Bloomberg - BusinessWeek: A major telecom business is leveraging its intellectual property portfolio as it struggles to raise capital to stave off attacks by creditors. Hugo Miller reports on this example of IP value helping a company financially in his topical piece entitled Nortel Is Exploring Options for Intellectual Property (Update1):
Nortel filed for bankruptcy protection in January 2009 after demand for its phone equipment slumped because companies held off upgrading their networks. Since then, Nortel has auctioned off businesses and raised more than $3 billion from the sales.
Former Nortel Chief Executive Officer Mike Zafirovski said in August that about 2,000 patents would be sold with its main businesses. He said that Nortel would be left with 3,000 other patents, including more than 100 related to LTE [ed. long-term evolution] that it may sell. LTE technology is designed to help phones run faster.
Telecom company RIM is wooing Nortel in hopes of scooping up some of its wireless patents at fire-sale prices but has run into troubles convincing the ailing bride to give up the goods. "The company agreed to sell wireless technology, including licenses to LTE, or long-term evolution technology, to Ericsson AB for $1.13 billion in July, while keeping some patents. RIM, the maker of the BlackBerry phone, said at the time that Nortel blocked it from bidding for those assets by imposing restrictions it couldn’t accept." Jilted at the altar or just a coy move to secure additional compensation before sealing the deal? In any case, a wise play by Nortel to maximize the value of a large IP portfolio.
The Wall Street Journal: Big pharma is running into difficulties with protection of expensive company IP in India but with a huge market of consumers in the balance, a reduced-price version of many expensive drugs might be in the offing. Geeta Anand reports:
In court and in interviews, Indian officials and companies contend the Indian system is fair and that, by contrast, international patent offices grant patents where there isn't significant innovation or benefit. They say it is India's duty to grant patents only when there has been significant innovation, and to foster a competitive environment that keeps prices low so the country's vast and mostly poor population can afford medicines.
"The U.S. would grant a patent to a piece of toilet paper," says Amar Lulla, chief executive of Cipla, the Indian generics drugmaker. "Just because the U.S. granted a patent, doesn't mean it should be valid."
In its Tuesday decision to dismiss Bayer's appeal, the Delhi High Court made a blistering attack on the company's efforts to block copies of its cancer medicine Nexavar. Calling the appeal "a speculative foray," the court added that "the petitioner, no doubt, is possessed of vast resources and can engage in such pursuits."
When a Western company has developed a life-saving drug and is hoping to profit handsomely from its sale, one can understand that a poor country with hundreds of millions of potential cancer victims would want to find a way to provide the medicine their citizens so badly need. In many cases, the cost of the drug in the country of development, say the United States, for example, wholly subsidizes the sale of the drug at a reduced cost in other countries but when the pressure builds for a cheaper version vs. the creation of a knock-off drug that profits the original company not at all, any money made is better than none. Or? Read Anand's Drug Makers Decry Indian Patent Law for the rest of this contentious story.
Bloomberg - BusinessWeek.com: In a follow-up piece to yesterday's mention of Brazil's threatening position on US intellectual property sanctions, Iuri Dantas and Maria Luiza Rabello's Lula Sets Law for Brazil to Retaliate on U.S. Patents (Update1) reveals how a development today has set the stage for a possible showdown in the near future.
Brazil will be able to break U.S. patents or suspend remittances from royalties on intellectual property under a decree issued today to allow retaliation against the U.S. in a dispute over farm subsidies.
Under the new legal framework, sanctions may be imposed by Brazil when the World Trade Organization gives authorization. Brazil may suspend or limit rights of intellectual property, break patents on inventions and breach rights related to confidential information, according to the decree by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
The new law is another step by Brazil toward retaliation against the U.S., Foreign Minister Celso Amorim told reporters today in Brasilia. Still, he said, Brazil hopes it will be able to resolve the dispute without resorting to sanctions.
The WTO has already decided that Brazil "has the right to impose $294.7 million annually in sanctions because of subsidies paid to U.S. cotton farmers" and so the Brazilians hope to impose that same amount against US IP to extract a tit-for-tat price for US sanctions that affect Brazil.
TechDirt.com: A video game developer is barking up the wrong tree with its cease-and-desist doggedness. Mike Masnick fills in the gentle reader with more details of this misguided attempt to assert intellectual propert rights in his timely piece, Developer Seems To Think Trademark On 'Army Builder' Means No One Can Use It In Conversation. He writes:
Reader Reverand Dak alerts us to the news that Lone Wolf Development, a video game developer (who, we're told, has no relationship with Lone Wolf Roleplaying Games nor with Lone Wolf & Club manga), received a trademark on the term Army Builder in connection with a game that they created under that name. No problems there. But apparently Lone Wolf has been sending out cease-and-desists to websites that have nothing to do with Lone Wolf's Army Builder, and demanding that the phrase be blocked in forums on totally different subjects. Yes, they're saying that no one can use the term in conversation[.]
Read the text of Lone Wolf's letter and the rest of Masnick's relevant assertions that there is no leg for the video game developer to stand on as it plays Don Quixote with its quill pen.
Boston Business Journal: Apparently, one should *not* mess with another pizza chain's artwork, or other brand concepts, in Beantown. Lisa van der Pool opens the box and takes a bite out of a slice of the trademark infringement pie in her recent piece, Pizzeria Regina owner cheesed, sues over alleged trademark infringement. "The owner of the famed Pizzeria Regina chain is suing a rival pizza purveyor in defense of the trademark for its famed street side sign in Boston’s North End, according to U.S. District Court filings. Boston Restaurant Associates Inc., which owns Pizzeria Regina restaurants, has filed a complaint against Gambino’s Restaurants Inc., which operates Capone’s Pizzeria and Prohibition Pub in South Weymouth and Plymouth, Mass., according to court papers." Capone's had previously admitted stealing Boston's signage design and promised to play nice by changing their evil ways but suddenly turned a blind eye to the whole situation. "Edward Naughton, an attorney with Brown Rudnick LLP in Boston, who represents Regina’s, said: 'When we became aware that Capone's was using our well-known marks, we contacted the owners to explain our concerns and request that they stop. They acknowledged that they'd copied the marks and said that they'd fix the problem. Then they stopped cooperating and communicating with us. That left us with no choice but to file suit to protect our brand. We're hopeful that they'll follow through on their promises and stop using our trademarks.'" Hey, Capone Pizzeria: Didn't your mother tell you it's not nice to steal?
Bonus IP piece o' the day: Care about "balanced copyright"? Let the US government know by Nate Anderson at ArsTechnica.com.
Enjoy this article?
