Health care products maker Johnson & Johnson scored a $1.2 billion win in a patent dispute with its stent rivals Tuesday (October 01, 2008), though at least one company has vowed an appeal.
Shares of the New Brunswick, N.J.-based company rose $2.38, or 3.6 percent, to close at $69.28 Tuesday.
After the market closed, J&J, said the U.S. District Court in Delaware entered a final judgment of about $1.2 billion in favor of J&J's Cordis Corp. unit, which makes heart devices. J&J had argued that patents for stents made by the Cordis unit had been infringed by rivals Boston Scientific Corp. and Medtronic Inc.
Stents are tiny metal mesh scaffolds that prop open heart arteries following surgery to remove clogs. J&J has said juries in 2000 and again in 2005 found that bare metal stents made by Boston Scientific and Medtronic infringed on Cordis Corp.'s patent for the Palmaz stent.
Boston Scientific, which said it will appeal the decision, was ordered to pay $703 million while Medtronic was ordered to pay about $521 million
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Aruba Networks files patent infringement countersuit against Motorola
Aruba Networks, Inc. (ARUN), a provider of wireless LANs and secure mobility solutions, said it filed a patent infringement countersuit against Motorola, Inc. (MOT: News ), Symbol and Wireless Valley, concerning Motorola's infringement of two Aruba patents related to managing wireless computer networks and network security.
The first asserted patent was assumed by Sunnyvale, California-based Aruba in March 2008 as part of its acquisition of AirWave Wireless, Inc. The second asserted patent was issued to Aruba in May 2008. Aruba is seeking a permanent injunction against use of its patented technologies, as well as monetary damages for infringing use.
Aruba's countersuit follows a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine all four patents that Motorola -- through its Symbol Technologies and Wireless Valley subsidiaries -- is asserting against Aruba in a lawsuit filed in the Federal district court in Delaware. The Patent Office found that the prior art submitted by Aruba raises a substantial new question about the patentability of the claims of all four of Motorola's patents.
According to Keerti Melkote, Aruba's co-founder and chief technology officer, "We asserted our patents following an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a license. We simply cannot stand by while Motorola, and its Symbol and Wireless Valley subsidiaries, continue to violate our intellectual property. We will defend our intellectual property in court and we fully expect to win in that forum, just as we have in the market."
ARUN closed Tuesday's regular trade at $5.29, up $0.16 or 3.12%, on 843,210 shares.
by RTT Staff Writer
The first asserted patent was assumed by Sunnyvale, California-based Aruba in March 2008 as part of its acquisition of AirWave Wireless, Inc. The second asserted patent was issued to Aruba in May 2008. Aruba is seeking a permanent injunction against use of its patented technologies, as well as monetary damages for infringing use.
Aruba's countersuit follows a decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine all four patents that Motorola -- through its Symbol Technologies and Wireless Valley subsidiaries -- is asserting against Aruba in a lawsuit filed in the Federal district court in Delaware. The Patent Office found that the prior art submitted by Aruba raises a substantial new question about the patentability of the claims of all four of Motorola's patents.
According to Keerti Melkote, Aruba's co-founder and chief technology officer, "We asserted our patents following an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate a license. We simply cannot stand by while Motorola, and its Symbol and Wireless Valley subsidiaries, continue to violate our intellectual property. We will defend our intellectual property in court and we fully expect to win in that forum, just as we have in the market."
ARUN closed Tuesday's regular trade at $5.29, up $0.16 or 3.12%, on 843,210 shares.
by RTT Staff Writer
Two New Patents Are Added in Nextec's Patent Infringement Suit Against Hallwood Group's Wholly Owned Subsidiary, Brookwood Companies, Inc.; Nextec Rep
Sep 18, 2008 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- On August 2, 2007 Nextec Applications Inc. ("Nextec") filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of NY against Brookwood Companies, Inc. ("Brookwood"), a fully owned subsidiary of Hallwood Group, Inc. ("Hallwood"). Nextec's legal action arises under the patent laws of the United States and alleges that Brookwood has and continues to, with prior notice and knowledge of Nextec's patent rights, intentionally and willfully infringed on numerous patents owned by Nextec.
Through the discovery process over the last several months, Nextec's counsel has concluded and alleges that Brookwood infringes two other Nextec patents -- U.S. Patent Nos. 5,954,902 and 6,289,841. Nextec requested Brookwood's agreement to add these two new patents to the five patents already in the case. When Brookwood refused, Nextec sought leave to amend its complaint, which Judge Holwell granted, allowing these two new patents to be added. While the discovery is on-going and the information produced by Brookwood remains confidential, Nextec remains confident in its ability to prove not only infringement, but also willful infringement. If Nextec is successful in demonstrating willful infringement, Nextec can seek treble damages and attorneys' fees if deemed an "exceptional case."
Nextec's claims in this action alleged willful infringement by a number of fabrics produced by Brookwood (and methods of making them), including those fabrics that constitute two of the seven layers that make up the U.S. Army's Gen III ECWCS (Extended Cold Weather Clothing Systems) program. The Gen III ECWCS is the 3rd generation of the Army's ECWCS, and according to Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. ("ADS"), the prime vendor for the Gen III ECWCS program, "If all options are exercised the total contract value could exceed $1.1 billion." Nextec is seeking full damages for infringement of each of the patents-in-suit, enhancement of damages for willful infringement for each of the patentsinsuit, a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement, and other relief as may be determined by a jury or a court of competent jurisdiction.
Nextec is a technology based fabric manufacturer and licensor of its technology. Nextec's patented technology relates to performance fabrics, methods of making those fabrics, and products made therefrom, that are water resistant, have low absorption, are breathable and durable. Nextec's fabrics were the only fabrics fully field tested by the U.S. Army as part of the Army's research and development for the Gen III ECWCS layers 5 and 7, and were the only fabric for layers 5 and 7 highlighted by ADS in its press release announcing that it had been awarded the Gen III ECWCS contract.
Peter Santoro, Nextec's Co-CEO, stated, "We are extremely pleased with the court's most recent decision and our owners at General Electric and all our other partners remain extremely confident that this case will be resolved in Nextec's favor. We have currently spent over $2 million on this suit and believe that this investment will, in the end, produce extremely good returns for our company. We now are actively investigating others that may also be infringing on our patents. As I stated in the previous press release, we will hold all parties, at all levels in a supply chain, accountable that infringe on Nextec's patents and, based on U.S. patent law, all parties that use an infringing fabric at any stage in a garment manufacturing process, including its ultimate sale, would also infringe a patent holder's patents and may be liable."
Section 271(a) of the Federal Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a), provides in pertinent part:
[W]hoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefore, infringes the patent.
Section 284 of the Federal Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. 284, provides for treble damages in certain instances of willful infringement. Section 285 of the Federal Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. 285, provides for reasonable attorneys' fees to be paid to the prevailing party in "exceptional cases."
Mr. Santoro went on to say, "We remain confident that the discovery process will produce the evidence needed to prove infringement of Nextec's patents. The Court's decision to allow two additional patents that Nextec believes are infringed really ups the ante in this case for Brookwood." Source
Through the discovery process over the last several months, Nextec's counsel has concluded and alleges that Brookwood infringes two other Nextec patents -- U.S. Patent Nos. 5,954,902 and 6,289,841. Nextec requested Brookwood's agreement to add these two new patents to the five patents already in the case. When Brookwood refused, Nextec sought leave to amend its complaint, which Judge Holwell granted, allowing these two new patents to be added. While the discovery is on-going and the information produced by Brookwood remains confidential, Nextec remains confident in its ability to prove not only infringement, but also willful infringement. If Nextec is successful in demonstrating willful infringement, Nextec can seek treble damages and attorneys' fees if deemed an "exceptional case."
Nextec's claims in this action alleged willful infringement by a number of fabrics produced by Brookwood (and methods of making them), including those fabrics that constitute two of the seven layers that make up the U.S. Army's Gen III ECWCS (Extended Cold Weather Clothing Systems) program. The Gen III ECWCS is the 3rd generation of the Army's ECWCS, and according to Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. ("ADS"), the prime vendor for the Gen III ECWCS program, "If all options are exercised the total contract value could exceed $1.1 billion." Nextec is seeking full damages for infringement of each of the patents-in-suit, enhancement of damages for willful infringement for each of the patentsinsuit, a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement, and other relief as may be determined by a jury or a court of competent jurisdiction.
Nextec is a technology based fabric manufacturer and licensor of its technology. Nextec's patented technology relates to performance fabrics, methods of making those fabrics, and products made therefrom, that are water resistant, have low absorption, are breathable and durable. Nextec's fabrics were the only fabrics fully field tested by the U.S. Army as part of the Army's research and development for the Gen III ECWCS layers 5 and 7, and were the only fabric for layers 5 and 7 highlighted by ADS in its press release announcing that it had been awarded the Gen III ECWCS contract.
Peter Santoro, Nextec's Co-CEO, stated, "We are extremely pleased with the court's most recent decision and our owners at General Electric and all our other partners remain extremely confident that this case will be resolved in Nextec's favor. We have currently spent over $2 million on this suit and believe that this investment will, in the end, produce extremely good returns for our company. We now are actively investigating others that may also be infringing on our patents. As I stated in the previous press release, we will hold all parties, at all levels in a supply chain, accountable that infringe on Nextec's patents and, based on U.S. patent law, all parties that use an infringing fabric at any stage in a garment manufacturing process, including its ultimate sale, would also infringe a patent holder's patents and may be liable."
Section 271(a) of the Federal Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. Section 271(a), provides in pertinent part:
[W]hoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefore, infringes the patent.
Section 284 of the Federal Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. 284, provides for treble damages in certain instances of willful infringement. Section 285 of the Federal Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. 285, provides for reasonable attorneys' fees to be paid to the prevailing party in "exceptional cases."
Mr. Santoro went on to say, "We remain confident that the discovery process will produce the evidence needed to prove infringement of Nextec's patents. The Court's decision to allow two additional patents that Nextec believes are infringed really ups the ante in this case for Brookwood." Source
ITC to investigate Wii patent infringment claim
The U.S. International Trade Commission said Wed. that it will investigate claims by Hillcrest Labortories that Nintendo Co. infringed on its patents in the popular Wii video game hardware.
Hillcrest in Aug. filed a complaint for infringement of four patents against Nintendo.
The Rockville, Md technology company claims that the Wii's motion-sensitive properties violate its patents related to a handheld three-dimensional pointing device and a navigation interface display system that graphically organizes content for display on a television.
The Wii includes the Wii Remote, a wand-like device that allows users to perform gesture-based actions in game titles. Nintendo in July unsuccessfully bid to overturn a $21 million patent-infringement ruling in favor of Anascape Ltd. The ruling involved a potential ban of sale for the Wii Classic Controller, WaveBird controller and Nintendo GameCube. Nintendo in Sept. said that the Wii ranked as the No. 2 game hardware in Aug. according to NPD Group Inc. To date sales the Wii have reached nearly 12 million units in the U.S. Source
Hillcrest in Aug. filed a complaint for infringement of four patents against Nintendo.
The Rockville, Md technology company claims that the Wii's motion-sensitive properties violate its patents related to a handheld three-dimensional pointing device and a navigation interface display system that graphically organizes content for display on a television.
The Wii includes the Wii Remote, a wand-like device that allows users to perform gesture-based actions in game titles. Nintendo in July unsuccessfully bid to overturn a $21 million patent-infringement ruling in favor of Anascape Ltd. The ruling involved a potential ban of sale for the Wii Classic Controller, WaveBird controller and Nintendo GameCube. Nintendo in Sept. said that the Wii ranked as the No. 2 game hardware in Aug. according to NPD Group Inc. To date sales the Wii have reached nearly 12 million units in the U.S. Source
Nichia Initiates U.K. Patent Infringement Lawsuit against Seoul Semiconductor for Important Thermal Annealing Patent
September 18, 2008... Nichia of Japan has again brought patent litigation against Seoul Semiconductor. On September 16, 2008, Nichia Corporation filed an action for patent infringement and damages in the U.K. against Seoul Semiconductor of Korea. Nichia’s lawsuit against Seoul Semiconductor alleges that Seoul violated what Nichia called one of its most important patents, the EP(UK) 0 541,373 patent entitled, “Method of Manufacturing P-type Compound Semiconductor,”(the Annealing Patent). It relates to a thermal annealing method for manufacturing a p type GaN-based semiconductor.
Nichia says that the Annealing Patent is fundamental and indispensable patent for the mass production of GaN-based LEDs and LDs. Specifically Nichia alleges that LED chips installed in the white LED products of Seoul Semiconductor’s flagship product line, the Achriche series, are manufactured using the process disclosed in the Annealing Patent. Source
Nichia says that the Annealing Patent is fundamental and indispensable patent for the mass production of GaN-based LEDs and LDs. Specifically Nichia alleges that LED chips installed in the white LED products of Seoul Semiconductor’s flagship product line, the Achriche series, are manufactured using the process disclosed in the Annealing Patent. Source
Limelight Networks settles patent lawsuit
Limelight Networks Inc. in Tempe has settled a patent infringement lawsuit with competitor Two-Way Media LLC.
Under the agreement, Two-Way is dropping its lawsuit against the Limelight. In exchange, Limelight acquired a non-exclusive license that allows the company to use technology covered by Two-Way's patents.
Limelight disclosed the settlement Thursday in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing
Limelight's shares closed down 0.7 percent at $2.97 Thursday.
The settlement stems from a lawsuit Boulder, Colo.-based Two-Way filed in April in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Limelight and several other "content-delivery network," or CDN, providers.
Limelight, one of the biggest CDN providers, stores videos, music files, animation graphics and other multimedia content in data servers for customers that have included Microsoft Corp., Nintendo Ltd., Electronic Arts and DreamWorks.
Limelight's fiber-optic network moves the content to people's computers as they download it on customer's Web sites.
Litigation between CDN providers has risen in the last two years as more competitors have entered the field. Internet retailer Amazon.com Inc, a customer of Limelight, announced this week it plans to offer such services. Telecommunications giant AT&T unveiled similar plans this summer.
Limelight faces two other patent suits. In February, a U.S. District Court jury for the District of Massachusetts ordered Limelight to pay Akamai Technologies Inc. $45.5 million for patent infringement.
Akamai, based in Cambridge, Mass. and considered the largest CDN provider, is seeking an injunction permanently barring Limelight from providing certain delivery services under its patents. A judge has yet to make a final decision on the matter.
Limelight Chairman and CEO Jeff Lunsford has said the technology in question in Akamai's suit accounts for about half its business. The company has begun focusing on new services, including the streaming of live events, to minimize the impact such a move would have. NBC recently tapped Limelight to deliver live and pre-recorded video footage of Olympic events for its NBCOlympics.com Web site. The summer games are considered to be the biggest live event to be streamed online in terms of the amount of content it entailed.
Broomfield, Colo.-based Level 3 Communications Inc. filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Limelight in December. The case goes to jury trial in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 14.
Last month a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Arizona dismissed a class-action lawsuit that shareholders filed against Limelight in August 2007.
Under the agreement, Two-Way is dropping its lawsuit against the Limelight. In exchange, Limelight acquired a non-exclusive license that allows the company to use technology covered by Two-Way's patents.
Limelight disclosed the settlement Thursday in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing
Limelight's shares closed down 0.7 percent at $2.97 Thursday.
The settlement stems from a lawsuit Boulder, Colo.-based Two-Way filed in April in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Limelight and several other "content-delivery network," or CDN, providers.
Limelight, one of the biggest CDN providers, stores videos, music files, animation graphics and other multimedia content in data servers for customers that have included Microsoft Corp., Nintendo Ltd., Electronic Arts and DreamWorks.
Limelight's fiber-optic network moves the content to people's computers as they download it on customer's Web sites.
Litigation between CDN providers has risen in the last two years as more competitors have entered the field. Internet retailer Amazon.com Inc, a customer of Limelight, announced this week it plans to offer such services. Telecommunications giant AT&T unveiled similar plans this summer.
Limelight faces two other patent suits. In February, a U.S. District Court jury for the District of Massachusetts ordered Limelight to pay Akamai Technologies Inc. $45.5 million for patent infringement.
Akamai, based in Cambridge, Mass. and considered the largest CDN provider, is seeking an injunction permanently barring Limelight from providing certain delivery services under its patents. A judge has yet to make a final decision on the matter.
Limelight Chairman and CEO Jeff Lunsford has said the technology in question in Akamai's suit accounts for about half its business. The company has begun focusing on new services, including the streaming of live events, to minimize the impact such a move would have. NBC recently tapped Limelight to deliver live and pre-recorded video footage of Olympic events for its NBCOlympics.com Web site. The summer games are considered to be the biggest live event to be streamed online in terms of the amount of content it entailed.
Broomfield, Colo.-based Level 3 Communications Inc. filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Limelight in December. The case goes to jury trial in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Oct. 14.
Last month a U.S. District Court judge for the District of Arizona dismissed a class-action lawsuit that shareholders filed against Limelight in August 2007.
Japan Finds Microsoft Violating Antitrust Law
Tokyo, Sept. 18 (Jiji Press)--Japan's Fair Trade Commission said Thursday it has ruled that Microsoft Corp. violates the nation's antitrust law over its software licensing deals with Japanese firms.
The FTC found that the deals are anticompetitive because they make the U.S. software giant immune from patent infringement suits in Japan.
The deals include a nonassertion of patents provision stipulating that the Japanese companies can initiate no suits even if Microsoft uses their technologies in its flagship Windows operating system software.
The provision was included into deals signed between January 2001 and July 2004 that allowed Japanese personal computer makers to use Windows in their products.
Japanese makers such as Sony Corp. and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. have accused Microsoft of violating their patents by using their technologies in its Windows Media Player software for playing audio and video files.
In its latest ruling, the FTC orders Microsoft to make the provision invalid for Japanese companies' patents on audio and video technologies.
Microsoft is allowed to file a suit with Tokyo High Court to demand that the FTC's order be rescinded. If the ruling stands, Microsoft could be obliged to make royalty payments to the Japanese companies.END
(c) 2008 Jiji Press English News Service. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved. Source
The FTC found that the deals are anticompetitive because they make the U.S. software giant immune from patent infringement suits in Japan.
The deals include a nonassertion of patents provision stipulating that the Japanese companies can initiate no suits even if Microsoft uses their technologies in its flagship Windows operating system software.
The provision was included into deals signed between January 2001 and July 2004 that allowed Japanese personal computer makers to use Windows in their products.
Japanese makers such as Sony Corp. and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. have accused Microsoft of violating their patents by using their technologies in its Windows Media Player software for playing audio and video files.
In its latest ruling, the FTC orders Microsoft to make the provision invalid for Japanese companies' patents on audio and video technologies.
Microsoft is allowed to file a suit with Tokyo High Court to demand that the FTC's order be rescinded. If the ruling stands, Microsoft could be obliged to make royalty payments to the Japanese companies.END
(c) 2008 Jiji Press English News Service. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved. Source
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
