Source: https://iiprd.wordpress.com/2017/02/
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 05:18:29
Document Index: 384402979

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3014', '§ 1331', '§ 1', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 271', '§ 284', '§ 285']

February | 2017 | IIPRD Blog - Intellectual Property Discussions
February 27, 2017 – 10:23 am
The once powerful mobile phone companies BlackBerry and Nokia are in the headlines again, not for their new technological developments but because of their legal battle.
The Valentine’s Day card for Nokia was in the form of complaint entailing 11 items that Blackberry did not like about it. The complaint listed out the 11 patents of Blackberry infringed by Nokia. The company has not commanded an injunctive relief, i.e. asking Nokia to stop using the patents; instead it has asked for compensation for the unauthorized usage of the said patents. Let’s have a brief overview of the case.
Headquartered in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, Blackberry Limited, formerly known as Research In Motion (RIM), was founded by two engineering students, Mike Lazaridis and Douglas Fregin in 1984. It is a multi-national wireless telecommunications software and mobile hardware company, currently chaired by John S. Chen. It had taken over the smart phone market with its flagship QWERTY keypad range of mobile phones. Blackberry uses its own operating system, and had recently entered the Android arena of smart phones. It had ruled the gadget market with its classy, easy and appealing technology and applications for over two decades until its plunge with the launch of Apple iPhone and other Android phones. It had also developed key innovations that underlie 3G and 4G mobile communication technologies, such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE), including LTE Advanced and Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (UTRAN) technologies, and Universal Mobile Telecommunication Systems (UMTS). Blackberry’s contribution to innovation, including investment in research and development has exceeded a total of $ 5.5 billion, and has protected the technical innovations by seeking patents from the US office.
In a paper mill in 1865, Nokia was created by Fredrik Idestam and Leo Mechelin in South-west Finland. It is a multinational communications and information technology company, considered to be one of the most important Fortune 500 organizations. Nokia launched Mobira Cityman in 1987, the world’s first handheld phone. The most famous Nokia’s first GSM handset, Nokia 1101, was a swift hit in the market when it was launched in 1992. The partnership of Nokia with Microsoft It is presently chaired by Rajeev Suri. With the ingression of new companies, Nokia has tumbled down.
Rockstar Consortium Inc. (also Rockstar Bidco) was formed in 2012 to settle and negotiate patent licensing acquired from the bankrupt multinational telecommunications and data networking equipment manufacturer Nortel. It comprises of five members: Apple Inc. Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft and Sony.
Rockstar Consortium bought Nortel’s IP in 2011 for $ 4.5 Billion, and created a special-purpose-patent-assertion company to use them. The IP consisted of over 6000 patents covering 4G wireless innovations and a range of technologies. Nokia had also made an attempt to buy Nortel’s IP in 2009, but was unable to obtain them due to the latter’s bankruptcy proceedings. In 2012, Rockstar Consortium was also listed, by the Business Insider, as the 3rd most fearsome (out of 8) “patent trolls” in the industry.
Rockstar initiated a lawsuit against 8 companies in 2013, including Google, Smasung, and other Android phone makers. When the IP was purchased by it, Google anticipated this scenario. The complaint encompassed 6 patents, all from the same patent family. The case was settled on confidential terms.
Blackberry sues Nokia: Case name:
Blackberry Limited [Plaintiff]
Nokia Corporation, Nokia Solutions and Networks Oy, Nokia Solutions and Network Holdings USA Inc., and Nokia Solutions and Networks US LLC [Defendants]
Case number and Court:
17- 155, United States District Court for the District of Delware (Wilmington). This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the defendants under the Delware Long-Arm Statue, 10 Del. Code § 3014, and the U.S. Constitution. The Court has jurisdiction over this controversy under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). The action for patent infringement has arisen under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., including but not limited to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
Blackberry has filed this complaint against Nokia due to the latter’s unauthorized usage of the former’s contributions to innovation technologies. Blackberry holds the following 11 patents, known as “Asserted Patents” (enforcement of patent by the owner who believes that his patent has been infringed) which are the subject matter of the case:
‘418 Patent: United States Patent No. 6,996,418 is entitled “Apparatus and Method for PFDM Data Communications” and was issued on February 6, 2006.
‘246 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,254,246 is entitled “Scattered Pilot Pattern and Channel Estimation Method for MIMO-OFDM Systems and was issued on August 28, 2012.
‘090 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,494,090 is entitled “Detecting the Number of Transmit Antennas in a Base Station” and was issued on July 23, 2013.
‘305 Patent: United States Patent No. 7,529,305 is entitled “Combination of Space-Time Coding and Spatial Multiplexing, and the Use of Orthogonal Transformation in Space-Time Coding” and was issued on May 5, 2009.
‘433 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,861,433 is entitled “Method for Accessing a Service Unavailable through and Network Cell” and was issued on October 14, 2014.
‘697 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,426,697 is entitled “Method for Accessing a Service Unavailable through and Network Cell” and was issued on August 23, 2016.
‘772 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,253,772 is entitled “System and Method for Multi-Carrier Network Operation” and was issued on February 2, 2016.
‘192 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,897,192 is entitled “System and Method for Discontinuous Reception Control Start Time” and was issued on November 25, 2014.
‘202 Patent: United States Patent No. 9,125,202 is entitled “Multi-Beam Cellular Communication System” and was issued on September 1, 2015.
‘683 Patent: United States Patent No. 8,243,683 is entitled “Method and Apparatus for State/Mode Transitioning” and was issued on August 14, 2012.
‘829 Patent: United States Patent No. 8, 644,829 is entitled “Method and Apparatus for Signaling Release Cause Indication in a UMTS Network” and was issued on February 4, 2014.
Blackberry is the owner of all rights, title and interest in the aforementioned patents, with the full and exclusive right to bring suit to enforce them, including the right to recover for past infringement. Blackberry and RIM have publicly declared to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), an industry organization that promulgates wireless telecommunication standards specified by 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project), that the Asserted Patents may be or may become essential to LTE Standards and/or UMTS/UTRAN Standards [practising wireless telecommunication standards], and the declaration is in public domain, accessible on a search engine provided and maintained by ETSI (https://ipr.etsi.org/).
Nokia has taken action intending to cause others to directly infringe the patents, including by selling or offering for sale the Infringing Products to third parties in the United States while expressly promoting these products’ capability to practice the LTE Standards, knowing that using these products to practice the LTE Standards would constitute direct infringement of the ’418 patent.
Infringing Products:
The 3GPP specifications that enumerate LTE and UMTS/UTRAN Standards are and have been implemented in Nokia’s products like Nokia’s Flexi line of products, alone or in combination with Nokia software such as the Nokia Liquid Radio Software Suite (collectively, the “Infringing Products”). The Infringing Products include, without limitation, the following products, alone or in combination: Nokia’s Flexi Multiradio and Multiradio 10 base stations, the Flexi Zone (small cell) Micro and Pico base stations, Femtocell base stations, Flexi Network Server, the Flexi Radio Antenna System, Nokia radio network controllers, and Nokia Liquid Radio Software Suite.
Blackberry alleges that Nokia had knowledge of the existence of the applications for or the family members of the Asserted Patents as it had used the same in various patent prosecutions of its own.
The family members of the ‘246 patent were cited in an international search report and were also cited by Nokia and by an examiner during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to Nokia. Hence, it had notice of this patent before the filing of this action.
The publication of parent application of the ‘090 patent was cited in an international search report, and was also cited by Nokia during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to it. Hence, it had notice of this patent before the filing of this action.
The publication of parent application of the ‘772 patent was cited by examiners during prosecution of a number of patent applications assigned to it. Hence, it had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
The publication of parent application of the ‘192 patent was cited by the examiner during prosecution of at least one patent application that was assigned to Alcatel-Lucent, which was acquired by Nokia. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
The publication of the priority application of the ‘202 patent was cited by examiners during prosecution of a number of applications that were assigned to Alcatel entities, which were acquired by Nokia. Hence, it had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
Long before the filing of this action, Nokia knew or should have known from the prosecution of its own patent applications and those of Alcatel-Lucent that the asserted ’246, ’090, ’772, ’192, and ’202 patents covered LTE features used by their Infringing Products.
The publication of the application that resulted in the issuance of the ‘683 patent was cited by the examiner during prosecution of a Nokia patent application. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
The publication of the application that resulted in the issuance of the ‘829 patent was cited by Nokia during prosecution of a Nokia patent application. Hence, Nokia had notice of this patent long before the filing of this action.
Long before the filing of this action, Nokia knew or should have known from the prosecution of its own patent applications that the asserted ‘683 and ‘829 patents covered UMTS/UTRAN features used by their Infringing Products.
By April 10, 2012, RIM had acquired the ’418, ’246, and ’305 patents and had caused to be recorded at the USPTO the assignments of ownership of these patents to RIM. Currently, the assignment of these patents to Blackberry has been recorded in the USPTO. Nokia has knowledge of the same through its due diligence of Nortel U.S. patents.
Nokia knowingly and intentionally encourages and aids at least its end-users to directly infringe the asserted patents. Nokia has been, and currently is, an active inducer of infringement of these patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and a contributory infringer under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). It has been willfully blind to the existence of the patents. Nokia’s infringement has been, and continues to be, willful and deliberate, and has caused substantial damage to BlackBerry. Nokia developed, commercialized, demonstrated, and/or tested the Infringing Products despite its evaluation and knowledge of the Nortel patent portfolio, including the application that led to the issuance of some patents, and its knowledge of family members of a few of the 11 patents from prosecution of its own patent applications. In spite of Nokia’s knowledge of the patents, Nokia has continued making, using, offering for sale/lease, and/or selling or leasing in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, the Infringing Products that are compliant with the LTE Standards, without a license from BlackBerry. Nokia’s egregious infringement behavior warrants an award of enhanced damages.
Blackberry prays that the Court:
Render judgment declaring that Nokia directly infringed, induced others to infringe, and/or contributed to the infringement of the asserted patents.
Award BlackBerry damages adequate to compensate it for Nokia’s infringement of the asserted patents.
Award an ongoing royalty for Nokia’s ongoing infringement of the asserted patents.
Render judgment declaring Nokia’s infringement of the asserted patents willful and deliberate, and award BlackBerry enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Award BlackBerry pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the full extent allowed under the law, as well as BlackBerry’s costs and disbursements.
Enter an order finding that this is an exceptional case and awarding Blackberry its reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Award any other relief as the Court deems fit.
Both the companies are having a downfall in their sales. Blackberry has stopped making smart phones, and Nokia has had a huge decrease in sales of its one-of-a-kind Lumia phones, manufactured in collaboration with Microsoft. Blackberry has started licensing its software and brand assets to others so that its name in the market continues. Also, it pledged to license these patents as they form essential elements for mobile telecommunication standard. As is evident from the prayer of the complaint, no injunction has been claimed for. Instead, Blackberry has claimed damages and royalty for the unauthorized use of its patents. This is a smart move by the smart phone maker to commercialize on its leftover assets. Nokia has not responded to this complaint as of now, and is looking into the matter, as per a news article. Nokia’s counter is acutely awaited.
Ms. Aditi Tiwari, intern at Khurana and Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Views expressed in this article are solely of the intern and do not reflect the views of either of any of the employees or employers.Queries regarding this may be directed to swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com
By IIPRD | Posted in India, News & Updates, patent infringement, Patents | Tagged 3GPP, Blackberry, LTE Stanards., Mobile technology, nokia, patent infringement, Phone, umts | Comments (0)
February 27, 2017 – 10:02 am
By IIPRD | Posted in India, licensing, News & Updates, patent infringement, Patents | Tagged Ericsson- Micromax Patent case, FRAND, patent infringement, Patent landmark case, Patent Licensing | Comments (0)
By IIPRD | Posted in India, Patents | Tagged Expedited examination, india, patents | Comments (0)
February 24, 2017 – 1:39 pm
By IIPRD | Posted in India, IP Litigation, News & Updates, patent infringement, Patents | Tagged ALITMA, Eli Lilly’s, infringement, patent, Teva | Comments (0)
Obtaining a Certificate of Recognition from DIPP for IPR benefits
February 22, 2017 – 7:47 am
“A start-up would now require only a certificate of recognition from the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) and would not be required to be examined by the inter-ministerial board, as was being done earlier. This is one rapid change that we have brought in,” said Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of Commerce and Industry in New Delhi at the ‘Start-up India States’ Conference’ in 2016.
This has been done to improve the ease of doing business by entrepreneurs, when earlier there was a complex and elaborate process of approaching the inter-ministerial board to procure the IPR benefits. After May 16, 2016, Start-Ups have been made eligible for expedited examination of Patent Applications.
This post particularly discusses the procedure of obtaining a ‘Certificate of Recognition’ from Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) before and after filing the Application of Patent.
Procedure to be followed varies depending on whether Start-Up has applied for Patent (and the application is published) or has not applied yet.
The procedure below is only for applicants who have NOT filed the application of patent.
The Application form is available on http://www.startupindia.gov.in/registration.php
Click on Startup India Services > Startup Recognition > Application.
Fill the required information regarding the following ;
a. Name of the Entity;
b. Nature of the Entity – Private Limited Company/Limited Liability Company/Registered Partnership
c. Incorporation/Registered No.
d. Date of Incorporation/Registration
e. Address of Registered Office
f. Details of authorized representative
g. Details of Directors/Partners
Either of the following supporting documents are required to be filed in the Application for the Certificate.
a. Letter of Recommendation, in a form specified by the DIPP from an incubator recognized by Government of India ;or
b. Letter of support by any incubator which is funded, in relation to the project, from Government of India or State Government as a part of specified scheme to promote innovation ; or
A panel of facilitators has been constituted for providing assistance and support in filing applications for Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), wherein, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) would bear the facilitation cost. The list of the Incubators is available on ; –http://startupindia.gov.in/uploads/pdf/List_of_facilitators_for_patents.pdf
c. Letter of Recommendation, in a form specified by the DIPP from an incubator established in post-graduate college in India; or.
d. Letter of funding from the Government of India or any State Government as a part of specified scheme to promote innovation; or – If the Government of India or State Government has provided funds as a part of any scheme to promote innovation to the applicant, a Letter of Funding by GOI or State Government is admissible as a legit document to be submitted.
e. Letter of funding of not less than 20 percent in equity by any Incubation Fund/Angel Fund/Private Equity Fund/Accelerator/Angel Network duly registered with Securities Exchange Board of India that endorses innovative nature of the business – If SEBI has funded, not less than 20% in equity by any above mentioned Funds which endorses the innovative nature of the business of the entity to the applicant, A Letter of Funding by SEBI can be submitted.
f. Letter of recommendation from Industry association recognized by DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY POLICY AND PROMOTION – A Recommendation Letter can be obtained by any Industry Association or Organisation which is recognized by DIPP.
The list of Industries/Organisations which can provide for the letter of Recommendation are available on www.startupindia.gov.in .
Click on Information> List of Industry Association/Organisations for Recommendation Letter.
Incorporation or Registration Certificate- Company/ Partnership Incorporation/LLP/ Registration Certificate is MANDATORY to be submitted.
A Brief note or a supporting document regarding the innovativeness of the idea of the product or services offered by the entity.
With respect to tax benefits, note that, if you opt for tax benefits, your application will go to the Inter–Ministerial Board for evaluation, which may take time. If your aim is only to obtain benefits related to IPR, you can refrain from choosing the tax benefits option.
The FORMAT for the above mentioned “Letter of Recommendation, Letter of Support from Incubator, Letter of Funding from SEBI, Recommendation letter from Industry Association/Organisation” is available on http://www.startupindia.gov.in/startup-recognition.php
An application for a certificate is processed within a period of 10-25 working days from the date of Application, if accepted, the certificate is available to be procured.
The points below discuss the procedure for obtaining a Certificate of Recognition for applicants who have filed for patent and the same is published.
Visit http://startupindia.gov.in/uploads/pdf/List_of_facilitators_for_patents.pdf and fill in the details requested in the form as mentioned above.
Against Nature of Recommendation, Select “Patent filed and published in the Journal by the India Patent Office in areas affiliated with the nature of business being promoted”.
Against “Supporting document based on the nature of recommendation selected above”, upload journal extract of publication of your patent application.
Upload Incorporation/ Registration Certificate.
Against “Brief note on innovativeness of products /services offered by the entity”, upload a document in PDF format that provides details relating to the nature of business of your company and why products /services offered by your company is innovative.
As mentioned above, with respect to tax benefits, note that, if you opt for tax benefits, your application will go to the Inter–Ministerial Board for evaluation, which may take time. If your aim is only to obtain benefits related to IPR, you can refrain from choosing the tax benefits option.
Submit the application upon self-certification.
PENALTY FOR FALSE REGISTRATION:
If the application is found to be obtained, without uploading the document or uploading any other document or a forged document, the concerned applicant shall be liable to a fine which shall be fifty per cent of paid up capital of the startup but shall not be less than Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only).
About the Author: Himani Kohli, D.E.S Law College (Fergusson Capmus), Intern at Khurana and Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys and can be reached at swapnils@khuranaandkhurana.com
By IIPRD | Posted in India, News & Updates | Tagged Certificate of Recognition, DIPP, IPR | Comments (0)
By IIPRD | Posted in Design, NEPAL, Patents, Trademark | Tagged DESIGNS, IP LAW, NEPAL, patents, trademark | Comments (0)
Effect of Union Budget, 2017 on the R&D/ Intellectual Property Practices in India
February 13, 2017 – 5:40 am
Union budget that was highly waited for (after demonetization) had gained more attention also due to preponing to February 01, 2017.
As a matter of fact, every year budget has certain impact on various industries including IP industry and R&D sectors. In this article, we will try to analyze possible effects of 2017 budget on R&D/Intellectual Property (IP) Practices in India. Though there were no special funds/incentives proposed for R&D, budget did have certain announcements for indirect effect on the IP practices.
With intent made clear in budget 2015 itself, in 2017 Hon’ble Finance Minister Arun Jaitley proposed that corporate income tax for smaller companies with annual turnover upto INR 50 CR be reduced to 25%.
In 2016, FM had proposed that companies with turnover less than INR 5 CR would have to pay tax less by 1% and new manufacturing companies who do not avail of any exemption would be charged only 25%.
This move will make sure that medium size companies do not pay more tax as compared to larger companies as observed in 2015-2016, wherein 2.85 lakh companies making profit of less than INR 1 CR had to pay effective tax rate of 30.26% while 298 companies making profit of more than 500 CR paid effective tax rate of 25.90%.
This reduction in tax rate is likely to give smaller companies flexibility to invest saved 5% in R&D activities.
FM also believes pushing digital transactions further would enable small and micro enterprises to access formal credit. He also made clear that Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) will be encouraged by government to refinance credit institutions which provide unsecured loans at reasonable interest rates to borrowers based on their transaction history. This is likely to give higher chances of eligibility to IP driven companies not having strong collateral.
Focus on startups in 2016 seems to be continued in 2017 as well. Among the schemes announced for start-ups, eligibility for start-ups for expedited examination of Patent Applications was a great move. In 2017, government aiming to heavily utilize technology for pushing initiatives such as SWAYAM (providing opportunities for a life-long learning) and DIGIGAON (providing telemedicines, education and skills through digital technology), start-ups would never want to miss an opportunity to contribute through innovative ideas for the facilitation of implementation of schemes.
In another move to encourage start-ups, in 2016 it was announced that 100% deduction would be available for any 3 consecutive assessment years out of 5 years beginning from the year in which the eligible start-up is incorporated with the condition that total turnover of eligible start-up should not exceed Rs. 25 Crore in any of the previous years beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2016 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2021. In 2017 budget, period of 5 years has been changed to 7 years.
Research and Development Cess Act, 1986 is proposed to be repealed. Reduction in tax cost to the extent of 5% (R&D cess) on technology imports. Subsequently, service tax at 15% to be paid in full.
On a disappointing note, there seems to be no separate incentive for R&D.
All in all, though there seem to be some encouraging proposals nothing substantial is coming to the way of IP fraternity as was provided in last year budget in the light of Make in India Regime. But this is not totally surprising as on all fronts, budget seems to be a cautious approach (understandable in light of other measures such as demonetization and GST being radical).
By IIPRD | Posted in India, IP Practice in India, News & Updates | Tagged 2017, Intellectual Property Practices, R&D, Union Budget | Comments (0)
By IIPRD | Posted in Comparative Advertisement, News & Updates | Tagged Comparative Advertisement, Denigration, Dilution of Trade Mark, Fair competition, Puffery, Unfair Trade Practices | Comments (0)
By IIPRD | Posted in India, Patents | Tagged india, patents, revocation | Comments (0)
February 13, 2017 – 5:20 am
Patent Application number 01398/DELNP/2003
Title Distributed Development Environment For Building Internet Applications By Developers At Remote Locations.
Applicant Accenture global services limited
Date of filing 01/09/2003
Date of publication of application 27/05/2005
Date of First Examination Report 29/01/2008
Matter coming to IPAB 26/09/2012