You are on page 1of 15

IPR MOOT MEMORIAL, 2018

IN THE HON’BLE DISCTRICT COURT OF BANGALORE

Apple Inc. … Plaintiff

Versus

HTC Co. …Defendant

Written Submission on behalf of the Plaintiff,

Bikram Bhattacharya,

15GSOL103003
BBA/LLB Section B (6th Semester)

Counsel of the Petitioner.

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS …3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES …4

 CASES
 STATUTES

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION …5

STATEMENT OF FACTS …6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES …7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS … 8-9

ADVANCED ARGUMENTS … 10-14

I. THE INFRINGEMENT SUIT FILED IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE DISCTRICT


COURT

PRAYER … 15

2|Page
List of Abbreviations
Inc.- Incorporated

Co.- Company

IPR- Intellectual Property Rights

CPC- Civil Procedure Code

3|Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
2. Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. 12-1548 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
3. Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1363 (Fed
Cir 2012)
4. Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co., 717 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Ci 2012)
5. Trebro Mfg. v. Firey Equipment, 748 F.3d 1159, 1171
6. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed.Cir.200

STATUTES

1. Indian Patents Act, 1970.


2. Copyrights Act, 1957.
3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

4|Page
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Plaintiff humbly submits this memorandum for the petition filed before the
Honorable District Court of Bangalore. The plaintiff invokes jurisdiction under
Section 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It sets forth the facts and the laws on
which the claims are based.

5|Page
STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND

In the year of 2008, Raj was the Managing Director of Apple Inc. ,Google has
launched the product of Android Ver. 1.0. To protect the inventions developed as
a result of this investment, Apple applied for and received patents covering much
of the innovative technology incorporated into the iPhone. 4. The iPhone was
undisputedly successful. After its release, reviewers praised a number of features
on the iPhone, including its multi touch screen, software, ease of use, and overall
user experience.

But it is found HTC is started to use the product which was already patented and
copyrighted by the Apple Inc.

Raj was allotted to file an infringement suit against HTC for using the patented and
copyrighted product.

6|Page
ISSUES RAISED

I.

Whether the Plaintiff had the locus standi with respect to the present dispute?

II.

Whether Android version 1.0 has elements which were copied from the iOS-1
interface?

III.

Having asserted that Android 1.0 has illegally copied many user interface elements
from iOS-1 and utility patents of Apple Inc, whether the Plaintiff has right to claim
damages from HTC Mobiles Inc. for Patents and Copyright infringement and
irreparable damage caused to them by the defendant?

7|Page
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: Whether the plaintiff had the locus standi with respect to the present
disputes?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that in the present facts
and circumstances, the defendant company is voluntarily carrying on
business in the Karnataka State and in the vicinity of Bangalore city in
India. Since, in this case there has been Patent and Copyright infringement
done by the defendant under Section 62 of Copyrights Act, 1957 and
Section 104 of Indian Patents Act, 1970. There has been violation of
Intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has the right
to appear in the Hon’ble District Court of Bangalore under Section 20 of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908

ISSUE II: Whether Android version 1.0 has elements which were copied from
the iOS-1 interface?

It is humbly submitted before the honorable court that there has been a clear
violation of Intellectual Property Rights in this case. The defendant has
illegally copied the Copyrighted features in iOS-1 like “Bounce back
effects”, “Tap and pinch to zoom”, “On screen icons” and along with that

8|Page
they have also infringed utility patents of Apple such as “Champhored
edges”, “antenna lines”, “ brick style form factor”.

ISSUE III: Having asserted that Android 1.0 has illegally copied many user
interface elements from iOS-1 and utility patents of Apple Inc, whether the
Plaintiff has right to claim damages from HTC Mobiles Inc. for Patents and
Copyright infringement and irreparable harm caused to them by defendant?

It is humbly submitted to the court that there has been irreparable harm caused by
defendant to the plaintiff which has directly affected their business by harming
their reputation, market share and defeating the fair competition in the market
caused by infringement of Patents and Copyrights of the plaintiff by the defendant.
The plaintiff has the right to claim monetary damages from defendant for the injury
sustained.

9|Page
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUE I

Whether the plaintiff had the locus standi with respect to the present
disputes?

1. It is humbly contended that the claim over Utility Patents and Copyrights by
the plaintiff is totally valid. Under section 48 of Indian Patents Act, 1970
confers on the patentee the exclusive right by himself, his agents or licensees
to “make, use, exercise, sell or distribute the invention”. He has the right to
enforce his exclusive use of the patent over anyone else.
2. If the patent holder suspects that another person or company is using the
patent unlawfully he may sue for relief in federal court. Damages requested
may include injunctive and compensatory damages against the alleged
infringer. Patent right enforcement against an alleged infringer is not simple.
3. In this case Patent and Copyright infringement had been done by the
defendant under Section 62 of Copyrights Act, 1957 and Section 104 of
Indian Patents Act, 1970. There has been violation of Intellectual property
rights of the Plaintiff.
4. Since, there has been infringement of Patents and Copyrights of the plaintiff
by the defendant; the plaintiff has the right to sue defendant and claim
damages for violation of intellectual property right of his.
5. The suit is of civil nature; hence, the plaintiff has the right to appear in the
Hon’ble District Court of Bangalore under Section 20 of Civil Procedure
Code, 1908.

10 | P a g e
ISSUE II

Whether Android version 1.0 has elements which were copied from the iOS-1
interface?

1. It is humbly contented to the Honourable Court that, Android ver. 1.0 has
several elements that are strikingly similar to the iOS-1. As these particular
software features are copyrighted by Apple Inc. i.e, Plaintiff and defendant
copied these features and implemented them on Android Ver. 1.0 without
any permission or license from the Plaintiff.
2. Under Section 17 of Copyrights Act, 1957 it is stated that “the author of a
Work shall be the first owner of the copyright”. Since Computer programs
and software are considered as work of Authorship hence the apps and
features present on iOS-1 falls under this.
3. Several features that have been copied are “Bounce back effects”, “Tap and
pinch to zoom”, “On screen icons” which were first created and copyrighted
by the plaintiff are present on Android ver. 1.0 which have been directly
copied from iOS-1.
4. The “Bounce Back” effect had been exclusively copyrighted by Apple Inc.
and when Defendant party released Android version 1.0, it was found that
this had been copied from Apple’s iOS-1.
5. The “Tap and Pinch to zoom” effects was also present in Android ver. 1.0
and this had been copyrighted by plaintiff as well.
6. The “On screen icons” found on Android ver. 1.0 are exactly the same as on
iOS-1. It has been found that the texture, colour and shape of the icons such
as of Phone, messages, browser, home and several other apps found on iOS-

11 | P a g e
1 which are exclusively copyrighted by Plaintiff are present on Defendant’s
Android ver. 1.0 without any change or whatsoever.
7. In the case of Apple Inc. vs. Samsung Electronics Co., it was held that if it
is found to be invalid then there can be no infringement since there are no
exclusive patent rights in the first place. To the jury, Samsung’s arguments
easily sounded stealthy and guilty, while Apple’s arguments seemed “crisp
and clean.” Apple is claiming that Samsung stole its ideas, while Samsung is
stating that it may have stolen Apple’s ideas but those ideas were not illegal
to steal in the first place1.
8. It is contended that “mere implementation of an idea is not infringement but
exactly copying the ideas and features of copyrighted software”2 by the
Defendant and implementing that without any permission or license from
Apple Inc. is clear Copyright violation.
9. Defendant party has also infringed utility patents of Apple such as
“Champhored edges”, “antenna lines”, “ brick style form factor” which are
design patents and they have been already Patented by the Plaintiff’s party.
10. Under Section 3 of Indian Patents Act,1970; it has been mentioned that
patent must be non-obvious in nature and mere re-arrangement doesn’t make
it a new innovation.
11.The Defendant party has copied the utility patents again without any license
or permission from Apple Inc. i.e, Plaintiff.
12. So it is concluded that Defendant party has clearly copied and hence
violated the Intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff party. Thus, there is
clear infringement of copyrights and patents.

1
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
2
Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. 12-1548 (Fed. Cir. 2014)

12 | P a g e
ISSUE III

Having asserted that Android 1.0 has illegally copied many user interface
elements from iOS-1 and utility patents of Apple Inc, whether the Plaintiff has
right to claim damages from HTC Mobiles Inc. for Patents and Copyright
infringement and irreparable damage caused to them by the defendant?

1. It is humbly contended that Apple lost many buyers due to reason of HTC.
The Plaintiff’s company was irreparably harmed by HTC's copyright and
patent infringement and it has caused damage to its reputation as an
innovator and they have lost market share, and lost downstream sales.
2. Apple has the right to sue HTC for the irreparable injury. First, Apple and
HTC are direct competitors in the smartphone and tablet market. Apple's
reputation as an innovator is critical to its ability to compete in the global
market scenario.
3. The Defendant party ( Apple Inc.) has the right to sue Defendant (HTC) for
infringement of copyrights u/s 62 of Copyrights Act, 1957. And also for
infringement of utility patents u/s 104 of Indian Patents Act, 1970.
4. The plaintiff can show both the presence of irreparable injury and the causal
nexus by establishing circumstances under which infringement would more
likely than not cause the claimed3; the direct competition is one factor
suggesting strongly the potential for irreparable harm.4
5. The record showed that the patentee and the infringer were direct
competitors, it "strongly showed a probability for irreparable harm.”5

3
Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co., 717 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Circuit)
4
Presidio Components Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1363 (Fed Cir 2012)
5
Trebro Mfg. v. Firey Equipment, 748 F.3d 1159, 1171

13 | P a g e
6. In case of Trebro Mfg vs. Firey Equipment, it was explained that when
customers need the patentee's innovations appearing in a competitor's
products, the patentee's reputation as an innovator will "certainly be
damaged.
7. Apple's reputational injury is all the more important here because of the
nature of Apple's reputation, i.e., one of an innovator (as opposed to, e.g., a
producer of low-cost goods). Consumers in the smartphone and tablet
market seek out innovative features and are willing to pay a premium for
them. Sometimes consumers in this market will even prioritize innovation
over utility. A reputation as an innovator creates excitement for product
launches and engenders brand loyalty. HTC recognized the importance of
such a reputation and set its sights not on developing more useful products,
but rather to overcome the perception that it was fast follower. A patentee's
willingness to license can militate against a ending of irreparable harm, but it
does not foreclose such a finding6

6
. Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 551 F.3d 1323, 1328 (Fed.Cir.2000)

14 | P a g e
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:

1.

To acknowledge the Locus Standi of the Plaintiff.

2.

To order Injunction against the HTC to stop using Android 1.0 as it violates
Intellectual property rights of Apple Inc.

3.

To direct the Defendant party to provide proper remuneration to APPLE Inc. for
the monetary losses suffered and injury caused to its reputation as a brand.

The proceedings should be stayed during the pendency of Suit.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
in the interests of justice, equity and good conscience.

All of which is humbly prayed,

Bikram Bhattacharya,

Counsel for Plaintiff.

15 | P a g e