In late June, Apple won one of the many battles that it is waging against one of its fiercest rivals – South Korea’s Samsung, manufacturer of the Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets. Riding the wave of Google’s Android platform, Samsung has emerged as the world’s biggest handset maker, and arguably Apple’s biggest rival. Apple and Samsung are entagled in more ways than one, since Samsung also manufactures the A5 chipset that powers the latest models of iPad and iPhone. As the saying goes “Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.”

Apple’s latest win resulted in an injunction barring sales of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab in the US. That decision is being appealed. Meanwhile in the UK, Apple was ordered to publish a notice that Samsung did not copy the iPad. That decision is being appealed too. All of this is part of a global war (including Australia, Germany and the Netherlands) that stems from Apple’s claims that Samsung copied the design of the iPad. This is one of the most interesting aspects of the case – that worldwide IP infringement claims can be based on the design of a consumer product, not its function. And it’s a design that is successful precisely because of its clean, minimalist simplicity that eschews ornamental features of any kind. Check out this design patent (PDF) (Apple’s D504,889 design patent), filed in 2004, upon which the US injunction is based, in part. The two companies are currently headed to a jury trial in the US.

Lessons for business?

• Don’t forget to review relatively simple forms of intellectual property in your IP strategy. In this case, a simple industrial design (or in the US, a “design patent”) has provided ammunition in a battle between two of the most sophisticated technology companies on the planet.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT
No comments

We have reviewed a few decisions relating to arbitration clauses in intellectual property license agreements (see here ). Courts in the US have shown that they are willing to uphold arbitrator’s decisions. What is the law in Alberta?

The court in TheraVitae Ltd. v. Kwalata Trading Limited, 2011 ABQB 626 (CanLII) dealt with alleged breaches of stem cell therapy licencing agreements.  The licensing agreements contained arbitration clauses and a dispute arose between the parties, which was referred to arbitration.

Under the Arbitration Act (Alberta), a party must demonstrate that they are entitled to appeal an arbitrator’s decision. If the arbitration agreement includes the right of appeal to court, then either party can appeal the arbitrator’s decision on a question of law, on a question of fact or on a question of mixed law and fact. If the arbitration agreement is silent on the topic of appeal, then Section 44(2) of the Act allows for appeals on questions of law, provided certain criteria are met. Those criteria are:

1. the importance to the parties of the matters at stake in the arbitration justifies an appeal, and
2. whether the determination of the question of law at issue will significantly affect the rights of the parties.

In those two situations, a court may review the arbitrator’s decision. However, Section 44(3) prohibits a court from granting leave where the question being appealed was specifically referred to the arbitral tribunal for decision. In other words, where the arbitrator was asked to rule on a particular question of law, the decision of the arbitrator will not be reviewed by the court. In the TheraVitae decision, the court decided that the question was specifically referred to the arbitrator, so the decision was not reviewable by the court.

Lessons for business?

• Arbitrator’s decisions will be given deference, so if you want to refer your disputes to binding arbitration, be aware that there may be no right of appeal to the courts if you are not happy with that decision.
• Arbitration clauses and agreements must be reviewed carefully to ensure that the parties are aware of the scope of the arbitrator’s authority, and the rights of appeal that may be available.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

Many intellectual property license agreements refer disputes to arbitration under an arbitration clause. After the arbitrator renders a decision, can that decision be appealed to court? Or is it final and binding on the parties?

This issue was addressed in Affymax, Inc. v. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  , 660 F.3d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 2011) a decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the US. In that case, the court dealt with an appeal from an arbitrator’s decision under a license agreement. The court was clear that it had no interest in vacating or overturning the arbitrator’s award, unless the award is reviewable under one of the 4 circumstances in Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (US):

1. if the award was procured by “corruption, fraud, or undue means”;
2. in the case of “partiality or corruption in the arbitrators”;
3. where the arbitrators were “guilty of misconduct” or misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
4. where the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that “a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.”

According to this decision, if it doesn’t fall into one of these 4 categories, then the court will not interfere with the arbitrator’s decision.

Other appeal-level courts in the US are split on this issue, and some have reviewed arbitration decisions based on an independent category, known as “manifest disregard of the law.” Since that is not a specified ground for appeal in Section 10, it was not accepted by the Seventh Circuit in the Affymax decision. The lessons for business? In the US, arbitrator’s decisions will not be subject to review by the courts unless the review falls into one of these 4 narrow grounds.

What about the law in Alberta? Watch for Part 3.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

This 2010 case is a good reminder that courts will give effect to arbitration clauses if that’s what the parties have chosen in their license agreements.

• In PRM Energy Sys., Inc. v. Primenergy, LLC, 592 F.3d 830 (8th Cir. 2010) , the United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit decided to uphold an arbitration clause in a patent license agreement, which was drafted to cover “all disputes arising under” the agreement. A complex series of agreements and disputes led PRM to sue Kobe Steel, a non-party or “non-signatory” to the original license agreement that contained the arbitration clause. However, Kobe Steel convined the court that the arbitration clause should be enforced. The court decided that PRM’s claims were so intertwined with patent license that contained the arbitration clause that it would be unfair to allow PRM to rely on the license agreement in making its claims, but to avoid the arbitration clause of that same agreement.

In Canada, courts have also shown that they are prepared to uphold arbitration clauses. Consider this case:

• The case of University of Toronto v. John N. Harbinson Ltd. 2005 CanLII 47089 (ON SC), dealt with a broad arbitration clause that said: “Any dispute, controversy or claim arising from this Agreement or its breach, termination or alleged invalidity shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Arbitrations Act of Ontario, as amended.” In this case, the court decided that the arbitration clause should be upheld, particularly since no Patent Act claims or remedies were being sought.

Related reading: See Did You Say Arbitration in Kazakhstan?, reviewing a case where arbitration was triggered by one of the parties, and the Alberta Court decided that the breach of contract questions fell within the scope of the arbitration under the law of Kazakhstan.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

In the copyright and patent infringement lawsuit between Oracle and Google (we posted on the copyright aspects here: Copyright Protection for APIs and SDKs and APIs: Do they have copyright protection?), a decision was reached last week by the jury on the patent side of the claim. The jury has determined that Google did not infringe the two patents that Oracle held for its Java system. This leaves the Oracle case in tatters, with no real prospect of meaningful damages, even in light of an earlier finding that Google infringed Oracle’s copyright in the Java APIs. The copyright side of the claim is still muddled – the judge has not yet decided the issue of whether APIs can be the subject of copyright protection, and the jury failed to agree on whether Google had a “fair use” defence to the copyright infringement that did take place… assuming that APIs can enjoy copyright that is capable of being infringed.

Still with me? We might expect some clarity on the copyright issue if the judge issues a determination on copyrightability. What’s more likely is that the patent decision is appealed and the copyright decision is sent back down for a retrial, leaving the entire issue unresolved.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

.

Join the Field Law IP & Technology Group for a breakfast seminar on June 6, 2012, in Nisku, Alberta, on the following subjects:

• patents for oilfield service companies;
• intellectual property issues;
• non-disclosure and confidential information in the oil patch;
• copyright and trade-marks, brand protection.

Registration details: RSVP to rsvpEdmonton@fieldlaw.com or (403) 260-8502.

Calgary – 10:30 MDT

 

My article on “Intellectual Property Issues in Corporate-Commercial Transactions” is published in the Field Law newsletter The Medium.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) released its decision in Weatherford Canada Ltd. v. Corlac Inc.  (2011 FCA 228) in 2011 on the subject of “good faith” prosecution. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada has been refused. See Neil Kathol’s article on the FCA decision.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT   

 

The term “patent exhaustion” does not refer to the feeling you get when an IP lawyer talks for 3 hours about invalidity for lack of obviousness. No, this is the patent law concept that the first authorized, unrestricted sale of a patented item ends, or “exhausts,” the patent-holder’s right to ongoing control of that item, leaving the buyer free to use or resell the patented item without restriction. For example, if you buy a patented mouse-trap from the patent owner, you can resell that mouse-trap to your neighbour without fear of infringing the patent. 

This concept was recently tested in the case of Monsanto Co. v. Vernon Hugh Bowman (PDF) No. 10-1068 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 21, 2011) related to Monsanto’s patented “Roundup Ready” seeds. A farmer planted a first crop from Monsanto seeds, under license, and he did not save any of those seeds for replanting, in accordance with the license. The farmer then bought “commodity seeds” from a local grain elevator. These seeds are a mixture of regular seeds and seeds from “Roundup Ready” plants. Not that you can tell by looking at them. I don’t believe Monsanto has developed a method of displaying the Roundup patent numbers on the seeds themselves. He planted a second crop from these “commodity seeds”. He then saved some of the seeds from this second crop grown from the “commodity seeds”.

Monsanto sued, claiming the second crop and the saved seeds infringed on its patent, because its patented technology existed somewhere in that crop. The farmer defended by claiming the defence of “patent exhaustion” – that any patent rights in the second crop of seeds were exhausted, and further use or sale of those seeds would not infringe Monsanto’s patent. The Court rejected this defence, reasoning that by planting the commodity seeds containing the “Roundup Ready” patented technology, he created an infringing article (i.e. the plant grown from the next generation of seeds).  This replication of the patented article constituted an infringement, which was not excused by the “patent exhaustion” doctrine.  This is because there was no unrestricted sale, since the use of the seeds by the farmer was conditioned upon obtaining a license from Monsanto. The court did not review the question of whether someone else (someone who is not subject to Monsanto’s license agreement) would benefit from the “patent exhaustion” doctrine if they grew and collected “commodity seeds”.

Related Reading: Patent Exhaustion Does Not Bar Claims Against Later Generations of Self-Replicating Technology LES Article.  

Related Reading: Intellectual Property & Agriculture: Obvious Inventions

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

Join us on March 1, 2012, (see our Events page) for the upcoming meeting of the Licensing Executives Society (LES) on The Alberta Innovation System. Technology commercialization has its challenges. However, resources and funding programs are available to support technology development for small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in Alberta. Within Alberta, the “innovation system” has undergone reorganization over the past 2 years. In Calgary, Calgary Technologies Inc., (CTI), and University Technologies International, (UTI) have amalgamated to form Innovate Calgary. Across the province, Alberta Ingenuity, Alberta Research Council, iCORE and nanoAlberta have merged into Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures (AITF).

How does this impact licensing professionals, counsel, advisors, SMEs and entrepreneurs? What do you need to know about commercialization support within Alberta? Attend the LES Alberta Innovation System luncheon with our panel: Darren Massey Senior VP, Innovate Calgary, David Reese, Vice President, Licensing, Innovate Calgary and Scott Bass, Alberta Innovates – Technology Futures.  

Calgary 07:00 MST   

 

Simple inventions can transform our lives. Consider this: Can we use light bulbs to transmit data wirelessly?

On TEDTalks, an inventor shows how light from a standard LED bulb can transmit data to a mobile device, in effect acting like a wireless router. When you think about it, the invention is not that revolutionary, since WiFi transmissions use standard radio frequencies, which are simply a different set of frequencies than visible light, both of which are part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. This patent  (OPTICAL FREE SPACE DATA TRANSMISSION US 2011/0069958, by the same inventor, Harald Haas) discloses the use of infrared light (another frequency along the same spectrum) for wireless data transmission in an airplane, describing an invention that would enable safe inflight wireless internet. Somebody tell Alec Balwin to invest.

The use of visible light for data transmission is not new. The first use (also claimed to be the first wireless transmission) was sent by (Canadian inventor) Alexander Graham Bell in Washington D.C. in the year 1880. His patented system was called the Photophone.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 Two of my favourite topics: intellectual property and Lego. The Danish toy-maker has been trying to protect its iconic toy bricks since they were developed in the 1930s and ’40s. Trade-mark law protects the brand (LEGO), and trade-marks can live on and on, as long as the owner (a) uses the mark, and (b) continues to renew the trade-mark registration. The LEGO trade-mark was registered in Canada in 1957 and that registration is still valid.  Last week, Lego’s arch-rival, the Canadian-based toy-maker of Mega Bloks filed and then abruptly withdrew a lawsuit in the US, after threats that Mega Bloks products would be barred from entry into the United States, based on infringement of Lego’s US trade-marks. This reflects the sparring between these two competitors for market share in the building-toy industry.

In Canada, the decision in Kirkbi AG v. Ritvik Holdings Inc., 2005 SCC 65 (CanLII), settled a long-standing feud between Lego and Mega Bloks.  In that case, the court decided that the Lego building blocks themselves are not protectable as trade-marks in Canada, on the grounds that the shape of the blocks is purely functional in nature. This does not apply to the LEGO word, or the various other trade-marks that Lego owns. Lego has suffered similar set-backs in other countries – for example, a 2010 decision in the EU came to the same conclusion that functional elements of a trade-mark are not protectable. So what’s a toy-maker to do?

• Patents – utility patents in Canada will protect the function of the invention, in this case, the improved mechanism of how the plastic bricks snap together. However, patents expire after 20 years. Lego’s patents have all expired.
• Industrial Design –  this category of protection (in the US, known as “design patents”) will protect the visual features of a product (shape, configuration, pattern or ornament). Functional elements cannot be protected. Industrial design protection expires after 10 years. Lego has registered dozens of industrial designs to protect a variety of building bricks and parts.
• Copyright – some products are protectable under copyright law, though toy bricks don’t lend themselves well to this category, which is designed to protect written works, music, images, photos, paintings, that sort of thing. Copyright lasts for 50 years after the death of the author.
• Trade-marks – the LEGO brand is arguably the toy-maker’s strongest asset, and trade-marks, once registered, are renewable indefinitely. Trade-marks protect things such as the word LEGO, the associated logo, and various product lines and slogans, such as DUPLO and BIONICLE.
• Distinguishing Guise – A distinguishing guise is a type of trade-mark that protects a very specific type of “brand”. It applies to the shape of the products or the packaging, such as the shape of a Coca-Cola bottle. Since this is a species of trade-mark, the protection is renewable indefinitely once it’s registered. However, utilitarian features cannot be protected.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

Today we begin a 5-part series on intellectual property that is at the edge in one way or another – either a novel technology, or a familiar “asset” that is being protected in new ways, through patent law, copyright or trade-marks. We start with gestures.

Characters in movies such as Avatar, Minority Report, Ironman and The Matrix all used hand gestures to manipulate computers. Not all that futuristic anymore, at least not for anyone who has used a Wii or Kinect to play games.

Apple and Microsoft are among the innovators who are rushing to the patent office to protect the use of hand gestures in conjunction with computer hardware devices and software to perform certain functions such as, in the case of Apple’s patent application (PDF), for real-time video processing. Microsoft’s application covers the use of hand gestures to “draw” three-dimensional objects on a computer. Before you get worried that Bill Gates can stop you from gesturing your hands in the air, there are a few points to make: these applications first have to pass through the patent office, to verify their patentability. Second, a patent would only protect an invention which uses gestures in conjunction with specific software and hardware to perform the functions covered in the patent’s claims.

If issued, these patents could provide valuable ammunition in future patent battles involving the use of gestures in conjunction with mobile devices.

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

In September, 1998, Amazon applied to patent its 1-click check-out, an invention officially entitled “Method and System For Placing A Purchase Order Via A Communication Network” (Canadian Patent Application No. 2,246,933). In Canada, the patent office refused to grant the patent because it didn’t consider the invention to be patentable under the Canadian Patent Act. Amazon appealed that refusal and in 2010 the Federal Court reversed the patent office’s decision and effectively ordered the patent to be issued. The patent office still refused to grant the patent, and appealed the case up to the Federal Court of Appeal. In a decision in November 2011, the Federal Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Attorney General of Canada et al v Amazon.com, Inc., 2011 FCA 328. The appeal court has confirmed that business methods are patentable in Canada and there is no basis under Canadian law for excluding business methods from patentability in Canada.

Related Reading:

CIPO’s Software & Business Method Patent Guidelines

Business Method Patents in Canada

Calgary – 07:00 MST

 

 

 You’re in good company. Even the late Steve Jobs had his complaints about this. In a biography of the Apple founder, Mr. Jobs complains that Android was “grand theft”, and he vowed to fight back. Is Android a rip-off of the iPhone? It certainly followed Apple.  The iPhone was launched in 2007, Android was launched in October, 2008. Apple introduced its App Store in July, 2008. Android Market came out a few months later. Even though it entered the marketplace later, by 2010, Android captured 44% of all mobile app downloads in Q2 2011, passing Apple’s 31% stake (see CNET report) The numbers are hard to crunch (remember, iOS is on multiple hardware devices made by one manufacturer, and Android sits on over 40 smartphones made by six manufacturers), and Apple’s system comes out on top by some measures, but by August 2011, some estimates put Android at a leading 48% of the smartphone market share.

So there is no doubt that Android has stormed from behind as a credible alternative to Apple’s ecosystem, but does that make it a “stolen idea”? Not from the perspective of intellectual property law, since there is no protection in the overall idea of a mobile platform that can run third-party apps. The real question is whether Google copied iOS code (there’s been no suggestion of that), used Apple’s trade-marks (nope), or infringed any of Apple’s patents (see this story for one of the many Apple vs. Android patent fights). 

In any event, there is a fine line between infringement and inspiration. Legend has it that Mr. Jobs was “inspired” by the mouse he originally saw at a Xerox research facility. Neither did Mr. Jobs invent the MP3 player or the idea of a mobile device running third-party apps. My Palm Treo was doing that years before the iPhone was launched.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

The Globe and Mail carries an interesting article penned by John Manley on intellectual property protection for software and IT companies and the trouble with patent trolls: Intellectual property: A new kind of arms race, with patents as ammo.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT 

On October 27, 2011 the Calgary Chapter of the Licensing Executives Society will be meeting on the topic of: Finding and Analyzing Royalty Rates: A Practical Guide, with David Jarczyk of ktMINE, including a review of the “25% Rule” in technology and patent licensing. For details and registration, please see the linked invitation. Calgary – 07:00 MDT

To follow on our earlier post (US Patent Update), the America Invents Act (the US patent reform bill) has passed and was signed into law by President Obama on September 16th. Among the changes:

• Adopting a “first to file” system (from the previous “first to invent” system), which bring U.S. patent law into line with many international patent laws; a one-year grace period is built into the legislation to allow for the transition;
• Changing some aspects of the test for patentability and the assessment of prior art;
• The rules regarding confidential sales have been amended – such sales prior to filing of a patent application will not be considered a bar to patentability.

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

In a new series, we review the basics of Canadian trade-mark, copyright and patent law.

• Canadian Patents: Patents protect inventions, such as a process, machine, manufactured article, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement to an existing invention. Patents provide the patent owner with the right to exclude others from making, selling, or using the patented invention for a period of 20 years from the date of filing. In exchange, the patent owner must fully disclose the invention. To be patentable, the invention must be new (in other words, be the first in the world); it must be useful (functional and operative); and it must be non-obvious (in other words, it shows “inventive ingenuity” and is not obvious to someone skilled in that area).  Abstract ideas, a mathematical formula or algorithm, or scientific principles are not patentable.
• Best Practices:
• Non-Dislosure: Any public disclosure of the invention prior to filing can result in loss of patentability. Canada has a 12 month grace period, permitting the filing of a Canadian patent application within one year of disclosure, but this grace period is not available in most countries.
• Patent Searching:  A patentability search is recommended before the patent application is prepared. The search and opinion will confirm the patentability of the invention, and can provide insight to a patent agent on how to craft the patent application.
• Provisional Patent: In the US, inventors can file what is known as a “provisional patent application”, and while there is no exact equivalent in Canada, it is possible in Canada to file a simplified form of a patent application, which is often used as a way to quickly secure a filing date. Some inventors fall into the trap of thinking “I’ve got a provisional patent” since an application of this type has been filed. But a provisional will never be examined and will never issue as a patent. Think of this as an incomplete application, since that’s what it is. The provisional or incomplete application must be followed up with a complete application within 12 months in the US, and within 15 months in Canada, after which the patent rights will be lost.  
• Use a registered patent agent: Even the Canadian Intellectual Property Office warns of unauthorized and incompetent advisors who are not qualified to prosecute patent applications before the patent office. 
• Patents Outside Canada:  Patent rights are granted country-by-country, so an issued patent in Canada is not enforceable in the United States, for example, without obtaining patent rights in that country.  A patent application must be filed in each country. Canadian inventors can apply for foreign patents from within Canada through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), which provides a standardized international filing system. Through the PCT, a Canadian company can access the application process for 142 PCT member countries.
• Design Patent: See Industrial Design.

For more information and assistance with your patent and intellectual property needs, visit Field’s Intellectual Property & Technology Group. 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT

 

Are you a Canadian app-developer? One of the most common concerns I hear from my app-developer clients is this: how do you comply with laws around the world when your app is published on the App Store? Not an easy question to answer as these stories show. Here are a few updates from the wonderful world of app-related disputes and litigation:

• This story notes the importance of reviewing app-related privacy issues: a recent US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement with app-developer W3 Innovations shows that the FTC will be scrutinizing the mobile app market for privacy violations, particularly violation of children’s privacy.  In the US, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is specific privacy legislation that does not have an equivalent in Canada.
• The Lodsys patent infringement attack against iOS app developers has expanded to target Android developers and (reportedly at least one) BlackBerry app developer (updates here), as well as established game developers, including EA and Atari. Apple has sought to intervene in the case, to argue that their license agreement with Lodsys should shield iOS developers from patent infringement. Google may feel compelled to go to bat for Android developers. Which means Lodsys is locking horns with Apple, Google, RIM and EA.  

Related Reading: When an iPhone App Infringes a Patent 

Calgary – 07:00 MDT