Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts

Monday, July 1, 2013

Jurisdiction Issues in Global Intellectual Property

? Edyta Pawlowska - Fotolia.com

"An underlying premise in pure intellectual property issues is that the law should encourage and reward innovation," wrote Raymond T. Nimmer in his book, "The Law of Computer Technology: Rights, Licenses, Liabilities." In the modern digital world, traditional trade borders are collapsing and competitors can steal valuable intellectual property and send it around the world at the speed of light.

How can the general counsel of a Texas company obtain justice when the company is the target of theft, infringement, fraud or other unfair business practices? How can he navigate jurisdictional issues when protecting the company's intellectual property from foreign corporations? What are alternatives to financing multiple lawsuits throughout the world?

Determining where to fight the battle to protect these rights is a crucial decision. To date, there is no clear law on how the global community will handle international intellectual property jurisdictional issues. Here are some steps general counsel can take when thinking through these issues.

Unearth electronic evidence: Gathering evidence of theft, infringement and other unfair business practices often will include using computer forensics. Investigating electronic evidence can include looking at email messages, evidence of hacking, telephone communications, bank transactions, web sites, browser histories, press releases, file transfers, etc. Such electronic evidence, including the money trail, will help determine the identity of the potential defendants.Identify defendants: Using the gathered evidence to identify responsible parties can be difficult, so the legal department may need to dig deeply to figure out the corporate shell game. Separating various corporate subsidiaries and independent contractors that may be responsible for the theft and fraud will take time. Evidence trails can lead to employees, partners and officers, as well as other businesses.Review jurisdictional issues: Determining potential jurisdictions and venues for a lawsuit can be difficult when the offending party is not a Texas or even a U.S. business. Unfortunately, there is no true global intellectual property law. International intellectual property disputes often can involve simultaneous lawsuits in multiple countries throughout the world.

There are currently four main legislative proposals to establish rules on international jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement of foreign judgments in intellectual property lawsuits. The American Law Institute (ALI) principles are based on the laws of the United States. But businesses considering global litigation should be aware that other principles exist, including the European Principles on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP), the Japanese transparency principles and Korean Waseda principles, as well as private international law.

When the potential defendant is not a Texas or U.S. business, the legal department may need to establish specific jurisdiction by proving that the defendant purposely availed itself of the privilege of acting in the forum state, the cause of action arises from such acts, and exercise of jurisdiction is not unreasonable. Specific jurisdiction can stem from the stream of commerce, hacking trails, a website sliding-scale test (in which courts are more likely to find jurisdiction as the website's interactivity and the business' electronic contacts increase), licensing and franchise agreements, posted defamatory comments, commercial activities, agency and civil conspiracy with other defendants, patent and trademark infringement, securities fraud, etc.

Overall, in determining whether a court has specific jurisdiction over a defendant, the court will look to see if the defendant was doing business in the forum state. This case-by-case determination often hinges on the foreign business' use of intellectual property or wrongful actions in Texas or the United States.

Anchoring jurisdiction: Selecting a favorable court, jurisdiction and remedy can be essential in protecting a company's intellectual property. General counsel can improve the company's ability to select a favorable jurisdiction by including anchor-jurisdiction clauses in all contracts, including letters of intent, license agreements and employment contracts. Such language also should exist on all company websites and its other marketing materials. Registering the company's intellectual property in all places where it needs to be protected is key, as is identifying the most crucial markets in which to seek protection.Limiting costs and risk: It's worth exploring whether law firms will handle large infringement cases on a contingent or hybrid contract. That can prevent the company from paying large retainers to investigate and litigate expensive lawsuits that may last years.Governmental resources: When evaluating any significant commercial litigation case against a large international corporation registered to do business in the United States, general counsel should be aware of potential governmental resources. Corporations that commit fraud, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or other significant illegal acts may have violated U.S. Securities and Exchange Act regulations, and they may be held accountable in whistle-blower recovery lawsuits. Exposing the illegal actions of the opposing corporation can result in a whistle-blower recovery, as well as a finding against the corporation that can be used in a civil action.

In the modern digital world, technology is breaking down many traditional borders. International trade and competition is more common than ever before. Many Texas and other U.S. businesses will find themselves in a highly competitive business environment where they are the target of intellectual property infringement and corporate espionage. It pays to prepare now.

Jason S. Coomer of The Law Offices of Jason S. Coomer in Austin handles international IP litigation, SEC Foreign Corrupt Practices Act bounty actions, and international probate matters.

This article originally appeared in Texas Lawyer.

A browser or device that allows javascript is required to view this content.

You must be signed in to comment on an article

Sign In or Subscribe
">

View the original article here

Saturday, June 1, 2013

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleGet the lowest prices anywhere on Macs and iPads with exclusive coupons: Apple Price Guide updated May 25th. (Get the lowest prices anywhere) AppleInsiderHomeReviewsBackpagePrice GuidesNew MacsMacs with AppleCarePrevious MacsiPadsApple Wireless DevicesBid on New & Used Apple ProductsFollow UsTwitterFacebookGoogle+RSS Feeds & QriusiPhone AppTip UsSend us a tiptip us anonymouslyContact us by e-mailForumsAAPL: 445.15 ( +3.01 )Never miss an update Follow AppleInsiderFollow @AppleInsiderRSS –A+
Friday, May 24, 2013, 07:08 pm

Google's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleBy Mikey Campbell

Motorola has given notice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it will be contesting the International Trade Commission's dismissal of a case against Apple, the second time the now Google-owned company has filed an appeal tied to that investigation.

Motorola
The appeals notice, uncovered by FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller after recently being made public, is in regard to an ITC decision to throw out a case against Apple after finding six Motorola patents-in-suit invalid.

In its dismissal, which was filed a month ago, the trade body found Motorola's last standing patent, a property for an infrared proximity sensor, invalid. The company was asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 for a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device," which covers a system that ignores errant screen touches during a phone call.

As noted by Mueller, Google's latest appeal is the second such action for the ITC investigation. The first came in November 2012, which questioned a decision that cleared Apple of infringing on three patents. The contention from Google resulted in a review of the findings, and that appeal has yet to be resolved.

Mueller pointed out that Apple may want to combine the two appeals, thus saving court resources, but the tactic is likely to fail due to the long span between Google's filings.

Motorola's Second Appeal of ITC Dismissal by Mikey Campbell

Tags:patentsMotorolaGoogleJump to comments (17)Categories:General(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#xfbml=1"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));Tweet!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); On Topic: patentsGoogle's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against AppleApple granted patents on push-to-talk, double-sided touch panelApple invention adjusts audio based on a display's orientation, user positioningApple investigating advanced AirPlay system with device-specific UIsSamsung Galaxy S4 & Google Now accused of violating Apple patents for SiriToday's' HeadlinesNo news headlines yet todayRelated ArticlesITC throws out Motorola patent suit against AppleITC to review decision that cleared Apple of infringing on Motorola patentsApple cleared of infringing Motorola patents, avoids U.S. import banApple cleared of infringing on Motorola patent in ITC caseGoogle cites quote from Steve Jobs biography in attempt to win iPhone import banPrevious Comments View Alljohn.b2013/05/24 07:39pm

Clearly, holding a phone against the side of your face was a new and unique idea that had never been thought of prior to this patent...

?

1rolleyes.gif

?

Though I'm not really sure why Apple would want to combine Motogoogle's appeals.

frood2013/05/24 08:23pm

Hooray!?? Seeing?more or less trivial patents invalidated never gets old.? The new digital age is less about inventions and more about obstruction.?? Only 939488583738292 more patents related to 'touching' 'shaping' 'looking at' and 'methods for performing "an operation" on a list' to go and maybe our court system can start working on legitimate stuff

ericthehalfbee2013/05/24 08:29pm

Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.

starbird732013/05/24 08:46pm

Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.

?

Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.

?

Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.

jungmark2013/05/25 12:51am

Do no evil, google.

applesauce0072013/05/25 07:04am

Three strikes and they're out...

suddenly newton2013/05/25 11:09am

LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'

ankleskater2013/05/25 11:17am

Quote:Originally Posted by starbird73?View Post

Court to Google/Motorola: You lose.

?

Google/Motorola: But, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, you do.

?

Google/Motorola: But, but, no, we don't.

?

Court to Google/Motorola: Yes, yes you do.


How is that different from what virtually every company does? Appealing is a legal option and most companies, including those you worship, employ that option liberally, frequently and almost automatically. It's absurd, ridiculous, ignorant, hypocritical and unintelligent to mock any company for appealing.

?

Quote:Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee?View Post

Waiting for GG to claim Google never initiates anything.

This is a fair comment (about Google, not about GG - that part I couldn't care less about). Motorola is part of Google now, and Google did once declare a non-aggression policy on patents. Whether one agrees with Apple's legal actions, their objective is quite clear. This is not true of Google.

ankleskater2013/05/25 11:19am

Quote:Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton?View Post

LOL More reporting of court paperwork as 'news.'


?LOL. More people reading and mocking it. Yet the joke is clearly, squarely on the mocking reader.

jessi2013/05/25 11:25am


I'm glad to see that Patent Troll Google has lost again, but let's not assume that this is a trivial patent simply because the people describing it do so in simple terms.

Multi-touch is a very sophisticated technology, never seen before (despite the claims from idiots who don't know how it works and who always bring up systems working on a different method, such as pushing two wires tougher as if they were "prior art".) ... and deserves to be protected.

Most of these "trivial" patents are not actually trivial. And getting them tried in court IS the way the patent system was designed.

The idea that there's a problem here is asinine-- the only problem is that innovators like Apple can't get timely resolution to these violations, while companies like google skate by.

But it's embarrassing that people would claim that patents stifle innovation-- patents ARE innovation, and the people being "stifled" weren't being innovative, they were being copycats.

If these patents really are trivial they don't stand up in court.

View all commentsLogin to Comment

Have an opinion? Sign Up to share it.


Latest Apple Headlinesarticle_thumbEditorial: Apple's iOS 7 needs exclusive, distinctive features, not just a flat UI~21 hours agoarticle_thumbiPad shipments could see first ever year-on-year decline in Q2, analyst says~2 days agoarticle_thumbGoogle's Motorola issues second appeal of dismissed ITC case against Apple~2 days agoarticle_thumbiPhone urinalysis app draws scrutiny from FDA~2 days agoarticle_thumbSouth Australia's first Apple Store draws line hours ahead of opening [update: photos and video]~2 days agomore...

Apply to AppleInsiderWant to write for AppleInsider? Submit your application now! Lowest Prices Anywhere!Price guideModelPriceYou Save Core i5 MacBook Pros w/ Retina 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/128GB $1,406.48 $292.52 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/256GB $1,479.99 $519.01 13" 2.5GHz/8GB/512GB $1,699.99 $799.01 Core i7 MacBook Pros w/ Retina 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/256GB $1,599.99 $599.01 13" 2.9GHz/8GB/512GB $1,799.99 $899.01 15" 2.3GHz/8GB/256GB $1,899.99 $299.01 15" 2.6GHz/8GB/512GB $2,299.99 $568.01 15" 2.7GHz/16GB/768GB $2,699.99 $499.01 More configurations
Active Forum Topics

76

iPad shipments could see first ever year-on-year decline in Q2, analyst says

38

Editorial: Apple's iOS 7 needs exclusive, distinctive features, not just a flat UI

20

Steve Jobs's family has been giving money away anonymously for more than 2 decades

20

Haswell chips could bring 50% more battery life to Apple's next-gen MacBooks

14

iPhone urinalysis app draws scrutiny from FDAmore... Price guide Model WhiteBlack iPad mini (WiFi only) 16GB WiFi WiFi$329.99$329.99 32GB WiFi WiFi $429.99 $429.99 64GB WiFi WiFi $529.99 $529.99 iPad mini (WiFi + 4G)   AT&T Verizon Sprint 16GB 4G White $459.99 $459.99 $459.99 32GB 4G White $559.99 $559.99 $559.99 64GB 4G White $659.99 $659.99 $659.99 16GB 4G Black $459.99 $459.99 $459.99 32GB 4G Black $559.99 $559.99 $559.99 64GB 4G Black $659.99 $659.99 $659.99 See more iPad models in our Price GuidesReviewsHot TopicsGeneralGoogleiPhoneTaxesiOSiPadpatentsappsTim CookApp StoreAndroidMapsApple StoreYahooSamsung
Top of pageCopyright ? 2013, AppleInsider.com, Contact UsPrivacy PolicyAdvertise on AppleInsiderDesign: gesamtbild

View the original article here

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Subaru issues recall over cars that may start themselves

2013 Subaru XV Crosstrek - front three-quarter view, black

Subaru has issued one of the strangest recalls we've come across in some time. As it turns out, certain Subaru models may randomly start their own engines. The issue is confined to select models equipped with an automatic or CVT and the company's optional Audiovox remote engine starter (RES) accessory. If the RES key fob is dropped, it could "randomly transmit an engine start request without pressing the button."

Vehicles affected include the 2010-2012 Legacy and Outback with an automatic or CVT, 2012-2013 Impreza with the CVT, and 2013 XV Crosstrek with CVT (shown), all equipped with the Audiovox RES accessory. Likewise, certain 2013 Legacy and Outbacks may have received replacement RES fobs that could be affected. All told, 47,419 vehicles are included in the recall.

Should one of these cars start on their own, Subaru says they will run up to 15 minutes, but the vehicle may also continue to start and stop until either the battery in the fob dies or the car runs out of fuel. Of course, if one of these cars is parked in an enclosed area, that means harmful gasses could build up, which could be dangerous if inhaled.

The fix is an obvious one: Subaru will replace the RES fobs for free. Owners of the affected vehicles can expect to be notified by the end of April, though their car might let them know sooner. Report Receipt Date: FEB 25, 2013
NHTSA Campaign Number: 13V061000
Component(s): ELECTRICAL SYSTEM , EQUIPMENT
Potential Number of Units Affected: 47,419

Manufacturer: Subaru of America, Inc.

SUMMARY:
Subaru is recalling certain model year 2010-2012 Legacy and Outback vehicles equipped with an automatic or CVT transmission and an Audiovox remote engine starter (RES) accessory, certain model year 2012-2013 Impreza vehicles equipped with a CVT transmission and an Audiovox remote engine starter (RES) accessory, and certain model year 2013 XV Crosstrek vehicles equipped with a CVT transmission and an Audiovox remote engine starter (RES) accessory. Additionally included are certain model year 2013 Legacy and Outback vehicles that may have received replacement RES fobs. If the RES fob is dropped, the fob may malfunction and randomly transmit an engine start request without pressing the button.

CONSEQUENCE:
The engine may inadvertently start and run for up to fifteen minutes. The engine may continue to start and stop until the fob battery is depleted, or until the vehicle runs out of fuel. If the vehicle is parked in an enclosed area, there is a risk of carbon monoxide build-up which may cause headaches, dizziness or, in extreme cases, unconsciousness and/or asphyxiation.

REMEDY:
Subaru will notify owners, and dealers will replace the RES key fobs, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin by the end of April 2013. Owners may contact Subaru at 1-800-782-2783 for more information.

NOTES:
Original equipment keyless entry fobs integrated on the vehicle key are not affected. Subaru's recall campaign number is WQF-42. Owners may also contact the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Vehicle Safety Hotline at 1-888-327-4236 (TTY 1-800-424-9153), or go to www.safercar.gov.


View the original article here

Free Facebook Likes