. Garland said at Huang’s bail hearing yesterday in US District Court in Worcester. Huang was also charged with five counts of interstate or foreign transportation of stolen property.

And this particular case is only one of a handful of like examples of "individuals ever charged with economic espionage to benefit a foreign government or instrumentality" and indicates that the government, and Dow, are taking the matter very seriously. Find out more on Huang's precarious position and why the defense believes he should be able to be set free on bail by reading Saltzman's complete piece at the link above.

The Vancouver Sun: Facebook is defending itself against claims of patent infringement brought by Leader Technologies of Columbus, Ohio. Tom Hals, of the Reuters news service, has more information on Leader's disputed patent covering the "dynamic association of electronically stored information with iterative work flow changes." From Facebook, small firm square off over patent claims:

Facebook Inc. on Monday began its defense against claims that the most basic functions of its hugely popular website infringe a patent held by a little-known company.

An attorney for the patent's holder, Leader Technologies of Columbus, Ohio, said in opening arguments in federal court in Delaware that internal Facebook documents and testimony by executives of the social networking website would show "overwhelming evidence of Facebook infringement."

The lawyer representing Facebook in the matter had this to say about Leader Technologies founder Michael McKibben claims: "'He didn't invent the Internet. He didn't invent web browsing,' said Michael Rhodes, an attorney with Cooley LP, which represents Facebook. 'He didn't invent a lot of things.'" True, true. But just in case, shouldn't you be coming up with some legal quips that don't sound like playground banter? I mean, really.

AppleInsider: A group called Americans For Patent Fairness recently sued a number of tech companies, including Apple, Sprint and Verizon, with a suit "assert[ing] that the companies have falsely marked products with expired patents, or patents that do not cover the marked products, 'with the intent to deceive the public about the patent coverage for their products.'" Neil Hughes has the rest of the story in his topical and related post, Apple accused of false patent marking in new lawsuit. Here's what Hughes writes:

Apple products targeted in the suit are the iPhone, iPod touch, fifth- and sixth-generation iPod classic, the third- and fourth-generation iPod nano. It noted that the fifth-generation iPod was marked with manuals, user guides or product information guides with references to U.S. Patent Nos. 4,577,216, 4,631,603, 4,819,098, and 4,907,093. The remaining products included references to U.S. Patent Nos. 4,577,216, 4,631,603, 4,819,098, and 4,907,093.

The suit notes that the '216, '603, '098 and '093 patents each expired prior to Apple making the respective products available for sale. Starting on March 6, 2007, the company began referencing those patents in documentation with its products, after the patents had expired.

"Despite the fact that all of the '216, '603, '098 and '093 patents expired prior to the first sale in the United States of any Apple Product, Apple knowingly and intentionally marked the user manuals, user guides, or product information guides (or the equivalent) for these products at various times with the patent numbers of these patents," the suit reads. "Apple knows that the '216, '603, '098 and '093 patents do not and never covered any of the Apple Products."

It might comes as a surprise to the AFPF that a recent finding in a circuit court decided that qui tam lawsuits are no longer going to be the cash cows that some had hoped they would be, and that even if the case makes to to court, the effort (and cash) spent might not be worth the bounty recovered.

GreenTech: Toyota has settled one of its many on-going patent-related lawsuits for an undisclosed amount. Lora Kolodny reports on this legal defeat by one of the world's leading hybrid car manufacturers:

The technology disputed had to do with supplying torque from both an electric motor and an internal combustion engine to a car’s wheels, according to earlier reports by Bloomberg BusinessWeek and confirmed by a Paice spokesperson today.

Paice had gone as far as asking the U.S. International Trade Comission to force Toyota to halt export of its hybrid vehicles to the U.S., where its Prius is the top-selling hybrid.

Now, Toyota will pay Paice under a licensing agreement (for which terms have not been disclosed) for patented technology which is included in the following current models and others: Prius 3, the hybrid Camry, RX-450 and the HS-250h.

Kolodny notes that Paice is a company that doesn't actually make any products, but rather uses patents and related intellectual property (IP) to sue its way to profitability. But as non-practicing entities (NPE) go, Paice is just doing what all companies do: try to make moola. Read Toyota Settles Longstanding Patent Dispute Over Hybrid Vehicle Tech for the win.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Man says Bill Gates' company stabbed him in the back by Alex Silverman at MYNorthwest.com.

Cisco Throws Its Hat Into The “I Love Victoria Espinel” Ring

Cisco Blogs: Mark Chandler, General Counsel and Secretary for Cisco Systems, weighs in on the White House's intellectual property enforcement plans in his topical piece entitled Cisco welcomes launch of first ever U.S. National IP Strategy. He is especially impressed with the newly-appointed IP Czar, Victoria Espinel, who is taking her role seriously:

Ms. Espinel has brought to life Senator Leahy’s vision with her efforts to drive  to crack down on those who would steal intellectual property and create counterfeit goods which undermine the lifeblood of our economy by denying enterprises the fruits of their labors, and who would endanger national security by providing fake goods.  Already she’s making a difference in working to improve Department of Homeland Security efforts to intercept fake goods at our borders.

Cisco welcomes suggestions in the report to improve coordination among all levels of law enforcement and between the private and public sector, and  supports the Administration and Congress in their implementation of its recommendations.  Ms. Epinel’s commitment to interagency coordination has resulted in a comprehensive, mutually-reinforcing plan to address all aspects of intellectual property theft which costs our economy billions of dollars each year and poses risks to our economic and national security.

As one of America’s most innovative companies, we at Cisco look forward to working with the Ms. Espinel and her team as they implement this plan.

Chandler & Co. at Cisco are clearly happy with the much-awaited plan to fight piracy on many fronts that Espinel has created as her first step towards a stronger intellectual property enforcement regimen both in the United States and abroad in an attempt to stop IP theft in foreign countries.

NetworkWorld: In a separate, unrelated piece, Cisco figures largely as a significant loser in an intellectual property infringement lawsuit with Network-1 Security Solutions, a non-practicing entity (NPE), over the use of Power over Ethernet (POE) technology. Jim Duffy has additional details on the case for the gentle reader in Cisco to pay up to $112 million in Power-over-Ethernet patent case. He writes:

The settlement calls for approximately $32 million up front with up to approximately $80 million in royalty payments from Cisco alone over the next nine years. Adtran, Enterasys, Extreme and Foundry have also agreed to enter into non-exclusive licenses for the Remote Power Patent, according to Network-1.

Under the terms of the licenses, the companies agreed to pay to Network-1 an aggregate upfront payment of approximately $32 million and have also agreed to license the Remote Power Patent for its full term, which expires in March 2020.

In addition, Cisco agreed to pay royalties, beginning in 2011, based on its sales of PoE products up to maximum royalty payments per year of $8 million through 2015 and $9 million per year thereafter for the remaining term of the patent. The royalty payments are subject to certain conditions, including the continued validity of Network-1's Remote Power Patent -- the actual royalty amounts received may be less than the caps stated above, according to Network-1.

And there's no telling what Chandler & Co. think about the ruling and resultant fine, as Duffy reports that "Cisco declined to comment." The IP in question, The Remote Power Patent, still has lots of life in it as the protection isn't going to expire until March 2020, at which time Network-1 patent portfolio should be considerably larger if it invests some of its 112 million dollar boon in new IP.

PatLit: Patent appeals that you can afford by Jeremy Phillips highlights a summer booksale by Oxford University Press, including an IP-relevant volume, Patent Appeals: the Elements of Effective Advocacy in the Federal Circuit by Mark Simon Davies. Strike now while the iron is hot to pick up this book for 1/4 of its original 60 pounds Sterling price by clicking through and reading Phillips' entire piece.

Intellectual Property and Sustainable Development: Assorted experts of the medical, and access to medicine, varieties met recently to pen a document destined to be released this Friday at the
joint WTO, WIPO and WHO "Technical Symposium on Access to Medicines." According to Amy Kapczynski,
Assistant Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley Law School, the draft document includes this opening paragraph which boldly spells out the feelings of a wide variety of signatory organizations:

All people have the right to access the medicines they need to be healthy. As public health groups, humanitarian and inter-governmental organizations, experts and academics that work on access to medicines, we gathered at the University of California at Berkeley to analyze the serious threats that recent "intellectual property enforcement" initiatives pose to this right.  The enforcement agenda threatens the last decade of efforts to achieve access to medicines for people in low- and middle-income countries, and compromises the attainment of health-related Millennium Development Goals. We make this Declaration to call upon policy makers in governments and international organizations to reject the cynical and dangerous efforts that have been made through this agenda to prioritize commercial interests over the right to health.

Of special note is the paper's concerted focus on the White House's comprehensive intellectual property enforcement plan that would increase the likelihood that medicines transiting international borders would be subject to new search-and-seizure laws. The signatories feel that these changes in the policies of the US, and other nations who adopt them, towards medicines being transported out of mostly First World nations and into developing ones would cause the loss of life to those citizens most in need of access to cheaper medicines.

ArsTechnica.com - Law & Disorder: In another story related to medicines in poorer countries, Jacqui Cheng offers coverage on a group of groups who are protesting the United States Trade Representative's (USTR) Special 301 Report sanctions that are keeping the Obama Administration from following through on its promise to help fight AIDS in the developing world. Cheng's aptly-titled Human rights groups slam Special 301 Report sheds light on the subject:

The groups include the Health Global Access Project, the Foundation for AIDS Rights, and the Deli Network of People Living with HIV, and are being led by the American University Washington College of Law's Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP). PIJIP associate director Sean Flynn said that the groups plan to file a complaint over the Special 301 report on Tuesday, at which time a press conference will be held at the Media Center at the International AIDS Conference 2010 in Vienna.

According to Flynn, President Obama promised to "break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs," but has failed to take sufficient action, as evidenced by the 2009 and 2010 Special 301 reports. "This complaint will allege that the continuation of Special 301 attacks on policies promoting access to affordable medications abroad violates international human rights obligations," Flynn said in a statement.

The complaint will likely get some attention in the world media, but whether or not it gets its due consideration from the Obama White House remains to be seen. With so many other key issues fighting for the administration's attention, it's not unlikely that the complaint will be shelved with so many other like it in lieu of more immediate, palliative action.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Is Famed Trademark Troll Leo Stoller Trying To Stealthily Reclaim Bogus Stealth Trademarks? by Mike Masnick at TechDirt.com.