HUAWEI demanding a large amount of patent fees to Verizon US

The US media said that HUAWEI has asked about $ 1 billion in patent fees against Verizon, a US communications company. HUAWEI claims that Verizon is infringing on HUAWEI’s core patented technology. The public opinion is giving attention that the patent fee requirement of HUAWEI is not a matter of simple technology infringement but it can be regarded as a protest against the United States.

Wikimedia Commons

HUAWEI Telecommunication Equipment Patent,

HUAWEI is one of the companies with many telecommunication patents in the world. In addition to the current 4G communication technology, 5G patents to be introduced soon, HUAWEI has a number of patented technologies, and many Korean domestic companies also use HUAWEI's communication equipment. HUAWEI's patented technology spans a variety of areas including network equipment, Internet technology, wireline infrastructure. HUAWEI said that Verizon has infringed about 230 patented technologies.

flickr© JeeperMedia

Against US sanctions?

HUAWEI is in a very difficult situation now.

As the US Trump government issued an order to ban HUAWEI from threatening national security and also forbid selling HUAWEI’s products and using their telecommunications equipment, many companies began to distance themselves from HUAWEI. As major IT companies in the United States and European companies have joined the sanctions, HUAWEI and the Chinese government announced that they will respond firmly to the sanctions of the United States. As a result of this hard-line countermeasure, HUAWEI's request for patent fees has been raised by those concerned that it is a protest against the US government.

pixabay.com

Increasing conflicts between HUAWEI and the US government,

The conflict between the US government and HUAWEI continues to grow.

It is expected that this confrontation will continue for the time being because it is stance that neither side will back up and will respond hard. The problem is not merely the conflict between the two parties, but the fact that Korean companies using HUAWEI equipment can also be injured in this situation. I wonder how this conflict will affect both sides and Korean domestic companies and foreign companies.

Patent infringement controversy to Hite Jinro's TERRA

Hite Jinro's TERRA, eventually proceeding legal process?

The beer ' TERRA', a beer brand developed by Hite Jinro, Korea 's No. 1 beer brand, has become an issue due to the controversy over patent infringement. Negotiations were underway between the original patentee, Mr. Jung and Hite Jinro after the controversy argued that the shape of the newly launched beer container in six years violated the patent rights of Mr. Jung already registered. It’s prospected that negotiations will not progress as the both party has been insisting on its own positions, leading to legal disputes.

Hitejinro.com

Issued beer bottle patent

Mr. Jung's application is registered as a patent that has a spiral pattern at the top and it is recognized that the contents can be prevented from being contaminated and discharged suddenly. On the other hand, TERRA 's bottle shape is also characterized by a helical pattern in the bottleneck. According to Hite Jinro, they said that they had carved a whirl-shaped pattern to emphasize a refreshing image. Since the launch of TERRA, Jung has seen a bottle shape through TV commercials, and the dispute has begun with Hite Jinro.

wipsglobal.com > patent search on WIPS Global
drawing of Mr.Jung's patent

No progress of negotiations

The differences between the two parties have not narrowed over the controversy. According to Jung, He was trying to negotiate with Hite Jinro but Hite Jinro discontinued negotiations unilaterally in the interim and blocked all communication at present. Hite Jinro insisted that it’s surely misunderstanding and said that their contact was interrupted by mistake and that they will speak at the trial if the legal process proceed.

pixabay.com

The final legal process in the end?

Both party have not made any progress in negotiations, and both Hite Jinro and Jung have expressed their position that they will not step back with the legal dispute in mind, and the results of both are expected to be covered by the court. According to the result, it may be necessary to change the shape of the bottle. In particular, in the case of the controversy, it is likely that it’s going to take a while to conclude if a lawsuit is filed because this issue is combined design with patent.

Seoul Semiconductor filed a patent lawsuit against Leuchtstark Vertriebs GmbH

Seoul Semiconductor of Korea filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a German company, Leuchtstark Vertriebs GmbH

 South Korea's Seoul Semiconductor filed a patent infringement lawsuit against a famous LED lighting distributor in Germany. Leuchtstark Vertriebs does not produce lighting but distributes a variety of branded products. Seoul Semiconductor has filed a suit to protect LED patented technology, claiming that some products sold by Leuchtstark Vertriebs violated two of its patents.

seoulsemicon.com

MEGAMAN’s LED lamp,

The issued product is the product of MegaMan, which is major LED lamp brand in Asia. According to Seoul Semiconductor, MegaMan's products infringed on patented technology for LED light extraction, and they’ll investigate not only channel distributors but also manufacturers and product sellers, and is considering additional lawsuits for patent infringement. This patented technology was also issued in patent infringement lawsuits against Everlight products in Taiwan in 2018. At the time, Seoul Semiconductor won the ban and the sale of products was prohibited.

pixabay.com

Powerful patent portfolio of Seoul Semiconductor,

Seoul Semiconductor has more than 14,000 LED-related patent portfolios. Unlike other companies, they have actively filed lawsuits against companies that used their patents unauthorized and have conducted patent information session and warning. Based on a strong patent portfolio, it has proven that they’re a leader in the LED lighting industry by winning all the recent patent lawsuits.

pixabay.com

Seoul Semiconductor wins again this time?

According to Seoul Semiconductor, it is virtually impossible to produce LED products without their patented technology. This is reflected in their pride that LED lighting technology is ahead of many others. It is expected that it will be able to continue the unbeaten march by winning the patent litigation with Leuchtstark Vertriebs this time.

[WIPSTUDY #5] The Impact of Patent Litigation on the Market

#1 to #4 studies so far, 

we have reviewed the real cases of Taiwan involved in the US lawsuits through the Litigation Search function using WIPS Global. We analyzed the statistics of Taiwan global corporations’ cases as plaintiff in the US litigation reviewing docket information, analysis of corporations’ IP power on the market and technology, infringement patent analysis, litigation actions and cases of inactive cases in detail.

This time, let's take a break and see how patent litigation really affects to the value of a company and its market.

-----------------------------------

When a new technology or product invented by the user is registered as a patent, the exclusive right of the technology or product is obtained in exchange for the disclosure. Based on the exclusive rights, it can protect the use of patented technology from others, and if used without permission, it can be compensated for infringement of patent rights.

In most cases, the patent litigation is processed to judge whether it’s infringed or not. The patentee (patent right owner) argues that the other party has used his patented technology without permission, while the other party claims that they have not used the patented technology.

Since patent infringement litigation varies the amount of compensation and scope of infringement depending on the outcome of the trial, it can affect the value of patents as well as the value of company (patent right owner). Whether the patent is valid or invalid, whether it is infringed or not has a positive or negative effect on the value of the company.

pixabay.com

Changes in the Value by the Judgment of Patent lawsuit

In a patent lawsuit, when a patent is won ‘the patent is infringed and patent is valid’ corporation value is increased generally by royalties or indemnities. According to the results of the study, if a patent is filed by a company (patent right owner), and if the patent is valid and the other party is found to be infringed, the enterprise value in the market is increased by about 0.7%.

In addition, from the viewpoint of the patentee, the judgment of 'valid and infringed' of a patent is positively recognized by the fact that the investor has a 'strong patent' in addition to the monetary value increase. It may increase the stability of patent rights by reducing the possibility of invalidation of patent rights in future lawsuits or the possibility of the other party's non-infringement judgment.

On the other hand, if a patentee issues a "invalid" ruling in a lawsuit, the decline in the value of the company appears sooner. Studies have shown that the "invalidity" of a patent reduces the value of a patented company by about 0.85% over three days. In addition, the tendency of decreasing invalidity rates raises the expectation of 'validity and infringed' of patent rights. In this trend, 'invalidity' judgment has a greater impact on market and enterprise, can result in a decline of value.

🔺value of the company by patent lawsuit

On the other hand, a statutory "non-infringed" ruling in a patent litigation does not bring a meaningful change in the value of a patented company. The fact that a patent is not invalidated and not infringed means that the patent right is valid but no compensation due to the infringement, so it’s difficult to judge the profit to the patentee who filed the lawsuit. Furthermore, from a patentee’s point of view, it may mean that the patent can no longer be a powerful weapon in a dispute with the other party. In addition, it can be interpreted that the risk has not completely disappeared because the other party didn’t infringe but the patents related to the corresponding technology still exist.

Comparing the effects of the patent litigation, the value of the corporation increase about 0.7% when the patentee won, while the value declines by the invalidation of the patent was more than 0.85%. It shows that there may be more to lose by a patent litigation.

pixabay.com

The effect of patent litigation on companies and patent rights.

As mentioned earlier, patent litigation is more to lose than to gain. But by mid-2010, patent litigation has been steadily increasing. This means that you need to consider other factors as well as simply increasing or decreasing the value of the results. Indeed, according to research by American scholars, patent activities have surged in the early 1980s. Experts say that the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which specializes in patent litigation in the early 1980s, is one of the reasons for increasing patent activities.

According to statistics, the percentage of being invalidated by a judgment in a patent litigation has decreased after the CAFC established, while the number of being infringed has increased. Among the judgments of the patent lawsuits, judged of the patent invalidation is 23%, valid and infringed is 44%, and not infringed is 58% after the CAFC established. This is a 28% decrease in patent invalidation after the CAFC established. Thus, the decrease of invalidation rate has raised expectations for profits from patent litigation, and this rise in value is up to 1-2% of the enterprise value in the market. In the end, the marginal cost of patents remains the same, while the marginal profit increases and the overall value of patents is increased. This is the reason for increasing patent activities.

🔺statistics by judgement after CAFC established

 

Also, whether the court's favorability is a factor can change the value of the patent right to the company. According to the results of a study on the favorability of the trial in the patent litigation, it was found that the value of the patents for the company increased by 0.3-0.7% when the favorability was increased by 10% compared with the others.

In fact, the Eastern District Court of Texas in the United States is one of the courts in which many patentees sued. According to the Texas Judicial Decision Statistics, the percentage of judgments favorable to patent holders is very high. At one point, the Eastern Texas Federal District Court has nearly 90% of patent holders. This high rate can be attributed to the high profitability of many patentees, so that the value of patents in the enterprise can be valued higher than other local courts.

Continued...>>

IN-N-OUT BURGER’s flash open, why?

IN-N-OUT BURGER, opened pop-up store in Gangnam, South Korea.

IN-N-OUT BURGER, a famous American burger brand, opened a pop-up store (temporary store) in Gangnam, South Korea. Unlike the US, there is no formal store in Korea yet, but it was so popular that the waiting list was exhausted on the first morning of opening of the temporary shop. So many people are expecting to see a formal IN-N-OUT BURGER in Korea, and there are opinions that there will be another intention to keep opening the pop-up store only.

commons.wikimedia.org

Pop-up store that opens just before being forgotten,

This is not the first time IN-N-OUT BURGER has opened a pop-up store. In 2012 and 2016, they opened a pop-up store like this. It is said that selling product in a pop-up store once in a few years is to prevent the extinction of the trademark right. That is, IN-N-OUT BURGER opens a pop-up store once every three years to keep the trademark rights after the trademark has been acquired in Korea in 2012.

Picpedia.org

Cancellation policy of trademark right,

Unlike patent rights, trademark rights can be canceled if they are not used for a certain period of time. As trademark right is not aimed at protection of technology by R&D like patent rights, it can be subject to cancellation by others under trademark law if not used for three years after trademark registration. In order to prevent the cancellation of the trademark by IN-N-OUT BURGER, it is the opinion of the concerned people that the trademark was used once in the form of a pop-up store once in 2016 three years after the registration in 2012.

pixabay.com

What is the real intention of IN-N-OUT BURGER?

It seems to be convincing that it is a pop-up store to defend the trademark because there is a part that is strangely matched with the period of 'three years' which is the requirement to keep the trademark right. But like many people’s wish, this event may be a preliminary event for the IN-N-OUT BURGER to be officially open in Korea. IN-N-OUT BURGER will only know the truth of the pop-up store event once every three years.