Court Accepts the Pepsi Challenge

November 10, 2009

After granting enormous damages against Pepsico for breach of contract regarding trade secret of selling bottled water in an undefended court case, Pepsico successfully appealed the summary judgement and the case will be heard on its merits (if there are any).

For original posting see:

http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2009/11/03/1-26-billion-awarded-against-pepsico-for-not-defending-trade-secret-case-regarding-bottled-water/


Teva Sued by Takeda for Generic Version of Rozerem Sleeping Pill

November 7, 2009

Japanese Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Asia’s biggest drug maker, has sued Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., alleging infringement of  US 6,034,239. for the insomnia treatment Rozerem.

Takeda,are suing for unspecified damages and a court injunction against infringing sales by Teva in a complaint filed today on Friday 6th November 2009 in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware.

Takeda alleges that Teva infringed the patent by seeking approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to sell copies of the sleeping pills, The patent may be renewed until 2017.

Teva apparently contends the validity of the Takeda patent because the claimed invention is obvious.

The case is: Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 09CV841, U.S. District Court, District of Delaware (Wilmington).


Teva fails to invalidate Vigamox

October 26, 2009

U.S. District Judge Sue L. Robinson (Delaware) ruled last week that Israel’s Teva Pharmaceuticals infringed the patents for Vigamox and failed to prove the patents invalid. Vigamox is used to treat eye infections and is made by Nestle’s Alcon unit. Teva challenged the validity of the patent in 2006. If it had been successful, Teva would have been able to launch its own competing product in 2014, six years before the expiration of the Vigamox patent.


Medicines Company Sues Teva Over Angiomax

October 12, 2009

The Medicines Company have filed a patent suit against Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd to attempt to protect their anti-clotting drug, Angiomax.

Angiomax (bivalirudin) is an anticoagulant that is used to lessen bleeding during heart procedures and may be injected during percutaneous coronary intervention, for example, to prevent clotting during angioplasty procedures.

Teva, the world’s largest generic drugmaker, could launch an Angiomax generic as early as this month. Angiomax’s patent will expire in March 2010. Medicines Co would have obtained a four year extension had they not missed the deadline to file for extended patent exclusivity by merely a day.

In addition to suing  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”suing “>Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc, the Medicines Company are also suing Pliva Hrvatska d.o.o. , APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and related entities in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement based on the Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking US Food and Drug Administration approval to market and sell generic versions of The Medicines Company’s Angiomax product prior to the expiry of US Patent No. 7,582,727.


Lukes Oil Convenience Stores Sued by Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America

October 10, 2009

The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Hammond after a regional gas station called Luke’s Oil Co. failed to remove the trademark OU Kashruth symbol from its logo.

The OU symbol indicates that food is kosher and supervised as such by the  Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.

Having registered the symbol as a trademark, the Rabbinic Authority are relying on trademark infringement as a quick and efficient way to have the false certification removed.

For more details, see: http://www.wbbm780.com/Orthodox-Jews–Labels-not-kosher-at-Luke-Oil/5409602


European Commission Takes US to Task in Special Report

July 28, 2009

Possibly in retaliating to the United States’ infamous annual US Special 301 Report, the European Commission has released a report finding fault with a number of American IP practices.

In the report: United States Barriers To Trade And Investment For 2008[pdf] Europe calls the pot black and charges the US with having failed to bring its Copyright Act into compliance with World Trade Organization rules on IP since radio music can be played in pubs and clubs without paying royalties (the Irish music case). According to the report, European producers and performers “do not enjoy broadcasting rights granted to the US” as a result.

Another “particularly problematic” issue is geographical regional names, with a number of European wine names being considered “semi-generic” by the US.

Another issue of concern is the US IP boycott of Cuba, where, to pressurize the Cuban government, the trademark for Havana Club rum is considered unenforceable, contrary to the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights,TRIPS.

According to the report, the US government frequently fails to comply with Article 31 of TRIPS which requires governments that use patents to promptly inform the patent right holders when governments use patented technology.

On recognising the first to file a patent application (like the rest of the world) rather than first to invent, the US discussion of patent reform is “going in a good direction,” the EU said.

Another cause for concern is US provisions on plant varieties in the Plant Patent Act which “seriously impede trade in breeding material for ornamental plants.”

For good measure, software patentability and the first to invent as a pose to first to file were also examined.


Single Mother ordered to pay $1.92 Million for illegally downloading 24 songs

June 22, 2009

Capitol Records sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset for illegally downloading 24 songs from the file sharing program Kazaa. A federal court jury has found her guilty and liable for $1.92 million in damages, or $80,000 per song. since under the Copyright Act she could have been forced to pay up to $150,000 per song, despite being bankrupted, Ms. Thomas-Rasset could consider herself lucky. The Recording Industry Association of America’s has either sued or threatened to sue more than 30,000 others that have been caught downloading music or file sharing. The other alleged criminals chose to settle out of court, with the downloaders forking out average settlements of $3,500. This is the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. In September 2008 the first trial was declared a mistrial when it was determined that the judge had misdirected the jury. In that ruling, Thomas-Rasset was ordered by pay only $222,000 – still more than $6,000 per song. the French Premier tried to legislate a three strikes and you are banned from using the Internet Law, but was over-ruled by the courts. Apparently French style basic human rights now include liberty, equality, freedom and Internet access. We wonder if there will be a US Pirate’s Party? Since a second rate actor became president and a body builder governor of a State, it is not impossible. I consider this ruling a little disproportionate to damage done, but I suppose that is the point of punitive damages.


Teva wins chemotherapy drug patent ruling

June 21, 2009

A US court in New Jersey has ruled in favor of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. in a chemotherapy drug patent case.

Teva has announced that the US District Court for the District of New Jersey has granted summary judgment in Teva’s favour, ruling that its chemotherapy drug does non-infringe Eloxatin patents held by Sanofi-Aventis. Teva expects that its new chemotherapy medication drug application will receive final approval shortly.


Hassidic Woody Allan Earns $5 Million in Copyright Infringement

May 20, 2009

Woody Allen the actor and film director settled out of court with clothing magnate Dov Charney of American Apparel for a wacking $5 million dollar settlement ofor damages resulting from illegal use of Allen’s picture in a bill-board campaign.

The settlement spares both men the public humiliation of a trial that was expected to last up to a month.

Allen objected to the use of his picture in the Los Angeles-based company’s billboards, which showed him dressed in Hasidic Jewish clothing above the American Apparel logo and the words “the holy rebbe” in Yiddish, and initially demanded $10m in damages for use of his image. Apparently, he has a policy not to endorse commercial interests.

 

Charney protested in his defence that the billboards had only been up for a week in a few streets of New York and Los Angeles.  

I find the case interesting for a number of reasons. As Woody Allen is the director and actor of Annie Hall, the movie from where the image was taken, he can legitimately claim copyright infringement. His face is being used to promote business without his permission. On the other hand, this image is a single still from a full length feature film. It is a reuse of copyright material for a totally different purpose and does not damage Allen’s chances of further enrichment for the film. Indeed, can only provide free advertising. Clearly there was damage, but $10 Million worth? even as a punishment, this is out of all proportion. I am not sure that 30 years on, the entire film is worth that much!

In  Israel, one can receive about $12,500 as punitive damages for infringements without showing damage, and in some cases, perhaps double that. I know that the US system is different, but I still can’t see any sort of basis for this amount of damage. The character is clearly hassidic, but with the hat and beard, it is only recogniseable as Allen because of the glasses. 

An interesting defence offered was that the images were designed to promote dialog and not to promote trade with a similarity between  Charney and Allen’s sex scandal histories. If the campaign was not commercial, one wonders why was American Apparel’s logo was featured? I don’t know what American Apparel’s clothing line looks like, but I doubt it is as Hassidic as the clothing in the image.

The specific scene of the film shows Allen as Alvy Singer at a dinner hosted by Annie Hall’s non-Jewish family. He feels so out of place that he imagines himself as a Hassidic Jew. Charney claimed that the personification of discomfort was a metaphor for what he went through with sexual harassment lawsuits. Woody Allen went through a very public divorce scandal with Mia Farrow after he began an affair with Soon-Yi Previn, her adopted daughter, who he has since married.

Charney disassociated himself from the deal to settle, which he claimed was reached by American Apparel’s insurers. Whilst being sympathetic to Allen’s comments that this was how he makes a living nowadays, I would have liked to see the two parties coming up with a donation to a Hassidic charity, perhaps one dealing with sexual abuse within the community. I suspect the Hassidic courts would prefer not to be associated with either Charnley or with Woody Allen.


Camtek Intends to Oppose Jury Verdict in Rudolph Patent Infringement Case

March 22, 2009

Rudolph Technologies, Inc. has won a jury verdictinn their patent infringement case against Camtek Ltd., pending in the U.S. Federal District Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The verdict awarded damages of approximately $6.8 million in favor of Rudolph with regard to sales of Camtek’s Falcon products in the United States.
The alleged infringement refers to a U.S. patent only, and, thus any judgment or injunction, will have effect only in the United States. Meanwhile Camtek represented by Adv. Adi Levit and Orbotech represented by Adv. David Gilat are still slugging it out in Israel.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers