July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

As Apple gears up for yet another major patent infringement trial against Samsung, it has added the latest and greatest Galaxy smartphone to its list of 22 allegedly infringing Samsung products.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Apple has won the lawsuit that Google division Motorola brought against it in summer 2012. The lawsuit, if successful, could have resulted in an import ban of iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touches.

BREAKING: Apple wins case brought by Google’s Motorola over phone sensors; Google’s bid to block imports blocked

— Bloomberg News (@BloombergNews) April 22, 2013

Motorola filed suit against Apple with the International Trade Commission in August of 2012, alleging that Apple infringed seven of its patents, including location reminders, e-mail notification, phone/video players, and Siri voice recognition. Google took ownership of the company in May of 2012, and Motorola’s stockpile of more than 17,000 patents was likely one of the key reasons the Android mobile operating system creator bought the company.

Apple has successfully reached patent licensing agreements with Android manufacturers such as HTC, as has Microsoft, but Google has not been able to use its Motorola patent arsenal to force a similar agreement with Apple — or at least not publicly.

Apple did offer $1 per device to settle case, reportedly.

In a instant of shocking legal clarity, the judge in the Apple/Moto case said earlier this month that Apple and Google apparently had no interest in actually resolving this case, but were using the legal system and their various Android/iOS lawsuits as ”a business strategy that appears to have no end.”

Interestingly, it’s been less than a month since Google issued a unilateral declaration of peace on certain patents that it has placed in a pool for use by software developers working on open source software. The patents that formed the basis of this complaint against Apple, naturally, did not make the cut.

This case may yet be appealed to United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Image credit: sfllaw/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Apple won’t get a permanent and full ban on the import of 26 different Samsung smartphones and tablets. And Samsung won’t get a new trial.

Justice Lucy Koh gave with her right hand and took with her left today — for both companies involved in the mammoth $1 billion patent infringement case Apple brought against Samsung.

Historically, products found to be infringing have been banned from importation. But, as Koh’s ruling cites, that changed in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled that the damaged party must show:

1. irreparable harm
2. that monetary damages are inadequate
3. that a full injunction would be equitable
4. and that the public interest would not be harmed

Koe agreed that Apple had suffered irreparable harm, but that the harm could not be tied specifically to the patented features that Samsung was found to have infringed, so “without a causal nexus, this Court cannot conclude that the irreparable harm supports entry of an injunction.”

In terms of monetary damages, Koh wrote that the “Court agrees that Apple has likely suffered, and will continue to suffer, the loss of some downstream sales,” but, probably noting the Apple-HTC licensing agreement, also noted that “Apple’s licensing activity suggests that Apple does not believe that these patents are priceless.”  And given that 23 of the 26 Samsung products mentioned in the injunction are no longer sold by Samsung, Koh did not feel that an injunction or lack thereof harmed either company in any major way.

The kicker seems to be the hard to public interest. As Koh writes:

It would not be equitable to deprive consumers of Samsung’s infringing phones when, as explained above, only limited features of the phones have been found to infringe any of Apple’s intellectual property. Though the phones do contain infringing features, they contain a far greater number of non-infringing features to which consumers would no longer have access if this Court were to issue an injunction. The public interest does not support removing phones from the market when the infringing components constitute such limited parts of complex, multi-featured products.

In the end, Justice Koh ruled that Apple’s lost sales could not be specifically tied to the exact features that Samsung infringed, and therefore an injunction was not warranted.

On the other side of the coin, Samsung had argued that a mistrial should be declared and a new trial ordered because one juror, the foreman, was involved in a lawsuit with Seagate, the hard drive company, 19 years before, and that because Samsung holds a nine percent ownership interest in Seagate, he would be biased against Samsung.

Justice Koh denied that application as well, saying that in jury selection, “Samsung’s counsel expressed no concerns about Mr. Hogan’s past employment at Seagate,” and, in fact, Samsung displayed a “lack of reasonable diligence in investigating Mr. Hogan’s relationship with Seagate.”

In addition, she stated, “it is not even clear that Mr. Hogan knew of any relationship between Seagate and Samsung,” and that if Samsung believed that its relationship with Seagate was close enough that bias against Seagate would equate to bias against Samsung, Samsung’s lawyers should have questioned the juror.

That means, presumably, that Samsung must pay the billion-dollar fine, but Apple will not be able to ban any Samsung products from importation in the the U.S.

Hopefully, that will be the end of it. But, somehow, I doubt it.

The full documents are embedded below:

2197

and

2198

Hat tip: Cult of Android. Photo credit: Trevor Manternach via photopin cc

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Months after a San Jose jury awarded Apple more than $1 billion in damages in its case against Samsung, the trial’s judge, Lucy Koh, is now aiming to settle the issues between the two companies.

“I think it’s time for global peace,” Judge Koh told Apple and Samsung’s lawyers at yesterday’s hearing, according to the AP. Specifically, she’s referring to a calming of the patent wars prevalent in the technology world over the past decade, and which the Apple v. Samsung case is a poster child.

While one analyst predicted that Apple would be the overall winner in yesterday’s hearing, it appears that Judge Koh isn’t leaning towards either company. Samsung is aiming to cut its massive fines in the trial and is calling for a new trial, while Apple is pushing to increase the fines and potentially ban the sales of certain Samsung phones. Koh didn’t seem to favor either of those outcomes.

Samsung’s $1.05 billion fee may end up being reduced as Judge Koh looks at the line items of the jury’s damage calculation. For example, the jurors noted Samsung owed Apple almost $58 million for using Apple’s “tap and zoom” feature in the Samsung Prevail smartphone, but Koh noted that figure was too high. Instead, Apple could end up collecting $8 million over that infringement.

This latest round of hearings won’t be the end of the Apple v. Samsung trial. It’s expected to hit the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., and it could potentially reach the Supreme Court, according to the AP.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Samsung is planning to ask a court that’s considering Apple’s request for a sales ban of Samsung’s Android smartphones and tablets to force Apple to reveal the deal it recently reached with HTC, according to a Reuters report.

Although terms of that deal have not been released, analysts believe that HTC is paying Apple between $6 and $8 per Android phone in exchange for Apple licensing its iPhone and iPad patents. At that rate, Apple stands to collect between $160 million to $200 million each year, based on HTC’s current shipping volumes.

An agreement with Samsung would be much more lucrative, perhaps $1.5 billion each year, but Samsung has made it fairly clear that it is more interested in fighting than in paying. Or at least, it appeared to do so.

This, however, is a sign that perhaps Samsung does have some interest in negotiating — but with its eyes open, knowing what HTC is already paying. Or it is simply a tactic to avoid a sales ban in the U.S., since courts are generally reluctant to solve infringement issues with a complete ban when a licensing agreement is at least in theory possible.

My guess is that much of the tech world is now hoping that Samsung is successful in its attempt, as the HTC agreement would reveal precisely how much Apple values its patents and doubtless other interesting and until-now private information about Apple, its business dealings, and its licensing strategy.

photo credit: Johan Larsson via photopin cc

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Federal Trade Commission staff are recommending the agency file a lawsuit against Google because of its efforts to block U.S. imports of iPhones and Windows Phones, according to Bloomberg.

Google subsidiary Motorola has been involved in two lawsuits against Apple at the ITC — International Trade Commission — over the past year, seeking import bans on competitors’ phones.

In the first, the ITC cleared Apple of infringement on three claims but found that one of Motorola’s patents related to a “sensor-controlled user interface” was possibly infringing. The second case alleged infringement of seven patents, including location reminders, email notifications, phone/video players, and Siri voice recognition.

Motorola had been asking for royalties of 2.25 percent on retail pricing, which would put almost $15 in Google’s pocket every time Apple sells an entry-level $649 iPhone 5.

Standard practice in the wireless industry, however, is to license essential patents at much lower cost, often referred to as FRAND: fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. The goal is that no one player can dominate the industry with exorbitant demands over a single patent.

Google and Motorola had dropped that patent lawsuit just last month, and at the time, it wasn’t clear why Google dropped the suit.

Seen in the light of today’s decision, it now seems possible that Google caught a hint of the FTC staff’s concerns and decided to get out of Dodge before getting into further trouble.

The threatened lawsuit, however, is just a recommendation from FTC staff and would need to be acted upon by federally-appointed FTC commissioners. That seems an unlikely option given that Google has withdrawn the complaint.

But it does give Apple plenty of ammo in its crusade to pay as little as possible to the creators of its greatest rival, the Android mobile operating system.

photo credit: loop_oh via photopin cc

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Today, Samsung won a reversal of the sales ban on the Galaxy Nexus phone imposed after Apple’s August court win. Also today, Apple won at least a stay of execution on the iPhone and iPad sales ban imposed after Samsung’s August legal victory.

The first case is in the U.S.; the second is in Korea.

It’s getting hard to tell these patent infringement cases apart. By some counts, which may not be completely comprehensive, 19 lawsuits were ongoing between Apple and Samsung in nine different countries on four continents — last year. This year, with appeals, refilings, and potential new frontiers in different countries, the count may go even higher.

But at least we have patent peace in Antarctica.

Google hasn’t been selling the Nexus for a few months now …

The Samsung Nexus ban stemmed from Apple’s billion-dollar win in August in which a jury found that Samsung willfully infringed on the Cupertino, Calif., company’s patents. But as Reuters reported, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the California court had “abused its discretion in entering an injunction.”

I suppose that means Google will be selling the Nexus again at some point.

The iPhone/iPad sales ban stemmed from Samsung’s whopping $35,000 win in a Korean court that ruled Apple had infringed two of the Korean company’s patents, while Samsung had violated one of Apple’s. The bigger punch in that court decision, of course, was the threatened import ban, which Apple has now, at least, delayed.

Interestingly, the Korean court had also banned Samsung’s Nexus and Galaxy Tab tablets in a probably healthy “pox on both houses” attitude that could stand a visit to courthouses Stateside.

Both bans, and both reversals, will almost certainly face tests in further legal battles. Samsung will likely appeal its billion-dollar loss, and Apple must respond to the Korean ban, which has just been stayed, not lifted.

The soap opera continues. …

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Four-star U.S. general Oliver P. Smith is credited with the statement: “We’re not retreating, we’re just advancing in a different direction.” He must have worked for Google in a different universe.

Google subsidiary Motorola has terminated its International Trade Commission complaint against Apple. That complaint was aimed at an import ban on basically all Apple devices due to alleged infringement of no fewer than seven patents, covering location reminders, media players, alerts and notifications, and yes, Siri-style voice recognition.

Now, however, Motorola has unilaterally and mysteriously withdrawn the complaint.

I checked with Google for an explanation, and received one almost immediately. What the response had in terms of speed, however, it lacked in detail. Google is stating only the following:

“As we have said many times before, we will continue to vigorously defend our partners.”

Googler with pink employee (no, not really)

Beyond that, everything is guesswork. Could this mean that there is some kind of deal being done between Google, Apple, and the major Android manufacturers that might lead to a lasting patent peace in mobile electronics?

Well, pink unicorns would be nice too.

That may be too much to ask for. But Google’s clearly saying here that it is “vigorously” defending Android licensees. If it’s not doing that in the ITC, it must be either doing that at the local court level … or, dare we hope, at the negotiation table.

There is one other option, of course.

The last time Apple, Android, and the ITC hooked up, HTC was the Google proxy victim, and the result was not pretty for the only significant non-iOS smartphone platform. HTC lost, and the trade commission judge found that its phones infringed two key Apple patents.

ITC battles are dangerous because they could lead to import bans and nearly immediate massive revenue losses. And Google/Motorola could be trying to avoid a tit-for-tat ITC action from Apple.

Or, perhaps Google has simply chosen another field of battle.

photo credit: portobeseno via photopin ccbandita via photopin cc

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

With the decisive legal butt-kicking that Apple handed smartphone rival Samsung, you’d think other companies would be in a mad rush to settle with the iPhone maker.

But not HTC. Chairwoman Cher Wang told reporters Tuesday that her company has no intention to settle its ongoing patent disputes with Apple. “Every company has good innovations,” she said.

Among those companies with innovation probably isn’t Samsung, which was found to have willfully infringed on six of Apple’s patents last week.

Wang’s comments are a bit of a turnaround from those of HTC chief financial officer Winston Yung, who last year said that HTC was open to patent talks with Apple. The comment came days after Apple won a patent suit over HTC and weeks before HTC turned around and sued Apple back.

But it’s Apple that has done the most damage. Earlier this year, HTC was hit with some high-profile problems over its One X and Evo 4G LTE phones, which were delayed by U.S. Customs over investigations into whether they infringed on Apple’s patents. HTC even blamed some of its second quarter losses on the import delay.

But despite the damage, HTC  does have ground to stand on. While Samsung copied seemingly every move from the Apple playbook, HTC has been a bit more sensible and hasn’t shown any of the overt patent infringement that’s been commonplace with Samsung. So Cher’s thinking is likely this: Why settle when we actually have a case to defend ourselves?

We reached out to HTC on the matter, and, predictably, it had little to say: “HTC has no comment at this time,” said a company spokesperson.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

It’s time for Samsung to retreat after an epic loss to Apple’s prosecutors. It will make way for an even bigger opponent, one who might actually give the iPhone maker a run for its billions: Google.

Last week, Samsung lost an epic patent battle with Apple and is now facing the prospect of paying over $1 billion in damages, along with having to pull eight of its devices from the U.S. market completely. (Appeals could change either outcome, of course, and mean that the battle won’t truly be finished for some time yet.)

Still, Samsung won’t be Apple’s biggest challenge. That role belongs to Google. It’s as if Apple has collected a big pile of gold coins but now must face Bowser.

“Android is about 60 percent of the market. Its biggest user was Samsung,” said intellectual property lawyer Bill C. Panagos of Butzel Long, in an interview with VentureBeat. “If injunctions come out that force the removal of all Samsung products … then I think you’ll see that Google will be associated — by consumers — with being the supplier to products that may not last in the market.”

In other words, Samsung’s loss might hurt Android’s reputation.

In a reaction to the verdict, Google released a statement saying the majority of the claims brought against Samsung are not directly related to the “core” of its Android operating system. Instead, the claims reference a skin, or modification, that Samsung used to compete with Apple.

The Apple patents included the bounce-back patent and operating-system technology that makes a rubber band-like motion when the users has scrolled to the bottom of a list. It also included a number of trade dress issues, nonfunctional design elements that brand a device.

Panagos believes that biggest winner here might not be Apple at all. It could instead by Microsoft, who has been waiting in the smartphone shadows of iOS and Android.

“If Samsung loses [an appeal] and if the market perceives [Android] to be associated with products that won’t be around, then you’ll see Microsoft come out of its third or fourth place…and actually become a real player,” he said.

Should Google lose favor with consumers, Microsoft has an opportunity to come in and push its mobile operating system to third-party manufacturers in the same way Google does, touting itself as a more reliable brand. It also puts the onus on Microsoft to make sure it pays for the license on anything externally created in its operating system.

In order to avoid ultimate defeat, Panagos suggests Google release the next version of its Android OS immediately, with “new and exciting” features that will keep Android uses entertained and loyal.

In terms of Google launching its own lawsuits against Apple, Panagos says we’re entering “mutual assured destruction.” In other words, there are thousands of patents out there. If one company sues, the other can turn around and sue it right back — until they realize it’s an endless battle, or until the world is reduced to a smoking wasteland, populated only by zombies and hungry-eyed patent lawyers.

This is true even for Samsung, he says. “It’s not over yet. They still have a bite at the Apple.”

Android image via Tsahi Levent-Levi/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Motorola, the phone company Google acquired this year, filed a patent infringement suit against Apple that effectively seeks to ban the import of the iPhone, the iPad and the iPod Touch to the U.S.

The paperwork was filed by Motorola with the International Trade Commission on Friday, but won’t be available for public viewing until it’s posted online tomorrow (Monday). The suit cites infringement of seven patents, including location reminders, e-mail notification, phone/video players, and even Siri voice recognition, according to Motorola.

While Motorola has in the past sued Apple for patent infringement, this is the first one filed since Google officially took ownership of Motorola in May.

It’s just the latest in a widening war of patent suits, and signals that Google is ready to get tough with its new patent portfolio in Motorola. Google could be trying to change the momentum in a battle that until now made Google’s Android look more vulnerable than Apple’s iOS platform. That’s because Google’s Android system was so young, it had little patent defense against other players. Indeed, Motorola’s 17,000 patents was the big reason Google chose to buy Motorola in the first place. Foss Patents has a good overview of Google’s strategic reasons for this.

Notably, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that none of the patents asserted by Motorola in this newest claim is a “standards-essential” patent, which could help Motorola’s case for the ban, if the court finds that infringement did happen. Patents considered standards-essential are ones that courts consider so basically necessary for a given industry that patent-holding companies are required to license them at a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory prices. However, if patents are not standards-essential, courts don’t require holding companies to license them.

However, from Motorola’s statement, it doesn’t appear that Motorola is refusing to license per se: “We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations,” Motorola Mobility said in an e-mailed statement to Bloomberg.

In a previous case with Motorola, Apple has argued that Motorola’s licensing fee demands  are unreasonable. In that case, the ITC ruled that Apple had infringed on one of the four patents asserted by Motorola. In that case, the ITC will make a final decision next week.

[Image credit: TotalMarketExposure.com]

U.S. District Court Judge David Cercone in Pittsburgh granted a summary judgment in Nintendo’s favor and ruled that there was no need for a jury trial. Copper Innovations Group had sued Nintendo, alleging that the Wii console and its controllers infringed on one of its patents, U.S. patent No. 5,640,152.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision,” said Richard Medway, Nintendo of America’s deputy general counsel. “Nintendo has a long history of developing innovative products while respecting the intellectual property rights of others. We also vigorously defend patent lawsuits when we firmly believe that we have not infringed another party’s patent, despite the risks that this policy entails.”

---

GamesBeat 2013 is our fifth annual conference on disruption in the video game market. You'll get 360-degree perspectives from top gaming executives, developers, and analysts on what’s to come in the industry. Our theme this year is “The Battle Royal.” Check out full event details here, and grab your early-bird tickets here!

---

The patent war between Yahoo and Facebook is over. The two companies not only settled the suit but extended the multiyear partnership between the two, including new deals for advertising.

The conflict began in March when Yahoo accused the social network of infringing on 10 of its patents. These included patents concerning displaying content, messaging users, controlling spam, and other topics. Facebook then returned with a countersuit Yahoo was actually infringing on 10 of Facebook’s patents. And Facebook went to the trouble of naming each offending Yahoo product, such as Yahoo’s home page, Flickr, and Yahoo Finance.

In June, Yahoo’s counsel requested an extension to respond to Facebook’s claims, saying that the extra days would help Yahoo and Facebook come to a settlement.

According to All Things D, today’s settlement includes a new advertising agreement, which will allow Yahoo to pull Facebook’s “like” data and display it on ads on Yahoo. Yahoo interim chief executive Ross Levinsohn and Facebook chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg facilitated the deal. Both companies have also agreed to license some of the offending technology to each other. Facebook explained in a press release that it will help Yahoo with “large media event coverage” by integrating it on the social network.

The two companies have been involved for a long time now, with a “multiyear contract” that allowed Yahoo to use Facebook as a way to distribute content from its site. Yahoo then supported Facebook’s “Social Bar” on its sites, which Facebook says 90 million people have used.

The lawsuit, which began under Yahoo’s former chief executive Scott Thompson, looked like a last-ditch effort on Yahoo’s part to get money. The company has had a number of pitfalls as it tries to stay afloat in a new media industry. The company recently began laying off 2,000 employees and had plans to restructure. But Thompson who was behind many of these plans, was ousted as CEO in May after he was found lying about a computer science degree on his resume.

via All Things D; Image via Mark Zuckerberg/Facebook

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

More bad news for Samsung. The company asked courts to delay a ban on sales of its Galaxy Nexus phone, but it was denied the extra time today.

According to All Things D, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh, who recently approved Apple’s request for an injunction against the smartphone, refused the delay and will instead wait for Apple to post a $95.6 million bond. The bond acts as a safety net for Samsung, should the courts rule in its favor, and will cover any losses sustained from being unable to sell the Galaxy Nexus.

Samsung made the appeal on Sunday after the ruling was issued, saying the judge had “legally insufficient evidence” that Apple would face its own losses should the sale of the Galaxy Nexus continue throughout the trial. Apple says that Samsung is infringing on its patents in the Galaxy Nexus and has already won an injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1, which Apple says is too similar to the iPad. In that case, Apple forked over a $2.6 million bond to cover the injunction.

“It’s no coincidence that Samsung’s latest products look a lot like the iPhone and iPad, from the shape of the hardware to the user interface and even the packaging,” Apple said in a statement at the time. “This kind of blatant copying is wrong and, as we’ve said many times before, we need to protect Apple’s intellectual property when companies steal our ideas.”

All Things D notes that Samsung and Google are said to have a software update in the works, which will take care of the infringing aspect of the Galaxy Nexus. All this in the hopes of getting the Nexus back on retailers’ shelves.

via All Things D; Galaxy Nexus photo via TAKA@P.P.R.S/Flickr

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

The much-anticipated Samsung Galaxy S III phone will soon be available from five carriers in the U.S. But if Apple has its way, that could abruptly change.

Apple has filed a motion in a California court that claims the Samsung Galaxy S III smartphone violates two of its patents and that it wants the device blocked from sale in the United States. The action was first spotted by analyst Florian Mueller at FOSS Patents.

Specifically, Apple has asked for the court to add the S III as another device targeted by Apple’s preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone. Apple claims Samsung is violating U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 and No. 5,946,647. The former cover “unified search,” while the latter covers “links for structures.”

Samsung has responded to Apple’s request by saying it would fight tooth-and-nail to make sure Apple does not succeed. The South Korean electronics giant will go forward with the Galaxy S III’s June 21 launch date.

“Samsung believes Apple’s request is without merit. We will vigorously oppose the request and demonstrate to the court that the Galaxy S III is innovative and distinctive,” a Samsung spokesperson said in a circulated statement to press. “We would also like to assure consumers that the U.S. launch and sales of the Galaxy S III will proceed as planned.”

Galaxy S III photo: Sean Ludwig/VentureBeat

Design is determining the winners in everything mobile. The most successful players are focusing on one thing: How to make products, services, and devices as compelling and delightful as possible – visually, and experientially. MobileBeat 2012, July 10-11 in San Francisco , is assembling the most elite minds to debate how UI/UX is transforming every aspect of the mobile economy, and where the opportunities lie. Register here.

Yahoo and Facebook are making progress in an attempt to resolve patent legal disputes, according to an AllThingsD report that cites sources familiar with the matter.

The battle between the two companies started back in March when Yahoo accused Facebook of infringing on 10 specific patents — many of which dealt with social communication functionality that’s crucial to Facebook. The suit — allegedly being driven by former Yahoo CEO Scott Thompson — came at a very unfortunate time for Facebook, which was preparing to make its public debut.

The social media giant countered weeks later with its own set of patents that it claimed Yahoo was infringing — although Yahoo refused to acknowledge them as valid.

With Thompson no longer at Yahoo, it seems that the executive team was far more willing to settle those patent disputes with Facebook. Terms of the settlement deal may contain cross-licensing patent agreements between the companies and deeper integration between Yahoo and Facebook products, according to the AllThingsD report.

We’re reaching out to both companies, and will update the post with any new info.

Update (4:02 p.m. PT): Facebook declined to comment about the developments.

Image via Preto Perola/Shutterstock

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Winning an argument against a “troll” is pretty much impossible within the confines of news article comment sections and social networks. However, when it comes to “patent trolls,” the situation can be quite different.

Yesterday, Google filed a formal complaint with the European Commission that accused Nokia and Microsoft of teaming up to increase smartphone device prices through the use of patent infringement legal disputes, reports the Wall Street Journal. Basically, the more Nokia and Microsoft can prove their patents are being infringed upon, the more money the two companies will make by competitors who submit blindly to licensing fees to avoid costly legal battles.

Google’s mobile operating system Android presents plenty of opportunities for companies like Nokia and Microsoft to cry “patent infringement.” And since Android represents a crucial piece of Google’s overall future business strategy, this is certainly a problem. Device manufacturers that use Android on their smartphones may have to pay fees to both Microsoft and Google — making Android much less attractive an option compared to, say, Windows Phone.

The reason Google filed the complaint had to do with Microsoft and Nokia funneling 1,200 patents into the care of intellectual property firm MOSAID. It’s worth explaining that the primary goal of every business is to make money, and MOSAID only makes money when legal battles spark up over patents it represents. This gives the IP firm an incentive to find companies that are potentially infringing on patents. A more crude description for this practice would be “patent trolling.”

What’s maddening about this practice is that it’s more or less acceptable, mostly because it’s rarely challenged on a large-scale basis.

So, Google’s best plan of attack is to stir up some attention to the issue of patent trolling and hope governing bodies like the European Commission hears them out. Google’s complaint also serves as sort of “troll bait” for Nokia and Microsoft, because if the companies respond, it draws more attention to the matter.

More attention to patent trolling means governing bodies are more likely to look at it critically. Got it?

Well, Nokia took the bait, responding to Google’s European Commission complaint with the following statement obtained by The Verge:

Though we have not yet seen the complaint, Google’s suggestion that Nokia and Microsoft are colluding on intellectual property rights is wrong. Both companies have their own intellectual property portfolios and strategies and operate independently.

Nokia has made regular patent divestments over the last five years. In each case, any commitments made for standards essential patents transfer to the acquirer and existing licenses for the patents continue. Had Google asked us, we would have been happy to confirm this, which could then have avoided them wasting the commission’s time and resources on such a frivolous complaint.

We agree with Google that Android devices have significant IP infringement issues, and would welcome constructive efforts to stop unauthorised use of Nokia intellectual property. Nokia has an active licensing program with more than 40 licensees. Companies who are not yet licensed under our standard essential patents should simply approach us and sign up for a license.

Nokia would like the public to believe that it’s far more concerned with “wasting the commission’s time and resources” than it is with Google’s accusations. But as I just explained, the mere fact that Nokia is responding means Google’s strategy is working. That doesn’t mean Google will necessarily win the favor of the European Commission, but it’s a good start.

Meanwhile, Google is also fighting accusations from Microsoft that its search engine is a monopoly that hinders competition from others (like Microsoft’s Bing). However, the EU’s antitrust chief seems more than willing to work with Google on the matter rather than take it to court.

I wonder if the same will be true with Nokia and Microsoft when it comes to their treatment of patents.

Image via AndroidUKnewsect

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

A judge has harshly penalized Samsung today, barring the company from using specific code in its defense against Apple’s infringement case.

Judge Paul S. Grewal, who has had recent issues with Samsung violating court orders, ordered Samsung to delivers bits of its source code to Apple in December, which Samsung instead decided to put off. Apple issued a complaint to the court, saying it wouldn’t be able to use the code now, and that Samsung was unnecessarily taking its time. Grewel released this order Friday, in response to Apple’s motion:

“In accordance with the foregoing, the court grants Apple’s Motion for Snactions, and finds that Samsung’s faiure to adequately produce source code to Apple violated the court’s December 22 Order. Samsung shall be precluded from offering any evidence of its design-around efforts for the ’381, ’891, and ’163 patents, and shall not argue that the design-arounds are in any way distinct from those versions of code produced in accordance with the court’s order. Samsung must instead rely solely on the version of code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011.”

The mentioned code included Samsung’s “design-around,” or change in code so as to not infringe on patents, called a “blue glow.” Blue glow was an effort to move away from Apple’s “over-scrolling rubber band effect” patent that the iOS creator says Samsung was willfully infringing upon. Apple users will recognize this “over-scrolling” as the bouncing of a page when you’ve pulled on it too far with the swipe of a finger.

This “blue glow” code could have corrected Samsung’s alleged patent infringement and would have helped Samsung defend itself saying the code had been altered and the infringement no longer existed. But now Samsung will have to rely on code dating earlier than December 31, 2011, when the “design-around” had not yet been released.

The issues for Samsung are greater, however. According to Foss Patents, the court now sees Samsung as a continued violator of discovery orders and will more than likely be harsher on the company in future trials. And looking back on Samsung’s history with patent disputes, there will certainly be more trials.

via Foss Patents; Little boy image via Shutterstock

Today, social networking giant Facebook found itself once again on the defensive. Litigious cross-town rival Yahoo has filed new claims against the soon-to-IPO company, asserting that Facebook’s patents are “tainted.”

“Today Yahoo! filed additional claims against Facebook in U.S. District Court in San Jose related to two additional patents on which Facebook infringes,” the company said in a statement emailed to VentureBeat. “Today’s filing underscores the breadth of Facebook’s violation of Yahoo!’s intellectual property. As we have stated previously, Yahoo!’s technologies are the foundation of our business that engages over 700 million monthly unique visitors and represent the spirit of innovation upon which Yahoo! is built. We intend to vigorously protect these technologies for our customers and shareholders.”

In the counter to Facebook’s counter, Yahoo asserts that Facebook’s patent claims are invalid, denies any acts of wrongdoing as set forth in the social network’s counterclaim. Yahoo also added two new claims of patent infringement to its suit.

The legal drama, as you surely know, all started when Yahoo filed suit against Facebook for 10 claims of patent infringement. Facebook fired back with its own counterclaims, all the while shopping around town to shore up its patent portfolio. Now, Yahoo is taking issue with how Facebook came about its newly acquired patents and is using the origin of those patents as an affirmative defense against Facebook’s claims of infringement.

“[Facebook's patents] are invalid, unenforceable, and/or void due to the failure to meet the requirements of the Unites States patent laws,” the media company’s legal counsel said in the new suit, which has the long-winded (and awesomely convoluted) title, “Plaintiff Yahoo! Inc.’s reply and counter counterclaims to defendant Facebook, Inc.’s answer; counterclaim against Facebook, Inc for declaratory judgment of non-infringement.”

“On information and belief, many, if not all, of these patents were acquired by Facebook for purposes of retaliation against Yahoo! in this case,” Yahoo also stated in the court document. “Facebook purchased and asserted patents tainted by inequitable conduct.”

Facebook, for its part, is non-plussed by Friday’s developments. “We remain perplexed by Yahoo’s erratic actions,” a Facebook spokesperson told VentureBeat. “We disagree with these latest claims and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously.”

We’ve embedded the full claim below for your perusal, but if you’d rather skip the legalese, here’s what Yahoo is asking for: that the court throws out Facebook’s counterclaims, finds Facebook to be infringing on Yahoo’s patents, and awards damages to Yahoo.

“This is an escalation to Facebook’s escalation. Nothing more, nothing less,” Moor Insights and Strategy president and principal analyst Patrick Moorhead told VentureBeat. “Yahoo’s lawyers see an exploit or weakness in the counterclaim and are throwing another log onto the legal fire. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Facebook retaliate with something in the next week.”

Your move, Facebook.

[via AllThingsD]

Photo credit: Shutterstock

Yahoo’s popular photo-sharing community Flickr has been called out as one of the primary properties infringing on Facebook patents in the social network’s counterclaim, which it filed Tuesday.

Facebook responded to a March patent suit brought against it by one-time-Valley-friend Yahoo with a counterclaim alleging violation of 10 patents. The social network claims that Yahoo’s homepage and content optimization engine infringe on Facebook patents. Yahoo News, Sports, Games, Finance, Autos, Movies, Shopping, and Travel properties also infringe on Facebook patents in the way they serve advertisements to visitors, Facebook argues.

Flickr, however, was given the star treatment, and fingered in particular for its violation of two patents (embedded below) around feed personalization and content tagging.

Patent 7,827,208, or the ’208 patent as its referred to in the suit, is the “Generating a Feed of Stories Personalized for Members of a Social Network.” Facebook argues that the Flickr Photostream, Recent Activity, and Groups Activity features all infringe on this particular patent.

On the tagging front, Facebook owns the patent for Tagging Digital Media (patent 7,945,653) and claims that Flickr’s People in Photos, a tagging feature similar to Facebook’s offering, infringes on its intellectual property.

In all instances, Facebook calls for a cease and desist verdict.

“Facebook has been irreparably harmed by Yahoo!’s infringement, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and such harm will continue unless Yahoo! is enjoined by this Court,” the social network said in the suit.

Angry finger pointing photo via Vlue/Shutterstock

Facebook amended its prospectus Tuesday to update would-be IPO investors on the status of two highly publicized legal matters.

The company also added comScore data from January showing a 57 percent increase from 2011 in the aggregate minutes per day that users spent on the social networking site. It also addressed challenges in determining mobile monthly active users, added more information to the voting agreement section, and better explained how it calculates fair value.

Of most significance, the social network, in amendment number three of its S-1 document, said that it intends to “vigorously defend” patent litigation from Yahoo, and that it has filed a motion to dismiss Paul Ceglia’s suit for 50 percent ownership of the company.

“On March 12, 2012, Yahoo filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that alleges that a number of our products infringe the claims of ten of Yahoo’s patents,” Facebook said in the new S-1. “We have not yet filed an answer or asserted any counterclaims with respect to this complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.”

Further down in the document, Facebook added that it cannot yet estimate financial damages to the company as a result of the suit. “If an unfavorable outcome were to occur in this litigation, the impact could be material to our business, financial condition, or results of operations,” the company explained.

Facebook also informed investors of the new developments in the Paul Ceglia case that first came to light yesterday.

“On March 26, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Ceglia’s complaint and a motion for judgment on the pleadings,” Facebook said in the amended S-1. “We continue to believe that Mr. Ceglia is attempting to perpetrate a fraud on the court and we intend to continue to defend the case vigorously.”

On a lighter note, Facebook also plucked information from a recent comScore report to show potential buyers and advertisers that its users are more hooked than ever. “Aggregate minutes per day increased 57 percent and average minutes per user per day increased 14 percent during January 2012 as compared to January 2011,” Facebook said in a blurb added to a section on its display advertising opportunity.

Proview Technology, a firm that used to be big in the monitor market, likely won’t get its wish to ban shipments of Apple’s iPad in China.

The company has made news over the last few months with its claims that the name “iPad” infringes on its patents. But Chinese customs authorities have now told the company that they won’t assist in the dispute and that a ban on such a popular product would be difficult to implement, reports Reuters.

“The customs have told us that it will be difficult to implement a ban because many Chinese consumers love Apple products. The sheer size of the market is very big,” Proview CEO Yang Long-san told Reuters. He added, “we have applied to some local customs for the ban and they’ll report to the headquarters in Beijing.”

Proview sought to ban both imports and exports of the iPad in China, the latter of which would have caused major issues for Apple’s iPad supply worldwide, since most of Apple’s devices are built in China.

Yang now says the best resolution for both companies would be an out of court settlement. Apple already lost a case to Proview last year over the iPad trademark. Proview has hearings lined up for later this month for both the settlement talks and trademark dispute. A hefty settlement would be a boon to cash-strapped Proview, which has fallen on hard times after the 2008 financial crisis.

As VentureBeat’s Jolie O’Dell explained previously, representatives of Proview stated that Proview Taiwan, an affiliate of the Shenzhen company that did not have the legal right to represent the company in an IP transaction, sold the iPad trademark to IP Application Development, a UK company. Later, IP Application Development sold the iPad trademark to Apple, apparently unaware that the previous sale had not been authorized by the parent company.

VentureBeat is holding its second annual Mobile Summit this April 2-3 in Sausalito, Calif. The invitation-only event will debate the five key business and technology challenges facing the mobile industry today, and participants — 180 mobile executives, investors, and policymakers — will develop concrete, actionable solutions that will shape the future of the mobile industry. You can find out more at our Mobile Summit site.

Smart-thermostat maker Nest is being sued by Honeywell for infringing on seven different patents owned by the technology giant.

“Competition is good and we welcome it, but we will not stand by while competitors, large or small, offer products that infringe on our intellectual property,” said Honeywell environmental and combustion controls president Beth Wozniak in a statement.

The Nest thermostat has become a need-to-have product for gadget-lovers. The smart thermometer learns your heating and cooling habits, and will adjust your house temperature accordingly. For instance, it knows what time you come home from work, what hours are good for energy conservation, the temperature you most like while sleeping, and whether you are on vacation. It also displays tips on saving energy money.

“We have not yet reviewed the actual filing, which we learned about this morning through Honeywell’s press release,” a Nest spokesperson told VentureBeat in an e-mail. “We will provide comment once we’ve had the opportunity to review it.”

Honeywell, which is also suing Best Buy for selling the Nest product, has its own line of connected thermostat products called the Total Connect Comfort Systems and insists that Nest infringes on a number of its existing patents. First, Honeywell believes that Nest’s setup process is too similar to its own. A “natural language” interview asks the user what her preferred hot and cold temperatures are. Another patent takes a closer look at Nest’s ability to provide energy saving tips by connecting to the Internet.

Four different patents deal with Nest’s hardware and display, three of which pertain to its circular shape. Patent number 7,584,899, the HVAC controller, addresses the ring directly (photo of which can be seen right). The last patent touches on Nest’s ability to energize itself by essentially being a safe parasite on the home’s energy system.

We have reached out to Honeywell for comment and will update upon hearing back.

hat tip GigaOm

The high court agreed in January to hear Microsoft’s appeal of the lawsuit, which ruled that the software giant’s Word application infringed on an i4i-owned patent letting users manipulate the architecture and content of a document. The company altered its application in 2010 while filing for the appeal.

Microsoft argued that the courts should adopt a lower burden of proof for patent violations, which would make it easier for larger companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft to defend against infringement claims.

“This case raised an important issue of law which the Supreme Court itself had questioned in an earlier decision and which we believed needed resolution, While the outcome is not what we had hoped for, we will continue to advocate for changes to the law that will prevent abuse of the patent system and protect inventors who hold patents representing true innovation,” Microsoft said in an official statement.

The case has been closely watched by legal analysts because of its potential to effect future patent infringement verdicts.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Popular location-based check-in application Foursqaure was slapped with a lawsuit today for supposedly infringing on a patent from little known company Mobile Commerce Framework, as first reported by TechCrunch.

The lawsuit was filed yesterday by Mobile Commerce Framework’s legal representation Jonathan Hangartner in the Southern District of California and is claiming financial damages as well as the withdrawal of all products by Foursquare to be impounded or destroyed.

The claim is that Foursquare’s application infringes the patent by allowing users to search and find information on merchants by location or merchant type. A very broad statement, which most patents tend to follow and could be applied to many of the applications available today.

Don’t think that Foursquare is going to be shutting down anytime soon, the company itself may own its own patents that could be used in defense. Like the one cofounder Dennis Crowley used to own from his days at Dodgeball titled “Location-based social software for mobile devices.”

Other services dealing in location-based services also have unique patents, including Facebook Places, which could be used in defense called “Systems and methods for automatically locating Web-based social network members” filed in 2007.

The lawsuit may be the first of many to come to Foursquare by a variety of companies. Unfortunately, it appears that Mobile Commerce Framework isn’t an active participant in the location-based services space defending one of their products, but rather just looking for a quick buck from a company that appears to be doing the best in the space. Why do we think this? Well, the company doesn’t even have a website or any other real information available.

Hopefully, the location-based patent wars haven’t begun and the space can continue to grow. We’ve emailed Foursquare CEO Dennis Crowley for comment, and will update when we hear back.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

(Editor’s note: Jonathan Fritz is a partner in the Venture Best industry group of Michael Best & Friedrich, LLP. He submitted this story to VentureBeat.)

Recently Groupon Inc was sued for patent infringement. If it loses the case, the company could be forced to shut down, causing millions of users to take their business elsewhere.

CY Technology Group LLC and MobGob LLC allege the popular deal-of-the-day company is infringing on a patent issued in March 2010. Not only does the lawsuit request damages associated with infringement of the patent, but it seeks a permanent injunction, which could potentially mean the end of Groupon.

That’s unlikely, of course – even if the company loses the fight. Fast-growing firms have a way of surviving legal defeats through payouts. But smaller businesses aren’t always so lucky. That’s why it’s important to know how to assess infringement risks at an early stage. Even if you offensively pursue patent protection, you’re still exposed to patent infringement.

The best way to avoid this sort of risk – or at least reduce it – is through a freedom to operate (FTO) search and analysis.

An FTO analysis begins with identifying the activities of your company, including products sold and/or processes practiced. It then conducts a search of the patent record focused on these activities, including both issued patents and published patent applications – sometimes with a focus solely on the U.S., other times it includes other countries as well. The search identifies potentially problematic patent documents, then compares those to your business activities. Ultimately an FTO serves as a legal determination as to whether your company’s activities infringe upon the claims of the uncovered patent documents.

The risks don’t end with issued patents, unfortunately. Pending patent applications can be just as problematic. To mitigate this risk, it’s smart to search and monitor the progress of pending applications, which are generally publicly available 18 months after they’re filed.

It’s a practice that could have helped Groupon. The site was launched in November 2008, while the patent at the center of the battle wasn’t formally issued until March 2010. The patent application was first published in August 2006, though.

So, if Groupon had conducted a FTO search, it’s likely they would have uncovered the potentially problematic patent application – and been able to track its progress and (more importantly) assess the risk it posed.

For your business, if you discover a patent or pending patent that is a concern, it’s certainly worth considering obtaining a license or purchasing it outright. By failing to do either, you company risks being seen as willfully infringing the patent and could face dire penalties.

Every startup is confronted with risks that need to be addressed and weighed against the company’s business goals. Offensive and defensive IP strategies may not be part of a start-up budget, but they’re important to consider as you grow your business. By understanding the risks, you can take steps to mitigate and balance them with your business plan and goals.

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

RIM has filed suit against Kik Messenger, a small company that has built a tremendously popular chat application, claiming patent infringement.

We’re still trying to get more details about the case, which was filed in Canada’s Federal Court in Toronto. But our best guess is that it stems from Kik’s imitation of RIM’s own chat service for its Blackberry phones, called Blackberry Messenger (BBM). Kik uses the same “sent,” “delivered,” and “read” flags when a message is sent. RIM may be concerned because Kik does BBM one better by allowing chat across multiple smartphone platforms, including Android phones and iPhones. Kik is also blazing fast, and its adoption by 2 million users in just a few weeks threatens to outshine RIM’s own service.

This all puts a nail in the coffin of Kik’s chances to serve RIM’s Blackberry phones, and it seriously endanger’s the company’s chances of survival overall.

However, it’s still not clear why the service hurt Blackberry per se. According to our understanding, RIM isn’t suffering any loss of revenue if users adopt Kik instead of BBM. On the contrary, a fast, enjoyable chat application like Kik was one of the first apps built that worked really well on Blackberry, showcasing a great experience on the RIM platform at a time when most developers are focused more on the iPhone and Android platforms.

Evidently, RIM must feel its BBM service still has some sort of quality edge on its main rivals and that it must fight to protect its patent to protect that lead. But by moving to protect an app within its walled garden, RIM is fighting a questionable battle, now that we’re in an age where cross-platform apps are more relevant.

Here’s the bigger worry for RIM: With this move, is it inadvertently poisoning its own ecosystem? If people know they can work at RIM and then start a successful startup that rides on top of the BlackBerry platform, RIM becomes a more attractive place to work and BlackBerry becomes a more attractive platform to develop on. By making an example of Kik and its chief executive, Ted Livingston, a 23-year-old former strategist at BBM who set up shop across the street from its headquarters, RIM could be shooting itself in the foot for extremely questionable gain. Yes, RIM’s always been protective of its intellectual property, but as Apple’s iPhone and now more recently Google with its Android platform have shown, you have to leave something on the table for innovators to seize.

We’ve requested comment from both sides and will update if we hear back. [Update: Kik's Livingston has blogged about the suit.]

AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Yahoo and YouTube are named as defendants in the case for infringing on several wide-reaching patents — one of which covers offering suggestions and different advertisements based on what the consumer is viewing.

Such patents, often known as business process patents, are controversial. Many experts question whether they should have been granted in the first place — a theory that will surely be tested if the infringement actions make it to court. Patent litigation is an expensive affair, and such cases are often settled before seeing a courtroom.

The patent litigation comes about three weeks after Allen joined several other billionaires including the likes of Warren Buffett and David Rockefeller in pledging to give away a majority of their fortunes. So that’s the bright side: He’s totally giving away his patent-sharking profits!

Whether it comes as a surprise or not, Allen’s former company Microsoft was not cited in the patent complaint. There’s always a chance Allen and Interval Research will expand the lawsuits if they see any kind of success shaking up its current list of targets.

[Photo: egarc2]

July 9-10, 2013
San Francisco, CA

Tickets On Sale Now

Another day, another legal action over mobile patents.

HTC, the Taiwanese mobile handset manufacturer and maker of Google’s Nexus One phone, filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission today to cease U.S. sales of the iPhone, iPad and iPod after saying the company infringed on its intellectual property.

“As the innovator of the original Windows Mobile PocketPC Phone Edition in 2002 and the first Android smartphone in 2008, HTC believes the industry should be driven by healthy competition and innovation that offer consumers the best, most accessible mobile experiences possible,” said the company’s North American vice president, Jason Mackenzie. “We are taking this action against Apple to protect our intellectual property, our industry partners, and most importantly our customers that use HTC phones.”

The move comes just days after Finnish handset maker Nokia filed suit against Apple in a Wisconsin court over five patents it held. HTC also has added legal firepower now after Microsoft Corp. gave the Taiwanese device manufacturer legal coverage under its patent portfolio in exchange for royalties. As a relatively young company in the space (it was founded in 1997), HTC has far fewer patents than its particularly litigious competitor, Apple.

Don’t miss MobileBeat 2010, VentureBeat’s conference on the future of mobile. The theme: “The year of the superphone and who will profit.” Now expanded to two days, MobileBeat 2010 will take place on July 12-13 at The Palace Hotel in San Francisco. Early-bird pricing is available until May 15. For complete conference details, or to apply for the MobileBeat Startup Competition, click here.

Featured companies: NeurAxon, VytronUS, Avila Therapeutics, CardioNet, Ventana Medical Systems, CytoLogix, PlaCor

NeurAxon raises $32M for pain drugs — You have to hand it to Waltham, Mass.-based NeurAxon — the company certainly knows how to keep itself in the news. Today, it announced it has raised $32 million in a second funding round, a week after it reported a positive early-stage trial result for its experimental migraine treatment.

Investors included Delphi Ventures, OrbiMed Advisors, BDC Venture Capital, Genesys Capital Partners, H.I.G. Ventures, NeuroVentures Fund, Ventures West Capital and Lawrence Bloch, NeurAxon’s CEO.

Stealthy VytronUS gets $6.6M — Los Altos, Calif.-based VytronUS, a secretive medical-device company, raised $6.6 million in a first funding round, PE Hub reports, citing a regulatory filing. Delphi Ventures and New Enterprise Associates provided the funds.

Avila Therapeutics receives undisclosed first funding — Avila Therapeutics, a Waltham, Mass., biotech focused on cancer and viral disease, raised an undisclosed first funding round in February, VentureWire reports (subscription required). Investors included Abingworth Management, Advent Venture Partners, Atlas Venture and Polaris Venture Partners. The company doesn’t have a Web site.

Wireless heart monitor CardioNet files to raise $150M in an IPO — CardioNet, a San Diego medical-device firm focused on wireless heartbeat monitors, filed to raise up to $150 million in an IPO. The company still isn’t profitable, although its sales appear to be set to double this year.

The In Vivo blog has some additional insight into CardioNet’s rather convoluted funding history.

Defunct device maker wins patent case against Ventana — CytoLogix, a failed medical-device startup formerly based in Cambridge, Mass., won a patent-infringement suit against publicly traded Ventana Medical Systems of Tuscon, Ariz. A jury awarded CytoLogix $10.8 million in damages, but said Ventana wasn’t liable for related antitrust claims. CytoLogix attorneys have said they will seek to have the damages paid to the company’s shareholders, VentureWire reports.

From VentureWire:

CytoLogix alleged in the patent litigation that Ventana learned about CytoLogix’s proprietary intellectual property by gaining access to a confidential business plan that CytoLogix had distributed in the mid-1990s as part of its search for venture capital. This allegation stemmed from an admission made by Ventana’s then-Chairman Jack Schuler, as part of an address he made in October 1999, at a U.S. Trust investment conference in Tarrytown, N.Y.

In the speech, Schuler described in detail how years before, Ventana had made use of information in the business plan. A 2002 Barron’s article about the litigation quotes him in the speech as having acknowledged the competition in a major way.

CytoLogix sold its business operations to Dako in 2002, and currently exists only to pursue the litigation. Ventana, meanwhile, is trying to fend off an unsolicited takeover offer from Roche.

The original Barron’s article on the lawsuit is here, and there’s a little more detail on the decision in this AP story.

PlaCor names new CEO — PlaCor, a Plymouth, Minn., developer of blood-cell diagnostics, named John Reinke as CEO, effective Sept. 4. PlaCor is developing diagnostic tests of platelet reactivity intended to determine patient response to anticoagulant treatment following serious blood-clot incidents, which can lead to heart attacks or strokes. Current CEO Bill Haworth will become the company’s chief scientific officer.

UPDATE (7:10pm PT): Added items on Ventana/CytoLogix lawsuit and PlaCor.