Category: High Tech Patent Litigations

Nokia & IPCOM

The claimant, Nokia Corporation, seeks revocation of European Patent (UK) No. 1 841 268 (“the patent” or “268”) which belongs to the defendant IPCom. This action is yet another stage in the litigation which is pending in a number of jurisdictions in relation to the mobile telephony patent portfolio which IPCom purchased from Robert Bosch … Continue reading Nokia & IPCOM

Read more »

ENERCON INDIA LTD. (EIL) VS. ENERCON GMBH (EG)

This article is directed to interested persons who have not been regularly following the Enercon Case, one the few patent litigation battles which have seen the light of day and is setting new standards in decision making on issues relating to formality rejections and obviousness/inventive step issues. This article puts a quick snapshot of what … Continue reading ENERCON INDIA LTD. (EIL) VS. ENERCON GMBH (EG)

Read more »

Clear and Convincing …Says US Apex

This blog is just an update of the US Supreme Court hearing in the case “Microsoft Vs. i4i”.  For more details about the initial proceedings, please click here to visit my earlier blog “Clear and Convincing evidence” posted on January 10th 2011. The patent act indicates that issued patents are “presumed valid.” 35 U.S.C. § … Continue reading Clear and Convincing …Says US Apex

Read more »

DataCard Corporation Vs Eagle Technologies – Part 1

Introduction: It is a direct Patent Infringement case, claimant “Data card Corporation” (Datacard) sued Eagle technologies for infringing its couple of patents: UK 1458572 (‘572) and UK 1534530 (‘530) and also couple of trademarks: UK 1399698 (‘698) and UK 1399699 (‘699). When I was searching case laws to understand the degree of obviousness, especially in … Continue reading DataCard Corporation Vs Eagle Technologies – Part 1

Read more »

Microsoft Corp V/s TiVo, Inc

The present case relates to an infringement petition filed by Microsoft Corp against TiVo, Inc. in California Northern District Court, for infringing its two patents, Patent No. US 6,008,803, (‘803) and Patent No. 6,055,314, (‘314). The case was filed on January 19, 2010. The case is still waiting for its decision and its next hearing … Continue reading Microsoft Corp V/s TiVo, Inc

Read more »

Due Diligence Search Strategies…2

This article is in continuation with the blog “Due Diligence Search Strategies for Determining Patentability of Exemplary Indian Patent Applications”  by IIPRD (Please click here to read the blog), an initiative from IIPRD to randomly pick up recently published Indian patent application and try and understand the chances of getting a valid patent. IIPRD made … Continue reading Due Diligence Search Strategies…2

Read more »

Due Diligence Search Strategies for Determining Patentability of Exemplary Indian Patent Applications

When Patent experts advise to Large and Small Corporations and Institutes to focus on Due-Diligence before filing patent application, it’s not without any substantive motive. What is the point of having a patent, even though it gets a grant, if the same is not enforceable? It’s almost like having a piece of paper with no … Continue reading Due Diligence Search Strategies for Determining Patentability of Exemplary Indian Patent Applications

Read more »

“Clear and Convincing Evidence”

Case “Microsoft Vs i4i” interests me as I saw the recent Supreme Court decision to hear this case again. Long story in short, i4i filed a patent in 1994 and gets granted on 07/98 (US 5,787,449). ‘449 relates to a system and method for the separate manipulation of the architecture and content of a document, … Continue reading “Clear and Convincing Evidence”

Read more »

Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness

The present case relates to reexamination (Reexamination No. 90/008,482) of US Patent No. 5, 236, 503, referred to as ‘503 hereinafter. The concerned Applicant GLATT AIR TECHNIQUES, INC. (referred to as Glatt hereinafter) appealed against the order of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which was decided on 5’th Jan 2011. As an introduction, … Continue reading Claim Construction – Interpretation to Determine Obviousness

Read more »

Greif & Technocraft

The case is all about a mech. patent granted in Europe in 2008.  The Proprietor (Applicant) Grief International Holding B.V is holding the Patent EP 1467922 (‘922).  The Patent relates to an improved container closure plug having a unique gasket retaining feature.  Interestingly, Technocraft Industries, a company based out of India filed an Opposition in … Continue reading Greif & Technocraft

Read more »