Legal Radar

Judge Temporarily Halts AG’s Google Investigation

Early this week, a federal judge agreed to temporarily halt an investigation carried out by an attorney general on Google, giving the American search-engine firm a small victory in a heavy feud against law enforcement agencies regarding internet privacy.

Judge Henry T. Wingate granted a preliminary injunction request from Google, which prevented Attorney General Jim Hood from pursuing a subpoena meant to closely review as to whether or not Google is encouraging illegal activities on its own websites. The injunction also prevents Hood from filing criminal charges in the meantime.

Last year, Hood’s office sent a subpoena to Google asking for details on its advertising and search practices ranging from banned materials to human trafficking to copyright-protected content.

Google’s attorney argued that the subpoena is violation of the federal law that protects search engines from suits looking to hold them responsible for failing to screen content made by third parties. The search giant also said the investigation is targeting the protected speech of the constitution.

Google “Glass” Trademark Freed from Hurdle

Google’s struggle in registering the word “Glass” as a trademark for its pc-powered tech glasses seems to have cleared a huge hurdle.

Google filed an application in the previous year on a trademark for its “Glass” word, which covers PC hardware and components displayed in the same font showcased in its marketing promotion. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office maintained the American giant’s bid.

Google finally agreed to a settlement with two firms that objected its planned trademark. These firms involve Factory Holding Company 25, S.L., a Spanish-based firm that offers a software platform for handhelds; and Border Stylo, LLC, a developing company for a “Write on Glass” browser extension.

Both firms went against Google’s filings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, alleging their “Glass” trademarks were strikingly alike to Google app.

The settlement aids Google in addressing a key aspect brought about a federal trademark examiner operating on its app.

The American search engine firm managed to successfully register a trademark for the “Google Glass” term.

LVHM and eBay Makes Settlement on Fake Products

LVHM Moet Hennessy, Louis Vuitton and eBay finally made a settlement on a lengthy court battle on its sale of counterfeit good on eBay’s site.

Firms are deploying cooperative measures made at shielding intellectual property rights and fighting counterfeit good sales online.

A number of cosmetic and perfume brands under the LVMH sued eBay in 2008, alleging the site of counterfeit goods trading. LVMH also said that sales of real perfume products via non-approved distribution mediums like eBay is hurting the business.

In 2008, a French court demanded eBay to make a payment of 38.5 million euros. The court of appeals lessened the amount to 5.7 million euros but stated that eBay has been doing it wrong all along.

Four years later, the French court of appeals ruled that the lower court didn’t have any jurisdiction on eBay’s site but maintained the ruling as deployed in English and French sites.

LVHMH shares slumped to 0.6% early on Thursday.

New Zealand: Tech IPOs Facing Litigation Risk

Tech firms in New Zealand could be going into an intellectual property litigation risk as they quickly head to float in the share market.

The country is smack dab in the middle of the IPO frenzy, with success of tech businesses which include Xero, an accounting program provider, coaxing other privately owned tech companies to go public.

4 out of the 10 New Zealand-based companies listed on the NZX in the previous year hailed from the tech sector, while a couple program developers, Serko and Gentrack, recently floated in 2014. At least several more tech companies are also predicted to list this year.

Paul Adams, a CEO of EverEdgeIP, an advisory firm headquartered in Auckland, indicated that non-practicing firms handling earn revenue and IP assets via licensing and litigation --- had increased their activity significantly and frequently deployed patent infringement suits during major capital movements, like an IPO.

The post-listing stage was also a target since firms frequent cashed and avoiding public exposure that could decrease their stock pricing.

 

Pure Storage Makes 100-Patent IBM Purchase to Shield Itself from Suits

Offering a tactical boost to its intellectual property portfolio, Pure Storage, a flash array vendor, acquired over 100 storage and tech-related patents from IBM. Both firms also agreed to a patent cross-license agreement.

Pure Storage was recently in Disruptor 50 list from CNBC. It’s the disruption that the firm is shielding itself as the move on its all-flash systems resume, with legacy storage vendors fiercely trying to catch up. After landing a Series F funding round of $225 million last year for a valuation of $3 billion, CEO Scott Diezen is poised on its own pending and granted patents. The deal with IBM will aid in shielding itself from aggressive litigation by its rivals.

Pure Storage made a pledge not utilize initial use of patents but to use the IP only to fend itself from aggression against rivals who would opt for litigation rather than market competition.

Upon getting the $225 million round, Dietzen said the firm is well positioned for extensive independence since all-flash collections over mechanical-aiding drives continue to surge.

Performance of Virtual Michael Jackson Leading to Litigation

The hologram appearance of Michael Jackson led to a fierce legal battle between two companies, although it had nothing to do with the late pop star or his properties. Nonetheless, Jackson’s hologram appearance in this year’s Billboard Music Awards led to a fierce legal battle.

The battle is between Pulse Evolution, the firm responsible for staging the Jackson appearance in the event, and Alki David, a movie entrepreneur. David claimed that Pulse Evolution and its chairman, John Textor, utilized a patented technology without permission of which he’s a licensee in order to make the Jackson set.

David is claiming that Pulse tried to outbid him for rights to the technology and then tried to come up with a business partnership to gain access to it.

In a countersuit, the company is saying David is nothing but an infringer of intellectual property rights and that his lawsuit against the firm, and claiming to be accountable for technology that enabled the Jackson hologram at the Billboard show, are made to turn away attention from the company.

Spherix Resumes Lawsuit on Patent Infringement against Verizon

Spherix, an intellectual property firm responsible for completely fostering and monetizing intellectual property, made an announcement saying it resumed patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District against Verizon. The complaint claims Verizon to have infringed up to four patents owned by Spherix.

The declared patents in the lawsuit were originally constructed by Nortel Networks, which was later purchased by Spherix in December 2013 and are related to VoIP and other internet services offered by Verizon. The complaint is looking to seek damages for profit related to the infringed patents.

Spherix said the current litigation is a big leap to monetizing their intellectual property portfolio. The lawsuit is a completely new line of licensing profit for the company as it focuses on infringement related to internet service offerings.

The new licensing programs adds to the firm’s current licensing programs related to router and switch devices, wireless telephones, and mobile phone location technology.

Statute of Limitations not Applicable to Using Trade Secrets

Many businesses have a "non-compete agreement" that employees must sign upon employment. This ensures the business that the employee will not use their confidential and proprietary information to compete with the business. In most cases, these have a time-frame that they remain relevant. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently decided for the business and awarded damages and a permanent injunction against a former employee years after they had left the company. The plaintiff is a business which sold software packages to be used in chemical and petrochemical industries sued a former employee who left the company in order to work for a competitor. However, in discovery the plaintiff uncovered the fact that the competitor was using their trade secrets, or software code to compete. Although the statue of limitations had run out and the employee had long been gone from the company, the courts found that the defendant was using proprietary information to compete with the plaintiff and awarded damages.

Samsung Enters Mobile Patent Deal with InterDigital to Halt Litigation

Samsung recently signed a mobile patent agreement with InterDigital, one week prior to when the U.S. International Commission could’ve made a decision to halt the import of multiple Samsung mobile devices in the United States.

The deal covers the sale of all 3G, 4G, and specific future wireless tech products by Samsung and halting all litigation between both firms until the end of 2017.

InterDigital, a wireless standards maker, submitted a complaint against the South Korean giant with the ITC last January, seeking for an import ban on the Samsung  Galaxy S III devices and other tech products that claim to have infringed InterDigital’s own patents.

InterDigital’s patents were licensed by Samsung from 2002 all the way until 2012. But when the license period finished, InterDigital quickly filed a complaint to the ITC.

InterDigital’s complaint also involved Huawei, ZTE, and Nokia, whose wireless handsets claimed to have infringed the firm’s mobile patents. InterDigital made a request to ban Nokia’s Lumia 920, the ZTE Avail, and other phones from entering the country.

Supreme Court Reversed Federal Circuit Courts on Patents Again

Two decisions were handed down by the Supreme Court on Monday. Limelight Networks Inc. V. Akamai Technologies Inc. and Nautilus Inc. V. Biosig Instruments became the fourth and fifth cases concerning patents that the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Federal Circuit courts.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the ruling of the Federal Circuit in the Nautilus case was leaving district courts and the patent bar "at sea without a reliable compass." Justice Samuel Alito Jr. in the Limelight case stated that the Federal Circuit has no concept of what it "means to infringe a method patent." 

Limelight was a case where the disputed patents have to do with managing internet traffic. Limelight originally lost the case and Akamai was granted a $40 million jury verdict. However, Limelight appealed and claimed that they did not perform all of the steps of the patent. The Federal Circuit stated that they were liable under an "induced infringement." But today the Supreme Court reversed that decision and stated that there had not been a direct infringement of patent laws.