NEWS
Microsoft faces patent suit over Bing Ads for patent
A US company has sued Microsoſt for allegedly infringing two search engine patents that a jury fined Google and AOL for infringing last year.
I/P Engine alleges Microsoſt’s Bing has breached the patents covering the way search engines filter and then place high-quality adverts, highlighting Bing’s ‘quality score’ service, which calculates the relevance of key words to potential customers.
In the suit filed on January 31 at the US District Court Southern District of New York, non-practising entity (NPE) I/P Engine has demanded a jury trial and damages for past and current alleged infringement.
I/P Engine is a subsidiary of Vringo, which employs the patents’ inventors Andrew Lang and Donald Kosak. Te men had worked with search engine Lycos when creating the inventions, which Lycos then sold to I/P Engine in 2011.
Te NPE claims Microsoſt knew of the ‘420’ patent when litigating nine of its patents and the ‘664’ patent when prosecuting 11 of its patents.
Te suit adds: “Microsoſt learned of ‘420’ and ‘664’ a second time when I/P Engine received a jury verdict
infringement against Google’s search
advertising system on November 6, 2012 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.”
In November 2012, a US court awarded I/P Engine $30 million in damages for Google, AOL and other smaller search engines’ infringement of the same disputed patents. Te company had been seeking as much as $500 million in damages.
In the most recent case, I/P Engine alleges Microsoſt wilfully infringed both patents but has not specified the amount of damages it should receive. If a court finds in favour of wilful infringement, it can triple any damages that it awards the plaintiff.
Te dispute is likely to shed more light on the contentious behaviour of NPEs, known pejoratively as ‘patent trolls’, which license and enforce their patents but do not sell products.
On the one hand, defenders of NPEs say they are rightfully enforcing legally-granted patents. Critics argue, however, that the companies make spurious demands that lead to nuisance litigation.
Romanian IP law firms merge
Two Romanian IP law firms, Iulia Burbea Intellectual Property & Law Office and Gabriela Milcev and Allegra Consulting
Intellectual
Property & Law Office, have merged to create Milcev Burbea Intellectual Property & Law Firm.
The firm will specialise in IP; international litigation
international trade; technology,
and arbitration; competition; and media
and telecommunications. Lawyers working at Milcev Burbea have experience in prosecuting and enforcing IP in the areas of trademarks, design and copyright.
Te founding partners, Iulia Burbea and Gabriela Milcev, have more than 10 years’ experience each. Burbea also teaches IP the University of Bucharest Law School.
Te Romanian State Office for Inventions and Trademarks is currently considering amending the trademark registration procedures in the country.
Protecting Your Brand Against Cybersquatters Starts with Using the Right Tools.
Whether you have fallen victim to a cybersquatter or you’re responsible for protecting your organization against fraudulent online activity, DomainTools provides the domain name and DNS research tools required to protect your revenue and your reputation.
Unlike other brand protection and domain portfolio service providers, DomainTools gives you immediate access to historical Whois data, Reverse Whois reports, brand and registrant monitoring alerts, and website screenshot history— everything you need to protect and reinforce your brand presence online.
For a free 7 day trial of DomainTools’ Professional membership, and to find out why over 500,000 people use DomainTools every day, visit
www.DomainTools.com/FreeTrial.
www.worldipreview.com Trademarks Brands and the Internet Volume 2, Issue 1 11
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44