Oracle patent claims versus Google sent to jury

By Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California jury began another round of deliberations on Tuesday in a high profile trial over allegations that Google's Android mobile platform violates Oracle's intellectual property rights.

The jury has already wrestled with Oracle's copyright claims against Google and delivered a partial verdict last week. Now, jurors are mulling Oracle's patent claims, but the potential patent damages appear far less than what is involved in the copyright allegations.

Oracle sued Google in August 2010, saying Android infringes on its intellectual property rights to the Java programming language. Google says it does not violate Oracle's patents and that Oracle cannot copyright certain parts of Java, an "open-source," or publicly available, software language.

The trial in San Francisco federal court has been divided into three phases: copyright liability, patent claims, and damages.

In court on Tuesday, attorneys for both companies made their closing arguments on patents. Oracle attorney Michael Jacobs said it does not matter that Oracle's patents only cover certain small parts of Android.

"You don't avoid infringement because Android is big," Jacobs said, adding that Google's conduct was reckless.

Google attorney Robert Van Nest said the company designed Android from scratch, and that there is no evidence Google encountered the patented technology until Oracle threatened litigation.

"There's not a single document, not an email," Van Nest said.

While Oracle is seeking roughly $1 billion in copyright damages, the patent damages in play are much lower. Before trial, Google offered to pay Oracle roughly $2.8 million in damages on the two patents remaining in the case, covering the period through 2011, according to a filing made jointly by the companies.

For future damages, Google proposed paying Oracle 0.5 percent of Android revenue on one patent until it expires this December and 0.015 percent on a second patent until it expires in April 2018. Oracle rejected the settlement offer.

During trial, U.S. District Judge William Alsup revealed that Android generated roughly $97.7 million in revenue during the first quarter of 2010.

The jury found last week that Oracle had proven copyright infringement for parts of Java. But the jury could not unanimously agree on whether Google could fairly use that material.

Without a finding against Google on that fair use question, Oracle cannot recover damages on the bulk of its copyright claims. Alsup has not yet decided on several legal questions that could determine how a potential retrial would unfold.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Oracle America, Inc v. Google Inc, 10-3561.

(Reporting By Dan Levine; Editing by Tim Dobbyn)

View the original article here

Gevo dismisses Butamax patent infringement lawsuit

JPM Chief Faces Angry Shareholders; Spitzer Sees Conflict With NY FedDaily Ticker

"Jamie's problem...is he's running an institution that's not only 'too big to fail', it's too big to succeed and …

View the original article here

Yahoo escalates patent battle with Facebook

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- Yahoo is bringing out more artillery in its patent battle with Facebook.

It is adding new allegations of intellectual property theft to its six-week-old lawsuit against Facebook. In court papers filed Friday, Yahoo Inc. now says Facebook's online social network infringes on 12 of its Internet patents, up from 10.

Yahoo also denied allegations that it has been infringing on 10 of Facebook's patents and accused its rival of engaging in shady behavior.

Among other things, Yahoo says Facebook violated an agreement between the two companies to notify each other of possible patent infringements before filing a court claim.

"We remain perplexed by Yahoo's erratic actions," Facebook said in a statement. "We disagree with these latest claims and we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously."

Yahoo questioned Facebook's integrity in the new filing in San Francisco federal court. It said Facebook recently bought several patents for the sole purpose of counter-suing Yahoo and then guessed which Yahoo services might rely on the technologies covered by the intellectual property rights.

"Unless Facebook has unlawfully acquired Yahoo confidential business information, Facebook could not have developed a good-faith basis for many of the infringement allegations in its counterclaims," Yahoo's lawyers wrote in the papers.

Shortly after Yahoo filed its lawsuit March 12, Facebook bought 750 patents from IBM Corp. And on Monday, Facebook agreed to pay $550 million for 650 patents that Microsoft Corp. had just bought from AOL Inc.

The acrimony between Yahoo and Facebook is spilling out as Facebook is preparing to raise $5 billion in an initial public offering of stock that is expected to be the richest in Silicon Valley history.

Yahoo's decision to sue Facebook has been widely perceived in Silicon Valley as a desperate grab for a piece of the IPO action.

Once an Internet powerhouse, Yahoo first was eclipsed by online search leader Google Inc. and in recent years has been losing more traffic and advertising to Facebook. The shift has siphoned revenue away from Yahoo, with impacts including 2,000 layoff notices earlier this month, and it has depressed the company's stock price.

Yahoo shares gained four cents Friday to close at $15.57. The stock hasn't traded above $20 since September 2008.

Yahoo hired a new CEO, Scott Thompson, at the start of 2012 in its latest attempt to engineer a turnaround. Thompson, Yahoo's fourth CEO in less than five years, is hoping he can boost the company's stock by getting Facebook to pay patent royalties through a settlement or court ruling. But if there's no truce, the legal skirmish could last years.

View the original article here

WPI in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. (NYSE:WPI - News) recently announced the filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (:ANDA) with the US Food and Drug Administration (:FDA) for a generic version of Depomed Inc.’s (NasdaqGS:DEPO - News) diabetes drug, Glumetza. The drug is used as an adjunct to diet and exercise to improve glycemic control in adults with type II diabetes.

In response, Depomed and Valeant International together filed a lawsuit against Watson Pharma in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, to prevent the generic company from commercializing generic Glumetza before the patents expire.

Since the lawsuit was filed under the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA cannot approve Watson Pharma's ANDA until 30 months from the date of Depomed receiving the notice for the ANDA filing or until the court order, whichever is earlier.

According to IMS Health, US sales of Glumetza amounted to $80 million, for the twelve months ended February 28, 2012.

Separately, Watson Pharma announced the launch of an authorized generic version of Shionogi, Inc.’s drug, Fortamet. The drug is available as an adjunct to diet and exercise to lower blood glucose in patients 17 years or older.

According to IMS Health, US sales of Fortamet came in at $82 million, for the twelve months ended February 28, 2012.

Our View

We currently have a Neutral recommendation on Watson Pharma. The stock carries a Zacks #2 Rank (Buy rating) in the short run.

We expect new generic product launches over regular intervals to help drive the company’s Global Generic segment’s sales, which climbed 46% during 2011 to $3.32 billion, driven by the generic launch of Pfizer Inc.’s (NYSE:PFE - News) Lipitor and Johnson & Johnson’s (NYSE:JNJ - News) Concerta.

Read the Full Research Report on WPI

Read the Full Research Report on DEPO

Read the Full Research Report on PFE

Read the Full Research Report on JNJ

Zacks Investment Research

More From Zacks.com

View the original article here

Lawsuit: Cell makers violated Omaha firm's patent

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- An Omaha company is suing five cellphone service companies for allegedly violating its patent on security technology that helps smartphones, tablets and broadband mobile cards access the internet.

Prism Technologies alleges the companies used systems that it "pioneered and patented," even though they had no legal right to do so. Five separate lawsuits in U.S. District Court of Nebraska were filed against AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile USA, Sprint PCS and U.S. Cellular.

The lawsuits say the company secured a patent for its inventions in October 2007. The company is seeking royalty payments with interest, as well as a judge's order for the companies to stop the alleged violations. In each lawsuit, attorneys for Prism say the company will "be greatly and irreparably harmed" if the patent violations continue.

The company's technology allows carriers to block users who haven't paid for Internet service, and determines whether a user is on a limited data plan.

A spokesman for Prism Technologies and several company attorneys declined to comment. Jonathan Caplan, a Prism attorney based in New York, said the company did not want to speak publicly about the lawsuit.

In a statement, attorneys for Prism Technologies said the cellphone companies violated two patents when they used the technology, which controls access to "computer resources that allow user devices such as smartphones, tablets (and) broadband mobile cards to browse the Internet."

Representatives for T-Mobile and Verizon declined to comment, and a Sprint spokesman said he needed to consult with his company's legal department before speaking. Messages left with AT&T and U.S. Cellular were not returned.

Prism has filed similar federal lawsuits against PayPal, Microsoft and other companies. The Microsoft and PayPal cases were settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Prism Technologies Group has offered information technology support and consulting since 2003, according to its website.

View the original article here