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.

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.

White House Releases IP Czar’s Enforcement Strategy

The White House: Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, released her recommendations today for a comprehensive plan to protect American intellectual property. The 61 page document (*.pdf link) entitled The 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement outlines a multi-faceted blueprint that focuses on ways to address the growing problem of IP theft both at home and abroad. Here is the takeaway paragraph that nicely sums up Espinel's vision:

The American economy is driven by the innovation and creativity of its people.  We need to protect the ideas and artistry that has made us so successful.  We need to make sure we protect our citizens from the risks to public health and safety posed by criminal activity and by dangerous counterfeits.  This strategy is the coordinated effort of your government to protect consumers and our economy from these real threats.  I am confident that this strategy will be a significant step in that direction.  I encourage you to read the strategy we submitted to Congress today.  If you do, I hope that you will agree that we are headed along the right path.

Espinel's plan highlights what each IP-related government agency will have as its responsibilities and also points out steps taken so far to move towards a more rigorous, and capable set of laws. Espinel's proposal will allow the United States to leverage its innovative spirit which will in turn help bring increased prosperity and employment to a country struggling to recover from the recent financial downturn.

PatentBaristas.com: Ever increasing prices for drugs are forcing health insurance companies to continually raise their rates regardless of the health or payment histories of their policy holders. And one of the primary sources of rising pharmaceutical costs is the ability of drug manufacturers to set prices for their products at very high levels due to the strength of copyright protections. Guest Barista Kathy Wilson explains the situation in more detail via her topical post, Medical Patents – Are They Necessary Evils? She writes:

It’s a conundrum that the experts seem unwilling to answer; and even as blame is laid at the feet of the patents that protect the drugs and how drug companies exploit every loophole in the book to prolong their patent period, nothing concrete is being done by the government to fund new research and development initiatives in the field of medicine. Until such a day comes, patents are going to be valid, drug costs are going to soar until they run out, and the cost of healthcare is going to keep climbing with no respite in sight.

A rather bleak outlook, yes, but one based firmly on the reality of the situation. Why not try some kind of public/private joint venture that would create a more reasonably-priced alternative to the already tax payer-funded drugs that consumers have no choice but to buy?

ArsTechnica.com - Law & Disorder: A pro-IP legal team working with Big Media defended their recent filing of a huge "John Doe" lawsuit against peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharers in the District of Columbia by claiming their mass filing gives "all Doe Defendants the ability to defend the case in one jurisdiction, e.g. the ability to combine or join other Doe Defendants’ filings and the ability to receive uniform decisions by the Court." Nate Anderson's P2P lawyers tell judge: suing 5,000 "Does" at once is fine provides more information on the Virginia lawyers' rejoinder:

The US Copyright Group, a business name for the group of Virginia lawyers filing suits against tens of thousands of alleged US peer-to-peer movie downloaders, has been sharply criticized by the EFF and ACLU for suing up to 5,000 anonymous defendants at once. The suits were "improperly joined," said the groups. At least one of the federal judges overseeing these cases wanted to hear more, telling lawyers from Dunlap, Grubb, & Weaver to convince her that all of the anonymous defendants had participated in the same transaction.

Lawyer Tom Dunlap took up the cause and did his best to make a cogent argument in favor of filing 1 suit against the 5000 or so co-defendants, a number of whom have never even heard of the movie they are claimed to have stolen, which in this instance is Uwe Boll's, Far Cry. What remains to be seen is if the judge will agree with Dunlap and his group, which seems unlikely given her previously-voiced skepticism.

Microsoft News Center: In the half decade that it has existed, Microsoft's venture capital program, IP Ventures, has shown great prospects as a means to encourage technology companies in areas of interest to the Redmond, Washington software giant. Here's a takeaway passage from Five Years In, IP Ventures Program Continues to Fuel the Imagination of Entrepreneurs highlighting the program's upcoming role in a Harvard Business School case study:

On June 22, following months of research and numerous interviews with experts at Microsoft and several other companies, Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner and writer Ann Leamon published a case study on Microsoft’s IP Ventures program. The case study focuses on the factors that led to the program’s inception, and includes perspectives from CEOs of successful companies who have launched their businesses through IP Ventures. Lerner and his team also provide their analysis and open the door to discussion on whether the program could be replicated in other venues. 
“We think it’s an interesting model and believe that students, as well corporations that invest heavily in research, could benefit from looking into what Microsoft has done,” he says.

You can read the study here. Also be sure to read the rest of Microsoft's press release on the 5th anniversary of IP Ventures for more complete details of the program's numerous accomplishments via the link above.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Experts Draft Document Critical Of ACTA: Signatures Wanted by Mike Masnick at TechDirt.com.

Millions In Fake Cisco Goods Seized By Federal Investigators

NetworkWorld - Layer 8: Along with pharmaceuticals and soft goods like designer purses, computer hardware components are among the more prevalent counterfeited products. A recent operation by US federal authorities resulted in the seizure of tens of thousands of fake Cisco hardware items worth close to $150 million. Michael Cooney offers more details of this major bust in his recent piece Feds shred counterfeit Cisco trade:

According to the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security who headed up the operation, there has been a 75% decrease in seizures of counterfeit network hardware at US borders from 2008 to 2009. In addition, nine people are facing trial and another eight defendants are awaiting sentencing.

The US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has made 537 seizures of counterfeit Cisco network hardware since 2005, and 47 seizures of Cisco labels for counterfeit products. In total, ICE and CBP seized more than 94,000 counterfeit Cisco network components and labels with a total estimated retail value of more than $86 million during the course of the operation, the agency added.

The plot thickens a bit from there, with the FBI and even the Royal Canadian Mounted Police getting involved in cracking the crime ring, so be sure to read the rest of Cooney's piece for all the relative bits and pieces.

The New York Times: Sindya N. Bhanoo's topical article, Patent Pending: The Fast Track, highlights the importance of the US Patent and Trademark Office's special program to help green companies get their patents more quickly and compete with overseas businesses that offer similar products. Bhanoo writes on the patented benefits of being a green company:

Under a program that started in December, they can request that their patents be put through an accelerated queue. The purpose of the program is to help them raise money, start up businesses and bring products to the market more rapidly.

On Tuesday, Skyline Solar, a solar panel builder in Silicon Valley, was awarded one of the first patents to emerge from the queue.

“When a company says a patent is pending, things are uncertain. This gives us certainty,” said Bob MacDonald, the chief executive officer of Skyline. “And it helps get new investors comfortable with the intellectual property,” he added.

The key to investment dollars for many innovators is having a patent in hand for the product they wish to produce and the USPTO's Fast Track program allows green inventors and startups to get a head-start on foreign competition. Great stuff that should encourage more entries into the burgeoning clean energy market-space.

Bloomberg - Businessweek: Michael Arndt recently spoke with Johnson Kong, executive vice-president of IP.com, on IBM's very clever use of the patent process in which it releases additional features that can be used with their core technologies to the public. Arndt's IBM's Crafty Intellectual Property Strategy provides additional insights for the gentle, and constant, reader:

IBM files for patents on its core discoveries, like all tech biggies. But rather than seeking patents on peripheral breakthroughs, the company makes them public by publishing them with patent authorities...

While that may seem against IBM's self-interest--you can't license technology you don't own--it's actually not, Kong added. Once an invention has been made public, it becomes "prior art," a legal term that basically means it's not new and therefore in longer worthy of a patent. That stops IBM's competitors from patenting related advances and poaching on IBM's innovation. Like IBM, they can't license what they don't own. Kong called strategy this a "picket fence" defense.

By publishing the peripheral features that the company discovers along the way to patenting the core technology, IBM keeps other companies from being able to make them independently of a licensing agreement because the features are considered prior art. Clever, wouldn't you say?

ArsTechnica.com - Infinite Loop: Nokia and Apple are continuing their patent battle royale, this time with the Finnish cell phone manufacturer firing another salvo at Apple's latest and greatest gadget, the iPad. Casey Johnson reports:

Nokia claims that Apple's products, including the iPad WiFi + 3G, are using Nokia IP related to enhanced speech and data transmission, the use of positioning data in applications, and compact, increased-performance antenna designs. This complaint follows multiple suits filed by Nokia in recent months, all of which concern Apple's use of various technologies that Nokia claims patents on. These include 3G, 2G, and WiFi networking, built-in cameras, click wheels, and some more complex technologies like a "programmable voltage-controlled oscillator."

Not hard to imagine, so yes, Apple has already filed a counter-suit against Nokia, and on and on the war rages. Why not just kiss and make up with a cross-licensing agreement? Such things are not to be pondered by the likes of me, so I leave it to the legal system to decide who's been naughty or nice. Nokia applies patent thumbscrews to Apple's iPad for the win.

IT Innovation at TechDirt.com: Mike Masnick has some thoughts to share on the topic of patent liability for businesses and customers who embrace the growing cloud computing space in his timely post, Will Cloud Computing Lead To Patent Liability For End Users? Here's a key passage from the piece:

There are lots of really useful and valuable cloud services that provide much greater functionality than local offerings, but beyond questions concerning "outsourcing" certain important aspects of IT, the fact that it could also make companies liable for patent infringement is a big open question.

As cloud computing gains popularity and becomes business critical for many companies, the "big open question" of patent liability will need some serious addressing, but until then, it remains a bit of the digital Wild West.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: South Africa Becomes First Government to Use the Pool for Open Innovation to Stimulate Neglected Disease Drug Research and Development at PR Newswire.com.

China Relaxes Government Procurement Policy

AFP: A recent change in China's government procurement policy is being lauded by international trade partners as a move in the right direction. From Western firms welcome China's revised purchase policy we gather more details of this welcome news:

The original rules, issued late last year, were drawn up as part of an "indigenous innovation" campaign that would favour accredited products, which foreign firms said effectively excluded them from the process.

The policy had caused concerns among foreign businesses, who criticised the move as a push by Beijing to squeeze them out of the market for selling computers and office equipment to government departments.

The latest draft issued at the weekend dropped clauses stating applicants must own the intellectual property rights and trademark, and that the use of the intellectual property must be "independent of controls by overseas organisations or individuals".

Many nations complained that the previous restrictions were unfair and did not allow for outside parties to compete with homegrown innovations but now that China has amended their government procurement policy by eliminating the requirement for all IP be China-based, a new wave of foreign business should be flowing into the most populous nation on Earth.

The Invent Blog: The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) effort to help inventors independently patent their innovations looks to inform and assist such an effort using a series of streaming, on-line videos. "Nipper's" The USPTO’s New LegalZoom Killer? has additional information on the USPTO's new Trademark Information Network, including this description of one of the featured videos:

Before You File — This video provides an overview of the most important issues you should be aware of when filing a trademark application.  It covers such topics as trademark availability searching, ownership information, differences between drawings and specimens, identifications of goods and services, and filing bases.  Failure to understand these topics can create major deficiencies in your application or result in an application that is void from the start.

And where better to start than at the beginning? There are more descriptions and commentary on this laudable effort to help individuals navigate the tricky process of successfully applying for and receiving their patent in the remainder of Nipper's complete piece via the link above.

ArsTechnica.com - Law & Disorder: A recent in-depth investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reveals the reality behind a number of claims relating to the damage done by IP piracy in the United States. Nate Anderson reports on the matter in his topical article, US government finally admits most piracy estimates are bogus. He writes:

Can we trust any of these claims about piracy?

The US doesn't think so. In a new report out yesterday, the government's own internal watchdog took a close look at "efforts to quantify the economic effects of counterfeit and pirated goods." After examining all the data and consulting with numerous experts inside and outside of government, the Government Accountability Office concluded (PDF) that it is "difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts."

Well, we all know that old chestnut about lies, damned lies and statistics, right? It seems there is some additional fact finding in order for those who quote un-sourced figures about monetary damages from piracy. Certainly there is *some* damage done to US businesses from the wholesale theft of intellectual property but if there is going to be any credence lent to cries for additional protections and enforcement, the facts used to make such arguments need to be carefully vetted and checked before being highlighted in talking papers and industry PR news pieces. Be sure to read more on the funny business of facts and figures in the rest of Anderson's informative piece.

KansasCity.com: A Kansas-based T-shirt maker has been ordered to quit production of a large number of infringing products that they have folded up shop. J. Brady McCollough's related KU, Joe-College.com settle T-shirt trademark lawsuit takes a closer look at university trademark enforcement:

The legal battle between the Kansas athletic department and Victory Sportwear, Larry Sinks and Clark Orth — collectively known as Joe-College.com — officially came to an end Monday afternoon when KU announced a resolution to its trademark-infringement lawsuit.

A federal jury in 2008 found Joe-College.com, a Lawrence T-shirt company specializing in apparel focused on KU sports, guilty of willfully infringing several of KU’s trademarks and awarded Kansas Athletics $127,000 in damages. Last year a federal judge ruled Joe-College.com must pay KU more than $650,000 for attorney’s fees.

The fees and fine combined were enough to put Joe-College.com into the red and as of March 31st, they are no longer in business. Kansas University officials are very satisfied with the outcome:

“We are extremely pleased that we can now put this case behind us,” KU athletic director Lew Perkins said. “We did not want to initiate this lawsuit, but it was important to protect KU’s trademarks from infringement and dilution. The jury correctly ruled that the defendants willfully infringed on our marks, and we hope the action we took serves notice that we will take all due action to protect those marks.”

Don't mess with the KU Jayhawks, or else!

NetworkWorld.com: An inside look at intellectual property theftby Michael Cooney details the findings of the recent GAO report on the previously mentioned topic of the cost of IP piracy in the United States. Here's just one tidbit from the study:

According to Customs and Border Protection data from 2004 through 2009, China accounted for about 77% of the aggregate value of goods seized in the United States. Hong Kong, India, and Taiwan followed China, accounting for 7, 2, and 1% of the seized value, respectively. CBP data indicate certain concentrations of counterfeit production among these countries: in 2009, about 58 % of the seized goods from China were footwear and handbags; 69% of the seized goods from Hong Kong were consumer electronics and watch parts; 91% of the seized goods from India were pharmaceuticals and perfume; and 85% of seized goods from Taiwan were computers and consumer electronics.

Whoa! China is overwhelmingly the lead source of piracy for goods entering the US from abroad and interestingly, they are mostly soft goods as opposed to tech products, software or pharmaceuticals. Looks like there's additional help needed on the main land before products ship to the States, nu?

Bonus IP piece o' the day: UNITAID Patent Pool Budget Approved; Implementation To Begin by Kaitlin Mara at Intellectual Property Watch.

IP Battle of the Titans: Flowbee vs. Google

TechCrunch.com: Once again, the maker of a protected product name has sued Google for selling the word to a competitor, proving the fact that businesses really don't get the Internet and web advertising. From Google Countersues Haircutter Company That Brought On AdWords Lawsuit by Robin Wauters come more details on the Great Flowbee Controversy of 2010:

In August 2009, home haircutting system maker Flowbee filed suit against Google in federal district court in Corpus Christi, Texas. The company was the umpteenth to take the Mountain View company to court for selling sponsored search ads to competitors under its trademarked keyword, which it alleged 'confused' customers.

On the 18th of February 2010, Google filed its answer to the complaints and simultaneously moved to file a counterclaim against the haircutting system vendor...

The counter-suit by Google is seeking damages for what amounts to basically wasting its time transferring the Flowbee stuff to the correct location. Here are the specifics:

Google also filed a counterclaim against Flowbee for breach of contract. The search giant says that by filing the instant action in Texas, Flowbee breached the mandatory venue selection provision (federal or state courts of Santa Clara County, California) of the AdWords contract it had entered with Google. The Mountain View company is seeking damages for the money and resources that were spent trying to transfer the action to the ‘proper’ venue.

And interestingly enough, Wauters uncovered some behind-the-scenes cutting and pasting behavior by both Flowbee and Google in the legal documents filed in reference to the claimed Adword infringement. There is nothing new under the sun, it would seem, and anyone who tries to prove otherwise is just bucking for a lawsuit by the people who already discovered the same fact long, long ago, and who possibly have locked up all the IP surrounding their novel insight.

ArsTechnica.com: Major P2P file sharing infringer Joel Tenenbaum's lawyer, Harvard professor Charles Nesson, is trying to set the financial penalty bar at a more reasonable height but is running into resistance from the recording industry. Nate Anderson reports on Nesson's take on the value of the songs Tenenbaum shared:

Joel Tenenbaum, the second P2P defendant to take his case all the way through trial, is on the hook for $675,000 in damages. But according to his lawyer, Tenenbaum only caused the record labels $21 in damages.

The disparity between these two figures is, in the words of Harvard Law's Charles Nesson, "monstrous and shocking."

Nesson has just filed his final argument on the issue of damages. His basic point, that a final damage award must have some relation to the actual harm, leads him to make a simple calculation about Tenenbaum's transgression. "Had he purchased the 30 songs on iTunes, he would have paid 99 cents apiece, of which Apple would have passed on 70 cents to the record companies," says the filing. "Assuming, contrary to fact, that the record companies have zero costs so that every cent returned to them is profit, the total return would have been $21.00."

The record industry does *not* agree, and suggest that "P2P file-sharing was crippling their industry, and that each specific file-sharer bore some role in that destruction by virtue of offering files for upload. With no real way to know how many times a particular user distributed a song to others, the labels argue that statutory damages are the best way to deal fairly with the situation." Read more on the huge disparity between defendant and litigant values of Tenenbaum's infraction in Anderson's Tenenbaum: $675,000 is absurd when I caused $21 in losses.

PatentDocs: If you've got the time and inclination, there's an intellectual property-focused event on the East Coast coming up that will feature a number of panels that should provide the interested attendee with plenty of patent food for thought. 26th Annual Joint Patent Practice Seminar for the win:

The Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Associations will be holding their 26th Annual Joint Patent Practice Seminar on April 29, 2010 in New York, NY.  The seminar will consist of five panels:  Litigation, Pharmaceuticals/Life Sciences, Ethics, Licensing/Foreign Practice/ITC, and the USPTO, with each panel addressing a series of cases and topics.

Th e conference should be a great opportunity to tightly focus on any number of issues of IP importance with fellow enthusiasts and experts. More from the piece: "The conference will be held at the Hilton New York, 1335 Avenue of the Americas. The registration fee for the conference is $420 (for those registering by April 16, 2010) or $450 (for those registering after April 16, 2010). Those interested in registering for the conference can do so here or by submitting a reservation form that can be obtained here."

TechDirt.com: As a follow-up to his earlier piece on the USTR's Special 301 comment period and the contents of his own submission to said opportunity, Mike Masnick's recent, related post, Time To Change (Or Ditch) The USTR Special 301 Process That Pressures Other Countries To Adapt US IP Laws, offers additional insight into Masnick's true feelings for the whole schmear. Here's his revelation on how to fix the mess in one fell swoop:

Of course, the best thing to do isn't to change the Special 301 process, but to ditch it entirely. It serves no reasonable purpose and has been abused by industry representatives for years. It puts a strain on US relations with other countries, and harms the ability for other countries to craft IP policy in the way that they feel will best serve culture and innovation.

You can bet there are plenty of supporters (read: lobbyists) who wouldn't be so hot on implementing Masnick's suggested path to USTR Paradise, but there is something fitting about his suggestion. Be sure to read the comment section accompanying Masnick's entry for some additional thoughts on the USTR and its Special 301 process.

AG-IP News: The Business Software Alliance (BSA) has submitted its comments to the USTR's Special 301 report for 2010 and are targeting almost 3 dozen foreign countries for extra close scrutiny by US IP enforcement authorities by joining a number of other like-minded organizations in the formation of a confederation.

The coalition, known as the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), recommended that 35 countries catalogued in the IIPA report be named to a US Trade Representative (USTR) watch list as part of the annual “Special 301” review. The Special 301 provision requires USTR to identify countries that fail to provide adequate and effective protection for intellectual property, or that deny fair and equitable market access to US companies that rely on IP protection for their copyrighted products.

Robert Holleyman, President and CEO of BSA, sums up the group's feelings on IP theft thusly:

“It is essential to stem the theft of American-made products. This issue is not new.  The fact that it persists year after year means that more attention from the US and from governments around the world is needed to make a meaningful impact. And to start, we need to call it what it is — stealing — and treat it as we would treat the theft of any other property.”

Read all about it in Intellectual Property Theft Persists in 35 Nations, Impairing US Economic Growth – BSA.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: Home Court Advantage: Google Gets Trademark Lawsuit Transferred To California by Wendy Davis at MediaPostNews.com. (Enquiring minds want to know: "Why not Eastern Texas?")

IP Rights and Government Contracting—Same Strategy

Let’s assume that you’ve made the strategic decision to break into the vast government market.  What you may not realize is that once you’ve done so, you will have created some new intellectual property (IP) in your company.  And if you decide to set yourself up with a designated government status—small business, woman-owned, minority-owned, etc.—that can be viewed as a type of IP, too.  There are a number of places on the operational level where the analogy between capturing traditional IP rights and capturing government status tracks almost perfectly.  If you’ve taken the IP rights effort seriously and done it diligently, the government status endeavor will seem familiar.

First, let’s look at filing for rights.  If you want to establish yourself as a “woman owned business,” for example, you can self-certify in most instances—not unlike with trade secrets or copyrights where you can self-designate and proceed with business.  Similarly, if you file for a patent, you can create an advantage against large companies in the marketplace. In the government market, the Small Business Administration 8(a) status is not terribly different. If you can obtain this status, you have a preference in how your proposals and bid responses are analyzed.  Like a patent, it can take some time to get your official certification and you will go through several rounds of questions and clarifications. But from a marketing standpoint, you can use the “8(a) pending” status in your efforts once all of the information is filed, just like you can use “patent pending” once your patent application is filed.  This means that you can begin a lot of your marketing and business development efforts before your certification comes in the mail.

Next let’s think about the duration question. As with your traditional IP rights, all of these various statuses have expirations.  This is important to remember—Just as your patent has an expiration date, so does your 8(a) status, which lasts for seven years.  And with all of these designations, there’s another kind of “expiration date” to consider, and that’s when your earnings reach the upper limit that allows you to qualify for the status.  So with this particular form of IP, you need to manage both the duration of your rights and the pace/nature of your company’s growth.  This makes it slightly more surgical than a simple IP right, but the analogy holds.

Lastly, the nature of your marketing/business development effort will need to have a specific focus, sort of like original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or IP right plans. You’ll want to decide if there are any products or services that you have that would make sense to be on the GSA schedule, which allows agencies to buy that service (up to a certain amount) without a bid process.  You might also want to find others to market or place that service on their schedules, creating a distribution channel of sorts for your GSA offerings.  Your business development activity in this area needs to focus on companies that can assist and leverage your status and offerings to customers with whom their already work on a routine basis.  These offerings and services will also require you to create a pricing strategy that offers the government your best pricing. Therefore you need to rationalize this pricing across your business model to make sure it fits properly and doesn’t create precedents that your model can’t support.

The reality is that pursuing and obtaining government business can be quite lucrative and offer incremental revenue beyond your other lines of business.  However, you need to devise and fully execute a model, and all of the support elements, to fully respect this line of business.  When you do all of that, you end up with skills and rights that can translate into a great opportunity and new partners.

US Department of Justice Unleashes IP Watchdog

Reuters.com: Good news for American copyright holders (and their realized fears of piracy) courtesy of Uncle Sam via Diane Bartz' recent article, U.S. announces intellectual property watchdog. "The U.S. Justice Department is forming an intellectual property task force because of what some estimate to be billions of dollars in losses from copyright piracy." Of course, Big Media will be well represented in the membership of the task force and at least one industry skeptic is hoping for a focused effort on organized infringement rather than small time individual scofflaws. "Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky said he hoped the task force's emphasis would be on shutting down Chinese DVD and CD factories rather than going after individuals. 'There is balance in copyright law,' said Brodsky, who sought to defend 'the person who maybe posts a song ... someone who has no intent of making money off it. The idea that you can be fined several thousand dollars for a 99 cent song is out of touch with reality.'" Whether or not the likes of the people at the MPAA and Walt Disney will end up seeing it that way is a totally different question altogether. Stay tuned!

SFGate.com: There are some who sue in a court of law to protect their intellectual property, and there are others who take a more extreme course of action in the pursuit of "justice." SFGate blogger Zennie62 takes a look at one violent incident involving the misguided energies of a slighted doctor and her IP. From Dr. Amy Bishop of Alabama-Huntsville killed to protect intellectual property come more details of this deadly incident:

It was revealed to this blogger by a source who claims that Amy Bishop was his faculty advisor, that Dr. Amy Bishop Anderson killed to protect what she considered to be her intellectual property after Bishop lost tenure and was not going to be retained by the University.

"You called it when you said you thought this happened over her invention," and referring to this bloggers first post on this matter,"When her tenure was denied, that invention became the intellectual property of the university."

The invention Dr. Amy Bishop believed was hers and that she had rights to something Bishop created, and what was reported in this space, is a portable cell-incubator called "InQ" which won the couple an award in a state competition and won $25,000 of seed money in a business competition, money they could use to start a company around the invention.

Holy cow! 3 people died in the un-tenured doctor's IP rampage and rather than secure her inventions for financial gain, Bishop Anderson gained a long jail sentence and hopefully lost any chance she has of reap benefits from her innovations.

Bloomberg Businessweek.com: Appliance-making giant Whirlpool, a major player in the global appliance business, has gotten a significant slap on the wrist from the United States International Trade Commission in the form of a "no ban" decision with rival LG. William McQuillen and Susan Decker report:

The U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington yesterday said LG didn’t violate a Whirlpool patent related to the storage of ice in appliances. The commission said in a notice on its Web site that the refrigerators don’t infringe the patent and some elements of the patent are invalid. The reasons for the decision weren’t explained further in the notice.

Of course, the good people at Whirlpool aren't buying into this decision at all. "'We disagree with the ITC’s decision,' said Jill Saletta, a spokeswoman for Whirlpool. 'We look forward to receiving the details and will be evaluating our options for next steps.'" But even this one setup isn't enough to stop the mounting tensions between LG and Whirlpool as there are more suits in the pipeline. "Lawsuits between Whirlpool and LG are pending in New Jersey and Delaware. In October, LG claimed Whirlpool’s namesake brand as well as Maytag, Amana, KitchenAid and Jenn-Air refrigerators infringed a patent for a certain type of icemaker. Whirlpool wants a court ruling to clear its name, saying the patent is either invalid or not infringed." Be sure to read the rest of McQuillen and Decker's Whirlpool Loses U.S. Trade Decision in LG Refrigerator Dispute for more details.

In other IP lawsuit news, Gene Quinn, the IPWatchdog.com wizard himself, takes a look at a different IP dispute between two international rivals with plenty of loot to lose if the judge decides against them. In General Electric Sues Mitsubishi Over Wind Energy Patents, Quinn writes, by way of a background introduction:

On February 11, 2010, General Electric (NYSE: GE) launched a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Caught in the cross-hairs is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd. (TYO:7011), Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas, Inc. (hereinafter “Mitsubishi). The complaint alleges that GE engages in the development, manufacture, and distribution of variable speed wind turbines and components, and that GE is the assignee and owns all right, title and interest to US Patent No. 6,879,055 and US Patent No. 7,629,705, which are being infringed by Mitsubishi. A jury trial has been demanded in this Green Tech patent dispute; the type of dispute we are all but certain to see increasingly more often as the alternative energy market continues to mature and become more economically relevant.

At stake is are multi-million dollar profits as green energy begins to gather enough steam to reach the critical mass necessary to awaken the sleeping giants of heavy industry. And so GE is trying to ensure that its wind-energy IP portfolio remains strong and viable in the coming years. Quinn adequately sums up the situation for the gentle reader. "While I am not sure I can articulate exactly why, in reading the complaint it seems to me that this is not likely a declaration of patent war or jihad, but rather to create leverage.  Perhaps it is the relative politeness of the complaint.  Patent litigators can go for the jugular like none other, and GE’s attorneys – Weil, Gotshal & Manges – are hardly novices in the art of patent litigation.  Time tells all things, and soon enough we will see how Mitsubishi responds.  Let the posturing begin!"

JSonline: Think you can manufacture a stove top with red knobs and not have to worry about whose toes you're stepping on? Think again! Rick Romell has more:

In the high-end range wars, Madison's Wolf Appliance Inc. has won the First Battle of the Knobs.

U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb has slapped a preliminary injunction on Viking Range Corp., temporarily barring the Wolf competitor from selling or advertising red knobs on its ranges and range tops.

The two firms vie for customers willing to pay up to several thousand dollars for kitchen stoves and cook tops.

Wolf holds a trademark for red knobs on such equipment, and when it saw Viking ranges sporting red knobs, it sued. That was in November. Since then, the litigation has generated more than 1,200 pages of legal documents and, with the case moving toward trial, promises to pile up still more.

Wolf Appliance wins injunction in trademark case holds the other pertinent bits and pieces of this knobby problem and should help set the stage for a deeper understanding of how very small an infringement can still draw the ire of a patent holder.

Bonus IP piece o' the day: ACTION ALERT: Tell USTR to Export Fair Use and Innovation Policy from Public Knowledge.org.