The Samsung Galaxy Note 7 debacle could prove to be a booster shot for Asia's patent market

Back in July, Nokia and Samsung struck a major deal to expand upon the two companies’ earlier cross-licensing agreements to “cover certain additional portfolios of both parties”. AsIAM reported at the time, the deal significantly added to Nokia’s bottom line and could exert pressure on Huawei, which not long before had filed infringement lawsuits against Samsung and had itself been targeted by Nokia’s Solutions & Networks (NSN) unit in apparent retaliation for its attack on T-Mobile.

It seems that Nokia got even more out of the Samsung agreement than what is indicated in the accompanying press release. An assignment recorded with the USPTO a few weeks ago, but dated to 12thJuly – the day before Nokia announced the deal – shows that the Korean company transferred 15 US patents to NSN, all of which cover wireless telecommunications infrastructure. None of these assets are currently involved in NSN’s litigation with Huawei, though it is somewhat intriguing that Samsung has made the assignment to the Finnish company at this time.

Speaking more generally, this transfer comes at a time when the Korean company is increasingly looking at its patents actively as dispensable assets, that can be traded in an attempt to gain strategic benefits, rather than passively as properties that must be held onto mainly for defensive and cross-licensing purposes. Previously, Samsung has rarely transferred its patents to third parties outside of contexts such as joint ventures, spin-outs or collaborations with industry or academia. But in an unprecedented move for the Korean company, it agreed to sell its printer business to HP for $1.05 billion last month. A major component of that deal is the 6,500-plus patent portfolio that will be winging its way to the US buyer.

For several years now, Samsung has been a dominating force across a wide range of consumer product segments, from smartphones to printers to televisions to refrigerators. But the emergence of price-competitive alternatives, particularly from China, India and southeast Asia, means that it is now looking tostreamline its vast business and refocus on what it sees as its most promising future growth areas.

This process looks to have become even more urgent in the wake of Samsung’s recall and eventual withdrawal of its malfunction-prone Galaxy Note 7 phablet, and the Korean company’s rather calamitous handling of the whole situation. The full extent of the damage done to Samsung’s brand by this episode remains to be seen at this stage – just today, the company reported a 30% drop in operating profits for the past quarter – but it would seem clear that the company faces an uphill battle in trying to win back the trust of many consumers.

With all of these factors at work, it is perhaps unsurprising that Samsung’s immense trove of patents is coming into play in a way that it hasn’t previously. Samsung holds the largest portfolio of in-force US patent assets – even taking the planned divestiture to HP into account – and, based on filing figures from other major jurisdictions, we can assume it owns one of the largest worldwide portfolios among private companies. That’s an awful lot of patents that it may turn to in order to drive M&A transactions or sweeten licence agreements – as it appears to have done, respectively, with HP and NSN. Moreover, it could look at selling some of its non-core patents in standalone deals, or open new revenue streams through assertion-based licensing, in its search for value. If Samsung were to begin putting significant patent packages on the market, or launching more aggressive licensing campaigns, the effects on fluidity in the Asia-focused patent market would be felt far and wide.

Then there are Samsung’s key competitors. When it comes to smartphones, the Korean company still dominates the market. But its share has gradually eroded over recent years; and the Galaxy Note 7 fiasco could well contribute to even greater losses, at least over the near term. The most significant growth is further down the table; in the second quarter of this year, China’s Huawei posted year-on-year growth of 8%, while more recent Chinese entrants Oppo and Vivo took fourth and fifth spots with growth of 136.6% and 80.2%, respectively. Not far behind are the likes of Lenovo and Xiaomi.

If these companies want to stake their claim to Samsung’s diminishing market share, they will need to look beyond their home patch and up their presence in mature foreign markets. To do that, they will need patent protection – and more quickly than organic growth is likely to afford them. That means portfolio purchases, licence deals and IP-focused M&A activity – a course of action that several are already pursuing.

The Galaxy Note 7 debacle was clearly a major PR, brand and safety issue that will shake-up the smartphone market. For patent licensors, the near-term results could be negative. But, if the episode encourages one of the world’s largest patent holders to sell and some of its closest competitors to buy, it may also have a lasting positive impact on Asia’s IP landscape. 

Fawlty Towers in trouble

Husband-and-wife Fawlty Towers tribute act are facing personal ruin after John Cleese threatens them with legal action over 'copyright breach'

A husband-and-wife who run a Fawlty Towers tribute act say they face personal ruin after lawyers threatened them with legal action.

Michael and Louise Green, who perform across the country with their Basil &Co dinner show, have been accused of breaching the popular BBC show's copyright, which belongs to actor John Cleese and his ex-wife, actress and co-creator Connie Booth.

The scripts to the show, which ran between 1975 and 1979 and achieved phenomenal success with just 12 episodes, are licensed to comic agent Phil McIntyre 'for the purposes of live entertainment'.

Speaking to MailOnline, the Greens said their business, Laughlines, which employs a number of actors for their other parodies which include Only Fools and Horses, Father Ted and 'Allo 'Allo, is now in jeopardy, as theatres have cancelled appearances following the legal threat.

Equity actor Michael, 53, from Harrogate, who plays Basil Fawlty, said: 'Fawlty Towers was my favourite comedy of all time. I am deeply upset that John Cleese has gone for me.

Wife Louise, 49, added: 'The stress of what is happening is horrendous - it has taken over our lives for the past couple of years.

'We have done absolutely nothing wrong, but for some reason they are trying to crush us.

'We use the characters, but not the name 'Fawlty Towers'.

'Perhaps we are being targeted because our comedy dinner shows are a success.

'All we are doing is using the characters from the show. We are not using the Fawlty Towers' scripts.

'It is an original work, a parody. We are not breaching copyright laws.'

JG IP DESK opines : if you want to use somebody's copyrighted work, you have to pay them, just the same as people pay you for your work.

Stop gaining negative popularity , either write your own stuff or pay up.

For more details on copyrights contact us : www.judithattorneys.com or call us on 9731479003

A jury in California had decided that the use of Java APIs in Android was fair use.

Oracle takes Java copyright dispute with Google to appeals court

A jury in California had decided that the use of Java APIs in Android was fair use.

Oracle is appealing a federal court judge's decision striking down its bid for a retrial in a $9 billion copyright infringement suit against Google over the use of Java code in the Android operating system.

A jury in May had cleared Google of copyright infringement, upholding the company’s stand that its use of 37 Java APIs (application programming interfaces) in Android constituted "fair use" under the Copyright Act, which allows copying of creative works under certain circumstances. Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a final judgment in favor of Google on June 8.

Oracle had subsequently asked the district court for a new trial, which would be the third in this dispute. The company claimed, among other grounds, that Google had concealed information during discovery on its plans to integrate Android apps with the Chrome OS running on desktops and laptops, thus extending the scope of the infringement beyond smartphones and tablets.

Alsup last month denied Oracle a new trial. He wrote in his decision that Google had produced at least nine documents discussing the goals and technical details of its ARC++ project in 2015, at least five months before trial, but the information was in any case not relevant to the trial, which was limited to infringement in smartphones and tablets.

Oracle provided notice to the court Wednesday that it was appealing the June 8 final judgment, the order denying a retrial and other decisions by the court.
 An Oracle lawyer had said after the trial that the company planned to appeal the jury verdict in the Federal Circuit.

Last week the United States Supreme heard oral arguments in the never-ending patent battle between Samsung Electronics and Apple. In this iteration of fighting between these two giant tech companies Apple, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a $400 million design patent infringement award. Samsung appealed to the Supreme Court.


The question before the Supreme Court relates to 35 U.S.C. 289 and whether it is appropriate to apportion damages under that statute. The statute is quite clear on the subject, and if the Supreme Court limits itself to the explicit wording of the statute apportionment would be inappropriate and Apple will hold on to the $400 million design patent infringement award. During oral arguments, however, many of the Justices seemed skeptical. Justice Kennedy even hinted at the possibility of a de minimus exception, which leaves many wonder whether the Supreme Court will judicially re-write the statute or use some other contrived judicial exception to significantly reduce Apple’s damage award.

Design patents have become increasingly important over the last decade as the standard for proving design patent infringement has veered toward the substantial observer test familiar in copyright litigation. This has lead many large corporations, such as automakers and shoe companies, like Nike, to generously file on new designs. Should the Supreme Court rule against Apple the decision would have far reaching implications well outside of this mammoth battle of smartphone giants.

Be Alert

Make sure you read the License agreement before you download the software. You might have given permission to the vendor to track your system .This is perfect in a scenario where you are using  only a licensed version .

But due to various reasons , if you or your associates or employees (obviously their actions are not under your control) use a pirated version of the software , then be ready to face the evidence the Vendor might present on your table.

This might definitely be a copyright issue which might end up in you paying a hefty cheque !!!Pirated versions are much more expensive than the originals.Now its you who should decide whether you want to use the originals or the pirated (plus court fees/advocate fees/tensions/mental pressure and stress as a package)

Dictionary : 

1. Pirate =use or reproduce (another's work) for profit without permission, usually in contravention of patent or copyright.
2. License =authorize the use, performance, or release of (something);permit (someone) to do something.

Internet included in broadcasting for purpose of Copyright

According to the Government,“All kinds of broadcasting including internet broadcasting” will also form part of broadcasting organizations desirous of communicating to the public for purposes of copyright.
Amplifying the definition of broadcasting in section 31D of the Copyright Act 1957, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion Deputy Secretary Surabhi Sharma has said in a directive to the Registrar of Copyrights that broadcasting should not be restrictively read as meaning just radio and television , but also includes Internet broadcasting.The Section refers to any performance or work available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public “other than by making physical copies of it.”
Administration of the Copyright Act and Intellectual Property Rights was taken up by DIPP in March this year.Before that it  had been part of the Human Resource Development Ministry and the film, music and television industries have always grudged this as they feel it should be with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry.
A single window interface was unveiled by the Government for information on IPR and guidance on leveraging it for competitive advantage. The Indian IP Panorama portal seeks to increase awareness and build sensitivity towards IP, among stakeholders in the SME sector, academia and researchers. 
The toolkit has been adapted to cater to SMEs and start-ups, especially in the ICTE sector of India based on an agreement signed between WIPO and Department of Electronic and Information Technology. The Indian IP Panorama is thus a customized version of WIPO’s original product and is in accordance with Indian IP laws, standards, challenges and needs of the Indian ICTE sector.

India is a member of WIPO and party to several treaties administered by WIPO. Recognizing that the strategic use of intellectual property could contribute significantly to the national development objectives of India, DIPP entered into an MoU with WIPO on 13 November 2009.

Copyright Act now covers online streaming too

In a move that will benefit audio streaming websites such as Saavn and Gaana as well as artistes, the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has brought Internet broadcasting under the ambit of the copyright law.

Now, music companies such as T-Series, Tips and streaming websites have to approach the copyright board to decide royalty on songs. Since Internet broadcasting was not covered under the copyright Act so far, music rights owners used to have an upper hand in deciding royalties to be paid by streaming websites and were not bound to share the revenues with artists.

Pratibha Singh, an intellectual property (IP) lawyer, said the decision recognizes that the Internet has become a powerful medium. “Now, music right holders have to share with any internet player that wants to avail of their content in return of payment of a royalty. They can no longer hold back their content from any internet broadcaster and share it exclusively with a competing player. This will also benefit artists who will now get their share of royalty from revenue generated from online dissemination of the content,” she added.