Welcome to Home Home Depot
HomeHomeDepot is a free resource for home and home depot information world wide. Home and Home Depot updates information related to various news and articles. Home Home Deopt also offers comprehensive web directory for home related category listings.
Home Depot Article
|
TiVo, Rubbermaid, Deere, Home Depot: Intellectual Property
May 17 (Bloomberg) -- TiVo Inc.’s patent-infringement victory against Dish Network Corp. and EchoStar Corp. will get a second look by the court that hears appeals of patent cases. The court said May 14 all active judges will take a second look at a panel’s March 4 finding that Dish and EchoStar were violating Tivo’s digital-video recording patent, even after claiming they had altered their technology to avoid infringement. TiVo, based in Alviso, California, had argued the changes weren’t sufficient. TiVo, a pioneer of digital-video recording, said it’s disappointed in the decision to have further proceedings in the case, which began with a lawsuit in 2004 against Dish and EchoStar when those two were a single satellite-television and equipment company. TiVo shares had more than doubled in the 12 months before May 14 as investors bet the litigation would favor the company. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set a schedule of up to four months for the submission of written arguments. It didn’t say when the case would be heard. “We believe the issues that will be considered by the full court on rehearing will have a profound impact on innovation in the United States for years to come,” Englewood, Colorado-based Dish and EchoStar said in a joint statement. The Federal Circuit, which specializes in patent law, will consider whether the judge in the case erred in not giving Dish a trial to determine if changes made to the Dish software effectively worked around the TiVo patent. The 2-1 panel in March said a hearing was adequate. The full appeals court also plans to hear arguments on the standard of proof in such cases. “We are disappointed that we do not yet have finality in this case despite years of litigation,” Krista Wierzbicki, a TiVo spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. “We remain confident that the Federal Circuit’s ruling in our favor will be reaffirmed.” TiVo is seeking a court order that would halt Dish’s DVR service and force the satellite-TV company into paying licensing fees. Dish Chief Executive Officer Charles Ergen has told a court it would cost the company “several hundred million dollars” a month to shut down its service. TiVo won its trial in 2006, claiming Dish infringed its patent for so-called “time warp” technology that lets users record a TV program and play it back at the same time. The verdict was upheld on appeal, as was an order that Dish stop providing its DVR service. Dish continued to provide the service, saying it made alterations to bypass TiVo’s invention. U.S. District Judge David Folsom in Marshall, Texas, sided with TiVo in June, again ordering Dish and EchoStar to shut down the DVR service and citing the companies with contempt. The Federal Circuit later said it would allow Dish’s customers with digital-video recorders to continue using the service while the company appealed Folsom’s ruling. That stay remains in effect, and Dish has asked Folsom to approve a new design of the service. TiVo said it will be entitled to about $300 million in damages and contempt sanctions through July 1, 2009, and it will seek additional cash for continued infringement after that date. That’s in addition to $100 million Dish paid TiVo after the original appeals court ruling. TiVo is also counting on a legal victory against Dish to expand distribution on pay-TV services. The company, which reported $237.6 million in revenue in its past fiscal year, needs new agreements as subscribers drop. Total TiVo subscriptions fell 22 percent to 2.61 million from 3.34 million a year ago, TiVo said in March. The suit originally was against EchoStar Communications Inc., which oversaw digital set-top box manufacturing and satellite services businesses, and ran the Dish TV network. The businesses split into EchoStar and Dish Network in January 2008. DirecTV Group Inc., the largest U.S. satellite-TV provider, has an agreement with TiVo for use of its DVR service. The patent in the Dish case also is the subject of lawsuits TiVo filed against AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., the telephone companies that have expanded into television and Internet offerings, and in a patent dispute with Microsoft Corp. The appeal is TiVo v. EchoStar, 2009-1374, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington). The lower-court case is TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp., 04-cv-01, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas (Marshall). Rubbermaid Unit Sued for Infringing Lift-System Patent Newell Rubbermaid Inc.’s Rubbermaid Medical Solutions unit was sued for patent infringement by a maker of mounting products for televisions and computer monitors. Ergotron Inc. of Eagan, Minnesota, claims Rubbermaid infringes patent 6,189,849 B1, a patent which covers a lift system and was issued in February 2001. Ergotron’s “Style View” lift system is covered by this patent, according to the complaint filed May 10 in federal court in Minnesota. The Atlanta-based Rubbermaid’s Medical Systems’ “Tandem Arm” and “Slim Line” wall-mounted lift systems infringe the patent, according to court papers. Ergotron claims it has been damaged by Rubbermaid’s sale of this product and that the patent infringement is “willful, deliberate, and intentional.” The Minnesota company asked the court to bar Rubbermaid from further infringement and for an award of money damages, including triple damages for the alleged willful infringement. Additionally, Ergotron seeks attorney fees and litigation costs. Ergotron is represented by Kurt J.Niederluecke and Grand D. Fairbairn of Fredrickson & Byron PA of Minneapolis. The case is Ergotron Inc., v. Rubbermaid Inc., 0:10-cv- 02010-ADM-FLN, U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota. Deere Claims Great Plains Infringed Agricultural Seed Tube Deere & Co., the world’s largest maker of farm machinery, sued a Kansas maker of seed planters for patent infringement. Great Plains Manufacturing Inc., of Salina, Kansas, is accused of infringing Deere’s patent 7,472,660, which is for a seed tube for an agricultural seeding machine. The Great Plains Clear-Shot Seed Tube infringes the patent, Deere says in the complaint filed May 12 in federal court in Davenport, Iowa. Moline, Illinois-based Deere asked the court for a declaration that its patent is valid, enforceable, and infringed by Great Plains. Additionally, it seeks an order barring further infringement, an award of money damages, and attorney fees and litigation costs. Deere requested that the damages be tripled to punish Great Plains for its alleged infringement. Deere is represented by Richard J. Sapp of Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell & O’Brien PC of Des Moines, Iowa, and Karl R. Fink of Chicago’s Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery. The case is Deere & Co. v. Great Plains Manufacturing Inc., 3:10-cv-00059-JEG, RAW, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Iowa (Davenport). For more patent news, click here: {NI PATENT BN Copyright Curtis Mayfield’s Heirs Seek Royalties to his Music The heirs of pop musician Curtis Mayfield sued music distributor Orchard Enterprises Inc. in a copyright dispute. The music distributor, based in New York, is accused of collecting royalties from Mayfield’s music to which it’s not entitled. Mayfield, who died in December 1999 at the age of 57, wrote music in the soul, funk and rhythm and blues genres. Among his songs is “Gypsy Woman,” and “He Will Break Your Heart.” Despite having been sent a cease-and-desist letter, Orchard continues to collect royalties on Mayfield’s work and hasn’t paid any of them to his heirs, according to the complaint filed May 11 in federal court in Atlanta. The heirs asked the court to order Orchard to stop collecting royalties and to pay money damages to Curtom Classics LLC, the rights-holder to Mayfield’s music. His widow Altheida Mayfield is president of Curtom Classics. Curtom Classics and Altheida Mayfield are represented by James E. Voyles of the Voyles Milhollin Law Firm of Kennesaw, Georgia. The case is Curtom Classics LLC, v. Orchard Enterprise Inc., 1:10-cv-01425-TWT, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). For more copyright news, click here: {NI COPYRIGHT BN Trademark Home Depot Sues Oakleaf Waste Management for Infringing Marks The Home Depot Inc., the largest home-improvement retailer, sued a Connecticut waste-management company for trademark infringement. The suit stems from a terminated relationship between Atlanta-based Home Depot and closely held Oakleaf Waste Management LLC of East Hartford, Connecticut. The two companies entered into an agreement in October 2006 for Oakleaf to provide Home Depot customers with a dumpster rental service. Oakleaf would provide, deliver and retrieve the dumpsters for Home Depot customers through either a website or toll-free telephone number. Although Home Depot ended the agreement in October 2009, Oakleaf is accused of continuing to use the company’s name and trademarks without authorization to promote its own business. According to the complaint filed May 12 in federal court in Atlanta, customers are deceived into thinking the products and services offered by Oakleaf are sponsored by, affiliated with, or endorsed by Home Depot. Oakleaf is also accused of failing to transfer the HDdumpster.com domain name to Home Depot upon termination of the agreement. Home Depot also claims Oakleaf is using hidden or buried code that will bring customers to its sites when they were looking for Home Depot. Despite having been sent a cease-and-desist letter May 12, Oakleaf continues to make unauthorized use of the Home Depot marks, according to the complaint. The home-improvements retailer asked the court to order Oakleaf to quite representing that any affiliation exists between the two companies and the transfer of the disputed Internet domain name. It also asked for money damages, and that they be tripled, and that it be awarded attorney fees and litigation expenses. Home Depot is represented by George W. “Buddy” Darden III, Jeanine Gibbs Garvie and Ian K. Byrnside of Atlanta’s McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP. The case is Home Depot U.S.A. v. Oakleaf Waste Management LLC, :10-cv-01437-RWS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) For more trademark news, click here: {NI TRADEMARK BN Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage Apple’s Jobs Asked Gizmodo to Return ‘Stolen’ IPhone Steve Jobs asked technology blog Gizmodo.com to return a secret iPhone prototype that Apple Inc. says was stolen after a company engineer lost it in a bar, according to court documents released May 14. The legal wrangling is over a product that, at $13 billion, accounted for more than 30 percent of 2009 sales for Apple, which closely guards details about unreleased products. An Apple lawyer said publicity about the “invaluable” prototype was “immensely damaging to Apple” because it would hinder iPhone sales, according to an April 23 affidavit by Detective Matthew Broad of the San Mateo County Sherriff’s Office. “I want to get this phone back to you ASAP and I want to not hurt your sales when the products themselves deserve love,” Gizmodo editor Brian Lam said in an e-mail to Jobs, Apple’s chief executive officer. “But I have to get this story of the missing prototype out and how it was returned to Apple with some acknowledgement it is Apple’s.” He was writing in response to Jobs, who contacted Gizmodo on about April 19 seeking the return of the prototype after the blog dissected it and posted pictures detailing its features. Lam said he would return the phone if Apple provided him with confirmation that it belonged to the company, according to Broad’s unsealed affidavit. “By publishing details about the phone and its features, sales of current Apple products are hurt,” Broad said, recounting a conversation with Apple lawyer George Riley of O’Melveny & Myers LLP. “Riley could not provide an estimated loss, but he believed it was huge.” Gizmodo posted a copy of a letter from Apple’s General Counsel Bruce Sewell, dated April 19, asking for return of “a device that belongs to Apple.” Gizmodo said it gave back the prototype to Cupertino, California-based Apple that day. Sewell picked up the prototype at the home of Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, according to Broad. Gizmodo, which is owned by Gawker Media, said it purchased the phone for $5,000 after it was found at a bar in the San Francisco suburb of Redwood City. The phone was lost on March 25 by Apple engineer Gray Powell, according to the affidavit. Judge Clifford V. Cretan in Redwood City ruled May 14 against the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office, which argued that unsealing the documents will reveal identities of potential witnesses and compromise the investigation. Media organizations argued they should have access to the documents based on constitutionally protected free-speech rights. The case is In Re Sealed Search Warrant Records, 2010-0034, San Mateo County Superior Court (Redwood City, California). --With assistance from Susan Decker in Washington; Amy Thomson in New York; and Connie Guglielmo and Joel Rosenblatt in San Francisco. Editors: Glenn Holdcraft, Fred Strasser To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in Oakland, California, at vslindflor@bloomberg.net. To contact the editor responsible for this story: David E. Rovella at drovella@bloomberg.net. source: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/tivo-rubbermaid-deere-home-depot-intellectual-property.html |
|