Microsoft counterclaimed and sought judgement stating that i4i’s patent was invalid and unenforceable. The District Court Despite Microsoft’s objections, the District Court instructed the jury that “Microsoft has the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence”. The jury found Microsoft liable for willful infringement and awarded i4i $200 million in damages. The Federal Court Microsoft appealed the
Apple was seeking $2.5 billion in damages, and Samsung was also seeking financial restitution. Among the patents Apple accused Samsung of infringing upon is Design Patent US D504889, which is a single page document with nine accompanying images of an unnamed electronic device in the shape of a rounded rectangle. Countering to the lawsuit, Samsung alleged that Apple infringed number of patents of Samsung that deals with iPhone 3G. Samsung accused Apple of infringing on United States Patent Nos. 7,675,941, 7,447,516, 7,698,711, 7,577,460, and 7,456,893.
The Court stated that for the aforementioned reasons declaratory judgement actions like the one at issue in this case were also an exception to the Schaffer rule. The lower court emphasized that its holding applied only in “circumstance when an infringement counterclaim by a patentee is foreclosed by the continued existence of a license. The Court found that the “limited circumstance” described by the Federal Circuit is often present when a patent licensee faces an ordinary but disputed claim of infringement. This “limited circumstance” is “virtually identical” to MedImmune, where the Court found that a declaratory action was permissible. In any case the Court found that limiting the scope was not by itself justification for the legality of the
Certain acts not to be considered as infringement There are certain exceptional acts where the use of patented invention without consent of the patentee doesn’t constitute infringement . Such acts are as follows: (a) Any act of making, constructing, using, selling or importing apatented invention solely for uses reasonably related to thedevelopment and submission of information required under any lawfor the time being in force, in India, or in a country other than India, that regulates the manufacture, construction, use, sale or import of any product. Some countries allow manufacturers of generic drugs to use the patented inventions for development and submission of information required under law. For example, from public health authorities,
Novartis v. Union of India [CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2706-2716 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) Nos. 20539-20549 OF 2009] The case started after the application by Novartis for patenting one of its drugs named “Gleevec” by covering it under the word invention mentioned in Section 3 of Patents Act, 1970. After a seven-year long battle, the Supreme Court rejected their application giving the following reasons. • The absence of any new invention or discovery of a new drug which requires filing of
Under the tort law the remedy for damages is said to exist in ordinary law through a civil suit . However, it is not a principle that every time when there is a claim for tortuous liability the only recourse is to be a suit. The burden of proof lies always on the plaintiff and it never shifts , although the burden may shift to prove a fact in the proceedings, the burden when seen as whole rests upon the plaintiff and ‘in a suit to claim damages for abuse of process of law, it must be established that the person who set the machinery of law into motion is not only actuated by malice with the accused but also he acted in putting the machinery of law into motion without reasonable and probable cause, which is the essential element to get a decree for damages for such malicious prosecution’ In Railways Act 1989 although since it is beyond the reach of the claimant to assert and prove whether the deceased was a bona fide passenger or not the burden to prove otherwise is on the railways as proving otherwise could be done if the railway examine upon its procedure
Intellectual property law: in most cases technology companies tend to infringe on each other’s patents, by so doing the companies usually suffer through payment of fines. Firms can also lose their public image by such constant practices. Such litigations are very common for the technology savvy companies. As it had been stated earlier, Apple had been ordered to pay Smartflash for infringement of patents. The company was required to part with $532.9
An owner of a patent may prevent all others from making, using, or selling the patented invention. In connection with software, an issued patent may prevent others from utilizing a certain algorithm without permission, or may prevent others from creating software programs that perform a function in a certain way. Software patents can provide much greater protection to software developers than copyright law. The benefits of obtaining patent protection can be extraordinary, as shown by Stac Electronics' $120 million patent infringement award against Microsoft based on a data compression patent. As more developers understand the potential of software patents, more patents are being issued.
However, there are two excluded general rule such as the author was the committee under a service contract or apprenticeship, or the work was created in the course of their work, the copyright is assigned in the employer or the Commissioner. These two exceptions are subject to any agreement of the opposite. The owner of the copyright has empowered to assign or license the right. For instance, the assignment or license must be in writing (Malaysian Intellectual Property Association,
“A tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is an action for unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract, or the breach of a trust, or the breach of other merely equitable obligation”- Salmond The words ‘tort’ has originated from the Medieval Latin word ‘tortum’ which literally means injustice. But to be more specific, torts law is a vast branch of law which deals with civil wrongs like negligence (of different sorts), battery, harassment and trespass among others. In common parlance, torts may be described as the wing under which all claims pertaining to civil rights are brought and monetary compensation is awarded to right the people who have been hurt or their property damaged. Entering a property without