The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against two men who sought to patent a system for hedging power trades, while leaving the door open to allowing limited legal protections for registering business techniques.
The ruling within the so-called Bilski situation was the first time in 29 years that the court voted on what kinds of innovations qualify for legal protection. Whilst the choice was unanimous, the justices divided 5-4 in their reasoning, with the majority declining to bar all patents on methods of conducting company.
The justices voting within the majority said there needs to be a flexible check for emerging technologies. The situation drew record interest for a company dispute prior to the highest U.S. court, with Microsoft Corp. and Morgan Stanley among dozens of companies filing briefs. The fight split industries, dividing businesses that rely on their personal intellectual property from those aiming to head off costly infringement lawsuits.
The dispute involved Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw, founders of the Pittsburgh company that sells customized consumer energy items. The Supreme Court was reviewing a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit towards Bilski that mentioned methods could be patented only if they have some physical component, through either a connection to a machine or their power to transform an item into a various state.
Writing for that Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy mentioned the federal circuit’s regular was only a “useful and essential clue” and isn’t the sole test that ought to be used in determining regardless of whether a process is eligible for a patent. He did say company techniques “raise special difficulties in terms of vagueness and suspect validity.”
The decision leaves it up towards the federal circuit, which specializes in patent law, to produce a more flexible test.
Companies that argued that the lower court standard was too restrictive incorporated Bank of America Corp., Medtronic Inc., Novartis Corp., Palm Inc. and Accenture Plc. Little software, financial services and electronic commerce companies also backed broad patent rights. An additional supporter was Ananda Chakrabarty, the scientist whose patent 4,259,444, was the topic of intense debate about the patentability of bioengineered organisms.
Individuals urging restrictions on technique patents incorporated Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, Google Inc. and J.C. Penney Co. The Obama administration also advocated a high regular for granting method patents, as did Bloomberg LP, the New York-based parent company of Bloomberg News.
Patents can be granted for machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and processes. It is the definition of the “process” that was the topic of the dispute.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, said that “a claim that merely describes a method of performing company doesn't qualify as a process” that's eligible for any patent.
The case is Bilski v. Kappos, 08-964.
3M Sues Avery Dennison More than Patents for Reflective Road Indicators
3M Co., the maker of 55,000 products including Post-it Notes and Scotch tape, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit towards Avery Dennison Corp. over reflective sheeting used on stop indicators and traffic cones.
3M sells its reflective sheeting under the name Diamond Grade DG, which it says is “used around the world to improve roadway safety.” Avery Dennison is selling a similar item that violates 13 patents, according to the 3M complaint filed June 25 in Minneapolis.
The lawsuit targets the OmniCube T-11500 Prismatic Reflective Film sold by Pasadena, California-based Avery. The marketplace that includes traffic signs, construction work zone devices and commercial vehicle applications within the U.S. is $250 million, and fluctuates dependent on government funding, said Donna Fleming Runyon, a spokeswoman for St. Paul, Minnesota-based 3M.
“3M pioneered the development of retroreflective technologies much more than 60 years ago,” Runyon mentioned in a telephone interview. “We continue to invest in developing new technologies to meet the changing traffic-control requirements and visual requirements of motorists. This lawsuit is about protecting our investments.”
3M seeks a court ruling to prevent Avery from utilizing the 3M inventions, plus unspecified cash compensation.
Stephanie Martin, a spokeswoman for Avery, mentioned the company doesn’t comment on litigation.
Avery also targeted 3M, telling the organization it needs to obtain a license to two Avery patents, according to the complaint. 3M said it’s seeking a court ruling that its Diamond Grade item doesn’t infringe any Avery patents or that it has a right to use the technologies without paying royalties.
This isn’t the only patent dispute between the businesses. Avery accused 3M in May of infringing a patent for sheets of removable labels, and in 2007 the businesses settled a dispute over adhesives to put images on the sides of buses and trucks.
3M is represented by John C. Adkisson and Ann N. Cathcart Chaplin of Boston’s Fish & Richardson PC, Courtland L. Reichman and Natasha H. Moffitt of Atlanta’s King & Spalding LLP, and in- house counsel Kevin H. Rhodes and William. D. Miller.
The new case is 3M Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 10cv2630, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Amazon Gets Patent on Dynamic Pricing of Web-Resource Use
Amazon.com Inc., the world’s biggest online retailer, received a patent related to dynamic pricing of Web-resources use.
Patent 7,743,001, which was issued June 22, covers the management of computing resources by those who use them.
The patent takes note of the variable demand for Web services at various times of day. A organization whose customers order goods or services via the Internet “may wish to assure that delay experienced by customers during ordering is maintained below a certain level even during periods of high customer order volume,” according to the patent.
The demand on Web services for such a organization “may exhibit seasonal variations or long term trends,” with demand varying “due to random or singular events.”
Price for computing services might be increased or decreased in respond to demand, according to the patent, which also covers the technique of providing a price of individuals services towards the customer.
One of the named inventors on the patent is Jeffrey P. Bezos, Seattle-based Amazon’s chief executive officer.
In 2000, Boston’s BountyQuest -- an Internet company that offered cash for evidence in patent disputes -- offered a cash bounty to those who could successfully challenge Amazon’s patent 5,960,411, for its one-click ordering technique. Bezos was a founder of that company, which has since closed down.
The Amazon CEO was also a named inventor on that patent, which was issued in September 1999. In March 2010 the U.S. Patent Office confirmed that patent after reexamining it.
Amazon applied for that new patent in June 2005, and was assisted by Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert & Goetzel PC of Austin, Texas.
FIFA Not Ready to Entertain Technology to Aid Referees’ Calls
Technology to prevent the kind of wrong calls seen in recent Globe Cup games between England and Germany and Argentina and Mexico exists, has been tested successfully and is covered by at least one U.S. patent.
Although soccer’s ruling body says it’s still not interested in utilizing technology to help referees make correct calls, the English and Scottish soccer associations had proposed tests of tennis-style computer analysis of goals or the use of microchips in match balls.
A program with an implanted chip is being developed by Adidas AG and Cairos Technologies AG, a technology company dependent in Karlsbad, Germany. In 2007 the Cairos/Addidas technology was tested at a Club Globe Cup match in Japan between Mexico’s Pachuca and Tunisia’s Etoile Sportive du Sahel.
FIFA mentioned in December of that year it wouldn’t approve the technologies for wider use in other tournaments until it could be proven to be 100 percent accurate.
Cairos received patent 7,719,469 in Might 2010 for the use of linear Doppler shifts to determine position measurement.
The technology uses linear receives on each side of the playing field, with two antennas for each receiver. According to the patent, the technology could also be used for footballs.
Hawkeye Innovations Ltd., the maker of electronics utilized to review line calls in tennis, mentioned in 2009 that although it had a system with “100 percent accuracy,” it wouldn’t test it further because of soccer officials’ rejection.
In England’s 4-1 defeat by Germany, Frank Lampard was denied a goal within the June 27 game even though television replays showed that his shot crossed the goal line. Had it counted, England would have pulled level at 2-2 in Bloemfontein, South Africa.
“I am in favor of goal-line technology, especially after tonight,” Lampard told reporters. “The ball crossed the line, it was over, it was so obvious. If we had got back to 2-2 at that moment, it could have been various.”
Argentina took the lead against Mexico last night when Carlos Tevez headed Lionel Messi’s pass into the net from an offside position. Mexican players protested and the referee consulted his assistant before allowing the goal to stand.
Jerome Valcke, secretary general of the International Football Association Board, mentioned June 26 that soccer’s governing body wouldn’t consider the use of video technology to review referees’ calls.
Valcke said that while additional assistants behind each goal might be utilized at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, the use of video “is definitely not on the table.”
He mentioned the one thing FIFA is discussing is “two additional assistants to support referees to make decision- making easier and to have much more eyes helping him to make such decisions.”
For much more patent news, click here.
Copyright
ASCAP Fee Demands Close Down Small Company ‘Open-Mike’ Nights
Copyright fee demands are causing bookstores and coffee shops in southern Massachusetts to cancel open-mike nights, SouthCoastToday.com reported.
The American Society of Composters Authors and Publishers, Broadcast Music Inc., and the European group known as SESAC are requiring fees from the small businesses, saying they must pay for performance licenses when music is performed publicly, the newspaper reported.
One café owner told ASCAP the musicians were playing their personal music rather than compositions from the society’s members and mentioned she was told that as long as the musicians used instruments, the fee had to be paid, based on the newspaper.
Fees from the three music-rights groups cost the businesses at least $900 annually, the newspaper reported.
Kohl’s Sued for Infringement by L.A. Printex Industries
Kohl’s Corp., a chain of department stores aimed at middle- income customers, was sued for copyright infringement by a California textile designer.
L.A. Printex Industries Inc. of Vernon, California, said the Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin-based retailer is selling garments made from fabric that’s a knock-off of its designs. Codefendant with Kohl’s is TJ Sportswear & Sales Inc. of Los Angeles and three unnamed others.
The action is one of 11 copyright-infringement suits the textile company filed in Los Angeles federal court since Jan. 1. Ross Stores Inc., Sears Holdings Corp. and TJX Cos. are among the defendants within the other cases. Based on apparelnews.net, L.A. Printex filed much more than 200 similar suits within the past five many years.
In September 2009 a jury in Los Angeles awarded L.A. Printex more than $230,000 in an infringement case towards Target Corp. and four other defendants.
That case was L.A. Printex Industries Inc. v. Target Corp., 2:08-cv-00075-ODW-PLA, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
In the suit against Kohl’s, filed June 23, the textile organization asked for awards of attorney fees and litigation costs, money damages and the defendants’ profits derived from their alleged infringement. The organization also seeks a court order barring further infringement of its design.
L.A. Printex is represented by Scott A. Burroughs and Stephen M. Doniger of Doniger Burroughs APC of Culver City, California.
The situation is L.A. Printex Industries Inc. v. Kohl’s Corp., 2:10-cv-04653-VBF-PLA, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
For more copyright news, click here.
Trademark
Wimbledon Spells Out Rules to Avoid ‘Ambush Marketing’ Campaigns
The All England Lawn Tennis Club, site of the Wimbledon tennis tournament, has a set of specific rules with reference to so-called “ambush marketing” -- unauthorized display of non- sponsors’ trademarks -- posted on the official Wimbledon website.
At FIFA’s Globe Cup competition in South Africa earlier this month, officials filed charges towards organizers of an ambush marketing campaign for Dutch brewer Bavaria NV. Charges related to orange dresses 30 women revealed once they were in the stands for a game were later dropped after FIFA reached a settlement with Bavaria, which was not an official sponsor.
The All England Club bars “any objects/clothing bearing political statements or commercial identification for ‘ambush marketing’” from the grounds of the club in London’s Wimbledon suburb.
In 2006 a spectator had two containers of yogurt and two bottles of chocolate milkshake confiscated because they contained visible labels, the U.K.’s Mail reported.
Ticketholders are now entitled to bring “their personal branded food and beverage” onto the grounds, and may wear “branded clothing purchased for normal personal use,” based on rules posted on the website. The club says it does ban such goods as free sun hats, rain capes, umbrellas, suntan creams, radios and water bottles “bearing heavily branded commercial messages.”
At the 2009 tournament, tubes of Procter & Gamble Co.’s Pringles potato chips in containers made to resemble tennis ball cans were handed out to spectators. The cans, which were labeled “these are not tennis balls,” weren’t confiscated because the club has no sponsorship deal with a comparable product, the U.K.’s Telegraph reported.
Among the sponsors whose trademarks are seen on the official Wimbledon website are HSBC Holdings Plc., International Business Machines Corp., Polo Ralph Lauren Corp., Diageo Plc’s Blossom Hill wines, Hertz Global Holdings Inc. and Nestle SA’s Haagen-Dazs ice cream and Nescafe coffee.
Within the U.S., the club has registered 19 trademarks of its own, based on the database from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Registered marks include “The Wimbledon Experience,” “Breakfast at Wimbledon,” and “The Championships Wimbledon.”
The Wimbledon tournament runs through July 4.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment