We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In late June, Apple won one of the many battles that it is
waging against one of its fiercest rivals - South Korea's
Samsung, manufacturer of the Galaxy line of smartphones and
tablets. Riding the wave of Google's Android platform, Samsung
has emerged as the world's biggest handset maker, and arguably
Apple's biggest rival. Apple and Samsung are entagled in more
ways than one, since Samsung also manufactures the A5 chipset
that powers the latest models of iPad and iPhone. As the
saying goes "Keep your friends close and keep your enemies
closer."
Apple's latest win resulted in an injunction barring sales of Samsung's
Galaxy Tab in the US. That decision is being appealed. Meanwhile in
the UK, Apple was ordered to publish a notice that Samsung did not copy the
iPad. That decision is being appealed too. All of this is part
of a global war (including Australia, Germany and the
Netherlands) that stems from Apple's claims that Samsung
copied the design of the iPad. This is one of the most interesting
aspects of the case - that worldwide IP infringement claims can be
based on the design of a consumer product, not its function. And
it's a design that is successful precisely because of its
clean, minimalist simplicity that eschews ornamental features of
any kind. Check out this design patent (PDF), filed in 2004, upon
which the US injunction is based, in part. The two companies are
currently headed to a jury trial in the US.
Lessons for business?
Don't forget to review relatively simple forms of
intellectual property in your IP strategy. In this
case, a simple industrial design (or in the US, a "design
patent") has provided ammunition in a battle between two of
the most sophisticated technology companies on the planet.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
In a cautionary tale to be heeded by patent drafters, the Supreme Court of Canada held that Pfizer’s patent directed to sildenafil, better known as Viagra, is invalid.
The recent decision in Overstock v. New York Taxation and Finance paved the way for an interesting conclusion on the taxing power of New York State - and by extension, the sales tax that may be applied to many online sales, including sales by Canadian online business into the US market.
In Pelchat v. Zone 3 Inc., 2013 QCCS 78, a Quebec court decision has addressed the dichotomy between the idea for a TV show, and the "form and expression" of ideas, as embodied in a TV show.
The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program has been a phenomenal success in Canada and has positioned the country as a highly cost-effective jurisdiction in which to procure patent protection with speed and efficacy.
The advantages of trade-mark registration are self-evident for both franchisors and their franchisees who are licensees of the mark, and should be considered a mandatory first step on the road to franchising a business.
Everything You Wanted To Know About Software And Business Method Patents But Were Afraid To Ask (Video Content)
