Samsung, Super Bowl, Prince: Intellectual Property
By Victoria Slind-Flor – Jan 31, 2014 6:39 AM ET
Samsung Electronics Co. (005930) avoided the severe penalties Apple Inc. sought after being sanctioned by a U.S. judge for violating a court order protecting the confidentiality of the iPhone maker’s patent-licensing accords.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal said Jan. 29 that “public findings of wrongdoing” by Samsung’s law firm, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, and Quinn Emanuel’s payment of Apple and Nokia Oyj (NOK1V)’s legal costs would be “sufficient both to remedy Apple and Nokia’s harm.”
The e-mail disclosure at issue, which Samsung said was accidental, came as the companies were waging their first patent-infringement dispute in federal court in San Jose, California, over smartphone technology.
Apple, based in Cupertino, California, has another case against Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung going to trial in March over newer smartphone models, including Samsung’s Galaxy S III.
The first case is Apple Inc. (AAPL) v. Samsung Electronics Co., 11-cv-01846; the second is Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 12-cv-00630, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Jose).
Idenix Sues Gilead After Adverse Patent Inventorship Ruling
Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Cambridge, Massachusetts, sued Gilead Sciences Inc. (GILD)’s Pharmasset unit seeking review of an adverse decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to a patent application and an issued patent covering a drug used to treat Hepatitis C.
The board determined Jan. 29 that Idenix wasn’t the first to invent the compound covered by the patent.
Gilead’s version of the compound is to be marketed as Sovaldi, and has a wholesale price of $28,000 for a bottle of 28 tablets, according to a company statement.
The case is Idenix Pharmaceuticals Inc. (IDIX) v. Gilead Pharmasset LLC, 14-cv-00109, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).
For more patent news, click here.
Sellers of Fake Super Bowl Tickets Arrested in New York
New York police arrested two men charged with selling counterfeit tickets to the Super Bowl, Newsday reported.
The arrest was made after police bought a number of fake tickets for recent National Football League playoff games, according to Newsday.
Although the fake tickets’ bar codes would have passed muster by the stadium’s scanners, the tickets had misprints and the printing was “washed out,” law enforcement officials told Newsday.
The NFL championship game will be played Feb. 2 in New Jersey.
For more trademark news, click here.
Prince Drops Infringement Suit Against Bloggers, Facebook Users
Prince Rogers Nelson, the musician who performs as Prince, dropped a copyright-infringement suit he filed this month against 22 defendants in federal court in San Francisco.
Court filings didn’t indicate why the suit was dropped.
The case is Nelson v. Chodera, 14-cv-00273, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
‘Three’s Company’ Parody Author Seeks Non-Infringement Ruling
Playwright David Adjmi asked a Manhattan federal court to declare that his play “3C” doesn’t infringe the copyright of “Three’s Company,” the television series that ran from 1977 to 1984, the New York Times reported.
Adjmi’s play, a satiric and dark gloss on the situation comedy, ran on Broadway in 2012 and has been targeted by the series’ copyright owner for using too many elements from the original show, the newspaper reported.
The playwright said his work is a parody permitted under U.S. copyright law, while the copyright owner has said the play could potentially harm the original series, according to the Times.
For more copyright news, click here.
Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage
Mr. Chow Waited Too Long to Bring Claim, Appeals Court Rules
Mr. Chow Enterprises Ltd., operator of a high-end Chinese restaurant chain, waited too long to bring trade secrets claims against a competitor, a federal appeals court ruled.
The restaurant chain, founded in Beverly Hills, California, in 1974, sued a former employee who opened similar restaurants in New York, Florida and California, and who, like Mr. Chow, offered guests a “noodle show” during which fresh noodles were prepared.
The Atlanta-based appeals court said that while the trial court properly determined that Mr. Cow waited too long to make its trade-secrets claims, a false-advertising jury award of $500,000 was appropriate.
The case is Chow v. Chau, 12-15884, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.org
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at email@example.com