HTC SUES APPLE FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

HTC Corporation (HTC) is one of the fastest growing companies in the mobile phone industry. By putting people at the center of everything it does, HTC creates innovative smartphones that better serve the lives and needs of individuals.

HTC Corporation today took legal action against Apple Inc., filing a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to halt the importation and sale of the iPhone, iPad and iPod in the United States.

HTC’s commitment to innovation has continued for more than a decade as it has focused on building a portfolio of the world’s most advanced smartphones that are inspired by consumers and provide them with a variety of choices in software, design, form-factor, price and wireless carrier. Today, consumers in the United States can choose between 12 HTC smartphones with the national wireless carriers. HTC has continuously strived to bring innovative smartphone choices to consumers, like the recently unveiled HTC EVO 4G with Sprint, DROID Incredible by HTC with Verizon Wireless and the HTC HD2 with T-Mobile.

http://www.htc.com/www/press.aspx?id=129616&lang=1033

First to Invent vs. First to Patent

Introduction:

In this article I would like to clarify the difference between two very important Patent rules - First to Invent and First to Patent. Understanding these rules is extremely important and every novice inventor should know the difference between them.

First to Invent Rule

First to Invent Rule states that the Unites States Patent Office (USPTO) will grant patent on an invention to an inventor who first invented the product. Please notice the word 'first' - and this is crucial because the original inventor might not be the first who submitted his invention to Patent Office! First To Invent Rule, which is obeyed in Canada and United States, helps in determining who is the rightful owner of an invention and rewards an inventor with proper patent.

First to Patent Rule

First to Patent Rule, on the other hand, grants patent to people who submitted Patent paperwork first! The rule is recognized by most European countries and is not very friendly to an inventor because the first person to publish an invention might not be an original inventor! First to Patent Rule encourages people to 'borrow' ideas from others and rewards them with new and shiny patents.

What can one submit as a proof that he is the original and rightful owner of the patent? Two excellent choices are Provisional Patent Application and Inventor Journal.

Provisional Patent Application

Provisional Patent Application may be the only source of proof that you are the original inventor and entitled to reaping the benefits of the patent. It is very possible that since the time you have submitted your Provisional Patent Application, someone else filled out paperwork for regular patent. The only thing that might substantiate your claim that you are the rightful owner of the invention is your Provisional Patent Application. One note of caution - Provisional Application is good for one year only and cannot be renewed. In fact, these applications were meant to be temporary solution until the inventor submits regular Patent Application Paperwork.

Inventor Journal

Inventor Notes or Journal is another popular method of keeping records regarding the time-line of your invention. In your journal you should write down every important date related to your invention with detailed explanation of your invention. Be as detailed as possible because the Journal might be the only proof that you are the original owner of an invention. It is a good idea to date every page and include diagrams and graphs that are pertinent to your invention. Ask your friends to read your Journal (your friends may not be as technical as you are, so be patient and explain your invention to them in plain language staying away from technical jargon). Ask your friends to date and sign your Notes - again, your friends are your witnesses and Patent Office will consider them.

Summary

As one can see, United States and Canada abides the First to Invent Rule and protects original owners of invention. Inventor Journal and USPTO Disclosure Documents are two excellent methods of documenting your invention and serve as a stepping stone towards filing Patent Application.

http://www.articlesnatch.com/Article/First-To-Invent-Vs--First-To-Patent/202522

Patent office rejects Roche claim on eye drug

Swiss drug multinational Roche AG suffered yet another setback in its ongoing patent fights in India after the Chennai patent office rejected its claim over Valcyte (valganciclovir).

The decision, which came on April 30, marks an end to one of the toughest patent battles between Roche, Indian generic drug makers and groups of patients.

Valganciclovir is an important drug for the treatment of severe eye infection that people living with HIV (the AIDS virus) are susceptible to. It is also used in post-operative treatment for patients who have received an organ transplant.

Valcyte is priced at Rs 1,040 for each 450 mg tablet, while generic equivalents are available at a fourth of its cost. The Chennai office rejected the patent claim primarily on the grounds that valganciclovir lacked the novelty that merits protection.

Anand Grover, Lawyers Collective HIV/AIDS Unit, who represented the patient groups in the litigation, welcomed the decision. “This underscores the importance of oppositions in ensuring that the Patent Office interprets the patentability criteria strictly, to prevent new forms of old drugs from being patented. This decision will have implications for patients not only in India but also in other developing countries,” he said.

Roche is entitled to now approach the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for a review of the patent office decision.

It had initial success with Valcyte when the Chennai office granted a patent to the medicine in 2007. Since the decision was taken without hearing a pre-grant opposition filed by some patient groups, it was challenged in the High Court there.

The court set aside the order and asked the patent office to hear the pre-grant opposition, which was rejected by the latter. The matter came before the Supreme Court that directed the patent office to club all opposition — by patient groups, post-grant opposition from generic companies — and give its verdict.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=393974

Patent Theft as a Business Strategy

America's largest big tech corporations are now using a business technique called "efficient infringement," which means that they calculate the benefits of stealing someone else's patented technology against the possibility of getting caught, tried in court and being forced to pay damages and penalties. If the benefits exceed the costs, they steal.

What makes patent theft so attractive is that infringement is not a criminal act and those found guilty face no jail time. Paying up is the worst that can happen to the infringer.

The most aggressive users of this business model are fifteen of America's largest big tech corporations. patent owners have sued these fifteen corporations 740 times for infringement and have won $4 billion in damages. Not surprisingly, these big tech corporations' political goal is to change the law so patent theft is more difficult to prove, less costly when caught, and willful infringement virtually impossible to prove.

The principal victims of these big corporations' "efficient infringement" approach are independent inventors, small businesses and universities - the source of most breakthrough innovations and the creators of two-thirds of all new jobs.

This "steal-what-you-want" approach to business is spreading throughout our economy. Now, corporate behemoths in the financial services industry are using the technique and ganging up on small patent holders. Nowhere is this more evident than the case of DataTreasury Corporation, a tiny Texas company locked in battle with some of the biggest banks in the world.

As I have written before, DataTreasury's founder invented a revolutionary check-processing system in the mid-1990s and tried to market it to high-level executives at Chase Manhattan Bank (now known as JPMorgan Chase). Instead of partnering with DataTreasury, those bankers are accused of walking off with the idea and using it to start a pair of highly successful check-processing companies of their own -- companies which are now owned by the biggest banks in the nation.

According to industry sources, the banking industry is now making $2-4 billion annually because of DataTreasury's patented check-processing technology. DataTreasury has been forced to go to court to protect its property rights, and over the years has reached settlements with JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC, and scores of other large banks.

But Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and about a dozen other banks refuse to deal with the little company. Instead of paying up, those remaining banks have played dirty. In 2007, Washington lobbyists working for the banking industry had an amendment inserted into a pending patent-reform bill that would have granted legal immunity to all of DataTreasury's defendants. The amendment died on the floor of the U.S. Senate after the press exposed the story.

As you read this, DataTreasury is in the middle of a trial with Minneapolis-based U.S. Bank, the country's fifth-largest financial institution.

Last week, the federal judge overseeing the case dropped a bombshell. He ruled that DataTreasury had succeeded in arguing that U.S. Bank may have conspired with the nation's other top banks to infringe the small company's patents. That's a very serious charge. It helps open the door to more than $600 million in damages against U.S. Bank, and it raises questions about whether Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and the other banks going to trial with DataTreasury later this year, may have also taken part in the same conspiracy.

Whether U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and a dozen other banks are guilty of infringing DataTreasury's patent is a matter for a jury to decide. However, if the jury does conclude that they were part of a conspiracy to steal the little company's idea, I hope that the judge and jury will impose a judgment that is big enough to scare corporate CEOs everywhere. If money is the only penalty for infringement, then a staggeringly large award is the only way to send a message to corporate America that they should avoid any conspiracy to infringe someone's patents as though it were the Bubonic Plague.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pat-choate/patent-theft-as-a-busines_b_508780.html