Sony Seeks ‘SmartWig’ Patent for Hairpieces With Sensors

Sony Corp. (6758), which popularized portable music players with the Walkman, is seeking a U.S. patent for “SmartWig” hairpieces that could help navigate roads, check blood pressure or flip through slides in a presentation.

The wig would communicate wirelessly with another device and include tactile feedback, Sony said in the filing with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Depending on the model, the hairpiece may include a camera, laser pointer or global positioning system sensor, it said.

The development of wearable technology such as eyeglasses, watches and earpieces is expanding as consumers seek new ways to integrate computers into everyday life. The race to gain a foothold in a market that Juniper Research estimates will jump about 14-fold in five years to $19 billion is luring companies including Sony, Google Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. (005930)

“It’s an interesting idea but I think it would be very difficult for Sony to commercialize,” said Mitsushige Akino, chief fund manager at Ichiyoshi Asset Management Co. in Tokyo. “Who will want to use this wig will become a problem.”

Shares of Sony rose 1.1 percent to 1,869 yen in Tokyo trading. The stock has gained 95 percent this year, compared with a 45 percent advance for the benchmark Topix index.

“It is an object to provide an improved wearable computing device,” Sony said in the patent application. “At least one sensor, the processing unit and the communication interface are arranged in the wig and at least partly covered by the wig in order to be visually hidden during use.”

As posted in Bloomberg By Grace Huang & Mariko Yasu

For more news click on the link below:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-26/sony-seeks-smartwig-patent-for-hairpieces-with-camera-sensors.html

Kamaron’s ‘Zecodex’ Mark Canceled, Business Standard Says

Wockhardt Ltd. (WPL), a Mumbai-based drugmaker, persuaded India’s Intellectual Property Appellate Board to cancel a trademark registered to a competitor, India’s Business Standard reported.

Wockhardt said that Gujarat-based Kamaron Laboratories Ltd.’s “Zecodex” mark was confusingly similar to the “Zedex” mark Wockhardt used for a cough syrup, the newspaper reported.

In its ruling, the board said that Kamaron should have conducted a trademark search before filing an application and that the company didn’t produce any evidence it had used the “Zecodex” mark, according to the Business Standard.

Although Wockhardt had used “Zedex” since 1983, Kamaron argued that the Mumbai company failed to oppose Kamaron’s 1996 trademark application for “Zecodes,” according to the newspaper.

As posted in Bloomberg.

For Information click on the link below:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-25/apple-eaton-google-wockhardt-intellectual-property.html

Nestle, Gilead, Frack, Starbucks: Intellectual Property

Nestle SA (NESN) lost a patent on one of its Nespresso single-serve coffee machines, the latest legal setback for one of its fastest-growing brands.

The European Patent Office revoked the patent, which covered the lower-cost Pixie brewer, in oral proceedings on Nov. 19 and Nov. 20, according to Rainer Osterwalder, a Munich-based EPO spokesman. Nestec SA, the unit of Nestle that held the patent, can appeal the decision once the full minutes of the proceedings are released in a few weeks, he said.

Nestle, the world’s largest coffee maker, has said its Nespresso machines are protected by 1,700 patents, yet to date the company has been unable to stem the flow of less-expensive copycat capsules from rivals like D.E Master Blenders 1753 and Mondelez International Inc. (MDLZ)

Last month, an EPO appeals board revoked another Nespresso patent, and in April the Vevey, Switzerland-based company lost a battle to block Dualit Ltd. from making capsules in Britain.

“We are disappointed by the decision,” which “fails to recognize the unique innovations inherent in the design of the Nespresso system,” Diane Duperret, a spokeswoman for the brand, said by e-mail. Nespresso will decide whether to appeal once the EPO publishes the ruling, she said.

As posted in Bloomberg by Victoria Slind.

For more related news click on the link below:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-26/nestle-gilead-frack-starbucks-intellectual-property.html

Nokia can't license brand 'Nokia' post Microsoft deal

WASHINGTON: After signing a pact to sell its handset business to Microsoft, Finnish phone giant Nokia can neither license the 'Nokia' brand for use in connection with mobile device sales nor use the brand on its own mobile devices for a specific period.

"Microsoft has also agreed to a 10-year license arrangement with Nokia to use the Nokia brand on current and subsequently developed Mobile Phones based on the Series 30 and Series 40 operating systems," Nokia said in a recent US filins.

okia, which will be left with only its telecom equipment, location and patent development business, would have right to continue and maintain Nokia brand except for certain period as per the agreement. 

After the closing of deal "Nokia would be restricted from licensing the Nokia brand for use in connection with mobile device sales for 30 months and from using the Nokia brand on Nokia's own mobile devices until December 31, 2015," it said. 

 The transaction is expected to close in the first quarter of 2014, subject to approval by Nokia shareholders, regulatory approvals and other customary closing conditions. 

As per telecom magazine Voice&Data, Nokia mobile phones has 27.2 per cent market share India at the end of Financial Year 2012-13. 

Nokia will seek its shareholders approval on November 19 this year to $7.2 billion deal to sell devices and services business to US software giant Microsoft. If shareholders o .. 

Read more at:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/22886334.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst 

US firm Kibow Biotech loses patent battle for kidney drug

US-based Kibow Biotech, which specialises in patented and proprietary probiotic dietary supplements for kidney and immune health, lost its Indian patent titled prebiotic and probiotic compositions and methods for use in gut-based therapies. This comes after a revocation petition filed by a domestic pharma company.

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), in its latest order, revoked the patent, which deals with a pharma composition and its method of use in the kidney patients registered by Kibow Biotech, citing lack of invention.

Kibow Biotech secured two US patents on the same as well as international patents under the Patent Cooperative Treaty (PCT) in India, Australia, Canada, China, Europe, Japan and Korea. The Indian patent was granted in April 2007.

The order follows a patent battle between Kibow Biotech and Gujarat-based La Renon Healthcare. Kibow Biotech filed a civil suit before the Madras high court against La Renon Healthcare, alleging infringement of the impugned patent, while seeking a restraint order to curb the competition in the market from the latter, a major competitor.

Though the suit was dismissed by the court in 2011 due to non-maintainability under Section 599 of the Companies Act, the court, said the plaintiff was entitled to bring a fresh suit after curing the defects of the Act.

As posted in Financial Express by Sajan C Kumar

For more information click on the link below:

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/US-firm-Kibow-Biotech-loses-patent-battle-for-kidney-drug/1198442

Find the Judgement in the link below:
http://www.ipab.tn.nic.in/261-2013.htm

Apple vs. Samsung: Jury awards $290 million to Apple in patent feud..

 SAN JOSE -- With a fresh $290 million jury verdict in hand, Apple(AAPL) got exactly what it wanted from a federal jury Thursday in its continuing patent feud with arch rival Samsung -- another stern message that copying iPhone and iPad technology comes with a steep price.

On the third day of deliberations, an eight-member jury awarded Apple $290 million in damages in the latest round of its legal battle with Samsung, close to the amount the Silicon Valley tech giant sought for Samsung's copying of the iPhone and iPad in 13 Samsung smartphones and tablets.

Jurors said after the verdict that they were aware the outcome would send a broader message about patent infringement, particularly in the valley's tech center.

"We felt that was the message of this trial," said juror Barry Goldman-Hall, a San Jose therapist. "If you invent something, that's a valuable commodity. In this particular business, that's serious."

With the verdict, Apple is owed a total of nearly $930 million for its overall patent infringement case against Samsung, including the results of last year's trial in which a separate jury found the South Korean maker of Galaxy smartphones and tablets and other devices violated Apple's patent rights in dozens of products.

In the most recent trial, the jury largely sided with Apple's demands to be compensated for 13 Samsung smartphones and tablets already found to have copied iPhone and iPad patents, such as Apple's bounce back and pinch-to-zoom features......

As posted in Silicon Valley by Howard mintz.

For more Information click on the link below:

http://www.siliconvalley.com/apple-vs-samsung/ci_24573092/apple-v-samsung-jury-awards-290-million-patent-feud

GOOGLE BOOKS , A FAIR USE ?

Google has won a resounding victory in its eight-year copyright battle with the Authors Guild over the search giant’s controversial decision to scan more than 20 million books from libraries and make them available on the internet.

In a ruling (embedded below) issued Thursday morning in New York, US Circuit Judge Denny Chin said the book scanning amounted to fair use because it was “highly transformative” and because it didn’t harm the market for the original work.

“Google Books provides significant public benefits,” Chin wrote, describing it as “an essential research tool” and noting that the scanning service has expanded literary access for the blind and helped preserve the text of old books from physical decay.

Chin also rejected the theory that Google was depriving authors of income, noting that the company does not sell the scans or make whole copies of books available. He concluded, instead, that Google Books served to help readers discover new books and amounted to “new income from authors.”

The ruling is being hailed on Twitter  by librarians and scholars, who intervened in the case to urge the court to declare that Google Books was fair use — a four-part test  that seeks to balance the rights of authors against broader interests of society.

“This has been a long road and we are absolutely delighted with today’s judgement. As we have long said Google Books is in compliance with copyright law and acts like a card catalog for the digital age – giving users the ability to find books to buy or borrow,” Google said in an emailed statement.

Author’s Guild Executive Director Paul Aiken said by email that the group would appeal the decision. He added:

“We disagree with and are disappointed by the court’s decision today. This case presents a fundamental challenge to copyright that merits review by a higher court. Google made unauthorized digital editions of nearly all of the world’s valuable copyright-protected literature and profits from displaying those works. In our view, such mass digitization and exploitation far exceeds the bounds of the fair use defense.”

The decision itself comes as a volte-face for Judge Chin, who expressed major skepticism about the project in a highly-publicized 2010 ruling that blew up a three-part deal between Google, publishers and the Authors Guild that would have created a market for the scanned books. Chin also agreed last year to allow the cases to proceed as a class action — but the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision  and ordered Chin to instead rule on the fair use question. Thursday’s ruling is effectively an acknowledgment by Chin that the higher court (on which he now sits) wanted him to find fair use.

The ruling is unlikely to sit well with some authors, including Scott Turow, who have decried Google’s scanning as an indignity and a money grab.

The latter idea — that Google is profiting off the books at the expense of authors — has been a rallying cry for opponents of the book scanning. Chin’s ruling, however, takes care to reject the notion in detail, and states that Google “does not engage in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works.”

Find the Judgement here

https://www.eff.org/files/2013/11/14/authors-guild_v_google_fair-use-summary-judgment.pdf