by Kathleen Lynch | Dec 2, 2015 | Innovation, IP Management
For years now western countries have been complaining about the lack of enforcement of intellectual property laws in China. Well, that may be changing if this recent case is any indicator. A Chinese company has recently sued Apple for patent infringement on a number of different patents it has amassed in its patent portfolio.
Chinese company BYD has sued Apple and five other companies in the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court for patent infringement related to the antennae in the iPhone 6 as well as other technology. BYD has asked the court to order Apple to stop manufacture and assembly of the iPhones as a result of the alleged infringement.
BYD has stated that it owns over 12,000 patents in China and roughly 8000 internationally. This infringement suit against Apple could be critical to Apple’s ability to manufacture phones and other Apple products in China. China is where a significant majority of Apple products are made. This action may seriously hamper Apple’s manufacturing and supply chain and may force it to diversify its manufacturing and assembly sites worldwide.
What’s the take away here? BYD has managed to create a significant patent portfolio and is positioned itself to challenge Apple. Any intellectual property portfolio must be managed in a strategic way so as to meet the business goals of the organization.
Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make that decision is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at [email protected].
by Kathleen Lynch | Nov 24, 2015 | IP Management
There was an interesting article yesterday in the Wall Street Journal about patent demand letters. These are letters sent alleging patent infringement and demanding a cessation in all infringing activity usually followed by a request for a payment. The author, Colleen Chien, proposes that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all.
The article discusses the tactics of patent trolls, competitors and “patent bullies” and how they may strategically pursue one or more parties for infringement. In some cases, where a patent troll or patent owner trying to test the waters may send out demand letters to obtain settlements from a number of parties. However, Ms. Chien also points out that there are times that a patent holder may want to litigate in an effort to obtain a large damage award in a jury trial.
One thing Ms. Chien doesn’t address is the merits of the demand letter. When you receive a letter alleging patent infringement, do the allegations have any merit? A “do nothing” response may set you up for a patent infringement suit that may have been avoidable.
What’s the take away here? You are better off having a patent demand letter reviewed by patent counsel to address the merits of the accusation. Then you can make an informed decision as to whether the substantive allegations in the letter deserve a response.
Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make that decision is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at [email protected].
by Kathleen Lynch | Sep 22, 2015 | Trademark Service Mark
Adidas, the German sporting goods company, recently sued Skechers USA Inc. for trademark infringement involving sneaker designs. Adidas claims that the lawsuit is based on a long history of alleged infringement by Skechers of Adidas shoe trademarks.
Adidas claims the dispute began when Skechers sold shoes bearing parallel stripes on the sides of the shoes in 1994. Adidas alleges those stripes infringed its trademarks. Adidas has designs bearing three parallel strips while Skechers sold designs having two or four stripes. The suit was settled in 1995.
The latest action accuses Skechers of selling athletic shoes that infringe the Adidas “Supernova” trademarks and the trade dress of its Stan Smith shoes. In its pleadings, Adidas accuses Skechers of selling shoes under the “SuperNova” mark as well as selling shoes bearing a three parallel stripe pattern on the side.
What’s the take away here? Adidas has done a good job of enforcing its marks and its trade dress. Any product or service has the capacity to develop goodwill through brand awareness and enforcement. Like Adidas, cornering the market on a style, word or symbol makes great business sense.
Capitalizing on innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make those decisions is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at [email protected].
by Kathleen Lynch | Aug 6, 2015 | Entrepreneurship, Innovation, IP Management, Patent Prosecution
(I have to admit I picked this case in part on the name, Fuzzy Babba. )
Walmart sells a similar fuzzy slipper under the mark “Fuzzy Babba™.” Buyer’s Direct sued Walmart and others for infringing their design patent directed to a slipper that Buyer’s Direct sells under the mark “Snoozies”. In their defense, Walmart and others claimed that the patent was invalid because it was an obvious variation on slipper designs in existence at the time the patent application was filed.
A Federal District Court in New York City found in favor of the accused infringers, Walmart, Sears and High Point Design. The court found that the differences between the design patent and other slipper designs were obvious variations and that the patent was invalid.
What’s the take away here? Be very sure of the strength of your patent when you assert it against an alleged infringer. The first defense is often an attack on the patent itself. If the accused infringers prevail, your patent may be invalidated and any rights associated with it are lost.
Advising on intellectual property issues is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make that decision is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at [email protected].
by Kathleen Lynch | Feb 17, 2015 | Patent
The new inter partes review procedures were reviewed for the first time by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals recently. The court in a 2 to 1 decision, the Court upheld the Patent Office standard of review used by the Patent Office to invalidate patents.
Effective in September 2012, the new inter partes review procedure is an administrative process authorized under the America Invents Act. It provides a third party with the opportunity to dispute the validity of a recently issued patent before the US Patent Office.
Many are calling the new procedures a “death squad” to patents because these new procedures give the Patent Office broad authority to invalidate patents. The procedures are quickly being adopted by many companies to invalidate a competitor’s patent.
The process is an administrative one. As such, the process is relatively inexpensive and quicker than federal litigation. The procedures to date have invalidated more patents than the amount invalidated through the federal court system during the same time period.
Take away
keep an eye out for recently issued patents in your area of technology to determine whether the new inter partes review process might be an appropriate avenue for your company to pursue. Conversely, once your patent issues, you need to be aware of this procedure from a defensive standpoint as well.
Capitalizing on innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make those decisions is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at [email protected].
