Archive for the ‘Intellectual Property’ Category

If you’ve infringed your own copyright – should you sue?

Friday, February 26th, 2010

Here’s an idea for a game:  Move a marble-like ball around a computer screen by continually placing train tracks in front of it 

Here’s another one:  Having developed the above programme, move the rights in it from you to your company and then seek to move it back again using the courts and the law of copyright infringement. 

The first idea might seem a decent one.  The second idea is a truly terrible and expensive one and one that developers should avoid at all costs as this case shows.

A freelance developer developed his game concept (called either Tracktrix, or later Train Trax) before he joined Circle Studios as a games developer.  Without telling others in the company that he had developed this concept himself he passed on this concept and encouraged Circle Studios to exploit it. 

Sadly this did not lead to commercial success and Circle Studios went into administration.  Afterwards the developer sought to take back the concept and to do this he claimed, amongst other things – copyright infringement, alleging that Circle Studios had copied the game from him as a freelance developer.  After all he should know…he (as an employee of Circle) had copied it! 

Unsurprisingly perhaps the games developer was unsuccessful.  As the developer had not disclosed where the idea came from, there was no reason for the employer to believe that the concept was not created in the course of his employment.   Any infringement was caused by the developer.  The copyright claim failed, as did a related breach of confidence claim, with the judge lamenting that the action reached the court in the first place.  

The lesson – be clear where ideas come from as an employee and if you developed something yourself that you later want to use in your employment, discuss assignment or a licence with your employer.  If it’s too late to do this, avoid litigation if you can, as taking that track without advice is likely to mean losing your claim, as well as your marbles.

Richard Nicholas

Posted by Richard Nicholas
0121 237 3992
rnicholas@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Commercial Interpretation of IP Indemnity Clause but Drafters Beware!

Friday, February 12th, 2010

In the recent case of  The Codemasters Software Co. Limited v Automobile Club De L’Ouest (“ACO”), the High Court adopted a commercial approach to interpretation of an IP indemnity in favour of Codemasters. 

ACO had warranted under a licence agreement with Codemasters that the use by Codemasters of car manufacturers’ names, trade marks and car designs would not infringe any IP rights anywhere in the world. However, when Codemasters incorporated certain materials into its computer game, car manufacturers claimed that ACO did not have the rights to grant such licences. Codemasters sought to rely on an indemnity in the licence agreement with ACO under which ACO agreed to indemnify Codemasters against claims by third parties. ACO argued that the claims made by the car manufacturers were not claims of ‘breaches of warranty’ and were not therefore covered by the indemnity. 

The Court held that there are good reasons why parties agree to indemnities against third party infringement claims: generally the licensor of intellectual property rights is in a better position to ascertain whether the exploitation will infringe third party IP rights.  Accordingly, the Court ruled in favour of Codemasters.

This has got to be the right interpretation and will be reassuring to licensees. However, licensees must ensure that licensor warranties and indemnities are clear and unambiguous and not open to interpretation. 

Sara McNeill

Posted by Sara McNeill
0121 237 3930
smcneill@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

New ITC claim makes life rotten for Apple

Friday, January 15th, 2010

Apple is already embroiled in an International Trade Commission (ITC) dispute with its competitor and mobile phone giant Nokia over alleged infringement of both parties’ patents . Now Apple, along with RIM (of Blackberry fame) are the subject of a new complaint before the ITC brought by Kodak.

Kodak has already successfully enforced its “picture previewing” patent against Samsung and Sun Microsystems in the recent past. In this new complaint to the ITC, Kodak is seeking to enforce the same patent against Apple and RIM, presumably with a view to securing favourable licensing revenue from the handset manufacturers.

This new action reinforces the view that the big players in the technology market regard the ITC as a forum with considerable bite. The ITC’s ability to force a ban on the supply of infringing products together with the ability to award damages within a process which can be far quicker than the equivalent process through the US courts marks it out as a forum of choice.

However, in a world in which open source and standardised technology is prevalent, one might question whether a readily available ban on supply really encourages innovation, or whether it rather leaves technology providers at the mercy of patentees. An environment in which patentees are encouraged to declare their patents as essential to a particular standard and then make them available to be used under licence on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms also exists, but whilst patentees have the threat of an ITC action at their disposal, they will of course continue to use that to maximum effect.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Cutting the cost of IP litigation

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

After several months preparation a report was published today which makes recommendations aimed at reducing costs of IP cases and speeding up the process of dispute resolution.

A constant criticism of litigation is that the costs involved in pursuing or defending a claim are disproportionate. The risk of having to pay the other side’s costs in the event of losing an action or even the unrecoverable costs of winning a claim are a barrier to using the courts for dispute resolution particularly for small and medium sized enterprises. It has been estimated that the average cost of taking a case to trial is in the region of £700k (although our experience is that we would not expect the average case to cost that much).

The new proposals contained in a report written by a serving Judge of the Court of Appeal and bearing his name (Jackson) include:

  • reforming the Patent County Court and introducing a cap on recoverable costs (£50,000 in patent cases, £25000 for all other IP cases);
  • introducing a fast track and small claims track for cases with low monetary value and clearer forms of pleadings

The proposals are welcome as if implemented they will enable us to give greater certainty regarding the exposure to costs of litigation. If such greater certainty is achieved will it mean greater confidence in the court system? What do you think?

Peter Ellis

Posted by Peter Ellis
0115 976 6267
pellis@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Mandy the one man law-maker

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

The Digital Economy Bill continues to be a political hot potato as the government backtracks on key provisions following a wave of criticism.

On this occasion, the issue making the headlines is the proposed “Clause 17”, a provision which would enable the Secretary of State, Lord Mandelson, to make amendments to the Copyright Designs and Patents Act without first consulting Parliament.

In December, top level executives from Google, Yahoo!, eBay and Facebook expressed strong concerns about this in an open letter to Lord Mandelson, the closing line of which reads “we urge you to remove Clause 17 from the bill.” The crux of their complaint is that the controversial provision could pave the way for arbitrary measures and a high degree of uncertainty if new laws can be fast-tracked through the system on a whim.

The government has made a number of concessions in order to allay some of these fears including proposals to water down the powers conferred upon the Secretary of State. In particular, a 60 day consultation period has been proposed, as has an evidential test whereby it must be shown that harm would result if the amendments were not made. In addition, the power cannot be used to create or modify a criminal offence. In spite of mounting opposition to the clause, the government remains in support ofit, stressing that the new powers are required in order to “future-proof” copyright law as new technologies develop.

Whilst most will appreciate that the law must evolve in line with technology, Clause 17 allows the Secretary of State effectively to rewrite primary legislation with a minimum level of Parliamentary scrutiny making this clause, perhaps, a step too far.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Ryan Harrison
0121 237 3950
rharrison@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

An Apple [lawsuit] a day keeps Nokia busy

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Back in October last year we reported on litigation commenced by Nokia in Delaware against Apple alleging infringement of 10 Nokia patents, considered by Nokia to be “essential” to the relevant wireless telecommunications technical standards. In early December Apple filed its response, denying infringement, together with a counterclaim, alleging that Nokia itself infringed 13 of Apple’s own patents.

 Enough of the lawsuits, I hear you cry! Not a bit of it.

On 29 December, Nokia cranked the dispute up another notch, by filing a complaint with the US International Trade Commission alleging that Apple infringes 7 Nokia patents. This is a significant step, particularly as it appears to take Nokia’s claim far wider than a dispute relating solely to the iPhone. Here’s what Paul Melin, general manager of Nokia’s patent licensing at Nokia, had to say about this latest step: “while our litigation in Delaware is about Apple’s attempt to free-ride on the back of Nokia investment in wireless standards, the ITC case filed today is about Apple’s practice of building its business on Nokia’s proprietary innovation”.

Perhaps so, but though the patents before the ITC relate to technology which differs from those patents being litigated in Delaware, one can’t help wondering whether the battles aren’t in fact inextricably linked – after all, the original claim by Nokia was brought following a breakdown of licence negotiations, the timing of Nokia’s ITC complaint strongly suggests that it is the next step within the current dispute, and we all know that lawsuits can be settled and an adjustment to licence fees negotiated accordingly. We await Apple’s next move – we can be confident that the dispute will widen before the two sides bury the hatchet. Of course, the English High Court has jurisdiction to hear claims built on the “essentiality” of patents to standards……..

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Video Recordings Act 1984 is not currently enforceable in UK courts

Friday, December 18th, 2009

On 15 December 2009 the Government published the Video Recordings Bill which is designed to correct an astounding anomaly discovered this summer that means the Video Recordings Act 1984 is not currently enforceable in UK courts.

This “anomaly” arose owing to the Government’s failure in 1984 to notify the European Commission before the Act became law.

Above everything else, this clearly demonstrates how significantly UK sovereignty has been diluted as a result of integration within the European institutions.

Luckily, since this rather serious discrepancy has been revealed, retailers have taken the responsible approach by continuing to observe the age ratings system applied to films and video games on a voluntary basis.

Once the VRA 1984 has been brought into force, the Digital Economy Bill will amend the Act by introducing a new system of classification for boxed video games.

Sarah Fellows

Posted by Sarah Fellows
0115 976 6242
sfellows@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Have a REAL Merry Christmas – Who wants a FAKE Christmas Present!!!

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

As we all run into the last week of the Christmas shopping frenzy and the inevitable sales, the combination of a climate where money is tight and the desire for a bargain could mean some of us end up paying a high price for fakes. The criminal underworld gear up for this period and millions of poor quality counterfeits will be hitting the UK market stalls and car boot sales.

Warnings from the UK IPO indicate that we all should be particularly aware of the following types of goods which may have all the external appearance of the genuine article:

  • mobile phones, and their accessories
  • ghd hair straighteners – can be electrically unsafe and potentially life-threatening
  • Nintendo DS Lite consoles – the charger could be dangerous
  • video games – often contain viruses
  • children’s toys and action figures, which may have loose parts or contain toxic materials
  • perfumes, cosmetics and personal care items
  • alcoholic drinks – high levels of methanol can be lethal
  • Christmas lights and batteries

A new campaign – www.realdealmarkets.co.uk- which is supported by the Trading Standards Institute, has been developed to help consumers choose markets and stalls that have been vetted by trading standards. The question is why – is the consumer really that naïve? It is not only the counterfeiters that should bear the blame for this burgeoning criminal industry, the average consumer knows that when he or she is getting a bargain that’s too good to be true then it probably is too good to be true. While consumers obviously need protection they also need to take more personal responsibility for contributing to one of the UK’s growing criminal industries, including restrictions on any remedies available to them.

Declan Cushley

Posted by Declan Cushley
0121 237 3991
dcushley@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

On the 9th day of Christmas my Darling gave to me…

Thursday, December 10th, 2009

…tax savings for SME research and developers?

Yesterday, Alistair Darling announced that he intends to reduce corporation tax on income flowing from licensing of patents to 10%

His noble aim is to encourage research and development in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries. Great news for the SME you might have thought.

There is a downside though – the reduced rate only applies to income from April 2013, and it only affects patents granted after the legislation is passed (which may be in 2011) – so don’t break open the bubbly just yet.
 
Of slightly more immediate benefit to those who develop technology is the Government’s announcement (to be included in the Finance Bill 2010) to make it easier for SMEs to take advantage of research and development tax relief.

If the legislation is passed, SMEs will no longer have to demonstrate that any intellectual property deriving from the relevant research and development is owned by the company making the claim for relief. The enhanced relief (of up to 175% of qualifying expenditure) may well be more widely available as a result, so it’s a good time to check whether you qualify.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Get your opinions here!

Friday, November 27th, 2009

It isn’t only the lawyers at Browne Jacobson who offer opinions. At a recent seminar, I was reminded by the UK Intellectual Property Office that its opinion service is very much open for business.

The UK-IPO offers opinions on the infringement or validity of a patent. Whilst the opinions are non-binding, they can be valuable as a negotiation tool and can be instructive in assisting the decision as to whether to proceed with patent enforcement, or clearing the path for some particular technology. Plus, says the UK-IPO, they can be obtained within 3 months of a request and only cost £200. One word of warning though – the opinions are published documents and so sometimes circumstances can dictate that confidential opinions from legal advisers may be the more suitable route!

Since the service commenced, there have been just over 100 opinions given by the UK-IPO and the general view is that uptake on this service is on the increase – it’s certainly one of the options to consider when considering whether it’s you or a competitor who has exclusivity in relation to key innovation.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The Digital Economy Bill – A Boost for Musicians

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

Her Majesty in yesterday’s Queen’s Speech said the following: “My Government will introduce a Bill to ensure communications infrastructure that is fit for the digital age, supports future economic growth, delivers competitive communications and enhances public service broadcasting”.

The Digital Economy Bill will do various things, amongst which will be a change to the law on online copyright infringement – creating duties on Offcom to require ISPs to take action against identified file sharers, and giving Offcom and/or ISPs the power to disconnect persistent file sharers.

Musicians and music lovers alike should welcome this legislation. The detail of how persistent filesharers will, in reality, be banned from the internet remains unclear, as does the extent to which it will prevent unauthorised exchange of copyright materials long-term. History shows that digital pirates are generally one step ahead of those attempting to stop them.

Importantly, however, it strikes a further blow against those who believe it is acceptable to copy, distribute and use copyright materials – such as music or video games – without seeking the permission of the author, or indeed paying the author. The rise in file sharing has brought the music industry to its knees, affecting not only large record labels but also struggling independent musicians. Legislation will not solve this problem, but it will allow us to begin to tackle it.

Only by supporting our creative industry can we ensure it continues to create.

Nick McDonald

Posted by Nick McDonald
0115 976 6198
nmcdonald@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Somebody tell me whether computer software is patentable!

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

For those of you keeping up to speed with the debate on whether computer programs are patentable in Europe, I had a recent insight from Lord Hoffman who was speaking at the Midlands Intellectual Property Society. Discussing what can and cannot be patented, Lord Hoffman grouped non-patentable inventions into those which of themselves have no practical application (including programs for computers) and those which essentially cover human behaviour (including business methods). This categorisation although not used in the legislation, is a helpful way of keeping a reality check when looking at what is becoming an increasingly dense area of debate. 

Does your invention have a practical application?  If so, it may be patentable, even if it incorporates a computer program. We’re hoping the Enlarged Board of Appeal at the European Patent Office will shed some further light on the subject, but Lord Hoffman agrees that the EPO may not even have jurisdiction to answer the relevant questions which have been asked of it. Life’s never easy.

Mark Daniels

Posted by Mark Daniels
0121 237 3993
mdaniels@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

A declaration of war between Nokia and Apple

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

This appears to be nothing short of a declaration of war between Nokia and Apple which potentially paves the way for extensive and prolonged litigation.

The action filed in Delaware, USA, seeks compensation for infringement of 10 “essential” patents that it argues are “fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS and wireless LAN standards”. This has parallels with previous legal disputes, in particular between Nokia and Qualcomm. That litigation focussed principally upon the extent to which certain patents were in fact essential. Here, the battle ground may be more upon whether Nokia’s patents are infringed and of course whether they are valid.

Nokia’s press release suggests that the litigation was preceded by a period of negotiation between the companies. Its decision to get heavy may therefore be an attempt to put commercial pressure on Apple in those negotiations.

The more interesting long-term issue is whether other holders of essential patents will follow suit and bring claims against Apple.

Nick McDonald

Posted by Nick McDonald
0115 976 6198
nmcdonald@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

The end is nigh for the copycat?

Tuesday, September 22nd, 2009

Pimms recently took on Pitchers, and now a few weeks later, Next take on Tesco’s. Next has filed claims alleging that the supermarket has copied up to five of its clothing lines and stolen two design motifs originally designed by Next.

Brand owners have always recognised the value that exists in their designs and their brand. They spend a considerable sum of money to try and protect the rights that they hold in this Intellectual Property (IP). However, over the years copycats have exploited the limited protection that the Courts have afforded brand owners.

Now, it looks like brand owners are ready to have another go at getting the Courts to recognise and protect their IP rights.

However, the Courts seem to be distinguishing “imitation” – i.e. so similar that the public may be confused as to who owns the brand – and “comparison” – where the product is so different that there is no real confusion just an opportunity for consumers to choose the brand they prefer.

Copycat – consumer choice or consumer exploitation?

Fiona Carter

Posted by Fiona Carter
0115 976 6224
fcarter@brownejacobson.com

VN:F [1.9.3_1094]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)