Connect with us

Patents

Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 4

Published

on

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED V/S CIPLA LIMITED

In this case, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction before the Madras High Court against the Applicant/Defendant for infringement of its copyright and trademark. The Court herein, granted an interim injunction in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff. Henceforth, the Applicant/Defendant filed three applications with a plea to vacate the interim relief granted on grounds of urgency. The plea was based on the fact that the drugs were of a huge amount, carried an expiry date of 1 year, and were in demand because of the ongoing pandemic as they helped in relieving the Covid-19 symptoms. The Court held that the Respondent/Plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for continuance of the interim order as the balance of convenience continued to be in their favour. While holding so, the Court pointed out that they cannot allow a party to violate another person’s IPR, notwithstanding the fact that the country was facing an unprecedented medical emergency. The Court upheld the interim order and held that it shall continue to remain in force subject to the final decision of the suit.

Citation: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited vs. Cipla Limited …, Decided by Madras High Court in May, 2021, available at: IndianKanoon link to Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. vs. Cipla Limited, visited on 1st July, 2021.

V Guard Industries Ltd vs Sukan Raj Jain & Anr.

In this case relating to allegations of “V Guard” trademark infringement, the defendants argued against the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court as plaintiff and defendants do not have their principal businesses in Delhi. The allegedly infringing products were being offered for sale, advertised, and sold through online portals. After reviewing the facts, the Court came to the conclusion that it had the territorial jurisdiction because the plaintiff has business in Delhi, and because the product bearing the mark was being advertised and sold in Delhi through online means.

The Court cited the following judgments pertaining to jurisdiction of copyright and trademark suits while arriving at its conclusion:

“34. The aforesaid contention raised on behalf of the Defendant is facile in view of the settled position of law. The Supreme Court in IPRS (SC) has settled the debate on choice of forums available to a plaintiff to file an action against infringement and passing off. It has been declared that by virtue of Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, additional jurisdictions have been made available to plaintiff, over and above the jurisdictions available under Section 20 CPC. The Supreme Court, after considering its earlier decisions including Patel Roadways Limited, Bombay (Supra) and Dhodha House (Supra), held as follows:

“18. On a due and anxious consideration of the provisions contained in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 62 of the Copyright Act and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, and the object with which the latter provisions have been enacted, it is clear that if a cause of action has arisen wholly or in part, where the Plaintiff is residing or having its principal office/carries on business or personally works for gain, the suit can be filed at such place/s. Plaintiff (s) can also institute a suit at a place where he is residing, carrying on business or personally works for gain de hors the fact that the cause of action has not arisen at a place where he/they are residing or any one of them is residing, carries on business or personally works for gain. However, this right to institute suit at such a place has to be read subject to certain restrictions, such as in case Plaintiff is residing or carrying on business at a particular place/having its head office and at such place cause of action has also arisen wholly or in part, Plaintiff cannot ignore such a place under the guise that he is carrying on business at other far flung places also. The very intendment of the insertion of provision in the Copyright Act and Trade Marks Act is the convenience of the Plaintiff. The rule of convenience of the parties has been given a statutory expression in Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well. The interpretation of provisions has to be such which prevents the mischief of causing inconvenience to parties.
19. The intendment of the aforesaid provisions inserted in the Copyright Act and the Trade Marks Act is to provide a forum to the Plaintiff where he is residing, carrying on business or personally works for gain. The object is to ensure that the Plaintiff is not deterred from instituting infringement proceedings “because the court in which proceedings are to be instituted is at a considerable distance from the place of their ordinary residence…”
35. The decision in IPRS (SC) was later followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ultra Home Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Purushottam Kumar Chaubey & Ors. reported as 2016 SCC OnLine Del 376, wherein it was held as under:

“14. It is evident from the above observations that the interpretation given to the expression “carries on business” in the context of a defendant under section 20 of the Code has also been employed in the context of a plaintiff under the said sections 134(2) and 62(2). Thus, in addition to the places where suits could be filed under section 20 of the Code, the plaintiff can also institute a suit under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, as the case may be, by taking advantage of the provisions of section 134(2) or section 62(2), respectively. Both the latter provisions are in pari materia. Under these provisions four situations can be contemplated in the context of the plaintiff being a corporation (which includes a company). First of all, is the case where the plaintiff has a sole office. In such a case, even if the cause of action has arisen at a different place, the plaintiff can institute a suit at the place of the sole office. Next is the case where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and a subordinate or branch office at another place and the cause of action has arisen at the place of the principal office. In such a case, the plaintiff may sue at the place of the principal office but cannot sue at the place of the subordinate office. The third case is where the plaintiff has a principal office at one place and the cause of action has arisen at the place where its subordinate office is located. In this eventuality, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of his subordinate office and not at the place of the principal office. Thus, the plaintiff could sue at the place of the subordinate office and cannot sue (under the scheme of the provisions of section 134(2) and 62(2)) at the place of the principal office. The fourth case is where the cause of action neither arises at the place of the principal office nor at the place of the subordinate office but at some other place. In this case, the plaintiff would be deemed to carry on business at the place of its principal office and not at the place of the subordinate office. And, consequently, it could institute a suit at the place of its principal office but not at the place of its subordinate office. All these four cases are set out in the table below for greater clarity:
36. If under Section 20 CPC, jurisdiction of the Court is attracted by virtue of location of the defendant‟s place of business or from where the defendant is carrying on its business or working for gain, under Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, it is the plaintiff‟s office location or from where he is carrying on business, is a material factor. However, in IPRS (SC) (Supra), the occurrence of cause of action has been read into Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, as a determining factor, even though not spelt out in the language, on the lines of Section 20 CPC. Therefore, if some part of cause of action has arisen at a place where the plaintiff has its branch/subordinate office, Courts at that place will have jurisdiction to entertain a suit against infringement and passing off. In other words, the occurrence of cause of action or any part thereof, at a place, is held to be a determining factor, both under Section 20 CPC, and Section 134 of the Trade Marks Act, to attract jurisdiction of the court at such place. ”

Citation: V Guard Industries Ltd vs Sukan Raj Jain & Anr., Decided by Delhi High Court on 5 July, 2021, available at: IndianKanoon link to V Guard Industries Ltd vs Sukan Raj Jain & Anr, visited on 8th July, 2021.

Frankfinn Aviation vs Fly High Institute & Ors.

In this case the trademark involved was “Fly High”, the Delhi High Court granted an Ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff, and restrained the defendant from using the mark on its websites, social media platforms or otherwise. The Court in a short observation pointed out that there is a prima facie case because the plaintiff was using the trademark from 2007 while the defendant was using only from 2018. It pointed out that irreparable harm would be caused if interim relief was not granted, and therefore proceeded with its order.

Citation: Frankfinn Aviation … vs Fly High Institute & Ors, Decided by Delhi High Court on 5 July, 2021, available at:
Frankfinn Aviation vs Fly High Institute and Ors., visited on 9th July, 2021.

Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 1 here

Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 2 here

Read Latest Trademark Cases in 2021 – Part 3 here


This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department.

About the Department

BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions.

Updates on recent orders and judgments are brought to you jointly by the Entertainment Law and Consulting/Strategy Divisions of BananaIP Counsels, a Top ranked IP Firm in India. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected]  with the subject:  Copyright Judgments

Disclaimer

Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to [email protected]  for corrections and take down.

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.bananaip.com/ip-news-center/latest-trademark-cases-in-2021-part-4/

Patents

Apple and its gimmick, what is AirTag?

Published

on

Remember when all people talked about was the key-finder? As if they were the only thing people frequently lost. Apple has turned this common problem into the idea for its latest product, AirTag, an intelligent detector for the objects we always fear losing.

The device is about the size of a coin, about 32mm in diameter and weighing 11g, it is sold individually or in sets of four, working of course with an iOS app. AirTag has an elegant yet simple design and can also be used as a key ring. 

Once the AirTag has been removed from its packaging, all we have to do is pull away the protective plastic tab to enable the battery, and then all we have to do is bring it close to the iPhone or iPad and it will be immediately recognised and we can register AirTag on our Apple account.

So if you’re tired of searching for hours and hours for an object, once you’ve bought AirTag, just clip it on your keys and bag and go out in a carefree manner.

HOW IT WORKS

If you think you’ve lost your wallet, pick up your smartphone, open the new Where’s app and play the AirTag’s built-in speaker. Or you can ask Siri like this: “Hey Siri, find my wallet”. If it’s nearby, like under the sofa or in the next room, just follow the sound to find it. In addition to the easily recognisable sound, AirTag also provides a map of the lost item via the ‘Precise location’ function.  If the AirTag is nearby, the “Precise Location” function on your iPhone can guide you to its exact location. Thanks to Ultra Wideband technology, you will see the direction to follow and the exact distance. This feature is especially compatible with the following iPhone models: 
iPhone 11
iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max
iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini
iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max

image source: apple.com

At this point it is clear that AirTag is nothing more than a Bluetooth tracker. When you need to find something, the AirTag sends out a secure Bluetooth signal that can be picked up by nearby devices in the Where’s network. These devices send AirTag’s location to iCloud. When you open the Where’s app, you’ll see it on the map. The whole process is anonymous and encrypted to protect your privacy.

image source: apple.com

Apple has thought of everything. If another person’s AirTag accidentally ends up in your stuff, your iPhone notices it’s moving with you and alerts you.  Or if you’re in a place where other people have an AirTag, the alerts are only triggered when the AirTag moves away from the person it belongs to.

You can find all the information you need to purchase here

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.thepatent.news/2021/07/28/apple-gimmick-airtag/

Continue Reading

Patents

Apple and its gimmick, what is AirTag?

Published

on

Remember when all people talked about was the key-finder? As if they were the only thing people frequently lost. Apple has turned this common problem into the idea for its latest product, AirTag, an intelligent detector for the objects we always fear losing.

The device is about the size of a coin, about 32mm in diameter and weighing 11g, it is sold individually or in sets of four, working of course with an iOS app. AirTag has an elegant yet simple design and can also be used as a key ring. 

Once the AirTag has been removed from its packaging, all we have to do is pull away the protective plastic tab to enable the battery, and then all we have to do is bring it close to the iPhone or iPad and it will be immediately recognised and we can register AirTag on our Apple account.

So if you’re tired of searching for hours and hours for an object, once you’ve bought AirTag, just clip it on your keys and bag and go out in a carefree manner.

HOW IT WORKS

If you think you’ve lost your wallet, pick up your smartphone, open the new Where’s app and play the AirTag’s built-in speaker. Or you can ask Siri like this: “Hey Siri, find my wallet”. If it’s nearby, like under the sofa or in the next room, just follow the sound to find it. In addition to the easily recognisable sound, AirTag also provides a map of the lost item via the ‘Precise location’ function.  If the AirTag is nearby, the “Precise Location” function on your iPhone can guide you to its exact location. Thanks to Ultra Wideband technology, you will see the direction to follow and the exact distance. This feature is especially compatible with the following iPhone models: 
iPhone 11
iPhone 11 Pro and iPhone 11 Pro Max
iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini
iPhone 12 Pro and iPhone 12 Pro Max

image source: apple.com

At this point it is clear that AirTag is nothing more than a Bluetooth tracker. When you need to find something, the AirTag sends out a secure Bluetooth signal that can be picked up by nearby devices in the Where’s network. These devices send AirTag’s location to iCloud. When you open the Where’s app, you’ll see it on the map. The whole process is anonymous and encrypted to protect your privacy.

image source: apple.com

Apple has thought of everything. If another person’s AirTag accidentally ends up in your stuff, your iPhone notices it’s moving with you and alerts you.  Or if you’re in a place where other people have an AirTag, the alerts are only triggered when the AirTag moves away from the person it belongs to.

You can find all the information you need to purchase here

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.thepatent.news/2021/07/28/apple-gimmick-airtag/

Continue Reading

Patents

Sisvel vs. Haier: Düsseldorf court follows case law in Via Licensing and TCL dispute

Published

on

In urgent preliminary proceedings, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has upheld two injunctions against TCL, handed down by the city’s first-instance Regional Court (case numbers: 4b O 83/19, 4b O 23/20, and 4b 49/20). The Higher Regional Court rejected two objections by the European and German distributors of Chinese company TCL against the judgment, as well as its FRAND defence, after Via Licensing members claimed infringement by the company.

TCL disputed the validity of the first judgment. However, the Higher Regional Court corroborates the first instance decision of TCL being what the court deems an unwilling licensee (case ID: I-15 U 39/21 and I-15 U 40/21).

Sisvel vs. Haier sets standard

Previously, the Düsseldorf court had a relatively low threshold regarding the alleged infringer’s willingness to take a licence. However, in upholding the two latest judgments, the Higher Regional Court shadows the Federal Court of Justice’s recently-developed approach to licence holders. The Karlsruhe court recently heightened its standard for implementers in the case between Sisvel vs. Haier.

At the end of October 2019, Dolby and Philips filed three cases against TCL in Düsseldorf, heard by the Regional Court in March 2021 and April 2021 respectively. The standard essential patents subject to the most recent order are EP 1 410 687 and EP 1 342 230. Dolby owns both patents; both cover the standard MPEG-4 AAC (advanced audio coding). Another Dolby patent has since expired.

A third decision, regarding Via Licensing pool member Philips, is also pending before judge Thomas Kühnen (court ID: I-2 U 13/21).

The current judgments pertain to TCL’s distribution of mobile phones and tablets containing the AAC technology. However, the preliminary proceedings are just the beginning of the main appeal proceedings between Dolby, Philips and TCL. It will likely be a year before the main proceedings take place.

Leading to a licence

Via Licensing distributes licences on behalf of its members’ SEPs. In 2005, TCL had taken a licence for Dolby and Philips’ SEPs through Via Licensing. The pool terminated the licences in 2007; subsequent years of unsuccessful negotiating licensing agreements then followed.

In May 2021, the first instance Düsseldorf court decreed that the two Dolby and one Philips patents are all SEPs. It then issued an injunction against TCL in all three cases. A week before the hearing, the Chinese electronics company had submitted a FRAND licensing counter-offer, but the court found TCL an unwilling licensee. It also rejected the FRAND defence.

TCL then filed an appeal, requesting a stay of enforcement of the judgments for the appeal term. However, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf rejected the offer in a preliminary hearing. In doing so, the court has followed the approach of the Federal Court of Justice in Sisvel vs. Haier – namely, that implementers must demonstrate willingness to actively seek a licence.

According to the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, it is no longer enough to simply submit a licence offer when it may have already by-passed several previous opportunities to do so. This broadly follows the reasoning from Karlsruhe, whose judges noted that it is insufficient for a party to express the will to conclude a licence with the SEP holder only once. Implementers, say the court, must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’.

Sisvel vs. Haier on stage

In 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled that Haier had infringed two Sisvel SEPs: EP 08 52 885 and EP 12 64 504. Furthermore, the court decided that the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer did not make sufficient efforts to obtain a FRAND licence (case ID: K ZR 35/17).

While the court ruled that Haier infringed both patents, antitrust senate judges also ruled that Haier was an unwilling licensee. This is because the company did not submit FRAND offers quickly and concretely enough.

In handing down its decisions, the judges gave implementers more obligations than many experts expected. Thus, implementers must not only actively seek a licence; according to the Federal Court judges, they must also react in good time. The patent user must also examine the patent portfolio at relatively short notice.

According to the judges, implementers must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’, in other words using a delaying tactic to avoid paying a licence fee for as long as possible. For example, the implementers can do this by declaring their interest in a licence. However, the party might then not work towards the conclusion of a licence.

German courts align

Interestingly, while the senate of Ulrike Voß followed the Sisvel vs. Haier reasoning in the two Dolby judgments, the Philips judgment remains pending at the senate of Thomas Kühnen. The latter judge is notoriously outspoken against the Karlsruhe court’s approach to FRAND licensing.

Via Licensing

Tilman Müller

In the Sisvel vs. Haier case, trial observers saw the ruling as a strong contrast to case law from the Düsseldorf patent courts, and more in line with the Mannheim and Munich patent courts. Now the Düsseldorf courts are more aligned with Munich. Observers suggest that this ruling is another step along the path of appealing to patentees to file cases in Germany.

Furthermore, proceedings at the Mannheim Regional Court between Fraunhofer and TCL have now concluded, with one case pending in the first instance and stayed. In the other case, the judges rendered a negative first instance decision. Klaka, on behalf of TCL, have filed an appeal before the Karlsruhe court.

Two further cases are pending in Düsseldorf at the first instance. One is another Dolby patent against TCL, with the other filed by Japanese IT corporation NEC against TCL.

Who’s who in patent

In the three cases against Philips, Dolby and Fraunhofer, TCL has different German legal representation. Vossius, led by partner Andreas Kramer, represents TCL in the cases against Dolby. Patent attorney Christian Sandweg also worked on the nullity aspects of the case.

For the Philips case, the Düsseldorf office of CMS Hasche Sigle represented TCL. Although the team has frequently changed for TCL against Fraunhofer, the latest firm to lead proceedings for TCL is Klaka. The IP boutique represented the company in both Mannheim and Karlsruhe, taking over the two cases in 2018 for its first instruction for the company.

Via Licensing

Andreas Kramer

The Hamburg-based mixed IP firm Eisenführ Speiser is representing both Dolby and Philips. The firm has worked with Philips since around 2010, with its relationship to Via Licensing and other members such as Dolby going back to 2014.

The firm also represents Fraunhofer in the now-concluded Mannheim proceedings.

For Philips/Dolby
Eisenführ Speiser (Hamburg): Tilman Müller, Volkmar Henke (partners); Stefan Wiethoff (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Dolby
Vossius & Partner (Munich): Andreas Kramer (partner, lead); associates: Hannes Obex, Philipp Widera; Christian Sandweg (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Philips
CMS Hasche Sigle (Düsseldorf): Markus Deck; associate: Sven Krause

For TCL against Fraunhofer
Klaka (Düsseldorf): Olaf Giebe, Wolfgang Götz (partners)
Gulde & Partner (Berlin): Nicolas Haße

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
Ulrike Voß

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/sisvel-vs-haier-dusseldorf-court-follows-case-law-in-via-licensing-and-tcl-dispute/

Continue Reading

Patents

Sisvel vs. Haier: Düsseldorf court follows case law in Via Licensing and TCL dispute

Published

on

In urgent preliminary proceedings, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf has upheld two injunctions against TCL, handed down by the city’s first-instance Regional Court (case numbers: 4b O 83/19, 4b O 23/20, and 4b 49/20). The Higher Regional Court rejected two objections by the European and German distributors of Chinese company TCL against the judgment, as well as its FRAND defence, after Via Licensing members claimed infringement by the company.

TCL disputed the validity of the first judgment. However, the Higher Regional Court corroborates the first instance decision of TCL being what the court deems an unwilling licensee (case ID: I-15 U 39/21 and I-15 U 40/21).

Sisvel vs. Haier sets standard

Previously, the Düsseldorf court had a relatively low threshold regarding the alleged infringer’s willingness to take a licence. However, in upholding the two latest judgments, the Higher Regional Court shadows the Federal Court of Justice’s recently-developed approach to licence holders. The Karlsruhe court recently heightened its standard for implementers in the case between Sisvel vs. Haier.

At the end of October 2019, Dolby and Philips filed three cases against TCL in Düsseldorf, heard by the Regional Court in March 2021 and April 2021 respectively. The standard essential patents subject to the most recent order are EP 1 410 687 and EP 1 342 230. Dolby owns both patents; both cover the standard MPEG-4 AAC (advanced audio coding). Another Dolby patent has since expired.

A third decision, regarding Via Licensing pool member Philips, is also pending before judge Thomas Kühnen (court ID: I-2 U 13/21).

The current judgments pertain to TCL’s distribution of mobile phones and tablets containing the AAC technology. However, the preliminary proceedings are just the beginning of the main appeal proceedings between Dolby, Philips and TCL. It will likely be a year before the main proceedings take place.

Leading to a licence

Via Licensing distributes licences on behalf of its members’ SEPs. In 2005, TCL had taken a licence for Dolby and Philips’ SEPs through Via Licensing. The pool terminated the licences in 2007; subsequent years of unsuccessful negotiating licensing agreements then followed.

In May 2021, the first instance Düsseldorf court decreed that the two Dolby and one Philips patents are all SEPs. It then issued an injunction against TCL in all three cases. A week before the hearing, the Chinese electronics company had submitted a FRAND licensing counter-offer, but the court found TCL an unwilling licensee. It also rejected the FRAND defence.

TCL then filed an appeal, requesting a stay of enforcement of the judgments for the appeal term. However, the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf rejected the offer in a preliminary hearing. In doing so, the court has followed the approach of the Federal Court of Justice in Sisvel vs. Haier – namely, that implementers must demonstrate willingness to actively seek a licence.

According to the Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, it is no longer enough to simply submit a licence offer when it may have already by-passed several previous opportunities to do so. This broadly follows the reasoning from Karlsruhe, whose judges noted that it is insufficient for a party to express the will to conclude a licence with the SEP holder only once. Implementers, say the court, must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’.

Sisvel vs. Haier on stage

In 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe ruled that Haier had infringed two Sisvel SEPs: EP 08 52 885 and EP 12 64 504. Furthermore, the court decided that the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer did not make sufficient efforts to obtain a FRAND licence (case ID: K ZR 35/17).

While the court ruled that Haier infringed both patents, antitrust senate judges also ruled that Haier was an unwilling licensee. This is because the company did not submit FRAND offers quickly and concretely enough.

In handing down its decisions, the judges gave implementers more obligations than many experts expected. Thus, implementers must not only actively seek a licence; according to the Federal Court judges, they must also react in good time. The patent user must also examine the patent portfolio at relatively short notice.

According to the judges, implementers must act in a way that avoids the so-called ‘patent hold-out’, in other words using a delaying tactic to avoid paying a licence fee for as long as possible. For example, the implementers can do this by declaring their interest in a licence. However, the party might then not work towards the conclusion of a licence.

German courts align

Interestingly, while the senate of Ulrike Voß followed the Sisvel vs. Haier reasoning in the two Dolby judgments, the Philips judgment remains pending at the senate of Thomas Kühnen. The latter judge is notoriously outspoken against the Karlsruhe court’s approach to FRAND licensing.

Via Licensing

Tilman Müller

In the Sisvel vs. Haier case, trial observers saw the ruling as a strong contrast to case law from the Düsseldorf patent courts, and more in line with the Mannheim and Munich patent courts. Now the Düsseldorf courts are more aligned with Munich. Observers suggest that this ruling is another step along the path of appealing to patentees to file cases in Germany.

Furthermore, proceedings at the Mannheim Regional Court between Fraunhofer and TCL have now concluded, with one case pending in the first instance and stayed. In the other case, the judges rendered a negative first instance decision. Klaka, on behalf of TCL, have filed an appeal before the Karlsruhe court.

Two further cases are pending in Düsseldorf at the first instance. One is another Dolby patent against TCL, with the other filed by Japanese IT corporation NEC against TCL.

Who’s who in patent

In the three cases against Philips, Dolby and Fraunhofer, TCL has different German legal representation. Vossius, led by partner Andreas Kramer, represents TCL in the cases against Dolby. Patent attorney Christian Sandweg also worked on the nullity aspects of the case.

For the Philips case, the Düsseldorf office of CMS Hasche Sigle represented TCL. Although the team has frequently changed for TCL against Fraunhofer, the latest firm to lead proceedings for TCL is Klaka. The IP boutique represented the company in both Mannheim and Karlsruhe, taking over the two cases in 2018 for its first instruction for the company.

Via Licensing

Andreas Kramer

The Hamburg-based mixed IP firm Eisenführ Speiser is representing both Dolby and Philips. The firm has worked with Philips since around 2010, with its relationship to Via Licensing and other members such as Dolby going back to 2014.

The firm also represents Fraunhofer in the now-concluded Mannheim proceedings.

For Philips/Dolby
Eisenführ Speiser (Hamburg): Tilman Müller, Volkmar Henke (partners); Stefan Wiethoff (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Dolby
Vossius & Partner (Munich): Andreas Kramer (partner, lead); associates: Hannes Obex, Philipp Widera; Christian Sandweg (partner, patent attorney)

For TCL against Philips
CMS Hasche Sigle (Düsseldorf): Markus Deck; associate: Sven Krause

For TCL against Fraunhofer
Klaka (Düsseldorf): Olaf Giebe, Wolfgang Götz (partners)
Gulde & Partner (Berlin): Nicolas Haße

Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf
Ulrike Voß

PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Click here to access.

Source: https://www.juve-patent.com/news-and-stories/cases/sisvel-vs-haier-dusseldorf-court-follows-case-law-in-via-licensing-and-tcl-dispute/

Continue Reading
Esports4 days ago

Teppei Genshin Impact Voice Actor: Who is it?

Esports4 days ago

Who won Minecraft Championships (MCC) 15? | Final Standings and Scores

Esports5 days ago

All ranked mode rewards for Pokémon UNITE: Season 1

Aviation3 days ago

Legendary F-14 Pilot Dale ‘Snort’ Snodgrass Dies In A Tragic Plane Crash

Cleantech4 days ago

Form Energy Reveals Iron-Air 100 Hour Storage Battery

Esports4 days ago

Sakura Arborism Genshin Impact: How to Complete

Esports5 days ago

Here are the results for the PUBG Mobile World Invitational (PMWI) West 2021

watch-live-russias-pirs-module-set-to-depart-space-station-today.jpg
Aerospace3 days ago

Watch live: Russia’s Pirs module set to depart space station today

Esports5 days ago

Here are the results for the PUBG Mobile World Invitational (PMWI) East 2021

best-gengar-build-in-pokemon-unite.png
Esports4 days ago

Best Gengar build in Pokémon UNITE

Techcrunch4 days ago

This Week in Apps: Clubhouse opens up, Twitter talks bitcoin, Snap sees record quarter

Cyber Security5 days ago

Threat Actors are Abusing Argo Workflows to Target Kubernetes

Esports5 days ago

Are there ranked rewards in Pokémon UNITE?

Esports4 days ago

Best Garchomp build in Pokémon UNITE

Cyber Security5 days ago

What Programming Language Should I Learn for CyberSecurity?

Blockchain4 days ago

Canadian Border Town Halts Crypto Mining to Draw Up Regulations

Esports4 days ago

How to unlock Pokémon in Pokémon UNITE, all Unite License costs

AR/VR4 days ago

Warplanes: WW1 Fighters to See Official Oculus Quest Store Launch This Week

AI4 days ago

What is the Freedom Phone and Should You Buy It?

Crowdfunding4 days ago

Calgary, Alberta’s Allied Venture Partners Confirms they’ve Invested $1M+ into Early-Stage Tech Firms

Trending