Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Marilou L.

Tandoy
Business Communication
Case study
PATENT INFRINGEMENT
SRS Pharmaceuticals vs. Pfizer
I.

State of the problem:


Pfizer Inc. had filed an alleged infringement case against the defendants
claiming that the acts of importing, distributing, marketing, offering to sell
and selling the patented product sulbactum of plaintiff's, were against the
Patent No. 26810 issued by the intellectual Property Office in Philippines, in
November 1992 to Pfizer Inc. for unasyn

II.

Relevant fact/Background
On 31st March 2009, Unasan, which is an antibiotic drug containing ampicillin
sodium and sulbactum sodium, manufactured by SRS Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
has won a alleged patent infringement case against, unasyn, antibiotic drug,
containing ampicillin sodium and sulbactum sodium, Manufactured by Pfizer
Inc., USA.

III.

Alternative courses of action


According to the Philippines Republic Act No. 8293, Section 23, this qualifies
the word new as An invention shall not be considered new if it forms part
of prior art." It was thus found out that the unasyn patent is an invalid patent
and is actually an extension of a Patent no. 21116 titled, "Penicillanic Acid
derivatives, composition and process for the preparation", which expired on
15th July 2007 SRS Pharmaceutical has the right to distributed the products
since Pfizer is no longer own it.Its being Manufactured by Pfizer but the
product patent is already expired.

IV.

Chosen Alternatives
The Makati Regional Trial court, on March 31st 2009, thus declared that, "this
court hereby denies the issuance of a preliminary injunction for plaintiffs
(meaning Pfizer) miserably failed to prove of their right over the subject
molecular ingredient/element or sulbactum sodium or sodium sulbactum for
the simple reason the same ingredient had been subject of a prior art."Pfizer
should prove the patent rights was meant for them otherwise they shouldnt
claim the rights anymore because its already expired.

V.

Action steps
The case was thereby dismissed by the court for a simple reason that there
was nothing more to be done in the case considering the relief prayed for the
plaintiffs under their Amended Complaint. Because Pfizer failed to prove of
their right.
http://SRS pharmaceutical.com/srs-cover.htm

COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
Apple vs.Psystar Corporation
I.

State of the problem:

Apple filed a copyright infringement case against Psystar, on the grounds that the
end-user license agreement for the Mac operating system prohibited third-party
installations of Mac OS X, and Psystar had violated that clause.
II.

Relevant fact/Background:

In 2008, Psystar Corporation based in Miami, Florida, began to sell Open


Computers, personal computers which could be pre-installed with Mac OS X
Leopard, an operating system developed by Apple. Psystar also offered to sell
(legitimately) copies of Mac OS X, which then could be installed on a non-Mac home
computer.
III.

Alternatives courses and action

Psystar argued that their actions were outside of the scope of Apples ability to
determine how users used the software they had purchased. They likened it to a car
manufacturer including a clause in their license agreement that allowed them to
determine what roads you could drive the car on.Psystar then counter-sued Apple
but Psystar should aware that they are actually copyright violating originally the
operating system developed is under apple.
IV.

Chosen alternatives

Psystar then counter-sued Apple for anti-competitive practices, copyright misuse


and monopolistic behavior. The counter-sue attempt failed, and Apple won the
original court case against Psystar. The court ruled that Psystar was illegally
copying, modifying and distributing Apples programming code, and for
circumventing Apples kernel encryption, acts that are in violation of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act. Psystar then counter-sued Apple for anti-competitive
practices, copyright misuse and monopolistic behavior. The counter-sue attempt
failed,
V.

Action steps

Apple won the original court case against Psystar. The court ruled that Psystar was
illegally copying, modifying and distributing Apples programming code, and for
circumventing Apples kernel encryption, acts that are in violation of the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act.
After filing for bankruptcy, Psystar was forced to pay Apple $2.7 million for copyright
infringement.
http://copyrightinfringement.org

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT:
Kate Spade wins Trademark Infringement case against Surf for Saturday
brand.
I.

State of the problem:

Surf LLC filed a counterclaim alleging trademark infringement and reverse confusion
against Kate Spades use of the word Saturday in its new brand. Surfs biggest
concern was that the use of the term Saturday would confuse consumers by leading
them to believe that Surfs products were licensed by or affiliated with Kate Spade,
or that Surf was the one infringing on Kate Spades SATURDAY mark.
II.

Relevant fact/Background:

Kate Spade has started out 2014 with some good news. After recently filing a
lawsuit declaring that its new, SATURDAY brand, did not infringe on the name of any
of the popular mens clothing company, SATURDAY SURF LLC, the district court
officially ruled in the womens retail apparel companys favor.
III.

Alternative Courses of action:

Surfs trademark infringement and Kate Spades declaratory judgment action,


addressing the protect-ability of Surfs alleged SATURDAY marks (SATURDAYS SURF
NYC, SATURDAYS, and SATURDAYS SURF). The court held that SATURDAYS SURF NYC
was indeed a valid mark based on its federal registration, but noted that the scope
of protection it and Surfs other asserted marks are entitled to would depend on the
strength of the mark SATURDAYS standing alone
IV.

Chosen Alternatives:

Saturday being a day of the week does not necessarily make it ineligible for
trademark protection. The term Saturday refers to a lifestyle exuding the carefree
attitude a consumer feels on the weekend, which can be applicable to any brand or
product. The usage of the word Saturday in the apparel and accessories industry is
common; therefore, Surf should not be permitted to monopolize Saturday as a
trademark. The court also held that Surf did not present sufficient evidence showing
use of SATURDAYS as a trademark. According to the ruling, the court found that
Kate Spade had adopted the SATURDAY mark in good faith, citing Kate Spades lack
of knowledge about Surf and its consultation with counsel before and after learning
of Surf and its SATURDAY-formative marks.

V.

Actions steps:

Overall, due to the word Saturday being such a common term, Kate Spade LLC won
the claim due to the court determining that the word could be entitled to a very
narrow scope of usage with little room for consumer confusion. The court ruled in
Kate Spades favor on the infringement counterclaims and found its request for
declaratory judgment to be unnecessary since it is unlikely that a consumer would
confuse a company specializing in mens products with a womens apparel brand as
well known as Kate Space.

http://www.insidercounsel.com/2014/01/06/kate-spade