On July 14, 2008, owner of Bulbous Ventures, Mark Knopper received an email from MLB Advanced Media demanding the removal of MLB team logos from his iPhone application called “Baseball.”

In addition to complaints of trademark infringement, MLB expressed concern that consumers may consider Knopper’s application to be an official MLB iPhone application, which the company released in early July.

Knopper’s free reference utility produces baseball statistics dating back to 1888, and was created with the intention of providing a free program for baseball fans. Knopper has said he will comply with MLB’s cease and desist order, sending out an application update to either blur the MLB logos or to replace them.

On December 3, 2007, Klausner Technologies Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against defendants including Apple Inc. and AT&T Corp., alleging infringement on its patents relating to visual voice mail products and services.

Klausner asserted Apple’s iPhone, together with services provided by AT&T, infringed on two patents relating to telephone answering devices and the linking of recorded audio messages and displayed data.

At the time the patent infringement lawsuit was filed, Klausner sought $360 million in damages and future royalties. Confidentiality restrictions prevent disclosure of the details of the settlement.

Klausner Technologies owns patents in the United States and internationally covering visual voice mail products and services.

In June 2008, Typhoon Touch Technologies expanded its patent infringement lawsuit against Dell, Inc. to include Apple, Toshiba, Palm and several other companies, claiming they infringed on its patents relating to touch screen technology.

Typhoon holds two patents (U.S. Patent 5,379,057 and U.S. Patent 5,675,362) both entitled “Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computer Screen Employing Same.” The company claims devices having touchscreen interfaces, like certain phones, PDAs and personal computers may be impacted by the patents.

The patent infringement lawsuit was originally filed against Dell in December 2007. The company previously reached out-of-court settlements with Motion Computing and Electovaya, and said the case could extend to millions of other devices currently on the market.

On April 29, 2008, FullView, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft, Corp., claiming Microsoft’s RoundTable conferencing product infringes on its patent covering a camera system that creates 360-degree videos.

FullView also claims Microsoft knew about its patent in 2003, the year before FullView was awarded the patent in March 2004. In its own patent application filed in 2002, Microsoft cites FullView’s patent.

In its lawsuit, FullView requests the court require Microsoft to stop selling RoundTable and award FullView triple damages.

Vic Nalwa, president of FullView, said he devised the original camera while working for Bell Labs in 1995, and co-founded FullView in 2000.

On June 16, 2008, Nuance Communications filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vlingo Corp., claiming the company infringed on its patent related to a speech recognition system for mobile devices. The suit claims Vlingo’s speech recognition software system infringes Nuance’s patent and seeks damages, attorney fees and an injunction. Vlingo’s software is utilized in Yahoo’s oneSearch with Voice product.

Vlingo’s chief technology officer and co-founder, Michael Phillips, is a former Nuance employee who started Vlingo approximately one year after he left Nuance.

Vlingo states the patent infringement lawsuit is unfounded, and claims the patent has limited coverage of questionable validity.

On September 14, 2007, a jury in the Delaware District Court ruled in favor of TruePosition, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit against Andrew Corporation. The jury found Andrew Corp. willfully infringed on a mobile device patent owned by TruePosition’s patent related to determining the position of mobile devices.

The jury agreed that Andrew Corp. had intentionally infringed TruePosition’s patent, which enabled the jury to award TruePosition triple damages.

On June 9, 2008, Memorylink Corp. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Motorola Inc. alleging Motorola intentionally infringed on a patent and defrauded the company by using its invention related to wireless video technology used in electronics like cell phones and security cameras.

The patent infringement lawsuit seeks damages from the profits Motorola gained over several years while utilizing and selling the technology. Memorylink also seeks an injunction against Motorola and seeks to gain patent ownership.

Memorylink’s complaint states its founder Peter Strandwitz is the inventor of the technology and had contact with Motorola in a discussion of the invention in 1997. Strandwitz and a Memorylink director, Robert Kniskern, allegedly signed confidentiality agreements and memorandums of understanding with Motorola to together develop the wireless technology.

The lawsuit claims Strandwitz and Kniskern relied on Motorola for intellectual property matters and unknowingly relinquished a “significant portion” of their patents rights to Motorola for free. Motorola ceased working with Memorylink on wireless video transmission technology in April 2003.

On May 20, 2008, it was announced that the patent infringement lawsuit filed against Razorsight Corp. by rival TEOCO Corp. was settled for $4.5 million. The settlement was agreed upon nearly 9 months after the intellectual property lawsuit was filed. The suit involved technology related to billing software for invoice processing by telecommunication carriers.

Razorsight’s founder, Sundeep Sanghavi, left TEOCO to start the company. Aspects of the settlement include barring Razorsight from using TEOCO’s intellectual property in the future and the removal of TEOCO’s computer software from Razorsight’s products by September 1, 2008. The company must also submit an audit to ensure it is no longer utilizing TEOCO’s software.

Fenner Investments, Ltd., of Richardson Texas, alleges patent infringement of US Patent 7,145,906 entitled “Packet Switching Node” against multiple defendants, namely, 3Com Corp., Foundry Networks, Inc., Extreme Networks Inc., Netgear Inc., Zyxel Communications Inc., D-Link Systems Inc., and SMC Networks Inc. Peter R. Fenner, as sole inventor of the ‘906 patent, developed the technology for use in addressing and routing data communication traffic as a part of the SBIR program (Small Business Innovation Research) for particular use in US Navy communications in conjunction with the topic N89-037 entitled “Addressing Techniques for Naval Traffic in a Multi-Media Environment.”

A jury in the United States District Court of Delaware awarded TruePosition $45.3M in a patent infringement verdict. The jury found that Andrew Corporation willfully infringed TruePosition’s 144 patent related to wireless control channel technology.

TruePosition obtained a settlement from Andrew in February 2004 in the amount of $35M as well as the ability to purchase Andrew stock.

Wi-LAN sued 22 companies in two actions in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. Wi-LAN alleges patent infringement of three of its patents involving wireless and power-saving technology for DSL products.

Wi-LAN took an aggressive approach in instituting suit against twenty-two defendants. It seeks to address infringement in various points in the supply chain, focusing initially on equipment vendors rather than chip vendors, thereby encouraging retailers to purchase non-infringing products. The company’s licensing strategy will focus initially on the equipment vendors. However, the suit included certain defendants in an attempt to avoid declaratory judgment actions by other potential defendants.

Defendants include:

• Acer,
• Apple,
• Atheros Communications,
• Belkin,
• Best Buy,
• Buffalo Technology,
• Broadcom,
• Circuit City,
• Dell,
• D-Link,
• Gateway Inc.,
• Hewlett-Packard,
• Infineon Technologies,
• Intel,
• Lenovo Group,
• Mervell Semiconductor,
• Netgear,
• Sony,
• Texas Instruments,
• Toshiba,
• Westell Technologies, and
• 2wire Inc.

Source: Tim Conneally, BetaNews, November 1, 2007.

After a slight stall last week, the U.S. House of Representatives on September 7, 2007 passed the Patent Reform Act, HR 1908, with a vote of 220 to 175. On September 10, 2007, the Bill passed to the U.S. Senate for review where it is expected to undergo further debate and editing and result in a different version.

U.S. Patent Office data reveals that North Carolina ranked 15th out of 20 states named in the nation in the number of patents issued to the State’s residence during fiscal year 2006, ending September 30, 2006.

North Carolina residents were issued 2,172 patents during that period. California residents received the greatest number of patents, numbering 23,579, followed by Texas as the second with 6,345 residents obtaining patents.

The US Patent and Trademark Office has revised the Rules of practice in patent examinations in what it states is an attempt to make examination of patent applications in the Patent Office more effective and efficient. The Rule changes require a patent application to give justification for filing a continuing application for a third or subsequent continuing application. The justification will need to demonstrate why the amendment, argument or evidence could not have been submitted in the previously filed applications.

Patent applications having patentably indistinct claims may be required to be contained in one application unless good reason can be shown for the need for multiple copending applications.

Additionally, the Rules require that if an application contains more than five independent claims, or more than twenty-five total claims, the applicant must submit an examination support document covering all the claims.

The Rules changes shall be effective on November 1, 2007, and can impact applications already filed with the Patent Office.

After nearly five years of litigation, Network Technology Partners Inc., settled with Research in Motion, Ltd., over a patent infringement dispute. RIM paid NTP $612.5 million for technology used in its BlackBerry communication devices.

The firm representing NTP did so on contingency.

The case drew attention on two fronts. On the forefront, the three million-plus BlackBerry owners were worried their service might blackout if the court ordered an injunction on the patented technology.

Among inventors and intellectual property attorneys, concerns over the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s power to reverse the validity of a patent came to the surface. The USPTO maintains the right to review the validity of a patent at any time, and during the dispute with RIM, the office did just that, reviewing the NTP patents in question.

The agency declared two of five patents invalid during the hearings, which shut down settlement negotiations. While the threat of a BlackBerry blackout forced negotiations to resume, the case still ignited efforts to revise the rights of patent holders in the United States.

NTP is a private technology firm with 20 shareholders. In November of 2006, NTP filed another patent infringement suit, this time against Palm Inc.

When the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Rockwell International’s appeal in January 1999, Celeritas Technologies Inc. was awarded $57 million in patent infringement damages. A prolonged legal fight had taken a financial toll on the two-employee, closely-held communications company. During the drawn-out patent litigation process, the company was able to focus on little else.

The Supreme Court’s decision came approximately two years after a federal jury found Rockwell liable for patent infringement, misappropriate of trade secrets and violation of a nondisclosure agreement. Celeritas was awarded approximately $57 million and with subsequent interest added will receive about $64 million in its damages award.

In 1995, Celeritas settled a similar lawsuit with AT&T for approximately $6 million. After AT&T, Celeritas expected Rockwell to agree to a settlement.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the most employees Celeritas had employed at one time is six. Rockwell International split in 2001 into two separate companies, Rockwell Collins and Rockwell Automation. According to their Web sites, Rockwell Collins employs 19,000 worldwide with $3.86 billion in sales for 2006, and Rockwell Automation also employs 19,000 worldwide with $5 billion in sales for 2006.