Patent licensing agency Societa Italiana per lo Sviluppo dell’Elettronica SpA (Sisvel) which licenses MPEG audio patents has organised raids against at least one exhibitor at the CeBIT trade fair in Hannover Germayn. The agency is becoming increasingly active against alleged infringers of their portfolio of MPEG-related patents and has also seized imports at the German border.
Last year SanDisk were obliged to remove their products from the IFA trade fair in Berlin because of a claim against them. SanDisk has subsequently settled its dispute with Sisvel and issued a press release last week.
A rather creative patent assertion process compared to the usual cease and desist letters
Sunday 18 March 2007
Generics Companies attacking Patents
The UK Independent newspaper reports how the stock prices of the major pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca may be affected by two challenges to the validity of some of its patents. The Israeli company Teva Pharmaceuticals is challenging the patent protecting the product Seroquel in the United States whilst German company Ratiopharm is challenging the validity of the patent protecting Nexium in the European Patent Office.
The US Investment Bank SG Cowen has estimated that these products represent a quarter of AstraZeneca's turnover which could be wiped out if generics companies are allowed to produce copies.
Since I have not looked at the validity challenges in any detail, I cannot comment on the merits of the case. However, the challenges show that the patent system is working in allowing challenges to the validity of bad patents - despite the claims in some quarters. Given the length of the battle between AstraZeneca and the generics companies this does suggest that there is merit in both sides arguments - it will be up to the courts of the patent offices in the end to decide which side has the better arguments and also whether the older work (prior art) cited by the challengers is sufficiently close to lead to revocation of the patent.
The US Investment Bank SG Cowen has estimated that these products represent a quarter of AstraZeneca's turnover which could be wiped out if generics companies are allowed to produce copies.
Since I have not looked at the validity challenges in any detail, I cannot comment on the merits of the case. However, the challenges show that the patent system is working in allowing challenges to the validity of bad patents - despite the claims in some quarters. Given the length of the battle between AstraZeneca and the generics companies this does suggest that there is merit in both sides arguments - it will be up to the courts of the patent offices in the end to decide which side has the better arguments and also whether the older work (prior art) cited by the challengers is sufficiently close to lead to revocation of the patent.
Wednesday 14 March 2007
EU Commission rules that Microsoft's Patents are not innovative
The Guardian newspaper reports that the European Commission in its dispute with Microsoft concerning anti-trust issues has ruled that the patent protection on Microsoft's protocols is not sufficiently innovative to justify charging for them.
The Commission has reported in a press release that it has issued a statement of objection concerning Microsoft's licensing programme. The press release is somewhat confusing since it talks about four of the 160 claims representing a limited degree of innovation but that the rest of the claims represent implementations of previous work. On the other hand the Commission suggests that the existence of patents represents some degree of innovation. Without a copy of the Statement of Objection it is probably not possible to understand exactly what was said. It would be a sad day if the Commission is somehow overuling the European Patent Office in deciding what is innovative and what is not innovative.
The Commission has reported in a press release that it has issued a statement of objection concerning Microsoft's licensing programme. The press release is somewhat confusing since it talks about four of the 160 claims representing a limited degree of innovation but that the rest of the claims represent implementations of previous work. On the other hand the Commission suggests that the existence of patents represents some degree of innovation. Without a copy of the Statement of Objection it is probably not possible to understand exactly what was said. It would be a sad day if the Commission is somehow overuling the European Patent Office in deciding what is innovative and what is not innovative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)