PATENT CASE LAW

JAYA BALA
THREE PATENT CASES

1)GOOGLE VS. ORACLE

2)SMARTFLASH VS. APPLE
3)FLIPKART Vs SKECHERS
 GOOGLE Vs ORACLE

Google LLC is an American multinational technology company that

specializes in Internet-related services and products, which includes
online advertising technologies, search engine, cloud computing,
software, and hardware.

Oracle Corporation is an American multinational computer technology

corporation headquartered in Redwood Shores, California. The company
sells database software and technology, cloud engineered systems, and enterprise
software product-particularly its own brands of data base management system.
 Case Baground

January 2010:
 Oracle purchases Sun Microsystems and thereby acquires Java
AUGUST 2010
 Oracle sues google and claims that google has used Java API’S when developing Android.Claimed infringement of
patents and copyright
2012
 District court finds that Google did not infringe Java interfaces.
2013
 In 2013, Oracles files an appeal before the federal circuit.
2014
 Federal circuit finds Java APIs are protected by copyright.
 And sending the Dispute back to first court to be tried for fair use.
 Google petitions for a writ of certiorari at SCOTUS to appeal Federal circuit decisions. Cert is denied in July
2015.

2016
 District court jury finds that Googles use qualifies as fair use.
2018
 Oracle appeals and the federal Circuit overturns the jury’s decision.
2019
 Google again asks SCOTUS to hear the case
 Conclusion
Did not get the the result because the case is still going on.
 SMARTFLASH Vs. APPLE

Apple Inc. is an multinational company that makes computer hardware

(the machintoshes),software(macosios) and mobile devices (ipod,iphone,ipad like
music players.

Smartflash Tecnology is an innovative technology development and licensing

corporation that owns an expanding portfolio.
 ABOUT CASE
 Apple Inc. has been ordered to pay US$532.9 million after a US federal jury found its iTunes software infringed
three patents owned by Texas-based patent licensing company Smartflash LLC.
 Smartflash had asked for US$852 million in damages.
 After deliberating for eight hours in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the jury said Apple
not only used the Smartflash patents without permission, but did so willfully, Reuters reported.
 Smartflash sued Apple in May 2013, alleging the company’s iTunes software infringed its patents related to
accessing and storing downloaded songs, videos and games.
 The trial was held in Tyler, the hub of the East Texas region, which over the past decade has become a focus for
patent litigation in the United States, the report said. Some of the biggest jury verdicts have been awarded in the
district. Smartflash is also based in Tyler.
 That ruling set the stage for a trial. Apple argued that it did not infringe the patents and asked the jury to find
they were invalid because previously patented inventions covered the same technology.
 Smartflash’s suit said that around 2000, the co-inventor of its patents, Patrick Racz, met with a man named
Augustin Farrugia to discuss the patents’ technology. Farrugia, the complaint said, later joined Apple and
became a senior director there.
 Conclusion

 In 2016 Patently Apple posted a report titled "In 2015 Smartflash won a $533 Million
Verdict against Apple, but Two out of Three Patents have now been invalidated." Today
we're learning that "A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a ruling that patents
owned by Smartflash LLC are invalid, dashing the licensing company's hopes of reviving
lawsuits against Apple Inc, Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Google Inc.
 In 2016: "A three-judge panel at the patent agency found that the two patents never should have been
issued in the first place because the idea of storing and paying for data is an abstract concept, not a
specific invention.
 FLIPKART Vs SKECHERS

Flipkart Internet Private Limited is an e-commerce company based in Bengaluru,India

Founded by Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal in 2007, the company initially focused on
book sales, before expanding into other product categories such as consumer
electronics, fashion, and lifestyle products.

Skechers USA, Inc. is an American lifestyle and performance footwear company.

Headquartered in Manhattan Beach, California, the brand was founded in 1992 and
is now the third largest athletic footwear brand in the United States.
 Case History
 In December 2017, Skechers had accused Flipkart and four of its sellers of selling fake 'Skechers' products
 The accused included Flipkart and four of its sellers — Retail Net, Tech Connect, Unichem Logistics, and MarcoWagon
 Earlier, Skechers, with the help of court-appointed local commissioners, raided seven warehouses of the sellers in Delhi and
Ahmedabad
 15,000 pairs of fake ‘Skechers’ shoes were found during the raids
 Earlier, an investigation by News18 revealed that 60% of the sports goods and 40% of the apparel being sold in online
“sales” on ecommerce platforms such as Flipkart, Shopclues, and Snapdeal were fake.
 “Flipkart has offered some cash payment and a commitment to do a certain amount of business for Skechers as an offer to
settle out of court,”
 However, in April 2018, Flipkart filed a criminal complaint against one of its employees and against major supplier
MarcoWagon, making allegations of cheating, fraud, forgery, and breach of trust.
 In July 2018, reports surfaced that MarcoWagon Retail had sent a legal notice to Flipkart India, the B2B arm of ecommerce
unicorn, for non-payment of dues amounting to INR 20 Cr ($2.9 Mn).
 MarcoWagon also alleged that it was asked by Flipkart India to import Skechers shoes from suppliers in China that
were pre-designated by ecommerce player.
 MarcoWagon also alleged that it was asked by Flipkart India to import Skechers shoes from suppliers in China
that were pre-designated by ecommerce player.
 After the December 2017 row, for the next three months, there were no updates from either end on the
case.
 However, in April 2018, Flipkart filed a criminal complaint against one of its employees and against major
supplier MarcoWagon, making allegations of cheating, fraud, forgery, and breach of trust.
 In July 2018, reports surfaced that MarcoWagon Retail had sent a legal notice to Flipkart India, the B2B
arm of ecommerce unicorn, for non-payment of dues amounting to INR 20 Cr ($2.9 Mn).
 MarcoWagon also alleged that it was asked by Flipkart India to import Skechers shoes from suppliers in
China that were pre-designated by ecommerce player.
 Conclusion
An email sent to both Flipkart and Skechers but did not get response from
any side.
THANK YOU