On August 13, 2008, GraphOn Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Google Inc., alleging four of Google’s services infringe on four of its patents related to maintaining an automated and network-accessible database. The case has been filed in the US District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaint names Google’s Base, AdWords, Blogger, Sites and YouTube services as allegedly infringing methods. GraphOn seeks a permanent injunction and unspecified compensation.

Earlier this year, GraphOn asserted patent rights in these same patents against multiple parties, including Classified Ventures, IAC/Interactive Corp. LLC, Match.com, LCC, Yahoo! Inc., Harmony.com and CareerBuilder, LLC.

This suit also comes approximately one year after GraphOn accused Juniper Networks of infringing patents, and almost three years after GraphOn filed against AutoTrader.com Inc., alleging the company infringed two of the patents involved in the most recent lawsuit.

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.

Novartis, Inc. of Basel, Switzerland challenged India’s patent office after its rejection of Novartis’s patent application for Gleevec, a cancer drug. The patent laws in India were amended in 2005 allowing applicants to obtain patents on medicines. The India patent office, however, later in January 2006 rejected Novartis’s patent based on a prior version of the drug.

Novartis challenged the India patent office in the court, which later dismissed Novartis’s claim on the grounds that it believed it did not have jurisdiction to rule on whether the country’s patent laws are in compliance with World Trade Organization rules.

Public-health groups are pleased with the decision as a preservation of India’s ability to produce inexpensive, generic drugs for developing nations.

In a letter recently forwarded to Congress, the AFL-CIO warned that the current statutory reforms suggested for the U.S. patent system would weaken the strength of U.S. patents by limiting damages for patent infringement, as well as by increasing the ways to challenge patents. It further stated that the reforms would undermine the global position of the United States in patent matters. Other entities, including pharmaceutical companies and research universities have expressed opposition stating that the reform will substantially weaken the value of patents, thus stifling innovation.

While the legislation was expected to proceed, House members halted the movement so as not to rush the measure. Corporations such as Microsoft and Cisco Systems, as well as other legislation supporters see the measure as remedying weaknesses in the current patent system which they believe hinders innovation and the ability for patent holders to protect patent rights.

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.

In early 2000, General Technology Applications, a five-person research company from Virginia, sued Conoco Inc. for infringement on three of its patents. The patents were for petroleum additives, which a federal jury decided Conoco “willfully” infringed upon with its “Liquid Power” product.

GTA won $55.2 million in their intellectual property lawsuit. According to the Boston Business Journal, the law firm Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Hayes LLP represented GTA on contingency.

As a small research firm with five employees, GTA’s president, Jerry Trippe, said it’s been difficult competing with industry giants.

“Everything we tried to do, we got into big companies’ territories,” he said in the Washington Post. “It was very hard to compete.”

Conoco merged with Phillips Petroleum Company on August 30, 2002, establishing ConocoPhillips. According to the new company’s Web site, ConocoPhillips employs 38,700 people and owns $173 billion in assets worldwide.

A subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay $15 million in patent infringement damages to Interpore International after Interpore claimed the subsidiary infringed on a patent for a screw used in spinal implants. Johnson & Johnson also agreed to pay future royalties to Interpore to settle the alleged infringement.

More than a year after the settlement, Biomet Inc. purchased Interpore for $280 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. Johnson & Johnson says it operates more than 250 companies and employs 121,000 people worldwide. According to its Web site, Johnson & Johnson’s worldwide sales in 2006 were $53.3 billion.

Domestic Fabrics alleged patent infringement against retailer Sears, Roebuck & Co. Nearly six years after first writing a letter to Sears, Domestic Fabrics collected more than $2.5 million in damages and royalties after a court decided Sears had, in fact, infringed on Domestic Fabrics’ patent.

The patent related to a type of knitted fabric, which Domestic believed Sears was importing from a foreign manufacturer under the “Canyon River Blues” label.

A first letter to Sears Roebuck from Domestic Fabrics asked that the retailer stop making and selling products incorporating the fabric and invited Sears to discuss the possibility of a licensing agreement.

Domestic Fabrics continued to attempt a resolution with Sears Roebuck without success. After suit was filed, there were further unsuccessful negotiations. After being advised of the small firm’s patent, according to the court, Sears Roebuck did not do enough to form a good faith belief that it was non-infringing, continued business selling products incorporating the small firm’s patent, and did not enter serious negotiations with Domestic Fabrics. Sears’ own conduct and relative size were factors the Court examined in finding willful patent infringement.

Domestic Fabrics produces fabrics in Kinston, North Carolina, a town 78 miles east of Raleigh hit hard by the loss of jobs to overseas manufacturers in the textile and apparel manufacturing sectors. Sears, Roebuck is headquartered in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Sears’ 2006 revenue exceeded $30 billion, according to Yahoo! Finance.

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.

In May 2006, Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc., won a $65.2 million verdict from Eli Lilly & Company after a jury decided Lilly infringed on a patent licensed to Ariad by Harvard, MIT and the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research. In addition to the $65 million in back royalties, Lilly will have to pay $17.8 million per year in royalties until the patent expires in 2019.

Ariad’s patent license covers the process of influencing nuclear factor kappa B (NF-kB), which scientists from the academic institutions discovered in the 1980’s. The case drew national interest because it raised questions over the patentability of natural phenomenon.

Harvey J. Berger, the chairman and C.E.O. of Ariad, gave a simple response.

“The jury looked at the evidence, looked at this issue and concluded unanimously that the patent was valid and infringed,” he said in the New York Times.

After the verdict, Lilly said it planned to appeal.

Ariad is a biotechnology pharmaceutical company that employs a little more than 100 people. Lilly employs 42,000 and sold nearly $15.7 billion in pharmaceuticals in 2006, according to its Web site.

Thomas Woolston won $29.5 million from eBay Inc., when a federal judge upheld a federal jury’s decision that the online marketplace infringed on two of Woolston’s patents.

eBay argued the validity of Woolston’s patents, but the jury decided the company “willfully” violated the patents.

The jury’s verdict allowed the possibility for U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Friedman to triple the awarded damages if he felt it necessary. He refrained, however, but said he would add to the damage if eBay continued its infringement.

Woolston is the founder of MercExchange LLC, an internet technology firm from Great Falls, Virginia. According to its Web site, eBay employs nearly 13,000 people, and it saw $52 billion worth of goods exchanged in its marketplace in 2006.

David Colvin is owner of z4 Technologies, a privately-held company and owner of two patents related to preventing the unauthorized use of software. In 2004, z4 asserted the two patents against software goliaths Microsoft Corporation and Autodesk by filing a patent infringement suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas.

In April 2006, the jury returned its verdict after deliberating continually for 19 hours, finding both Microsoft Corporation and Autodesk Inc., liable for patent infringement. The jury attributed $115M of the $133M verdict to Microsoft and $18M to Autodesk.

Microsoft, a software company headquartered in Redman, Washington, employs nearly 77,000 people worldwide. According to its website, Microsoft’s 2006 revenue was reported as $44.28 billion.

Autodesk, a computer software company of San Rafael, California, employs almost 5,000 people, and reported 2006 revenue topping $1.5 billion.