Hadron blog

EBay Sued For $3.8 Bln In Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Online auctioneer EBay Inc. (EBAY: News ) has been sued for at least $3.8 billion by Connecticut-based XPRT Ventures LLC, which has accused the e-commerce giant of infringing six patents to develop online payment systems such as PayPal.

According to the lawsuit filed by by XPRT in theU.S. District Court in Delaware, eBay unfairly stole information shared in confidence by the inventors of XPRT’s own patents and incorporated it into features in PayPal and similar electronic payment systems.

XPRT, based in Greenwich, Connecticut, asserted that eBay infringed six patents and stole trade secrets. The lawsuit also names eBay subsidiaries PayPal Inc., Bill Me Later Inc., Shopping.com, Inc., and StubHub Inc. as defendants in the lawsuit.

“Through PayPal, eBay has become the pre-eminent leader in the online payment arena and significant portions of eBay’s PayPal activities, both past and present, read directly on XPRT’s patents claims,” XPRT said in the lawsuit.

XPRT said in the lawsuit that the inventors of one of its patents contacted eBay in 2001 to gauge the company’s interest in using the patent-pending technology and offered a preview of their patent applications. The inventors told the online retailer that systems such as PayPal, which eBay did not own at the time, could be modified to use the concept.

However, the inventors failed to get a response to a follow-up letter, which asked eBay’s lawyer if the company was interested in the technology. Shortly thereafter, eBay announced its intention to buy PayPal and acquired PayPal for $1.5 billion in 2002.

“EBay’s familiarity with the confidential information provided by the Inventors allowed eBay to recognize the advantages it would realize by acquiring, modifying and integrating PayPal’s payment platform with eBay’s own e-commerce payment platform. EBay also knew or should have known that such modification and combination would violate Inventors’ patent application claims should they issue as patents,” XPRT said.

The lawsuit says that when eBay filed a patent application on April 30, 2003, titled “Method and System to Automate Payment for a Commerce Transaction,” it failed to tell the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that it knew of XPRT’s own patent applications. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected eBay’s application four times, citing XPRT’s patents, the suit says.

By filing for a similar patent, eBay “admitted the patentability of the inventors’ claims,” the complaint said.

XPRT noted that prior to the fourth quarter of 2002, eBay’s revenue from payment activities was not separately reported in its financial statements. From the fourth quarter of 2002, when eBay acquired Paypal, through 2009, eBay has publicly reported in excess of 4.4 billion transactions successfully completed in the eBay-PayPal payment system, resulting in direct transaction payment revenues in excess of $10 billion, according to XPRT.

Source

Finjan, McAfee and Symantec sued for patent infringement

Security Finjan claims that its competitors,McAfee, Sophos, Symantec, Webroot Software Websense and violates two patents. This should be addressed to the District Court of Delaware Monday has submitted an application.

It is therefore necessary to Finjan damages and order five companies should prohibit the sale of allegedly infringing software copyright Finjan.

Source

ITC to investigate HTC’s patent-infringement complaint against Apple

In a Friday statement, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) revealed that it intends investigating the complaint filed by HTC, in which the Taiwanese phone maker has accused Apple of infringing on five of its patents pertaining to handset technology. The ITC said that it will investigate whether HTC’s request, seeking a ban on the import and sale of iPhones, iPods, and iPads, is justifiable.

The agency is already probing Apple’s own patent infringement complaint against HTC. Apple has alleged that HTC makes use of patents linked to the user interface of its popular iPhone, along with an array of other software and hardware technologies.

HTC, which manufactures handsets running the Google Android OS as well as Windows Mobile, requested ITC last month to block the import of the leading Apple devices in the US, claiming that the device violate HTC’s handset hardware and software patents, which the company has not yet publicly stated.

According to ITC, the products related to its investigations will include “portable electronic devices that utilize certain power management methods and may incorporate hardware andsoftware for telephone directories within mobile telephone systems.”

An evidential hearing to ascertain the essential grounds of the HTC complaint will be held by anadministrative law judge for the agency, which has 45 days to announce a target date for finishing the investigation.

Source: Top News; Sat, 06/12/2010 – 08:54

U.S. court refrains Dr. Reddy’s from launching Allegra

In a major setback to pharma major Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, a court in the U.S. has passed an injunction order against the company, refraining it from launching its generic version of Allegra D24 in the U.S. market.

Dr. Reddy’s which had received approval from the US FDA to market the drug in March has said that it disagreed with the court’s decision and would file an appeal.

According to estimates, the market size for this drug is around $200 million.

The District Court of New Jersey granted a preliminary injunction on the launch of Allegra D 24 based on an application filed by Albany Molecular Research Inc (AMRI) and Sanofi-Aventis.

In September 2009, AMRI filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the court against Dr. Reddy’s Lab for infringement of one of its patents related to the manufacturing process for the active ingredient in Allegra, Allegra-D 12, and Allegra-D 24 hour and joined hands with French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis SA, which sells Allegra to file the law suit.

Dr. Reddy’s had agreed to hold the launch of Allegra-D in the U.S. markets until the hearing in May. Now the company would need to wait further till its appeal is taken up for hearing.

Source: The Hindu; June 12, 2010

Samsung may join LG in NZ patent fight

NEW ZEALAND screen and monitor technology company PureDepth is seeking an injunction to enforce its patents against the Asian giants of the television and monitor market, including Korean giant LG.

PureDepth, whose majority 52% owner is Warehouse founder Stephen Tindall’s investment vehicle K1W1, is taking on a company called NCP Trading in the High Court at Auckland.

While NCP, a small local importer of Konka-branded televisions, is a relative minnow, LG has joined the proceedings and it is possible others, such as Samsung, will too.

That’s because if PureDepth wins the case, the precedent could have global implications and affect a much broader range of television manufacturers, perhaps forcing them to license PureDepth’s technology.

According to a judgement of the High Court at Auckland, PureDepth disassembled a Konka TV expecting to find componentry from a Taiwanese company CMO, with which it had previously tried to negotiate a licensing agreement. Instead it found componentry from LG which it also felt breached its patent. Another television contained similar componentry from Samsung.

According to affidavits filed with the court, LG intends to file a counterclaim for revocation of the patent concerned. It appears as if that counterclaim will be based on a claim of “prior art”, or that the invention patented by PureDepth already existed, under a Japanese patent.

PureDepth says it holds an identical patent for the technology in the US, meaning a result in New Zealand could have much broader implications for television manufacturers and component makers.

“If this contention is true, and if PureDepth is successful in obtaining a finding of infringement of the New Zealand patent by way of the Konka television sets having LG backlighting display units, then such a judgement may well have considerable commercial ramifications in the US marketplace, being one of vastly greater size than that of New Zealand,” Justice Fogarty writes in allowing LG to join the case and placing it on a fast track for further hearing.

PureDepth chief executive officer Andy Wood was not prepared to comment on the case.

The company, which holds 86 patents and has a further 64 pending according to Wood, is in the process of deregistering from the US OTC Bulletin Board, a subsidiary trading system of the Nasdaq high technology stock exchange.

Bleeding cash, it has slashed staff worldwide and refocused on two core markets: providing technology for Japan’s massive Pachinko and Pachislot gaming market and a new mobile platform Wood was not prepared to discuss, apart from saying he was in discussions with several well-known companies to evaluate PureDepth’s systems.

Wood says most of the remaining staff in Auckland are focused on research and development. The company has sufficient capital to continue operations through revenue from a licensing agreement with New York-listed International Game Technologies. It also licences to Sanyo.

PureDepth was founded in 1999 as Deep Video Imaging by Power Beat founder Peter Witehira and Gabriel Engel. Witehira was the inventor of a “never go flat” car battery. Witehira settled a long-running disagreement with Tindall in 2004, selling his stake in the Deep Video Imaging for $520,000.

Tindall’s Warehouse does not sell Konka televisions. Dick Smith does.

Source: Sunday Star Times; 05:00 13/06/2010

Gibson settles patent infringement case with Rock Band

The original action was taken against Viacom, Harmonix and Electronic Arts – developers of the game – in 2008.

Bloomberg reports that the case hinged on Gibson’s filing of a patent in 1999 “for a way of using a musical instrument to take part in a simulated concert”.

Financial terms of the settlement were not disclosed. Outstanding actions take by Gibson against six major retailers who carried the games – including Wal-Mart and Amazon – are still to be resolved.

The latest game in the Rock Band franchise, built around the music of Green Day, was released this week. Rock Band 3 is currently in development and due to be released towards the end of the year.

Source: http://www.musicweek.com/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=1041469&c=1

Gray Manufacturing Reaches Settlement Agreement on Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Gray Manufacturing Company, Inc., a family owned and operated business since 1952 located in St. Joseph, MO, specializing in manufacturing and selling portable lifting equipment for use by professional mechanics, announced today that it has resolved its patent infringement lawsuit filed February 25, 2010 against MAHA KG, a German corporation, and MAHA USA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Pinckard, AL.

Pursuant to the agreement, MAHA has admitted the validity and enforceability of Gray Manufacturing’s U.S. Patent No. 6,634,461 “Coordinated Lift System”, U.S. Patent No. 7,014,012 “Coordinated Lift System”, and U.S. Patent No. 7,219,770 “Coordinated Lift System with User Selectable RF Channels,” related to wireless lifting devices. MAHA has also agreed not to infringe on the Patents in the future. Gray Manufacturing’s President Stet Schanze stated that he is very pleased with the agreement and to have the matter resolved with MAHA.

In a separate matter Schanze noted that Gray continues to pursue its federal lawsuit against Stertil-Koni and Stertil B.V. for patent infringement related to the same patents in the MAHA lawsuit and fully expects the federal court to uphold the validity of Gray’s patents.

Source: http://www.stnonline.com/home/press-releases/2433-gray-manufacturing-reaches-settlement-agreement-on-patent-infringement-lawsuit

SmartMetric Updates Patent Infringement Lawsuit

BAY HARBOR, FL, Jun 07, 2010 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) — SmartMetric, Inc. /quotes/comstock/11k!smme (SMME 0.08, 0.00, -5.77%) announced today that on June 2, 2010 the United States District Court for the Central District of California entered an Order Denying the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants VISA, Inc. (“VISA”) and MasterCard Incorporated (“MasterCard”).

The case is captioned as Smart Metric v. MasterCard et. Al, case no. 2:10-cv-01864-JHN

As previously disclosed, on March 15, 2010 SMME filed a complaint for patent infringement against VISA and MasterCard. In response, on May 6, 2010 VISA and on May 14, 2010 MasterCard filed motions to dismiss. On May 28, 2010 plaintiff SMME filed a first amended complaint.

SmartMetric CEO Colin Hendrick stated, “We are extremely pleased by the district court’s prompt entry of an Order denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss. As alleged in the Company’s amended complaint, the Company believes and therefore has alleged that defendant VISA’s PAYWAVE card and defendant MasterCard’s PAYPASS card infringe on the Company’s various patents. In particular, the Company is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,792,464 (the ‘464 patent’). The 464 patent provides the Company with intellectual property rights for ‘a system for automatic connection to a network.’”

About SmartMetric, Inc. SmartMetric, Inc. has developed a portable biometric identity and transaction card capable of storing a wide variety of personal information while protecting you against identity theft and fraud. It is one of the most advanced portable identity authentication solutions in the world today. The card contains a biometric fingerprint scanner and reader which only you can unlock and is smaller and thinner than a credit card. The SmartMetric card is ideal for a wide range of consumers, including Personal, Government and Corporate.

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/smartmetric-updates-patent-infringement-lawsuit-2010-06-07?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Celgene, Barr Resolve Patent Dispute over Generic Thalomid

Celgene Corp. and Barr Laboratories Inc. have resolved their patent dispute over the multiple myeloma cancer drug Thalomid, with Celgene agreeing to drop its patent infringement claims and Barr dropping its invalidity and antitrust claims.

Celgene initiated the dispute in January 2007, after Barr filed an ANDA for generic thalidomide in September 2006 (see “Court Report,” February 28, 2007).  Celgene claimed that Barr’s product infringed seven of its patents, and then added another asserted patent in a second lawsuit against Barr in August 2007 (see “Court Report,” September 3, 2007).  Barr responded in October 2007 by filing its own suit, alleging that Celgene failed to disclose material information to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that Celgene interfered with its attempts to get the raw material needed for studies required to file its ANDA.  Celgene filed a third lawsuit before the District Court consolidated these actions in July 2008.  Finally, in December 2008, Celgene filed an amended complaint alleging infringement of the three patents currently at issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,629,327; 6,235,756; and 7,435,745.

On May 26, Judge Wigenton of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey approved the parties’ stipulation of dismissal without prejudice of all claims and counterclaims asserted in the case.  Barr’s antitrust claims were dismissed with prejudice.  Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees in the matter.

Source: http://www.patentdocs.org/2010/06/biotechpharma-docket.html

BackWeb Resolves Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Symantec

Source: http://legal.tmcnet.com/topics/legal/articles/87405-backweb-resolves-patent-infringement-lawsuit-against-symantec.htm

BackWeb Announces Settlement of Patent Infringement Lawsuit with Microsoft

SANTA CLARA, Calif., Jun 03, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — BackWeb Technologies Ltd (Pink Sheets: BWEBF or BWEBF.PK) announced today that it had reached a settlement of its previously announced patent infringement litigation with Microsoft Corporation. Under the settlement, all claims are resolved and the BackWeb patents are now licensed to Microsoft. With the resolution of the matter with Microsoft, BackWeb’s patent litigation has been resolved with all defendants and the litigation has ended.

BackWeb currently has cash of approximately $10 million, which reflects the impact of the patent litigation and the last year of BackWeb’s business operations. A more detailed, pro forma balance sheet taking into account the foregoing is enclosed with this press release.

Bill Heye, BackWeb’s President and CEO stated, “We are pleased to have the litigation resolved. We now plan to analyze the company’s future plans.”

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/backweb-announces-settlement-of-patent-infringement-lawsuit-with-microsoft-2010-06-03?reflink=MW_news_stmp

Camtek will fight Rudolf’s latest patent infringement lawsuit

Camtek previously lost an earlier patent infringement lawsuit related to the company’s Falcon machines filed by Rudolf.

Camtek Ltd. (Nasdaq: CAMT; TASE:CAMT) said today that it will “aggressively defend” a new patent infringement suit filed against the company by Rudolph Technologies Inc.

This is the latest lawsuit that Rudolf has filed against the Israeli automated optical inspection equipment manufacturer. In the lawsuit filed with the US District Court in Minnesota, Rudolph claims that Camtek’s Falcon and Gannet machines infringe Rudolph’s new patent No. 7,779,528 – a patent that was issued on the same day that the lawsuit was filed.

Camtek previously lost an earlier patent infringement lawsuit related to the company’s Falcon machines filed by Rudolf. This case in machines is under post trial motions, and the company said that it will appeal the verdict if the motions fail.

Meanwhile, Camtek is respecting the injunction issued by the court banning the manufacture or sale of Falcon systems in the US. It has also not sold any Gannet systems in the US to date.

Camtek’s share price rose 0.7% on the TASE today to NIS 9.57, but fell 2.3% in early trading on Nasdaq to $2.50, giving a market cap of $73 million.

Source: http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/docview.asp?did=1000564463&fid=1725

Ex-Baxter unit wins patent suit

Swiss firm files patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T and T-Mobile USA

Starhome GmbH, a firm based in Zurich, Switzerland, filed a lawsuit with a federal court in Delaware claiming that both AT&T and T-Mobile are infringing on its patents.

The patents, according to Reuters, involve the short codes that subscribers use in order to access their voicemail or other services. This prevents customers from dialing longer numbers, sometimes international, just to access their accounts. The patents were obtained by Starhome in 2005 and 2007.

Source: http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=9607

Cutthroat Competition at Heart of Ge-Mitsubishi Dispute

Industrial heavyweights General Electric Co. and Mitsubishi are raising the temperature of a 2-year-old dispute claiming patent infringements and monopolistic behavior in the U.S. wind turbine market.

In a complaint filed in a U.S. District Court in Arkansas yesterday, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries accused GE of scheming to control the nation’s wind power market. Through a series of “baseless claims of patent infringement,” Mitsubishi said in its complaint, GE has successfully scared off potential Mitsubishi customers and discouraged well-capitalized foreign competitors from setting up shop in the United States.

“GE is attempting to kill competition in the marketplace to the detriment of U.S. consumers,” said Mitsubishi spokeswoman Sonia Williams. “We anticipate damages will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and may be over $1 billion.”

In a separate suit filed in Florida yesterday, the Japanese turbine maker accused GE of infringing on a critical Mitsubishi patent.

The Mitsubishi complaint is the latest in a series of claims and counterclaims unfurled by the two companies, made as competition increases in the U.S. wind market and as both companies roll out their latest high-capacity wind turbines. GE, Japan’s Mitsubishi, Denmark’s Vestas Wind Systems, Germany’s Siemens AG and a growing crop of global industrial conglomerates are racing to get a permanent foothold in North America, where wind projects are grabbing a bigger share of electricity generation.

This grudge match started in 2008, when GE filed complaints at the U.S. International Trade Commission alleging Mitsubishi had infringed on GE wind-turbine patents. The U.S. ITC ended its investigation in January after finding Mitsubishi had not violated the patents, but it left the door open for further action. In February, GE then filed a suit in a Texas court accusing Mitsubishi of breaching the GE patents.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/05/21/21climatewire-cutthroat-competition-at-heart-of-ge-mitsubi-46548.html