Cisco in legal battle for infringement of Patent

Mosaid Technologies an Intellectual Property Licensor is attempting to stop the importation and sale of some of Ciscos products in the United States of America. Mosaid is claiming that Cisco’s Power over Ethernet (PoE) switches and routers, PoE IP Phones, VOIP cable Modems and other products infringe six of its patents. The Canadian company has filed its complaint against Cisco at the International Trade Commission (ITC).
Mosaid released a statement stating that they filed the complaint because they believed that Cisco is infringing Mosaid’s patents and that they are determined to protect their intellectual property rights.
This is not the first time that Mosaid and Cisco have been involved in a legal dispute. The two Companies are already embroiled in litigation over some of Mosaid’s Patent in the United States District Court of Delaware, which was filed by Cisco last year. Interestingly, the six patents were also in consideration in the Delaware case.
Mosaid is based in Ontario, Canada and is a renowned patent owner and licensor of inventions relating to communications system patents and is also actively involved in developing semiconductors.
Previously, Cisco had been ordered to pay $112,000,000 to Network 1 Security Solutions last year in a Power over Ethernet (PoE) infringement case.
Summary: Mosaid Technologies, a Canadian based intellectual property licensor, has sued American giant Cisco for patent infringement. The two companies were already litigating, over some of Mosaid’s patents. Now, Mosaid, has filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to stop the importation and sale of some of Ciscos Products into the United States of America.

Indian Patent Office increases transparency by releasing working details of drug Patents to the public

In a move to ensure greater transparency, the Indian Patent office will publish details of drug Patents in India. At present in India, Patent holders are required to furnish a Form 27 detailing the commercial use of the product, the amount of local sales, the amount of import and whether the supply of the product is meeting its demand. This is to ensure that the patent is being used commercially up to its optimum utility and that the demand for these medicines is being met. Right to Information inquiry revealed that many drug makers did not disclose all the relevant information required to be furnished under Form 27 and also failed to file the Form on some occasions. Failure to file Form 27 is punishable under the Indian Patents Act.
In India a monopoly right for 20 years is granted to patent holders for their drug patent. However in case the government is satisfied that the patented drug is not meeting the public need, then a compulsory license may be granted to a third party in order to ensure that the need of the public are met. This may open the doors to companies wishing to provide the drug to a larger number of people at a lower cost. Now local drug makers will have easy access to all the information regarding patented drugs and may apply for a compulsory license if they find that any drug is not meeting the pubic need.
Summary: The Indian Patent office will make known to the public all the details of drug patents granted in India. Now local drug makers will find it easier to know, whether there are any patented drugs which fail to meet the public need and may thereby obtain compulsory licence in order to sell the drugs at a lower cost.

Huawei gets sued by ZTE over 4G patent infringement.

In what is becoming common place in the technology sector, Chinese company ZTE have sued their competitor Huawei Technologies Company Limited, hailing from the same country, over their LTE or long term evolution technology patent.

Both Huawei and ZTE are Asian Companies spreading their services from Asia to Africa and now trying to make inroads into the European market as well. The suit by ZTE was initiated against Huawei after Huawei initiated a similar suit concerning patent infringement of their data card and LTE in some European countries.

Analysts are claiming that this seems to be a move by the companies to compete against each other not only in the market place but also in the court rooms. Huawei is one of the leaders in the mobile phone network sector. ZTE has reportedly revealed that they will protect their intellectual property rights even though they believe that patent competition must not be the main criteria for competing in the industry.

ZTE has also been sued by Ericsson in Great Britain for infringing their patents. Ericsson is also planning to sue ZTE in some other European Countries as well. Other technology companies such are also resorting to law suits to force royalty payments and compete in the market.

Summary: Chinese technology company ZTE has sued their Chinese competitor Huawei Technology Company Limited claiming that they have infringed their long term evolution technology patent. This seems to be a move by ZTE to protect its Intellectual Property at all costs although it is being seen by some analysts that it may be retaliation against previous litigations being initiated against the company by Huawei.

Motorola has been sued for using the Xoom name for their tablets

Motorola has been sued by Xoom Corporation over the use of the name Xoom for their newly released Tablet. Xoom Corp. a San Francisco based company, has sued Motorola over a Trade Mark infringement of their Xoom trade mark. Xoom Corporation in their suit claimed that the mark Xoom if adopted by Motorola will cause confusion and mislead consumers into believing that there is a false association between the two.
Xoom Corporation also claimed in their suit that Motorola has obtained the Xoom keyword from Google and that if a search is to be made on Google using the Xoom Keyword, the search result would reveal Motorola’s Xoom Tablet on top of all other search items. Xoom Corporation is involved in money – Transfer business and applied for their Xoom trade mark application in December, 2004. The Xoom .Com domain was registered way back in 2003.
Motorola applied for the Xoom Trade Mark in October, 2010. As they were yet to use the Xoom trade mark they filed the application on the basis of ‘intent to use’.
The Trade mark infringement suit brought by Xoom Corporation against Motorola was initiated before the United States District Court for the District of California requesting temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Summary: Motorola has been sued by Xoom Corp. over the use of their Trade Mark Xoom for tablets. Motorola filed a trade mark application for the trade mark Xoom in October, 2010. However the Xoom.com domain was registered in 2003 and they filed their trade mark in December, 2004.

Our Achievements

Biswajit Sarkar was founded in 1991 at a time when Intellectual Property was in the process of being repackaged and evolving to meet the challenging situation thrown up by the formation of the WTO. Before the advent of WTO, the field of patents and trademarks was largely restricted to the registration process and defence of infringements.

The emergence of the WTO has thrown up immense and tremendous potential and possibilities for protection of branded trademarks worldwide under the generic name of Intellectual Property.

Intellectual Property is a diverse field with undefined boundaries. There are many areas of specialization such as trademarks, patents, copyrights, industrial designs, service marks, geographical indication, licensing agreements, franchisee agreements, collaborations, joint ventures, insurance, etc

Biswajit Sarkar has endeavoured to keep pace with the rapidly changing scenario in Intellectual Property. Today , Biswajit Sarkar is a multi discipline organization engaged in multifarious activities.

We are empanelled with various consulates and leading industrial houses in the country.

We have an international presence with representative offices in Tokyo, Seoul, and Toronto to cater to international demand for our services. The addition of Taiwan and Melbourne offices is in the pipeline

We are regularly invited by various law institutes to give presentations at their seminars on Intellectual Property. We are continuously taking law students under our wings for internship.

We also believe in giving back to society. The firm is engaged in social services and philanthropic activities. We feel humbled to volunteer our services for the Missionaries of Charity ( the organization founded by Mother Teresa)

Microsoft sues over Patents

Microsoft has initiated a suit against Barnes & Noble for allegedly infringing their patents. The Patents are being infringed in relation to the operational aspects of their Android based Nook e- reader. Other companies who have aided in the production of the Nook e- reader such as Foxconn and Inventec are also being sued by Microsoft.
Microsoft has claimed infringement in the method of interacting with the devices by means of using the tab function through various screens, functionality of surfing the web speedily as well as interaction functions with documents and e-books.
.Microsoft confirmed that they had tried to reach an agreement over the licencing with Barnes & Noble, Foxconn and Inventec, however refusal to take licences left them with no other alternative than to institute legal action.
Microsoft has previously taken legal recourse against Motorola over some patented features in their Android device.

Fuji Film Corp. wins infringement battle

Fujifilm Corporation has won a long drawn patent infringement suit against St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. St. Clair first filed the suit against Fujifilm on February 28, 2002 in the Federal District Court in Delaware. St. Clair claimed that four of their United States patents were infringed by Fujifilms digital cameras.
The District Court vide a jury verdict held that all the patents were infringed by Fujifilm.
Aggrieved by the verdict of the District Court ,Fujifilm appealed to the Federal Circuit against the District Courts verdict requesting them to reverse the verdict. Meanwhile, St. Clair filed another suit against Fujifilm Corporation for damage to sales for the same patents for a period of seven years.
Finally, in January, 2011 a decision was reached by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal that acknowledged Fujifilms claim that the District Court had erroneously interpreted the patents owned by St. Clair.
In March , 2011 the Federal Circuit turned down a petition from St. Clair for rehearing the matter and directed the District Court to pass a judgment in favour of Fujifilm.
In the past Fujifilm has been among the top 20 companies in the world to be granted United States Patents.