Patents, Smart Phones, and War

February 3rd, 2012

The technology wars continue to smolder between Apple and other smart-phone companies. It’s a web of litigation, with Apple sustaining lawsuits from more than a dozen companies, while also targeting some of its biggest competitors with claims of their own. Though Apple blew the field wide open in 2007 with the release of the iPhone, new and old competitors reacted quickly to release their own comparable devices. For various reasons some old competitors, like Canada’s Research in Motion (RiM), have fallen hard. Others, like Motorola, are on a rebounding surge. And a new type of competition, from Google’s focus on designing specifically open-sourced software instead of hardware or devices, has proven to be resilient and steadily growing.

Google’s strategy isn’t entirely new. Other companies have created open-sourced software before, and plenty others focused on making operating software for phones as well. But none of them combined the two, along with Google’s overall vision for unified devices and software. Android allows independent developers to make their own applications, without Apple’s app rules—which number well above a hundred. This allows higher innovation in the field, but with less regulation comes less safety for the user who chooses unverified applications. Despite these risks, and Apple’s larger app store, the Android operating system has steadily risen in market share. It currently makes up 53% of all devices, compared to iOS’s 29%.

But Apple is fighting back.

As reported recently in the Wall Street Journal[1], patents are taking a new role in litigation. Many patent lawyers formerly involved in corporate defense are now working for patent holding companies. These companies purchase intellectual property, and then seek earnings from their purchased intellectual property through litigation. Even at traditional corporate level, patents are being redefined. They were often viewed as a shield, protecting a company’s or inventors’ intellectual property and profits. But they’re finding that they’re also incredible tools for stymieing competition and making significant profits. TiVo has recently received hundreds of millions of dollars from Dish Network, AT&T, and EchoStar by claiming infringement on patents for DVR technology. They still have further lawsuits open against Verizon and Microsoft, with already existing long term licensing agreements with Comcast and DirectTV. Companies have responded by buying up patents in a bid to protect themselves, and earn revenue. Google spent $12.5 billion purchasing Motorola, as it had only a few thousand before, including those bought from IBM. Apple spent $4.5 billion on buying patents from Nortel. Unwilling to flat out sell its own patents, Microsoft has extensively licensed out its intellectual property, and now has 70% of Android running smart phones under its patent umbrella.

On the offensive against Google, Apple opened up lawsuits against many of Google’s hardware partners, such as Motorola, Nokia, and HTC. At the same time, though, Apple is being sued by Kodak, Motorola, Nokia, and various other technology patent holding companies. Motorola is suing, and being sued by, Microsoft; while Nokia, Samsung, Sharp, LG, Hitachi, and Toshiba all go at it. According to The Economist, mobile-phone related lawsuits have risen by 20% annually since 2006. Even more difficult to understand is exactly what Apple is suing over, and what their recent gains have actually been.[2]

In James Grimmelmann’s article[3], “Owning the Stack: The Legal War to Control the Smartphone Platform”, he describes how mobile technology is built in stacks of service providers, software, and hardware. At the bottom lie the networks, then the hardware and devices, the operating systems and how they interact with the other two come next, which culminates in the software written for the operating systems. That software would include the apps and programs that we easily recognize and utilize. Lawsuits in the field of mobile devices can be horizontal in nature: suing people on the same technological plane—such as two app developers suing each other for trademark infringement. Or lawsuits can be vertical in nature, claiming their own technology as the basis for other companies’ devices or software. The latter is exactly what Apple has attempted to do. Apple’s lawsuits are generally  over various extremely basic technologies, looking to shake down other companies for significant amounts of money—or put them out of business altogether.

Ultimately targeting Google itself, Apple has declared war on the ‘Open Handset Alliance’ with the lawsuits against HTC and Motorola.  This loosely applied term refers to a group of companies that have declared themselves proponents of open-sourced technology, and consists of companies like HTC, Sony, Dell, Intel, LG, Samsung, T-Mobile, Motorola, and Nvidia. Apple even made some gains against Samsung in Germany, where it temporarily blocked the release of Samsung’s Galaxy tablet. Their lawsuits against HTC and Motorola are even more interesting. Apple sued both companies through the U.S. International Trade Commission, where a positive verdict would ban the infringing technology from being imported to the United States. In early January, though, Motorola was ruled not to be infringing on Apple’s patents. They responded in celebration by opening a new lawsuit against Apple, this time in Florida. The case had already been tried, with success, in Germany a few months prior.

Apple’s case against HTC over ten alleged patent infringements in the US ITC was far more successful. Though all but two claims were ultimately thrown out, HTC must still race to rework their devices sans the infringed technology. HTC has until April 2012 to make the necessary changes, which they insist is entirely feasible while still retaining their products’ functionality. One might assume they’re also looking into filing another patent lawsuit of their own.

 

 

 


[1] Ashby Jones’ article in the Wall Street Journal can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203750404577173402442681284.html

[2] A wonderful illustration of the entangling lawsuits can be found here, from The Guardian’s website: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/nov/01/smartphone-patent-lawsuits-diagram#

Posted in business, corporate, patent, technology | No Comments »

Apple Stops Sale of Steve Jobs Action Figure

January 20th, 2012

Since the October 2011 death of Apple, Inc. founder Steve Jobs, companies have been looking for ways to profit off of the technology-icon’s life, and his sudden death. Reports indicate that a 1-foot tall action figure of Jobs was placed for sale by a company In Icons for $99.

 The action figure consisted of life-like properties of Jobs, including wrinkles, hair, glasses and an apple. The figure also included removable hands, which also featured a replica of his wedding band.

 Since the date the figure was placed for sale, Jobs fans have been scrambling to secure their purchase. The website also indicated that the figurine was set to ship worldwide in February. It didn’t take long, however, for the Jobs family and Apple, Inc. to pressure In Icons to stop the promotion and sale of the item. An outline of the figure’s features is still up on the In Icon website: http://inicons.com/order.html.

 Due to the alleged pressure from Jobs and Apple attorneys, In Icon has since covered their website with an open apology and tribute letter to Jobs fans and those that have pre-ordered the figurine. Based on the public’s positive reaction to the figurine, the question remains whether any of Jobs team or Apple will create their own version of a Jobs memorabilia.

 You can read the recent In Icon letter here.

Posted in corporate, events, news, publicity | 1 Comment »

The End of Florida’s Mandated Foreclosure Mediations

January 4th, 2012

December’s close marked the end of the court-mandated foreclosure mediation program. Although mediation remains an option for parties, and existing or pending mediations will carry forth as planned, no new court mandated mediations shall be filed. This concludes a two year saga as the courts looked for an option to alleviate a stressed system that suffered from an inundation of cases, budget cuts, and staff reductions.

The goal of the program was to allow the borrower and lender one final chance at finding compromise before the case came before a judge. But, for many reasons, the system failed. A review published in September 2011 illustrated the difficulties in reaching agreement. While civil court mediations are often successful, with a near 70 percent conclusion rate, the foreclosures lagged behind. The state of Florida had a 3.6 percentage mediation success rate. In Palm Beach County: only 1.6 percent. Other sources showed that 67 percent of all mediations came to an impasse with no agreement, with only a 4 percent success rate overall.

Much of the low rate of success can be attributed to the fact that many borrowers simply could not be located. 59 percent of eligible borrowers were unreachable. Only 14 percent of those who were contacted opted to participate. Palm Beach County had a 60 percent rate for unfound borrowers, while retaining a higher 29 percent attendance rate.

It seemed that the system was doomed to fail from the beginning. Many Lenders saw the mediations as just another step in the lengthy foreclosure cases, rather than focusing on compromise.  They purported that before the foreclosures ever came to trial there would be earlier attempts to find some sort of agreement or modification to their loan structure. One South Florida foreclosure defense attorney, as quoted in the Palm Beach Post, agreed.  ”You have someone on the phone from the bank and the only thing they have is a computer monitor in front of them and the only thing they can do is modify,” he said. “It’s not mediation; its modification or bust.”

One big wrench in the mediation process was that homeowners may not qualify for these standard ‘modifications’ to begin with, while the lender had little incentive to derivate from its normal payment plans. Homeowner advocates also complained that many lender representatives weren’t authorized to make changes in the first place. In October, a committee of independent judges recommended an end to the program. All in all, the close of the program is of little probable importance. Avenues for mediation are still open, while the lengthy process for foreclosure mediations has been marginally streamlined. The program failed not for want of intent, but for lack of justification based on the low success rate.

As always, if you are in foreclosure or in the risk thereof, contact your attorney immediately. The offices of Santucci Priore, P.L. are always willing to aid any homeowner in their time of need.

 

A link to the full order signed by Judge Charles T. Canady can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:B0LYBt1_-ZAJ:www.floridasupremecourt.org/pub_info/documents/foreclosure_orders/12-19-2011_Order_Managed_Mediation.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgHCqtIREDPkqH_Q8RcVs_gyfmVaMFWa0bP8v3py-lOk6p18kg-MOGfepGGVtSmvEmSFYIkHbc-bBvmqycvq3ndYfuvrQw690vSg2leSaJLb_96SzkS-XdjZbaS7_f14dkHDdoR&sig=AHIEtbSHicYPGlyI1p3kTGRHTfZYhOnJcg

Posted in bankruptcy, business, foreclosure, news | 2 Comments »

Heroes

January 3rd, 2012

A few years ago, on a supply delivery route just outside of Baghdad, Lieutenant Alvin Shell and a few other U.S. soldiers from his unit were set on fire from a rocket-propelled grenade (“RPG”) attack.  While covered with gasoline, Lieutenant Shell ran back into the fire to rescue the other soldiers from his team.  He pulled them out and led them two miles back to Camp Victory where he finally collapsed, covered with burns. When everyone told him he was a hero, Lieutenant Alvin Shell disagreed. “I’m not a hero” he said.  “A hero is a sandwich…I’m a paratrooper.”

Regardless of your views about the Iraq war, take time to reflect over and appreciate your holiday break, and the fact that our soldiers are finally returning home after years in Iraq, from brutal missions which are now concluded.  Think about Lieutenant Alvin Shell’s story the next time you find yourself complaining about the way your food is cooked in a restaurant, complaining about the economy or about your general lot in life.  Think about Lieutenant Shell the next time you take on a new task and ask yourself whether you are truly doing your best.  Be grateful for what you have, regardless of how little or insignificant.  Be grateful for true heroes like Lieutenant Alvin Shell.  We need more heroes.

Welcome home troops.  Happy Holidays to all.

Michael I. Santucci

mis@500law.com

Posted in events, news | 1 Comment »

Pittsburgh ‘Steels’ Verdict in Trademark Infringement Case

December 19th, 2011

The District Court of the Western District of Pennsylvania recently granted summary judgment in favor of the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League regarding a lawsuit for trademark infringement of the “Terrible Towel” trademark.  Beginning in 1975, at the initiation of radio broadcaster Myron Cope, fans of the Steelers have waved yellow and black colored rally towels depicting the words “Terrible Towel” as way to show support for the team during games.  These towels have gained substantial public recognition due to the Steelers’ recent Super Bowl victory in 2008, thus making Steelers merchandise a top seller.

Non-profit organization Allegheny Valley School Foundation (“AVS”) is the owner of a federal trademark registration for the phrase “Terrible Towel” for use on goods such as T-Shirts, which has been in continuous use for over two decades.  The Steelers are the exclusive licensee of this mark, which provides them the right to sell merchandise with the “Terrible Towel” mark.

The trademark infringement lawsuit was initiated due to the Defendant, Eugene Berry Enterprise’s, sale of T-shirts bearing the phrase “The Terrible T-Shirt a Pittsburgh Original” in black and gold coloring.  The Defendant filed a federal trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in May of 2011 to register the “Terrible T-Shirt” phrase as a trademark for use on T-Shirts.  After refusing to withdraw the application, Defendants placed orders for T-Shirts with the “Terrible T-Shirt” design printed in black and gold.  Eugene Berry allegedly gave employees of National Retail Graphics a letter from AVS purporting to give permission to Eugene Berry Enterprises to sell the T-Shirts.

Under Federal law, in order to be successful in a federal trademark infringement lawsuit, the Plaintiff must prove the following elements:  1) the trademark in question is valid and legally protectable; 2) plaintiff owns the trademark in question; and 3) the defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s mark in interstate commerce is likely to cause consumer confusion.  The third prong, likelihood of consumer confusion, is determined by an application of several detailed factors.

District Court Judge Arthur J. Schwab found that the phrase “Terrible Towel” is legally protectable because it is not a descriptive term.  Judge Schwab instead compared its trademark value to marks such as Kodak and Lifesavers, which are highly distinctive marks, thus indicating a high level of legal protection.  Schwab emphasized the strength of “Terrible Towel” mark due to its highly visible use in sports television broadcasts and media articles, which has caused consumers to identify the towels with the City of Pittsburgh and the Steelers franchise.  Judge Schwab bolstered his conclusion that the “Terrible Towel” mark is famous due to the fact that towels bearing the mark have been taken into space and waved on the top of Mount Everest.

Judge Schwab further noted that the phrases and coloring of Defendant’s T-Shirts were similar to Plaintiff’s goods using its mark.   Judge Schwab concluded by finding that Defendant’s T-Shirts were likely to confuse consumers into believing that the T-Shirts were official Steelers merchandise or otherwise sponsored by the Steelers, especially due to the fact that Defendant specifically marketed his T-Shirts to Steelers fans.

Read the full article here:

http://www.dailybusinessreview.com/PubArticleDBR.jsp?id=1202534844933&Terrible_TShirt_infringes_on_Terrible_Towel_trademark

Posted in business, entertainment, news, sports, trademark | No Comments »

Santucci Priore, P.L. Enter Dispute Over Bob Marley Family Legacy

December 8th, 2011

The attorneys of the law firm of Santucci Priore, P.L. have been retained by the Defendants in the case of Fifty-Six Hope Road Music Limited v. Richard Booker, Bob Marley Movement of Jah People, Inc. and The Bob Marley Heritage Corporation, Case No. 1:11-cv-24326-MGC which is currently pending in the United States District Court in and for the Southern District of Florida in Miami.  The Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement,  unfair competition, dilution and unauthorized use of name and likeness claiming the exclusive right to use various Marley-related trademarks as well as Bob Marley’s name and likeness.

According to public records and the Defendants, the Defendant company Bob Marley Movement of Jah People, Inc. was a family company formed back in 1978 for the purpose of a fan club and to distribute Bob Marley and the Wailers merchandise.  For years, the family company was run by Richard Booker and Cedella “Mama Marley” Booker who is the mother of both Bob Marley and Richard Booker.  Their mother recently passed away leaving Richard Booker as one of the remaining principals of the company.  The Nine Mile Reggae Music Festival which takes place in Miami in March of every year is operated by the Defendants Richard Booker and Bob Marley Movement of Jah People, Inc., and is reported to have provided one million meals to hungry families.

The complete Press Release of the Defendants Richard Booker, Bob Marley Movement of Jah People, Inc. and The Bob Marley Heritage Corporation is set forth below:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 8, 2011

CONTACT: Attorney Michael Santucci

(954) 351-7474, mis@spl-law.com

www.spl-law.com

Reaction to Marley Family Dispute

“I am heartbroken by what is happening.”

This was the immediate response by Richard Booker, brother of reggae music legend Bob Marley, reacting to a recent lawsuit filed against him by a company owned by his nieces, nephews and sister-in-law in the United States District Court in Miami, Florida. Booker said, “This would not have escalated to this point if our mother were still here.”

Nonetheless, the defendants, The Bob Marley Movement of Jah People, Inc., The Bob Marley Heritage Corp. and Richard Booker recently retained trademark/entertainment attorney Michael I. Santucci of the firm of Santucci Priore, P.L. in Fort Lauderdale to defend the lawsuit.

Despite the suit, Booker confirmed his plans to market a line of products based upon his mother Cedella “Mama Marley” Booker’s recipes to continue her legacy.  Mama Marley died April 8, 2008. Booker and his mother were longtime partners in various business ventures.

For example, the Mama Marley food project is an offshoot of the success enjoyed by the several Jamaican restaurants that have operated under the Mama Marley name for years and which made the progression to a retail line of Jamaican inspired foods. A portion of the line’s profits will go to charity.

When Richard Booker told his niece Cedella Marley Minto about his plans for the Mama Marley food line years ago, “she couldn’t have been more enthusiastic or encouraging,” according to Booker.  Minto operates the day-to-day business of 56 Hope Road Music Limited, the plaintiff in the lawsuit.  As time passed, she insisted that a piece of the trademark rights be included in her company, 56 Hope Road, a concept to which Booker and Mama Marley were at first receptive.  However additional demands were soon made including majority control and requirements that Booker contribute Mama Marley’s likeness, biography, voice, etc. to the venture.  “It was too much.  I couldn’t put out her gospel album, children’s album, or cookbook,” Booker remarked.

Another count of the complaint seeks to enjoin the presentation of the Festival by The Bob Marley Movement of Jah People, Inc., insisting that that company now change its name. The festival has been run by Mr. Booker for almost two decades. Attorney Michael Santucci will call upon the Plaintiff to explain why it waited until now to challenge The Bob Marley Movement of Jah People’s activities, which was formed back in 1978.

Over the last 18 years, the enormously successful music festival promoted by Booker’s company celebrates Bob Marley’s birthday and has become an annual Miami tradition.  It has been a family affair with his nieces and nephews providing spirited performances that have brought audiences to their feet in their father’s memory.  Not only have they performed at the event, they have appeared in the promotion and advertising of the event presented by the “Movement,” a name inspired by Bob Marley himself.

The 2012 Nine Mile Music Festival is scheduled to take place in Miami on March 3, 2012. As usual, concert goers will be required to make a food donation as a part of the price of admission, a practice that has been estimated to have provided over one million meals to an array of charities.

The music legend personally caused the formation of the Movement for their mother in February 1978.  Originally named “Bob Marley and the Wailers Fan Club, Inc.,” the company’s purpose was to operate a fan club and to manufacture and supply Bob Marley & the Wailers souvenirs and merchandise which included tie died shirts, posters, pictures, towels, books, and various other branded items. “Plaintiff 56 Hope Road was not the first to use my brother’s name or likeness on products as a trademark.  It was the Movement,” Booker said.

Booker and his mother felt that it was only fitting that when Bob Marley passed in 1981, that the company that had served as his fan club pay tribute to his memory in song and charity by the presentation of the annual festival.

In addition to operating the “Movement,” Booker also operates Nine Mile, a tourist destination in the Jamaican mountains where Bob and their mother were both born, lived and where they have been laid to rest. The location has been the subject of numerous travelogues and attracts visitors from all over the world each year.

Booker does not think that either his mother or brother would ever have approved of allowing a family matter to become a public dispute that features unfounded allegations and name calling, according to Booker.  “In the defense of this case,” he said, “I am honoring my brother and our mother, whose memories I cherish each day.”

###

Posted in business, entertainment, music, news, publicity, trademark | 3 Comments »

A Quick Introduction to the Advantages of Florida Trademark Registration

December 5th, 2011

Many of our clients seek our assistance in preparing, filing, prosecuting, opposing and cancelling federal or United States Trademark Applications and Registrations.  However, there are lesser known benefits afforded to companies and people who also seek Florida Trademark Registrations.  The benefits of registering a trademark in Florida are:

1.    The Florida Trademark Act at § 495.141(1), Florida Statutes now provides for an award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in a trademark infringement action.  Trademark litigation is often costly and unfortunately often determined based upon which party is the most aggressive and can endure litigation the longest.  The new fee provision permits the recovery of such expenses and therefore gives a smaller company a fairer chance to pursue actions to police their marks than the standard under the federal Lanham Act (Trademark Act), Title 15, United States Code.

2.    Claims for damages under Florida law are sometimes governed by more liberal standards than some federal circuits in that it may be easier to obtain an award of the infringer’s profits.

3.    Having a Florida trademark registration gives the holder a basis to exercise the option of filing a lawsuit in a Florida state court (if any of the infringement occurred in Florida).  It is often far more cost effective to litigate in a Florida state court than a federal court.  Florida state courts often provide the parties with far more leeway in voir dire (jury selection), which in federal court is generally limited and conducted largely by the United States District Judge.

4.   The application process is usually complete within a few weeks as opposed to a federal application which usually takes between eight (8) months to a year and a half.

5.   Although a Florida Trademark Registration only applies to the State of Florida, the application is far less costly than a United States Application.

6.  The owner of a Florida Trademark Registration is entitled to a rebuttable presumption that it is the owner of the trademark in Florida and that its trademark rights in Florida are valid.  This can provide the owner a huge advantage in court.

Regardless of residency or principal place of business, any person or company who uses a trademark in Florida commerce may be eligible to apply for a Florida Trademark Registration.  Also note that forming a corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity in Florida does not create any trademark rights at all, and is not the equivalent to a Florida Trademark Registration.  Other filings which are often confused are state or county Applications for Fictitious Name Registrations (“DBA’s”).  These registrations are also separate from and have little if any bearing on trademark rights of Florida Trademark Registrations.

Feel free to contact me if you would like to learn more.

Michael I. Santucci

Trademark Attorney

mis@500law.com

954.351.7474

Posted in business, trademark | 2 Comments »

New Changes to Power of Attorney Laws in Florida

November 23rd, 2011

The Florida Legislature has recently made some changes to the Power of Attorney (POA) laws in Florida. Though some changes are merely semantic, overall they can affect your current POA and the way the Court views it. Below are some, but not all, of the important changes in POA laws. If you already have a POA, or are planning on updating yours, it is best to speak to your legal advisor for advice.

»     The execution requirements of a power of attorney are the same as that of a deed.

»     To make a power durable, the same language as currently required under Section 709.08, Florida Statutes is still required.

»     Power still ceases at death, and while older ‘springboard’ durable clauses will be grandfathered in, no new ones shall be made.

»     A photocopy or electronically transmitted power of attorney should be considered as an original for purposes of delivery and notice of the same.

»     No more springing or conditional powers of attorney. All powers of attorney must be self-executing at time of execution. A power of attorney executed prior to Oct. 1 is still supposed to be accepted as valid, including springing powers.

»     Due to possible conflicts of defining when the clause has been “sprung” – incapacitation could be contested. 

»     All powers of attorney are now immediate.

»     There is a limitation on agents who may be compensated when performing under a properly executed power of attorney. This provision may cause some concern for professional guardians who act as an agent for more than three people if they want to be compensated for their work.

»     To clear up a perceived ambiguity in the current law, the law permits the appointment of multiple agents and successor agents. There is no need to have a power of attorney for each person; one power of attorney may be used for more than one agent; in the event multiple agents are chosen, then either has the authority to act alone unless otherwise provided by the power of attorney.

»     Acceptance of an agent under a power of attorney is limited to the specific action taken.

»    You can have partial acceptance of an agent under a power of attorney.

»     Some POAs are subject to reporting requirements.

»     All powers of attorney must be specific. Unless permitted in the context of certain financial transactions, no incorporation by reference or “check the box” or “initial the box” forms should be acceptable under the Law.

»     Power of attorney is now more strictly defined.

»     The gifting of a principal’s property is restricted unless the power of attorney permits otherwise, as provided in the Law.

»     One must provide notice for any financial institutions involved in the estate before POA can be given. Notice to a financial institution or title company is not deemed given until five business days after it is received.

 

Posted in business | No Comments »

Lonesome George & Co. Endorses Message of Change

November 8th, 2011

Profit driven business and social activism are terms not commonly found together.

For Eduardo Balarezo though, a marriage of the two is paramount for global interdependence and successful localized economies. His apparel company, Lonesome George & Co., is more than a brand and its product. It has a message, a purpose.

The brand, product, and message all synergize to emphasize the importance of community. Lonesome George, working with and through their affiliates, supplies the community with empowering education to create new leaders and agents for local change. The objective is to create communities that will embrace the change required to protect itself and its surrounding natural habitats.

Read the Forbes article, here:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2011/10/30/eduardo-balarezo-outfitting-agents-of-change-at-lonesome-george-co/

Posted in business | No Comments »

Apple and Samsung Battle over Smart Tablets Continues

October 26th, 2011

Fresh off of Apple and Samsung’s agreement to temporarily stop the advertising and sale of Samsung’s “Galaxy Tab” in Australia, many Courts around the world have begun delving into the ongoing debate between the two technology giants.

Apple’s suits against Samsung in the United States and elsewhere have alleged that the Galaxy tablets copy the look, user interface and packaging from the ipad. Samsung’s suits against Apple have alleged that Apple’s ipad infringes on its wireless communication technology.

Most recently, a dutch court refused to grant Samsung’s request for an injunction to ban the sale of Apple ipads and iphones in the Netherlands. Part of the ruling focused on the 3G network and how it has become an “industry standard.”  The ruling also focused on Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory standard license fees, with the Court further stating that Samsung failed to comply with the standard in offering apple a license fee for its patents.

Although the companies are at odds, ironically, Apple accounted for 4% of Samsung’s 2010 revenue of 154.6 trillion won ($142 billion), according to regulatory filings in South Korea, reports indicate.

It has also been reported that the number of global lawsuits between the two companies has increased to 21.

Posted in patent, technology | No Comments »

« Older Entries