Kodak accuses HTC and Apple of patent infringement
- Kodak is trying to prohibit Apple's iPhones, iPads, and iPods and HTC's smartphones and tablets, from entering the US because they claim that the products infringe their patents on its digital imaging technology. Kodak has filed suit at the ITC and in the Western district of New York against Apple and HTC. [Apple Complaint][HTC Complaint]
- Kodak has been in the news lately with the threat of bankruptcy. However, Kodak has a very large number of patents in their portfolio and from the looks of the pending patent infringement suits; they plan to enforce their patents. This could be the start of a busy year for Kodak and their patent attorneys, if they plan on going after all potential infringers. Could Kodak's patent portfolio potentially save the company from bankruptcy? Only time will tell.
USPTO will host educational roadshows
- USTPO officials will travel to seven educational roadshows regarding the America Invents Act, allowing the public to speak with the USPTO officials about the implementation of the Act. Discussions will mainly focus on the USPTO's recently proposed rules regarding provisions of the Act. The locations that USPTO officials will hold the roadshows are Alexandria, VA, Sunnyvale, CA, Salt Lake City, Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale, Boston, and Chicago. [Link]
The Nuts and Bolts of Federal Circuit Practice
- On January 19, at 3p.m. eastern time, the Federal Circuit Bar Association will hold the Nuts and Bolts of Federal Circuit Practice. The webcast will provide a practical "How To" discussion of the rules and issues that practitioners and companies must face when appealing to the Federal Circuit. Many questions will be answered such as: How does the Court handle the many highly technical issues that come before it? What are the time limits for filing a notice of appeal and briefs? The panelists for the event are Pamela Twiford, Jan Horbaly, and James Benjamin. [Link]
Patent Jobs:
- A patent firm is seeking a contract patent attorney/agent with at least 4 years of experience and a background in CS. (telecommuting option) [Link]
- Stoel Rives is seeking a patent attorney with 3-5 years of experience to work in their Portland or Seattle office. [Link]
- NSIP Law is searching for a patent attorney with at least 3 years of experience to work at their Washington DC office. [Link]
- Hiroe & Associates is seeking a patent attorney with 2-5 years of experience to work in Japan. [Link]
- Alston & Bird is seeking a patent prosecution associate with 2-3 years of experience and a background in electrical engineering to work at their Charlotte office. [Link]
- Google is searching for a patent litigation counsel with 3 years of litigation experience to work at their New York office. [Link]
- The USPTO is seeking patent examiners with engineering backgrounds and experience in the patent field. [Link]
- Ice Miller is looking for a patent attorney with 2+ years of experience to work at their Indianapolis office. [Link]
- Ice Miller is seeking a 2012 law school graduate eligible to sit for the patent bar. [Link]
Upcoming Events:
- What You Need to Know About… The New ND Cal Patent Pilot Program, session will be hosted by Stanford Law School on January 18. Guest include Chief Judge Randall Rader, Jeff Fehervari, Laura Storto, Judge Nathanael Cousins, Judge Elizabeth Laporte, Judge Lucy Kohand many others.
- The American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property Law, Young Lawyers Division, ABA-IPL Young Lawyers Action Group and the ABA Center for Continuing Legal Education will sponsor a webinar on January 20 at 1 p.m. Eastern time. The webinar, Prosecution Strategies: Tackling USPTO Obviousness Rejections will explore how the KSR standards have been applied in various technology areas and provide guidance for effective avenues of argument based on the technology area. Speakers include: Janet Hendrickson, Gregory Hillyer, Michelle O'Brien, and Zachary Stern. [Link]
- The American Conference Institute (ACI) The Comprehensive Guide to Patent Reform For Life Science Companies, conference is scheduled for January 31- February 1 in New York. (Patently-O readers register with PO 200 for a discount). [Link]
- The 7th Annual Conference on EU Pharma Law & Regulation will be held on February 22-23 on London. The conference will bring together eminent in-house counsel from the world's largest pharma and biotech companies, top legal practitioners and regulatory experts in an outstanding speaker panel. (Patently-O readers register with PO 10 for a discount). [Link]
- LES (USA & Canada) 2012 Winter Meeting will be held March 12-14 in Anaheim, CA. The meeting will focus on cutting-edge issues in the high tech space with overlapping content in related industries, including clean tech, nanotech, and medical devices. Featured speakers include Honorable Randall Rader, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; Catherine Casserly, CEO, Creative Commons; and Patrick Ennis, Head of Global Technology, Intellectual Ventures. Save $100 before January 31. [Link]
Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.
Hey, you forgot to mention Dennis is doing a Lecture at the Santa Clara High Tech Law conference this month.
“And more than just a little.”
+1
The academic is out of his element. Back to the tower with you IANAE.
LOL all you want, you are still wrong.
What makes your post even more laughable is your admonition to think through something a bit more when it is you that needs to do the thinking. Add to that the irrelevant link to posting frequency (and how often the most frequent posters actually show very little thought) and your post is truly off the mark.
And more than just a little.
Without the very real threat of an injunction, a patent is all but worthless.
That’s ridiculous. Some patents, sure, if they cover your entire product. A drug patent is pretty much worthless if you can’t have the market all to yourself. But you can’t even begin to pretend that patents without injunctions are worthless in directly competitive markets where a single product infringes thousands of patents, like cars or consumer electronics. Everybody patents everything in those fields, and nobody ever gets injunctions, or any court-ordered injunctions are quickly licensed out of existence.
The point of patents is to make money. If you don’t have direct competition on the exact same article, an injunction doesn’t do you any good, and you’d quickly trade it for money anyway.
The cost of a suit is high, but in the end, all one gets is a RR, which is the same royalty everyone else pays.
That’s the real problem, isn’t it? The royalty isn’t high enough, and the patentee is out his court costs. I don’t mind grossing up the court-awarded royalty to account for the different risk profile of a patent that was held valid between the parties, and I certainly don’t mind holding the infringer liable for court costs and treble damages if “everyone else” has already licensed the patent but he still insists on litigating a losing battle.
If the infringer is faced with a guaranteed injunction, he sooner will settle and pay the going RR than drag things out. Injunctions force common sense.
The injunction would be no more “guaranteed” than the reasonable royalty – the patentee still has to win in court. If the infringer knows he’s going to lose, there’s already a very strong economic case to license and save the several million dollars in legal fees. If he thinks he can litigate the patentee into bankruptcy, or prevail on the merits, he won’t care what remedies are available.
All you’re doing with an injunction absent irreparable harm is shifting the price point. Let’s just be honest about that and award double or triple the market RR – at least for past damages.
IANAE, I think you misunderstand. Without the very real threat of an injunction, a patent is all but worthless. An exclusion order is the closed thing patent owners still have to an injunction in the US.
The problem caused by eBay is that, unless there is direct competition, there is only a very small chance of an injunction. The cost of a suit is high, but in the end, all one gets is a RR, which is the same royalty everyone else pays. Now think on that, just a bit. What incentive does a big pockets infringer have to settle at all? He can grind the patent owner down. If, in the end, he loses, all he is out really is the cost of litigation.
In turn, the PO is faced with having to spend a good portion if not all of his RR just to get his RR. He wins, but in the end, the victory is shallow.
If the infringer is faced with a guaranteed injunction, he sooner will settle and pay the going RR than drag things out. Injunctions force common sense.
Cheaper and faster to an unwanted result still would not be taken.
LOL. Do you really think a company on the verge of bankruptcy wants the biggest seller of infringing products to stop importing them? Nothing could cause Kodak more irreparable harm than Apple discontinuing their only prospect of revenue.
I realize this is your first post here ever, but you could have thought it through a bit more.
Cheaper and faster to an unwanted result still would not be taken.
You missed the point IANAE, by that much.
That might be enough to get into the ITC, but I do not think it is enough to get an injunction for the reasons stated.
Ned, I was responding to your comment about what you “recall” Kodak making. I recall that Kodak makes (or made) imaging equipment. iPhones are imaging equipment.
Malcolm, I know. The problem is that Kodak is not irreparably harmed by lack of an injunction since it has no products in competition. Add to this that the public will be harmed because it cannot get iphones and ipads from Kodak: Result: no injuction.
So it is easy to see why eBay forces Kodak into the ITC.
eBay really f**ked the US patent system. If Congress would really, really like to put the US system back on even keel, it would do something about eBay.
end italics
I don’t recall Kodak manufacturing anything equivalent to iphones, ipads or the like.
iPhones are just cameras with a bunch of games and other b.s. attached.
I think there is a difference, though. I think the district courts require almost direct competition in products to get an injuction. I don’t recall Kodak manufacturing anything equivalent to iphones, ipads or the like.
Without the unambiguous right to an injunction, patent litigation gets lost in the weeds of what is a RR. That, in turn, can only fairly be determined, IMHO, when the infringer is faced with an injunction if he chooses to infringe. Implicitly, everyone knows this. If the infringer is never faced with an injunction, he or she can infringe with impunity as in the end he can throw some paltry coinage at the feet of the patent owner to solve the “problem.”
Now, why do we see so many companies resorting to the ITC? Guess, meine freunde. It has something to do with a recent Supreme court decision. Yes, that one.
Because the ITC is cheaper and faster, Ned.
Maybe you missed the memo, but if you have domestic industry you’ll still get an injunction even post-eBay.
Re Kodak: they have entered the final phase in the life of company, where all they have left is their patent portfolio. If it is a good one, hats off to their patent attorneys, patent counsels, general counsels and CEOs. They may not have saved the company as it once was, but they may have saved the stockholders from ruin.
Now, why do we see so many companies resorting to the ITC? Guess, meine freunde. It has something to do with a recent Supreme court decision. Yes, that one.
eBay.
Exclusive rights per the constitution? Not since.
Patents Roadshow, now on PBS. Check your local listings.
Comments are closed.