IBM wins $83 million in patent infringement against Groupon

IBM wins $83 million in patent infringement against Groupon

Groupon operates online retail marketplaces by primarily offering discounts on goods and services via the website www.groupon.com. It also uses Groupon mobile applications to participating retailers. IBM accused the defendant of having built its business by using several IBM patents. Despite repeated attempts by IBM to negotiate, Groupon has refused to enter into licensing agreements with IBM.

“IBM” filed a patent infringement suit against Groupon, Inc.

IBM alleged that Groupon infringed e-commerce patents that were previously licensed to other technology giants such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter. Groupon, argued that IBM overestimates the scope of protection covered by the disputed patents.

IBM’s patents describes techniques for obtaining government information and for recursively embedding status information in communication between clients and servers and program modules that modify the hypertext. IBM patents also cover a single sign-on technology, which is the basis for an authentication processes on user accounts on the Internet.
Since November 2011, IBM has sought licensing agreements with Groupon, which it rejected.
The District Court of Delaware now ruled that Groupon infringed IBM’s patents infringement and committed Groupon to pay $83 million to IBM, the payment included the high development costs claimed by IBM as well as the license revenues lost for years. Groupon has announced to consider an appeal.

卡拉OK曲目是否有商业外观–受商标法保护?

卡拉OK曲目是否有商业外观受商标法保护?
近30年来,Slep-Tone制作并发行了16,500个录音和图形卡拉OK曲目,用于专业的卡拉OK系统,其OK曲目音频为流行歌曲的录制版本,省略了主唱,但用图形与音乐同步进行视觉提示,显示歌曲的歌词来帮助歌手演唱。 Slep-Tone声称歌词的字体,风格和视觉安排,是一种商业外观。Basket Case 在酒吧播放了复制的Slep-Tone的卡拉OK曲目。
Slep-Tone指责Basket Case制作“假冒”未经授权的拷贝作为真正的Slep-Tone音轨,根据联邦“Lanham法案”进行的商标侵权和不正当竞争诉讼。
Basket Case认为他们并没有出售未经授权的音轨,只是把它们当作娱乐来提供,所以顾客没有收到实物商品,而只收到音轨的无形商品。 顾客们从来没有看到含有媒体转移原始曲目的CD或MP3,所以Basket Case声称顾客不会混淆含有卡拉OK曲目的CD商品的来源。
第七巡回法院指称这种抱怨听起来像是版权主张而不是商标侵权,因此拒绝允许以商标权利取代真正的版权侵权诉讼。
第七巡回法院认为,因为Basket Case没有在Slep-Tone的产品上贴上自己的标志向公众展示,让Slep-Tone的标志留在卡拉OK轨道上并不是 商标侵权。第七巡回法院指出,尽管版权所有者可以起诉版权侵权,但在音轨演出过程中常规展示Slep-Tone的嵌入式商标并不属于商标侵权或不正当竞争行为。 Basket Case在其它广告和其卡拉OK菜单中没有使用Slep-Tone的标志,所以顾客没有理由混淆其卡拉OK音乐是Slep-Tone的赞助演出,或者其播放的曲目是由Slep-Tone制作或批准的。由于Basket Case不销售带有卡拉OK曲目的CD,并声称他们所播的是正版Slep-Tone产品,所以第七巡回法院认定Basket Case并没有商标侵权行为。如果被告使用原告商标宣传被告的服务,或伪造带有原告标志的CD,制作带有原告标志的海报,帽子或T恤等宣传品,或以其他方式在市场上出售的有形商品作为原告的真品,其结果可能会有所不同。
目前还有两个Slep-Tone案件 在第六巡回法院(涉及卡拉OK糖果)和第九巡回法院(涉及广州凤凰)进行处理,也许还会有不同的法庭意见?