Other Barks & Bites for Wednesday, March 1st, 2017

By IPWatchdog
March 1, 2017

I'll only give you the paper if you promise not to let the news upset you.In this week’s edition of Other Barks & Bites – Another covered business method review is overturned by the Federal Circuit because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a CBM on a patent that was not a CBM patent. China leads the world not only in stealing digital images protected by copyright but also in terms of trademark applications filed. The Catholic Church starts to take action in protecting its own intellectual property. Also, Alphabet’s self-driving car subsidiary files a lawsuit including patent and trade secret claims against ride sharing giant Uber.

If you have news you’d like to see in next week’s Other Barks & Bites,  CLICK HERE.

  • Inventergy Files Patent Suit Against Apple Over Mobile Communications Tech – On Friday, February 24th, Campbell, CA-based intellectual property licensing company Inventergy (NASDAQ:INVT) filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.) asserting a series of seven patents against Cupertino, CA-based electronic device developer Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) Inventergy alleges that Apple’s sale of phones and tablets infringes upon patents covering mobile communications tech for EDGE/3G/LTE user devices. Inventergy further argues that Apple’s infringement has been willful as the company has continued to sell devices infringing the asserted patents despite being notified of the infringement as early as January 2015. (Link to official complaint filed in Inventergy, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.)
  • China Leads the World in Copyright Infringing Image Theft – On Tuesday, February 21st, Berlin-based image licensing firm COPYTRACK released an analysis of 10,000 cases involving copyright infringement of digital images which indicated that China leads the world in stealing copyright-protected images. 11.11 percent of the cases surveyed by COPYTRACK originated out of China, which was trailed closely by France (9.53 percent) and the United States (8.21 percent). (Link to COPYTRACK post on global image theft rankings)
  • Adapt IP Ventures Increases Non-Practicing Entity Activity in Autonomous Vehicle Sector – On Tuesday, February 28th, IP acquisition and licensing firm Adapt IP Ventures, LLC of Raleigh, NC, announced that it had contracted with a solo inventor to monetize a portfolio of five U.S. patents and six U.S. patent applications in the autonomous vehicle sector. According to Adapt IP, this portfolio focuses on the control and coordination of level 4 and level 5 autonomous vehicles including vehicle-related infrastructure such as dedicated roadways, parking structures and delivery systems. It will be interesting to see how quickly many tech publications will turn to calling Adapt IP a “patent troll” if the firm finds that it needs to take automakers to court if they decide to efficiently infringe rather than pay for patent licenses. (Link to Adapt IP Ventures press release on autonomous vehicle patent portfolio)

Do you have news that you think should go in next week’s Other Barks & Bites? CLICK HERE to send us your news or press release.

The Author

IPWatchdog

IPWatchdog

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently 2 Comments comments.

  1. American Cowboy March 1, 2017 9:35 am

    Alphabet’s Waymo Hits Uber With Patent Lawsuit on the self-driving vehicle.

    What could possibly be patentable about a self-driving vehicle? It is only a car doing what people have been doing for years! Using the Google-purchased Alice jurisprudence, this patent should die!

  2. Gene Quinn March 1, 2017 10:32 am

    AC @1-

    The irony in Google… I mean Alphabet… using a self driving car patent to sue a competitor is thick indeed.