Dec. 11 (Bloomberg) -- IPCom GmbH, a German patent licensing company, said it’s committed to licensing its technology under fair terms in a bid to persuade European Union regulators to dismiss an antitrust complaint filed by Nokia Oyj.

IPCom said in a statement yesterday that it is “fully prepared and ready” to abide by licensing terms for essential mobile-device patents acquired from Robert Bosch GmbH. IPCom in 2007 bought Bosch’s patents that were part of a high-speed mobile communications standard.

IPCom is “prepared to grant irrevocable licenses under the essential intellectual property rights of its Bosch mobile telecommunication patent portfolio,” the company said in a statement on its Web site.

Nokia, the world’s biggest maker of mobile phones, complained to the European Commission in October 2008 that IPCom is undermining patent standard rules by demanding unfair terms for technology used in handheld devices.

The Finnish company wanted the commission, the EU’s antitrust authority in Brussels, to intervene and ensure that companies that acquire patents that are part of a standard abide by the same fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as the previous owners.

Nokia is embroiled in a long-running dispute with IPCom over patent royalties. Munich-based IPCom is suing Nokia at a court in Mannheim, Germany, alleging that it’s owed about 12 billion euros ($17.7 billion) during the next 20 years for Nokia’s violation of eight patents that were owned by Bosch.

Espoo, Finland-based Nokia said in a statement that it’s “grateful that the European Commission has persuaded IPCom to recognize and confirm its obligations to respect the commitments given by Bosch as the former owner of the patent portfolio.”

The commission welcomed IPCom’s declaration and said in a statement that it’s “important” that companies abide by fair and reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms, or FRAND, when patents are transferred.

Cerner Wins Trial Over Philips Visicu Unit’s Patents

Cerner Corp., a provider of medical-record technology, won a jury verdict invalidating patents owned by Royal Philips Electronics NV’s Visicu unit for intensive-care unit monitoring systems.

A federal jury in Kansas City, Missouri, said on Dec. 8 that the patents were invalid and not infringed, and rejected Visicu’s argument that it was entitled to patent royalties.

Kansas City-based Cerner sued Visicu in 2004 to clear its legal right to sell systems and challenge Visicu’s market- leading position. The dispute is over computer systems that use software to analyze patient information, computerize drug ordering and track any change in a patient’s status so doctors can respond even if they aren’t in the room.

“This case was all about who would be able to offer solutions to hospitals and medical centers going forward,” Cerner lawyer B. Trent Webb, of Shook Hardy & Bacon in Kansas City, said in a telephone interview.

Doctors who specialize in intensive-care unit medicine help patients survive the most critical injuries, and the systems let them monitor patients in rural or small hospitals that wouldn’t normally have access to such specialists, Webb said. Of the 60,000 ICU beds in the U.S., less than 10 percent are being monitored through Cerner or Visicu systems, he said.

Visicu is the largest maker of the systems. The only other company in the market, IMDsoft Inc. of Needham, Massachusetts, also is embroiled in a patent dispute with Visicu that is pending in federal court in Pennsylvania.

Amsterdam-based Philips, Europe’s biggest consumer- electronics maker, bought Visicu in 2008 for about $430 million in cash to add to its medical division. The medical-systems unit generated 7.6 billion euros ($11.2 billion) in sales last year.

Officials with Philips Visicu in Baltimore didn’t immediately return messages seeking comment.

The case is Cerner Corp. v. Visicu Inc., 04cv1033, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).

E.Digital Gets First Licensee from Patent-Infringement Case

E.Digital Corp. settled a dispute with Wolverine Data Inc. of Irvine, California, one of the 19 electronics companies E.Digital sued for patent-infringement in November.

E.Digital makes dedicated portable in-flight entertainment systems. Under terms of the agreement, Wolverine will make an undisclosed lump sum payment and pay royalties on sales of its products that use technology covered by San Diego-based E.Digital’s patent 5,491,774, E.Digital said.

That patent, issued in February 1996, is for a handheld recording and playback device with flash memory. Wolverine is the first company from the November suit to take a license on the patent, E.Digital said in a statement.

E.Digital is represented by James Y.C. Sze and Matthew S. Yungwirth of Philadelphia’s Duane Morris LLP, and Natalie Marie Hanlon-Leh of Minneapolis-based Faegre & Benson LLP.

The case is e.Digital Corp. v. Pentax of America Inc., 1:09-cv-02578-MSK-MJW, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado (Denver.

Copyright

CBS, ABC, Fox Sue Hang 10 Over TV for Mobile Devices

CBS Corp.,Walt Disney Co.’s ABC and News Corp.’s Fox television networks sued a New Jersey company they claim is illegally retransmitting New York broadcast television shows to mobile devices for paying subscribers.

Hang 10 Technologies Inc.’s VuiVision Retransmission Service sends copyrighted programming from New York City TV stations to subscribers paying $2.99 a month, according to the complaint in federal court in Trenton, New Jersey. Hang 10 and owner Daniel Gallic have no license for the service, the complaint claims.

Hang 10, based at Gallic’s address in Warren, New Jersey, falsely claims it has a relationship with the TV networks, defrauds consumers and violates copyright law, according to the complaint, which seeks a judge’s order barring the service.

The company is “brazenly offering the same type of unauthorized broadcast retransmission service that repeatedly has been considered unlawful,” according to the complaint filed Dec. 8. “Absolutely none of defendants’ revenues from that service got to the owners of the programming that defendants exploit.”

Hang 10 is illegally retransmitting programming from WABC- TV, WCBS-TV and Fox’s WNYW, according to the complaint. Disney is the world’s biggest media company and CBS owns the most- watched television network.

Phone numbers for Hang 10 and Gallic weren’t immediately available. Gallic had no immediate response in an e-mail comment. VuiVision isn’t available until Dec. 14 as it is “entering a new phase in our beta testing which requires a number of new services to be installed,” according to the Web site.

The company has told the broadcasters it’s entitled to operate the service without consent and would restart the service unless the stations “agreed to certain conditions,” the complaint said, without providing details.

The service “allows mobile phone users to view the same content they enjoy in their homes,” according to the company’s Web site.

“Watch TV on your cell phone,” the Web site claims. “No apps, No software, No problems!”

The service works on “most video-enabled phones,” including BlackBerrys made by Research in Motion Ltd., it claims. Apple Inc.’s iPhone won’t allow it because it doesn’t stream video, the site claims.

The case is American Broadcasting Companies v. Hang 10 Technologies, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton).

Trademark

Apple Seeks to Extend ‘Think Different’ Mark to Newer Products

Apple Inc., the maker of the iPod and iPhone, has sought to extend its U.S. trademark for the phrase “think different” to a broader category of products, according to an application published in the database of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Apple first registered the phrase in July 1998 for use with newsletters, brochures, pamphlets and posters dealing with computers. In April 2003, Apple successfully registered the term for a wider range of products, including computers, hardware, hand-held computers and software.

The newest application, filed Nov. 30, would extend the mark’s use to cover portable and handheld digital electronic devices, MP3 and digital audio players, personal digital assistants, and a wide range of software.

Apple first began running ads with the “think different” slogan in 1997, shortly after founder Steve Jobs returned to a leadership role in the Cupertino, California-based company.

Each ad featured people who had a significant cultural impact, including Albert Einstein, John Lennon and Yoko Ono, Martha Graham, Muppet creator Jim Henson, Pablo Picasso, Thomas Edison, Frank Lloyd Wright, Bob Dylan, Maria Callas and Martin Luther King Jr.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

Crocs Added as Defendant in Shoe-Design Trade-Secrets Case

Crocs Inc., the maker of colorful resin shoes, was added as a defendant to a trade-secrets case filed in Oregon state court against a former shoe designer at Portland-based Columbia Sportswear Co.

Columbia sued Brian P. O’Boyle in Portland on Aug. 24, claiming that he designed shoes for Niwot, Colorado-based Crocs while employed by the Oregon company.

In the initial complaint, the sportswear company said O’Boyle’s employment agreement barred him from disclosing protected information to others, and from using the company’s computers and other property for any purpose other than Columbia’s business.

Columbia said O’Boyle admitted he signed a contract with Crocs requiring him to keep secret his activities on behalf of the Colorado company. He was accused of copying design elements from Columbia’s products and using them in designs for others.

In the new court filing made Dec. 8, Columbia said O’Boyle was paid more than $120,000 for his designs, and he and Crocs applied for a patent on one of the designs he created.

Crocs is accused of “aiding and abetting” O’Boyle’s breach of duty of loyalty to Columbia, and of using the Oregon company’s designs in products of its own.

Columbia asked the court for money damages, and to order Crocs to quit using purloined designs. Additionally, the company seeks “no less than a reasonable royalty” for Crocs’s use of its designs, and an award of litigation costs and attorney fees.

Timothy S. De Jong and Keil M. Mueller of Portland’s Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Schlachter PC represent Columbia.

The case is Columbia Sportswear Co., v. Brian P. O’Boyle, 0908-11856, Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County (Portland).

University Technology Transfer

AstraZeneca to Pay Up to $1 Billion for USL-Developed Drug

AstraZeneca Plc took a billion-dollar license to an antidepressant drug developed by researchers at the University of South Florida, according to a university statement.

The drug, known as TC-5214, is an alternative to antidepressants presently on the market. According to the university statement, it’s effective for many who haven’t been helped by other drugs, and has fewer side affects than many.

London-based AstraZeneca will pay Targacept Inc., of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, $200 million and as much as $540 million more once regulatory and first sale milestones are achieved. Another payment of as much as $500 million will be made if specific sales-related milestones are achieved.

The university will receive a portion of the royalties through its licensing agreement with Targacept. Details weren’t disclosed. Valerie McDevitt, the university’s assistance vice president for research, said in the statement that the patent is the university’s most lucrative to date.

The drug is the invention of three of the university’s researchers and a former student, according to the statement.

To contact the reporter on this story: Victoria Slind-Flor in Oakland, California, at vslindflor@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: December 11, 2009 07:01 EST