Intellectual property is only becoming a more relevant field as the digital age surges. Major corporations are doing their best to stay current and keep their products up to date with customers fast changing needs and wants. This sometimes causes issues with copyright, like the suit with Samsung and Apple and some of these other fascinating cases in the industry right now.
Also on the blog this week:
denied another bite of the Apple
The Federal Circuit on Thursday denied
Samsung’s petition for an en banc rehearing of the
case it decided in May. Samsung wanted a rehearing of the part
of the verdict related to Apple’s design patents,
which accounts for about $400 million of the $548 million in
damages Samsung must still pay Apple from their first trial,
according to the San Jose Mercury News.
Samsung argued that the court was wrong to allow damages to
be based on its whole profit rather than a part of it.
The Federal Circuit still has to rule on a second trial that
involves Apple’s patents.
According to Bloomberg there are two appeals in that case,
one involving the underlying liability finding and one
involving the issue of whether Apple is entitled to an order
blocking sales of some Samsung products.
The IP angle to
The technology media went into meltdown this week with
Google’s formation of a holding company called
Its choice of domain for the new company’s
website – abc.xyz
– attracted attention.
According to The Domains, the new gTLD .xyz saw nearly
20,000 domain names registered in the two days after the
announcement. The gTLD had been getting about 3,000 new
registrants a day up to then.
It also turns out that many other companies had thought of
the name Alphabet before Google did.
According to Business Insider, BMW is looking into whether
Google infringed any trade mark rights. BMW’s
Alphabet provides services to companies with vehicle
Business Insider quoted a BMW spokeswoman as saying: “”We
are examining whether there are any implications over trade
Some 103 trade mark registration in the US include the word
The lady is not for
A judge has ruled against Pom Wonderful for a second time,
reports The Packer. Judge Margaret Morrow of the Central
District of California denied the drink maker’s
request for an injunction against Pur Beverages on August 6, a
repeat of her ruling in January 2014.
The Ninth Circuit of Appeals had sent the case back for
rehearing, saying that Morrow had abused her discretion when
she concluded Pom did not deserve a preliminary injunction.
Circuit Judge David Ebel said at the time: “The district
court’s likelihood-of-confusion finding leaves us
with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been
The Packer also reports that the owner of Pur Beverages,
Robert Hubbard, is pursuing a trade mark cancellation against
Pom, claiming it has abandoned the Pom trade mark because it
has replaced the letter “O” with a heart.
UK police claim anti-piracy win
The City of London Police’s Intellectual
Property Crime Unit (Pipcu) says it has “almost entirely”
stopped UK campaigns by the car, food and drink, and property
industries being placed on illegal web pages, reports the
Operation Creative was launched by Pipcu in 2013. The scheme
involves a blacklist that is shared with advertisement brokers
whose software determines the placement of ads.
Pipcu said there has been a 73% drop in advertising from the
top ad spending companies’ on the affected
However, one specialist interviewed by the BBC said the
strategy “does not tackle the underlying problem”. The
specialist said: “[I]f a few [advertising] sectors do indeed
pull out, others will automatically take their place, and the
effect on the website’s income may be negligible.”
Uber case driven back to
A trade secrets case against ride sharing service Uber has
been remanded back to San Francisco Superior Court by the
Northern District of California,
according to Orrick’s NorCal IP Blog.
The action was brought by Kevin Halpern and Celluride
Wireless earlier this year, claiming Uber stole its mobile
ride-sharing technology and asserting claims for trade secret
misappropriation, breach of contract conversion and declaratory
Uber had scored a victory when a judge agreed with
Uber’s argument that the plaintiffs claim for
conversion was essentially a claim for copying falling under
the Copyright Act.
“Uber’s victory was ultimately short lived,
though,” Orrick explained. “In their reply brief, the
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their conversion claim if Judge
White found pre-emption. Judge White obliged, and dismissed the
Plaintiffs’ conversion claim with prejudice
– and with it, Judge White also dismissed the sole
basis for federal jurisdiction. Finding there was no remaining
basis to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
plaintiffs’ remaining claims, Judge White then
remanded the action (including the plaintiffs’
remaining state law claims) back to San Francisco Superior
In our news this week: