According to The Lemelson-MIT Program the Prize "recognizes individuals who translate their ideas into inventions and innovations that improve the world in which we live....Dubbed the "Oscar for Inventors," the Lemelson-MIT Prize is awarded to outstanding mid-career inventors who have developed a patented product or process of significant value to society, which has been adopted for practical use, or has a high probability of being adopted."
As reported by Robin Wauters in TechCrunch, Intellectual Ventures has filed suit against over a dozen companies, for patent infringement. The lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington state. Lawrence D. Graham of Black Lowe & Graham and Elliot Brown of Irell & Manella, LLP are listed as counsel for Intellectual Ventures.
Intellectual Ventures brought suit against the following companies: Hynix Semiconductor Inc.; Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.; Elpida Memory, Inc.; Elpida Memory (USA) Inc.; Acer, Inc.; Acer America Corp.; Adata Technology Co., Ltd.; Adata Technology (U.S.A.) Co., Ltd.; Asustek Computer Inc.; Asus Computer International Inc.; Dell, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Company; Kingston Technology Co., Inc.; Logitech International S.A.; Logitech, Inc.; Pantech Co., Ltd.; Pantech Wireless, Inc.; Best Buy Co., Inc.; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc
According to a Dolby press release "...RIM infringes Dolby patents covering highly efficient digital audio compression technologies which allow manufacturers and consumers to provide and enjoy high quality audio while using extremely limited amounts of transmission and/or storage space for such audio. RIM employs Dolby’s patented technologies in its Blackberry smart phones and Playbook tablet devices, without having obtained licenses from Dolby ....[a]ll other major smart phone makers have agreed to license the Dolby technologies which are the subject of this litigation." The lawsuit was filed on June 14, 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP is counsel for Dolby
According to The Lemelson-MIT Program the Prize "recognizes individuals who translate their ideas into inventions and innovations that improve the world in which we live....Dubbed the "Oscar for Inventors," the Lemelson-MIT Prize is awarded to outstanding mid-career inventors who have developed a patented product or process of significant value to society, which has been adopted for practical use, or has a high probability of being adopted."
In an earlier post, Patent Due Diligence in Mergers & Acquisition Transactions-Overview, we discussed the top level patent due diligence issues that should be considered by a multi-function Due Diligence Team in the acquisition of a "Target Company." We identified four major areas of patent due diligence:
In the second article in this series, M&A Patent Due Diligence: Ownership and Control of Patent Assets, we dug into the details of due diligence relating to the ownership and control of intellectual property. In this current article we discuss the last three topics.
Categories: Patent Landscape, Patent Analysis, M&A
| In an earlier post we discussed the top level patent due diligence issues that should be considered in the acquisition of a “Target Company”. We emphasized the importance of assembling a multi-function Due Diligence Team, including financial, marketing and technical experts in addition to legal experts, in order to achieve the goal of Identifying and Allocating the IP-Related Risks. |
The Wall Street Journal reported on December 13, 2010 that U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman in Seattle dismissed Paul Allen's patent lawsuit against many of the leading companies in Silicon Valley including Google, Apple, Facebook and Yahoo. Judge Pechman dismissed the complaint for not describing its allegations specifically enough. Paul Allen has until December 28 to amend the complaint.
A recent Wall Street Journal article discussed the recent multi-year increase in patent infringement lawsuits and corporate risk. Although this trend is most prevalent in the high-technology sector, economic and strategic realities are forcing corporate and outside counsel to find new methods to control the time and expense allocated to patent risk management.
In recent years, the use of S.M.A.R.T. objectives has moved from the domain of project management into corporate performance and personal development. S.M.A.R.T. criteria and objectives are built upon a sound foundation and provide corporate managers and leaders with actionable criteria to identify and craft personal performance objectives and to set and measure progress towards strategic goals and tactical milestones.
Categories: Patent Strategy, R&D, Patent Analysis
