Nortel patent portfolio sold for $4.5 billion. The patent portfolio of former telecommunications juggernaut Nortel Networks was recently sold at auction to a consortium of significant players in the high-tech industry, including Apple, Research In Motion, Microsoft and Ericsson. The purchase price of $4.5 billion that was reached after 19 rounds of bidding represents the largest amount paid for a technology patent portfolio in history. When the purchase price is divided by the approximately 6,000 documents in the portfolio, the average amount paid per patent document is about $750,000. The portfolio includes numerous patents prepared and guided to issuance by Smart & Biggar.
And another record breaker... On June 27, 2011, the Federal Court issued the highest award of damages and costs to date in Canada against the purveyors of counterfeit goods. Louis Vuitton and Burberry were awarded a total of $2.48 million in damages, including punitive and exemplary damages, not including legal fees, which were awarded on a solicitor and client basis against each of the defendants. The defendants included three groups of individuals and shell corporations operating businesses engaged in the sale of counterfeit goods across Canada, with one business operating in the Greater Vancouver area and other businesses, based out of the Greater Vancouver and Greater Toronto areas, engaged in importation, distribution and sale across Canada, including Alberta and Quebec, of counterfeit Louis Vuitton and Burberry merchandise. The award reflected the defendants' knowing, planned and deliberate actions, their attempts at concealing the counterfeiting activities and their continued importation and distribution of the counterfeit goods after both the commencement of the proceeding and the plaintiff's application for summary trial judgment. As with the previous recent counterfeiting decisions of the Federal Court and the British Columbia Supreme Court, this judgment will hopefully send another strong message to counterfeiters in Canada about the potential risks and liabilities of engaging in these activities, serving as a useful deterrent against such activities. In addition, the case was decided using new Federal Court summary trial rules, thus providing rights holders with greater certainty in their ability to use the rules in resolving similar, nationally scoped disputes on a summary basis, particularly given the adoption by the Federal Court of British Columbia jurisprudence on summary trial and the flexibility that now both Courts have applied to the summary trial procedure.
Once social outcasts, geeks have now become popular. Only a few years ago, the word "geek" was used to refer to a socially awkward individual, usually sporting prominent glasses and outdated clothing. However, the word has morphed in more recent years to mean someone with superior technological savvy and skills, and often also having enviable job-market potential and earning outlook. On June 20, 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that Best Buy, the world's largest electronics chain, recently threatened its competitor, Newegg.com, with legal action on the basis that its GEEK ON advertising slogan was too similar to Best Buy's GEEK SQUAD. After facing criticism for trying to claim exclusive use of the word GEEK, Best Buy argued that it was just defending its GEEK SQUAD trademark and pointed out that Newegg's use of the colours orange and black mimicked the Best Buy mark and increased the likelihood of confusion. The company has disputed numerous other GEEK-related marks in the past, including RENT A GEEK, GEEK RESCUE and SPEAK WITH A GEEK.
The Supreme Court of Canada issues a trademark related decision. On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada released a much anticipated decision in Masterpiece Inc. v Alavida Lifesytles Inc., 2011 SCC 27. Because the Supreme Court of Canada only very rarely hears a trademark case, such decisions are considered very important and can significantly affect Canadian trademark law and practice. To read more about this decision, see this article on our website.
The preceding is intended as a timely update on Canadian intellectual property and technology law. The content is informational only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please communicate with our offices directly.