Digimedia Tech LLC Sues Nikon Alleging Patent Infringement

Digimedia Tech LLC has quite recently filed a Patent Infringement lawsuit against Nikon Americas Inc. and Nikon Inc. by alleging that they have appropriated three of the company’s patents concerning digital camera technology. The patent infringement lawsuit is filed in the Eastern District of New York before Nicholas G. Garaufis (judge). Digimedia Tech is represented by Kent & Risley (a specialty litigation firm dealing with Intellectual Property (IP) and complicated civil cases).

The patents specified in the lawsuit filed are as follows:

• US Patent No. 6,914,635 (the ‘635 patent), titled – Microminiature Zoom System for Digital Camera
• US Patent Nos. 6,545,706 (the ‘706 patent) and 7,715,476 (the ‘476 patent), both titled – System, Method, and Article of Manufacture for Tracking a Head of a Camera-Generated Image of a Person

As per the patent infringement lawsuit filed, the claims of the US Patent No. 6,914,635 (the ‘635 patent) are directed towards the technical solutions for the technical problem corresponding to providing autofocus, zoom, and several other features in the exceedingly compact digital cameras. Another feature claimed by the said patent is image stabilization. The claims of the US Patent Nos. 6,545,706 (the ‘706 patent) and 7,715,476 (the ‘476 patent) are directed towards the technical solutions for the technical problem corresponding to identifying a head in an image.

According to Digimedia Tech, Nikon’s Coolpix P900RM and A1000 digital cameras have infringed upon the patents mentioned above. Among multiple other things and aspects, the A1000 camera has allegedly appropriated the US Patent No. 6,914,635 (the ‘635 patent) by making use of a similar Micro-Electromechanical System (MEMS) support mechanism for offering minimum two positions of movement to a supporting element. Nikon’s Coolpix P900RM has allegedly infringed upon the US Patent Nos. 6,545,706 (the ‘706 patent) and 7,715,476 (the ‘476 patent) as it features a system to process the images for identifying a head portion of a subject in them and a computer program for tracking the head portion of a person in video images.

As a consequence of Nikon’s alleged patent infringement, Digimedia Tech is now looking forward to seeking an award for damages, which according to the company, cannot be less than a reasonable royalty.

For view source: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com/blog/digimedia-tech-llc-sues-nikon-alleging-patent-infringement/

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Contact - US

Email Id: info@trademarkmaldives.com

Website: www.trademarkmaldives.com

Commvault Sues Cohesity And Rubrik Alleging Patent Infringement

Commvault (a publicly-traded data management and data protection software company headquartered in New York) has quite recently filed Patent Infringement lawsuits against Rubrik (a California-based cloud data management company) and Cohesity (a privately held IT company headquartered in San Jose, California) in federal court in Delaware. Commvault has stated that the companies have altogether infringed upon its seven patents, which correspond to a plethora of widely used data management technologies such as data deduplication, cloud, security, snapshots, virtualization, and search. To be specific, Commvault has claimed that both Cohesity and Rubrik have appropriated its patented technologies to short-circuit their development processes and reduce the investment needed, corresponding to building competitive products.

The Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property (IP) Counsel at Commvault, Marcus Muller, has said that the lawsuits hold the responsibility of safeguarding a company’s employees and investors, and also bring about fairness when it comes to competing in the global market. He further mentioned that for over two decades now, Commvault has been successfully delivering solutions to its customers and has become the pioneer in this space. By investing even more than $1 billion in its innovations and inventions, Commvault, at present, owns 900 patents across the globe and over 350 pending patents.

Commvault’s General Counsel, Warren Mondschein, mentioned in a recent statement that Commvault is not at all a litigious company; however when companies like Cohesity and Rubrik commit willful patent infringement, then it is the company’s responsibility to file such lawsuits and take a stand for the protection of its innovations and IP assets.

Lynn Lucas, the Chief Marketing Officer at Cohesity, has said that it is not unusual for legacy vendors to come forward and disrupt the market by filing frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to suppress sales and innovation. Coming to this matter, he stated that Cohesity came to know about the patent infringement lawsuit, not by Commvault’s representatives but through the media. He believes that there is no merit to the lawsuit filed as it is only an attempt to slow down Cohesity’s rapid growth and obstruct its accelerating success.

In an unattributed statement, Rubrik only stated that it doesn’t comment on any pending litigation.

When Commvault was asked why it is filing patent infringement lawsuits against Rubrik and Cohesity corresponding to widely implemented storage software capabilities such as cloud, search, virtualization, to name a few, Muller said the company is not claiming on all the aspects in these technologies and is looking at specific patents. He further declined to speculate about whether the company would file similar lawsuits against other such competitors in the market or not.

Commvault, Cohesity, and Rubrik compete vigorously for data protection and management business in the market. On the one hand, Commvault is a long-established vendor, while Cohesity and Rubrik, on the other hand, are well-funded and rapidly emerging new companies on the block. For view source: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com/blog/commvault-sues-cohesity-and-rubrik-alleging-patent-infringement/

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

Contact - US

Email Id: info@trademarkmaldives.com

Website: www.trademarkmaldives.com

Trademark Cease & Desist Letter: Important Things You Should Know

Trademarks are one of the most efficient ways to build up and safeguard your brand’s reputation. As the Registered Trademarks enable consumers to determine the origin or source of products and services, they can also help you in expanding business by prohibiting the competitors from making profits on your name. Although trademarks provide clear directions that no one except the original owner of the mark can use it, Trademark Infringement is still a severe matter and needs to be addressed on the spot. Here, you will get information regarding the cease and desist letter, which may aid you to prevent others from using or cloning your trademark without paying unnecessary charges related to legitimate actions.

Cease and Desist Letter

A cease and desist letter in case of trademark infringement is a legal document issued by the original owner of the mark to a party infringing upon his/ her federally registered trademark. The letter asks the offending party to not just cease the act of violating the owner’s Intellectual Property (IP) but also compensate damages that took place due to the infringement. On determining that someone is infringing on your trademark, you can choose any of the two options; either try to resolve the matter outside the court by writing and sending a cease and desist letter or proceed directly by filing a trademark infringement lawsuit. Typically, sending a cease and desist letter to the infringer is the first step that many people put to end the infringement without including extra expense and time associated with going to court or taking other legitimate measures.

Another noticeable fact is that this letter isn’t limited to help you only if someone violates your trademark; instead, it is also helpful in cases like copyright or Patent Infringement.

Cease and Desist Letters Aren’t Legally Binding

As these letters only describe the ideas and requests of the sender, usually a trademark attorney or IP lawyer representing the trademark’s owner, they aren’t legally binding. Moreover, they don’t even provide indications regarding the court action, which could be the next step if the offending party neglects to respond to the sender as he/she expected.

Procedure to Write and Send Cease and Desist Letter In a Trademark Infringement Matter

To write a cease and desist letter, one needs to follow the following steps:

Determine the infringement: Firstly, check if someone is infringing your trademark or it is any other IP that he/she is using to make profits on your name. Trademark infringement takes place when the offender is advertising or selling his/ her products or services by using the same or similar name your products or services are having.

Do Searches: Collect more details about both – infringement and infringer. Make attempts and understand the offender’s intention, i.e., whether he/she is involved in the case accidentally or intentionally.

Consult to An IP Attorney: Though you can write and send the cease and desist letter yourself, yet proceeding under the supervision of an experienced attorney will be in your best interest. An adept lawyer can assist you in listing all the facts, demands, and claims in the letter clearly and understandably.      

Note that by creating and sending a precise cease and desist letter, you can:

• Evade expensive legal actions
• Set an example for future enforcement
• Preserve your Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)

Indeed this letter can be written and sent at any time but doing so as soon as you notice infringement would provide the best outcomes. It will not just prohibit the offender from continuing the unlawful act of infringement but also help you in enforcing your ownership rights. Nonetheless, to make the offender respond as you want by reinforcing your part, it is imperative to familiarize him/ her with all the details of your trademark. Your brand’s name or logo, the date on which you filed a Trademark Application, the day when you determined that someone is unlawfully cloning or using your registered trademark are some vital details you need to include in the letter. Including all the evidence reflecting infringement can strengthen your case. Ultimately, don’t forget to incorporate the section showcasing what the infringer can or should do to resolve the conflict.

Conclusion:

Hopefully, you have got a clear insight into the fact that cease and desist letter is one of the best ways to prohibit the offending party from continuing to make profits on your name without getting involved in legal actions. So if any individual or company is using your trademark without seeking your consent, the matter needs to be resolved by sending a polite letter. While a stern demand with a deadline to cease copying or using your mark can be useful, a formal letter can also result in a favorable resolution of the infringement concern. Now, after going through this article, you can undoubtedly write a cease and desist letter on your own, but doing so with the help of either any IP attorney or Trademark Law Firm is still advisable. Experienced IP lawyers and Intellectual Property Law Firms have a deep understanding and knowledge of these areas and can benefit you with a more compelling case on your side. ✅ For View Source: https://bit.ly/36tsk5i

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/

EagleView Wins Intellectual Property Lawsuit

EagleView, a technology provider of aerial imagery, geographic information system, and data analytics solutions, recently announced a significant legal decision revealing that Verisk Analytics, Inc. and Xactware Solutions, Inc., willfully infringed EagleView’s Intellectual Property (IP) and technological innovations.

26th September 2019’s jury verdict in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey confirms that Verisk and Xactware used EagleView’s technology and innovations without its consent and in violation of the U.S. Patent Law.

What’s the Case?

In late 2015, EagleView filed a lawsuit against Verisk and Xactware claiming that the two competitors are involved in the willful infringement of its patents encompassing some unique technologies. The filing was emphasized to hold Verisk and Xactware accountable for infringing EagleView’s technologies.

The jury favored EagleView on every issue has awarded it $125 million in damages. Besides, the Court has issued a temporary restraining order preventing defendants’ sale of Property InSight, Geomni Roof, Roof InSight, and Geomni Property, as well as, use or sale of Aerial Sketch version 2 after 25th September 2019. This order will be in effect until 8th October 2019, the date set by the Court for a hearing on a permanent injunction.

Rishi Daga, CEO of EagleView said that they understand the distraction their customers are encountering due to the ongoing lawsuit, and thank them for standing beside the company even when it was forced to safeguard its IP and technology in court. The recent decision enables them to continue serving the clients with superior customer services across insurance, energy, roofing, and government, and to look forward to driving innovation through data analytics derived from aerial imagery as well as bringing impactful solutions. EagleView will consult the affected customers to determine if the firm can assist them in any manner or customers can contact EagleView at https://www.eagleview.com/support/.

The jury found that the patents involved in this case were valid and amongst the more than 200 patents in the plaintiff’s portfolio. They also discovered that Verisk and Xactware had infringed the patents willfully, awarding $125 million to EagleView for damages due to past Patent Infringement.

Verisk and Xactware have repeatedly taken measures to prevent EagleView’s claims from reaching in the front of a jury trial, including attempts to invalidate EagleView’s claims in district courts and challenges to the plaintiff’s patents with the USPTO. EagleView succeeded in securing overwhelming victories at the USPTO, with 149 applications related to its patented technology comprehensively upheld after several appeals.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Walsh Pizzi O’Reilly Falanga LLP are the co-counsel represented EagleView at all levels of the lawsuit and relevant patent proceedings, including the recent IP trial win.

EagleView is emphasizing on transforming the way people work by bringing in the highest level of accuracy in today’s persistently changing world. It is expected that this win will help the company in achieving its goals. For view source: https://www.trademarkmaldives.com/blog/eagleview-wins-intellectual-property-lawsuit/

Don’t forget to follow us on social media:

Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/trademarkmaldives/

Twitter – https://twitter.com/trademarkmaldiv

Linkedin – https://www.linkedin.com/company/trademarkmaldives/

Pinterest – https://in.pinterest.com/trademarkmaldives/

Tumblr – https://trademarkmaldives.tumblr.com/