July 13 (Bloomberg) -- UBS AG, the largest Swiss bank by assets, is in talks with the U.S. government to settle a lawsuit seeking the names of 52,000 American account holders suspected of using Swiss secrecy laws to evade taxes.

The bank agreed with the U.S. and Swiss governments to seek a settlement and postpone an evidentiary hearing today in a Miami courtroom, according to a court filing. The U.S. sued UBS on Feb. 19, a day after the bank agreed to pay $780 million to defer prosecution for helping wealthy Americans evade taxes.

Under that agreement, UBS also agreed to an unprecedented breach of Swiss secrecy laws by giving the Internal Revenue Service data on more than 250 accounts. Switzerland, which supports UBS in the case, said the U.S. push for data on 52,000 other accounts is a threat to its sovereignty and would force the bank to violate Swiss criminal laws protecting bank secrecy.

“This adjournment gives people at very high levels of both governments time to get involved and consider the implications of this litigation,” said Bryan Skarlatos, a tax lawyer at Kostelanetz & Fink LLP in New York. “The symbolic value of this case is huge. It’s King Kong versus Godzilla. It’s the IRS versus bank secrecy jurisdictions.”

With yesterday’s passing of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, whose first major work, “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” took its inspiration from Solzhenitsyn’s time as a guest in the Soviet gulag, we couldn’t help but think of that other famous Russian prisoner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky (pictured, left), the former chairman of the former Yukos, once Russia’s largest oil producer. (For LB background, click here.)



Russian writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is seen during his deportation in 1946. (AP Photo)


Turns out, there’s all kinds of interesting Yukos-related news to consume. First, there’s Leonid Nevzlin, a former Khodorkovsky colleague who, after absconding to Israel, was tried — in absentia — for murder. On Friday, a Russian court sentenced Nevzlin to life in prison for allegedly ordering four contract killings of business rivals. The verdict, according to AFP, said that shootings and bomb attacks had been paid for by Nevzlin, a former Yukos executive, and Alexei Pichugin, the jailed former head of security at Yukos.

“We will appeal. This sentence is groundless. . .My client has always said this trial is politically motivated,” said Nevzlin’s lawyer, Dmitry Kharitonov.

The trial comes just days before a court in Siberia is to hold a parole hearing for Khodorkovsky himself, who’s halfway through an eight-year jail term in Penal Colony No. 10 — located six time zones east of Moscow — for alleged financial crimes involving Yukos. As we noted last month, Khodorkovsky’s lawyers filed a request for his early parole, hoping to take advantage, they said, of the Kremlin’s “course towards guaranteeing real independent courts.”



Robert Amsterdam (AP photo)


For some good afternoon reading, click here for a profile of Khodorkovsky’s lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, the Canadian lawyer who’s orchestrating Khodorkovsky’s case from behind the scenes. The piece, penned by Portfolio’s Christopher Stewart, likens Amsterdam’s life in Moscow and London to a spy movie and reports that Amsterdam has, in part, become a Soviet-style propagandist who advocates for his client at international conferences, in the media and on a blog.

In 1980, Stewart reports, Amsterdam and a friend set up a legal practice specializing in business disputes in emerging markets. In Nigeria, where Amsterdam represented a Canadian telecom company, 30 government-backed men with AK-47 assault rifles tried to break up a shareholders meeting at which Amsterdam was making a presentation. “I’ve lost track of the number of times my life has been threatened,” he says.

Great Wall Motor Co said it did not anticipate an Italian court order barring it from selling its GWPeri compact car in the European Union would have a substantial impact on its operations.

The Chinese car maker said in a statement issued on Friday that the Court of Turin had on July 16 delivered the order in summary proceedings before formal proceedings following a design dispute brought against the company by Fiat Group Automobiles S.p.A.

Great Wall said it was preparing documents for an appeal.

A lawyer for Great Wall had said earlier on this week that the Chinese car maker would appeal against the Italian court ruling that bars it from selling the compact car in the European Union because it too closely resembles Fiat's Panda.

Great Wall said Fiat had in June last year filed a claim in the Shijiazhuang Intermediate People's Court alleging the infringement of Fiat's patent by the company but that no judgement had yet been reached.

The Chinese car maker said it did not expect the dispute on the mainland to have any immediate material adverse effects on its operations, business or financial position.

Great Wall, China's largest sport utility vehicle (SUV) maker, started selling the GWPeri in March in China, priced at 43,900 yuan to 55,800 yuan ($6,430-8,173), and it has chosen Italy as its entry point for Europe.
Shares of Great Wall have fallen more than 51 percent so far in 2008 to end at HK$5.49 on Thursday. (US$1=HK$7.8=6.828 yuan)

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

A decision today by the the International Olympic Committee to uphold a ban on Iraqi teams at the 2008 Beijing Games exposes a rift in Iraq’s government, and may lead to a lawsuit.

The IOC said the Iraqi government missed the deadline to address accusations of political interference in the country’s National Olympic Committee. ”Clearly we’d very much like to have seen Iraq’s athletes in Beijing,” said IOC spokeswoman Giselle Davies. ”We are very disappointed that the athletes have been so ill-served by their own government’s actions.” Here’s the AP story.

In May, the Iraqi government dissolved the country’s National Olympic Committee, claiming, among other reasons, that it was illegitimate because it lacked a legal quorum. (The AP reports that four members of the committee, including its chief, were kidnapped two years ago and their fates are unknown.) Moreover, a rift may exist between Iraq’s Youth and Sports Ministry, which is dominated by Shiites, and the NOC, which includes several holdovers from the Saddam-era Olympic Committee, run by his eldest son, Odai.
The IOC denounced the dissolution as ‘’serious interference” in what is supposed to be an independent body and demanded the government respect the NOC’s autonomy.

Five Iraqi athletes were expected to compete this year in non-track and field sports — archery, judo, rowing and weightlifting. Their places will be offered to athletes from other countries.

Basil Abdul-Mahdi, an adviser to the Iraqi minister for youth and sport, said the government never had any intention of reversing its decision and the ban was no surprise. He said Iraqi participation in Arab regional competitions would be unaffected. ”We will bring suit to defend our sports rights,” Abdul-Mahdi said.

With neighbouring country China’s name being approved for legal ivory trading by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), conservationists are worried that it will prompt poachers to launder in their illegal stocks, including that obtained from India.

Estimates show that 20,000 elephants are annually killed for illegal ivory trade. India is home to around 35,000 elephants. Figures have shown that in the last two decades 50 per cent of the country’s elephant population has been lost to poachers.

China is considered the world’s largest illegal market, with more than 90 per cent of illegal wildlife products from India reaching this market.
With this permission of ivory trading by CITES’ standing committee, which has found China "fit to become a trading partner" for 108 tonnes of elephant ivory put up for one-time sale from four African nations, conservationists world over fear that it will have a direct impact on Asian elephants.

Raising serious concern over this issue, Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) vice-chairman Ashok Kumar said, "Studies on wildlife trade in Japan have indicated a niche demand for ivory from Asian elephants as compared to that from the African species. The sale, if approved, will just provide cover for illegal trade in African elephant ivory as well as the more preferred Asian elephant ivory. Moreover, China being made an importer will boost the thriving illegal trade posing more threats to the geographically nearer Asian elephants."

Leading conservation groups have claimed that though the ivory, which has to be traded, is legal and not obtained through poaching, its legal sale will only prompt poachers to launder in their illegal stocks as there are no scientific methods to distinguish between legal and illegal ivory. These groups have demanded that CITES should not give final nod to China for this trading.

The CITES decision came after many countries during the meeting raised concern on China being designated for this trading. "Allowing new ivory to be imported into China will stimulate demand and create loopholes for illegal ivory to be laundered into the legal market," International Fund for Animal Welfare programme director Peter Pueschel said, adding that even though the sale is monitored by CITES, there is no denying that it can lead to more poaching of African as well as Asian elephants.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Over at Scotusblog today, Lyle Denniston has done us all a service, first by reporting news of a decision out of the “World Court” today, and second by providing a lucid explanation of the fascinating backstory. In less sure hands, about now we’d be reaching for the aspirin.

The dealio, with Denniston’s help: Today, the World Court, otherwise known as the International Court of Justice, located in The Hague, Netherlands, issued a ruling ordering the U.S. to stop the execution of five Mexican nationals, currently being held in Texas. Click here for a press release issued by the ICJ, here for the opinion itself.

The underlying case affects five Mexican nationals convicted of murder in the U.S. Mexico contends that those five were denied their rights under the Vienna Convention to be told, after their arrest and during their prosecutions, that they had a right to consult with a diplomat from their own country.
According to Denniston’s reporting, the U.S. government has admitted the defendants’ rights under the treaty were violated, but — oddly, in the Law Blog’s view — it has been unable to stop their executions. The Bush administration tried to order Texas to implement an earlier World Court order, one from 2004, but that attempt was first rebuffed by Texas courts and then by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Administration then joined in supporting one of the defendant’s second appeal to the Supremes, seeking to get the World Court ruling enforced in Texas. But the effort that failed on March 25, when the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote ruled that the ruling could not be enforced against Texas, either by direct action by President Bush or by the authority of the World Court itself. (Click here for CJ Roberts’s majority opinion. Supremes to World: Don’t Mess with Texas!)

Deep breaths, LBers, because things are about to get hairy.

After it’s Supreme Court defeat in March, Mexico decided it wouldn’t go down easy. It repetitioned the World Court, asking it to re-interpret its earlier ruling. Apparently, the World Court allows re-interpretations of previous rulings if any part of that ruling remains in dispute. While the Bush administration argued that nothing was left to dispute — it had tried to enforce the earlier ruling but had failed — Mexico disagreed. The dispute, argued Mexico, was over just how far the U.S. had to go in trying to enforce the ruling. It was Mexico’s understanding that “other federal and state authorities” had to try to enforce the ruling.

In today’s ruling, the World Court aligned itself with Mexico, ruling that a dispute did, in fact, still exist. Therefore, it could (and would) take the opportunity to clarify its earlier ruling. Apparently it will soon — all it said today is that the U.S. was required to “take all measures necessary” to halt the executions. And what does that mean? Well, the World Court is apparently planning to rule “with all possible expedition.”

That’s all. The end of the post. If you made it this far, you deserve a meal: Mexican, Dutch or U.S.-based. Your choice.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court is routinely called on to settle conflicts between state and federal law. The European Court of Justice — Europe’s highest court — plays a similar role, except that it must reconcile EU law with that of its constituent countries.

That tension, reports the WSJ’s Charles Forelle, bubbled to the surface in a recent ECJ ruling that a Belgian garage-door installer broke the EU’s antidiscrimination laws by stating publicly that he wouldn’t hire Moroccans, even though there was no evidence any job applicant had actually been rejected. The ruling rejected a prior decision from a a Belgian court originally that the statements, while possibly unsavory, didn’t necessarily amount to discrimination since no injured party could be found. (The British and Irish governments joined the case with similar arguments.)

Here’s what happened: The Belgian newspaper De Standaard quoted the director of a garage-door company, Pascal Feryn, as saying “we aren’t looking for Moroccans. Our customers don’t want them.” In a TV broadcast, he expanded: “People often say: ‘no immigrants’…I must comply with my customers’ requirements.” He added: “I’m not a racist. Belgians break into people’s houses just as much. But people are obviously scared.”

In rejecting the views of the Belgian Court, the ECJ said EU countries must provide for “effective, proportionate and dissuasive” sanctions — including, possibly, injunctions and fines — against employers who make sweeping statements viewed as discriminatory.

“It may have a very big impact on the attitude of employers,” says Olivier Rijckaert, an employment lawyer at Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP in Brussels. Statements such as “we want to hire young people,” or “we prefer women” are now suspect, he says.

Several EU countries have sizeable minority populations that make up major portions of their blue-collar work force; Turks in Germany and Albanians in Greece. “I can imagine this will invite people to challenge decisions in other places in Europe where there’s racism,” say Dirk Nuyts, an immigration lawyer with Brussels-based Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy.

Indian mobile phone giant Reliance Communications said Wednesday the deadline for talks that could lead to a blockbuster merger with Africa's largest cellular firm MTN had been extended.

The deadline had been pushed back to July 21, Reliance Communications said in a statement. Discussions began late May aiming to build a telecoms giant stretching from Asia to Africa and the Middle East.

"RCom and MTN have agreed to continue their negotiations in relation to such potential business combination, and have extended the period of exclusivity until 21st July 2008," the statement said.

"There is no certainty either on completion, or the timing of the said proposal," the statement added.

The merged firm would be worth up to 70 billion dollars, but it remains unclear if the deal will go through, with the previous deadline expiring on July 8.
Anil Ambani, the chairman of Reliance Communications and one of the world's richest men, had offered to take a 51 percent stake in MTN through a cash and share swap, India's Business Standard newspaper said on Tuesday.

MTN was scrutinising the proposed deal, the newspaper said, citing sources close to the negotiations.

Last month, India's billionaire Ambani brothers threatened legal action against each other over the merger.

Older brother Mukesh Ambani, who heads Reliance Industries, told MTN he had first right of refusal to buy a controlling stake in Anil's Reliance Communications. But Anil Ambani strongly refuted the claim.

Reliance Communications shares rose 18.4 rupees or 4.43 percent to 433.8 at the Mumbai stock exchange on Wednesday.

The firm is the flagship of Anil Ambani's group and has 48 million subscribers. MTN, which has 68 million subscribers, is Africa's largest cellular operator.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

The simmering suspicions over a proposed bill on intellectual property rights (IPR) that would give government-funded universities and research institutions the right to patent innovations has spilled out into the open once again with a popular blog on IPR publishing the text of the secretive bill.

Spicy IP, run by Shamnad Basheer, research associate at the Oxford
Intellectual Property Research Centre, has posted what it claims is the text of the Public Funded Research and Development (Protection, Utilisation and Regulation of Intellectual Property) Bill, 2007. No one here calls it by this long-winded name; in any discussion it is just referred to as India's Bayh-Dole Act (BDA) because it is based on the American law of that name. Introduced in the US in 1980, that bit of legislation gave universities the IPR over results of federally-funded research. Academia was encouraged to commercialise its innovations through licensing, etc. The Economist gushed that it was "possibly the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America over the past half-century," inspiring several other countries to follow suit. China passed its own BDA towards the end of 2007, while India is among a group of developing countries that is hoping to make such a law the Open Sesame to an explosion of innovation.

The Bill put out by the blog confirms much of what has been disclosed in bits and driblets. But it is typical of the government that it has chosen to keep the details of the proposed law under wraps, leaving far too much to conjecture — and quite often to misconception for want of facts. Prepared by the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Bill has been doing the rounds of the various ministries and is scheduled to be tabled in Parliament soon, according to the grapevine.

In essence the Bill aims to make our largely cocooned universities more responsive to the marketplace. This in itself may not be a bad thing but with a large body of scientists up in arms over the proposed law we need to understand why. Opinion is sharply divided even in the US on the effectiveness of the BDA. To its champions, it was the trigger for the technology explosion in the US in the 1980s that made it the world's leading innovator. The critics, though, say it is too simplistic an assumption because there is no data to back such claims and that the innovative outburst would have occurred in any case.

The most illuminating analysis comes in Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act written by David C. Mowery, Richard R. Nelson, Bhaven N. Sampat, and Arvids A. Ziedonis. The authors say that the tradition of university-industry linkage in the US was established long before the BDA; what the law did primarily was to harmonise federal policy rather than introduce any revolutionary change although it did provide a further impetus to academic patenting and a huge rise in the number of academic institutions involved in patenting and licensing. This, however, had a seamy side to it: the rise in patenting by universities during the 1980s was accompanied by a decrease in the quality of patents, says the book based on a survey.

For India, the circumstances and the concerns are vastly different. For one, our universities have a poor R&D base and although the Bill promises that researchers will get a chunk of the monetary benefits (30 per cent net of expenses on IP protection) accruing from any patents, it is doubtful how such a law alone will help to kick start an environment that is geared to innovation. Besides, the patenting infrastructure in the country and more so in academia is so woeful that law will prove quite ineffective.

While some critics have problems with some key provisions of the Bill, such as the 90-day limit given to government-funded universities and non-profit research institution to declare their inventions, there are many scientists who are totally opposed to the Bill. One such is Dinesh Abrol, senior scientist with the National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies (Nistads) of Delhi who says universities must be allowed to maintain their mission of diffusing knowledge independent of state and market and without subordinating them to corporate interests.

Technology transfers can and do happen through many channels, and the diverse methods now in use would be restricted by the new law, says Abrol. Nistads is one of the one of the 38 institutes grouped under the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) whose chief, Samir Brahmachari, has been advocating the open source system (reported several times in this column) of collaborative, incentive-based research.

What we need is some informed debate on what is India's best interest at this particular stage instead of going for a wholesale import of an American system that could prove ineffectual. Otherwise, we could be headed for a nuclear deal in our science establishment — corrosive, divisive and ultimately ineffective.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

The Indian patent office will provide drug innovators a chance to explain their views before a decision to grant compulsory licences against their patented medicines is taken. The patent office's decision has, for the first time, set rules for examining compulsory licence applications from local companies against multinational drug majors like Pfizer and Roche.

The patent office on July 4 dismissed a petition filed by Natco Pharma opposing the patent office's move to seek the opinion of Pfizer before granting a compulsory licence to Natco. The application seeks granting a compulsory licence to manufacture and export generic version of Pfizer's patented cancer medicine, Sunitinib, to Nepal.

The application was made under Section 92 (A) of the Patent Act and the Patent Rules, 2006, which allows the government to permit or issue compulsory licence to local manufacturers to export patent medicines to the countries, which do not have the capability to manufacture such medicines.
Since such licences are meant to be issued at the time of public health crisis, the Patent Rules do not spell out in detail the modalities of issuing them.

Natco had argued that inviting patentee (Pfizer) to appear at the hearing to contest the grant of compulsory licence was not required under the patent law.

The patent office, however, felt that the arguments of the patentee shall be helpful in deciding the terms and conditions for granting such a licence and may also be helpful in avoiding the abuse of the provisions of Section 92 (A).

"I think Natco's application itself is a weak one as they did not submit proof to suggest that there is a public health emergency in Nepal due to lack of availability of the drug. The patent controller, therefore, states in his order that one of the reasons for the ‘hearing' is to ensure that the provisions of 92 (A) are not ‘abused'. This is a sound order and helps the patent office take a better decision on a complicated area of law," Shamnad Basheer, a patent expert, said.

Natco is the first and the only Indian generic drug maker to seek the compulsory licence route to supply medicines to a least developing country.

Including the current one, Natco has two pending requests for compulsory licences to supply cancer medicines to Nepal. The other request is for permission to export Roche's cancer medicine, Erlotinib.

The patent office decision will enable Pfizer to express its views on the compulsory licence application. Natco will be given time to respond to Pfizer's submission before the patent office takes up the case for final hearing.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) in India on Thursday approved the Cruise Shipping Policy that envisages a zero-tax regime for cruise ship operators.

Under the policy, cruise operators will be exempted from income-tax, excise duty, customs duty, corporate tax and service tax that accounts for almost a third of their total revenues.

A mini-township on the high seas, cruise shipping is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing components of the leisure industry worldwide, fast emerging as a new marketable commodity, reports IANS.

Growing globally at the rate of 12 per cent annually, this sector has witnessed some activity in India as well of late. However, it is still in its infancy in the country.

The cruise ship industry annually generates US $14 billion worldwide and enjoys a passenger base of over 10 million, which is expected to almost double by 2009.

India's share is only two per cent, despite its vast coastline of over 7,000 km.

Cruise shipping would be a path-breaking development in India's effort to carve a prominent space in world tourism, showcasing India as a major source and destination of world tourism, Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office Prithviraj Chavan said.

The policy is aimed at attracting foreign cruise ship operators, which have so far avoided India because of its restrictive tax regime.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

India and the Delegation of the European Commission here have deputed district human rights monitors (DHRMs), trained to help torture victims to stand up to the perpetrators, in 47 districts across the country.

The project is on an experimental basis. Currently it is being executed in nine states for a period of three years, EU's Executive (Programmes) Mohanlal Panda said on the sidelines of a function organised on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture.

The initiative is being implemented in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Orissa, Karnataka, Andhra pradesh, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and is funded by the EU delegation, reports IANS.

National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) Chairperson S Rajendra Babu also criticised the torture inflicted by the police during interrogation and to extract testimonies and confessions.

A report by Asian Centre for Human Rights (ACHR) has revealed that nearly four people die in police custody every day.

In its report ˜Torture in India: A State of Denial', ACHR quoted NHRC that 7,468 people have died or have been killed in prison and police custody during 2002-07.

India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture but has not enacted national laws to ratify the convention.

A signature to the convention implies an intention to incorporate its ethos in national laws. I exhort India to ratify the convention, Babu said.

National Commission for Women (NCW) Chairperson Girija Vyas also called for a stronger law to deal with torture.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Consumers in the U.S. drug market need to become experts in probability theory to know whether their interests are protected.
A case in point is last week's Lipitor settlement between Pfizer Inc. and India's Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd.

Pfizer's key U.S. patent on atorvastatin, the active ingredient of its cholesterol pill Lipitor, the world's top- selling drug, expires in March 2010.
Indian generic-drug maker Ranbaxy, which wanted to sell a copy in the U.S. market immediately after the patent expired, has now agreed to wait an additional 20 months.

In exchange for the opportunity forgone by Ranbaxy, Pfizer will reward it by withdrawing lawsuits that it has brought on since 2003 to block the generic threat to its patent.

Not just that. As the first generic challenger, Ranbaxy will enjoy a six-month period, starting in November 2011, in which the Indian company's version of Lipitor -- and of its sister drug, Caduet -- will be the only ones in the market.
In the past, brand-name pharmaceutical companies have paid generic-drug producers to prevent them from entering the market even as the latter agreed to retain their 180-day exclusivity -- so no one else could enter, either.

Back in 2000, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission found the practice anti-competitive and put the drug industry ``on notice.''
Game of Chance

The Lipitor accord is different. For one, Pfizer isn't paying Ranbaxy to sit out.
Besides, Pfizer protects Lipitor, which had worldwide sales of $12.7 billion last year, with a formidable amount of intellectual property, including a patent on the process of making atorvastatin that expires only in 2016.
Pfizer sued Ranbaxy in March this year to prevent what it sees as infringement of its process knowledge.

Whether patients will be better or worse off under the settlement depends on the probability one assigns to different legal outcomes.

The typical 30 percent to 40 percent price erosion that occurs in the first 180 days will now take place 20 months later than consumers anticipate in their best-case scenario, but five years earlier than in their worst-case one.
Naturally, both Ranbaxy and Pfizer are saying that their handshake is in consumers' interests.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Microsoft must pay Alcatel-Lucent $511.6 million, after a federal court refused to overturn an earlier jury verdict against the software giant.

Judge Marilyn L. Huff refused to reconsider an April jury verdict that Microsoft infringed Alacatel-Lucent patents regarding how Microsoft Outlook and Windows Mobile sets the date and stylus-based computers. The jury awarded Alcatel-Lucent $357.7 plus $10.4 million for the stylus patent infringement.

In addition to reaffirming the jury's earlier decision, Huff increased the damages Microsoft must pay to include interest that had accrued over the five-year lifetime of the court case.

Microsoft said it would appeal the ruling.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Now that the Patent Reform Act (S. 1145) has been pulled from the Senate floor schedule, it looks like business as usual for patent litigants, as a holder of touch screen patents has launched a carpet-bombing assault.

Re-tooling a patent infringement suit aimed at Dell from 2007, Typhoon Touch Technology and co-plaintiff Nova Mobility Systems have added Apple, Fujitsu, Toshiba America, Lenovo U.S., Panasonic Corp. of North America, HTC America Inc., Palm Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Nokia Inc, and LG Electronics USA to its list of defendants.

In its original complaint, Typhoon alleged that Dell and Motion Computing Inc. were "using and profiting from" the company's patented technologies. Typhoon holds two patents on fundamental elements of touchscreen technologies, (#5,379,057, and #5,675,362 issued in 1995 and 1997. Both patents share the title "Portable Computer with Touch Screen and Computer System employing Same," and have practically identical abstracts.

According to today's statement from Typhoon, only Motion Computing Inc. settled with the company, along with Electrovaya Inc. for its Scribbler tablet PCs.

The original suit said, "As further set forth in our Complaint, the alleged infringement by both Dell and Motion Computing absolutely impedes on our offering and has prevented us from obtaining our due royalties. We believe that their infringement was willful and therefore entitles us to treble damages."

Both the definition of "willful infringement" and situations potentially resulting in the dreaded treble damages (damages multiplied three times as punishment for willful misconduct) were major topics of the Patent Reform Act. The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Emily Berger and Richard Esguerra attribute vagueness in these areas to be a major factor for "chilling innovation." When a company could be hit with a willful infringement ruling for simply knowing a patent exists, many companies would simply license any patent that could be troublesome rather than risk suit.

A House version of the Patent Reform Act was passed last September, and was then placed on the Senate Judiciary Committee calendar last January. There is no telling how long the bill's hiatus could last, though a public hearing on the debate did take place three weeks ago.

Typhoon's complaint was filed in the US District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

International research group WMG is to enhance its links with the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) in order to strengthen work on climate change, high-tech manufacturing and global healthcare.

CII has been working closely with WMG on capacity development of industry workforce especially the manufacturing sector. Now this premier business association of the world’s newest superpower is to join forces with WMG, one of the UK’s most influential and forward-looking organisations in research. This MoU would present an opportunity to extend the cooperation in technology transfer, technology commercialisation, industrial R&D, innovation and technology management covering areas like automotive, healthcare and advanced manufacturing technologies.

These two powerhouses will explore possibilities for cooperation and collaboration in respect of research in the fields of:

• Automotives
• Experiential Engineering
• Robotics
• Healthcare
• E-security
• Sustainable materials
• Hybrids
• Digital Manufacturing
• Rapid Manufacturing
• Advanced Manufacturing Technologies
• Advanced materials

Professor Lord Kumar Bhattacharyya, founder and Director of WMG, said: “The governments of the UK and India recognise the importance of close collaboration of both countries in the field of science and technology.

“There is exciting potential for joint research in many fields between us and, in particular, between WMG, Indian private and public research institutions and universities and the Indian private sector. WMG has already been working with very big industries such as Tata and TVS Motors.”

Mr Chandrajit Banerjee, Director General of the CII, said: “Indian industries now have a major focus on innovation in order to become path-breakers in their respective fields. There is also a growing need for IPR protection for Indian organisations.

“All economic powers need to respond to the pressing need for new technology to meet the challenges of climate change and environmental damage and India is no different. We also must contribute to the need for a massive improvement in global healthcare provision.

“This link with WMG will give the Indian economy unsurpassed access to new technology in these key areas.”

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

A five-day hearing starts in the Mumbai High Court today to decide whether Vodafone could owe the Indian tax authorities some $2bn (£1bn) for its $11.2bn takeover of one of the subcontinent's major mobile phone networks.
When Vodafone bought a controlling stake in Hutchison Essar from the Hong Kong-based Hutchison conglomerate in May last year, the UK group's advisors confirmed that because the deal was between two foreign companies, no tax was due to the Indian authorities. But the Indian government does not agree, and the row is set to run and run.

This week's hearing will decide on the validity of a Vodafone writ seeking an injunction against the tax authority's investigation of the deal. Whichever way the court rules, and a decision is not expected for a number of weeks, it is likely that the losing side will lodge an appeal with the High Court in Delhi.
The case has major implications for all foreign companies pursuing Indian assets. Vodafone's argument, and the basis of its writ, is that the company cannot owe tax on the deal because the transfer of shares took place between a Dutch group owned by Vodafone and a Hutchison company registered in the Cayman Islands, both of which are outside India's jurisdiction. But the government says that it does have a capital gains claim because the assets are based on Indian soil.

The dispute started last year, and was complicated further by a retrospective change to the Indian tax laws in February's Budget. The initial January hearing lasted only five minutes because the tax authority needed more time to prepare its case, and the subsequent March trial was adjourned so that Vodafone could incorporate the legal changes into its submission.
Even with the changes, the company remains adamant that its case is valid. "Vodafone continues to believe and has been advised that there is no tax payable on the transaction," a spokesman said at the time.

Vodafone is not the only global group to be caught up in potential tax disputes with the Indian government. Though subtly different from the Vodafone case, deals by General Electric and AT&T in recent years are now also coming under scrutiny from the subcontinent's revenue authorities.
The Vodafone case will be watched closely by multinationals thinking of investing in India's fast-growing economy. The takeover of Hutchison Essar was central to plans by Vodafone to secure future growth by expanding into emerging economies.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

As the national average price of gasoline raced toward $4 a gallon and airlines laid off workers by the thousands because of rising jet fuel costs, the US House of Representatives took action: It overwhelmingly passed the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008.

The bill would have made it illegal for foreign states "to act collectively" to limit the production or distribution of oil. Put simply, the bill permitted the Justice Department to charge the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with violating American antitrust laws.

Even before the 324-to-84 House vote in May, President Bush pledged a veto, saying OPEC might retaliate against US interests overseas or cut oil production further. But Senate Republicans held the line for him, this month threatening a filibuster that Democrats couldn't break. That effectively killed the bill and, for now, any hope that the US would finally start treating oil the same way it does computer chips, vitamins, and other products.

OPEC may call itself an "organization," but it is, pure and simple, a cartel that manipulates markets, restricts output, and fixes prices. The US and the European Union have vigorously prosecuted other multinational cartels for doing the same thing in other markets.

Swiss healthcare company F. Hoffmann-La Roche, for instance, paid a $500 million fine to the US in 1999 for its part in a years-long scheme to raise prices on vitamin products. Just last year, British Airways and Korean Air each paid a $300 million fine to the US for fixing international cargo rates.
But when it comes to oil, the US gets squeamish. For nearly 50 years, the members of OPEC have openly operated as a cartel. OPEC's statutory provisions even state that its mission is "the coordination and unification of the petroleum policies of member countries and the determination of the best means for safeguarding their interests, individually and collectively."

The cartel's economic effect on the US has been devastating, dating from the oil embargo in the 1970s, which led to the first US fuel shortage since World War II, to today's unstoppable escalation of pump prices. US spending on imported oil has gone from about $185 billion a year to an expected $440 billion in 2008. Much of that excess is winding up in the pockets of OPEC members, increasing their global economic and political power.
High gas prices have now gone from consumer irritation to a serious threat to our national economic health. Our antitrust laws are tailor-made to help out in such a crisis.

OPEC is clearly a "combination or conspiracy" that restrains trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Still, over the years, courts have made it nearly impossible to use the act against OPEC, whose members claim they are sovereign nations and thus immune from such prosecution.

But OPEC's behavior is commercial, not governmental or diplomatic. It is perfectly appropriate for Congress to remove these legal obstacles. Foreign businesses and individuals have long been subject to US antitrust laws – even for conduct overseas, if it has substantial effect on commerce here. So should OPEC.

Imagine suing OPEC members for the amount they overcharged for petroleum products the US government purchased. Imagine the seizure of OPEC assets to pay this award, such as Venezuelan government-owned Citgo headquarters in Houston or Saudi Arabia's Aramco assets in New York.
And imagine Justice Department officials compelling OPEC and its coconspirators to disclose documents that might bring to light exactly how this cartel has functioned. Might this information show a relationship between OPEC and US oil companies?

If we are afraid of OPEC, remember that our decades of putting up with this cartel have done nothing to reduce oil prices.

The bill Congress proposed was actually somewhat cautious. It didn't allow private suits for damages but gave enforcement jurisdiction exclusively to the Justice Department. Under the Bush administration, the attorney general seems unlikely to have used this authority anyway, but all that could change come January, when a new president and new Congress get to work.
Job One for them should be to look past the fearmongering rhetoric and enact this important piece of legislation.

At the very least, passage of this bill would send this loud and clear message to OPEC: Competition – the basis of free enterprise and economic organization throughout much of the world – ought to be the norm for producing oil just as it is for producing anything else.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Wi-LAN Inc. is suing Motorola, Research in Motion and UTStarCom for alleged infringement of the Ottawa patent-licensing company's intellectual property.
The company announced Friday it had filed the suit in a Texas court that is a favourite of patent-licence companies seeking big judgments.

In October, Wi-LAN used the same court to file an omnibus suit against 22 other major companies for alleged violations of other Wi-LAN patents.
The decision to sue more companies could be a sign that many target companies are choosing to fight rather than quickly settle in the midst of uncertainty about the state of the economy.

Wi-LAN said it will use McKool Smith, a Texas law firm hired to handle the earlier cases, to lead this suit. The earlier cases named Intel, Apple, Dell and Best Buy among the defendants.

Some companies could be waiting to see whether possible changes in U.S. legislation or decisions in U.S. courts shift the balance of power in patent licensing wars.

Wi-LAN also said Friday that it has settled a dispute with Marvell Semiconductor in a California court. Results were not disclosed.
Marvell, one of the targets of last fall's suits, countersued, seeking a procedural judgment that Wi-LAN patents are not binding.

While Wi-LAN has successfully negotiated licensing deals with many companies, including several announced this week, the cases that have gone to court are likely at least a year or more from reaching a stage where new settlement negotiations are possible.

The company predicted last fall that it could take about 30 months to wrap up the earlier package of cases.

Wi-LAN needs several big settlements to lift its flagging stock, which has fallen from $7.75 in early 2007 to under $2 in recent weeks. Shares rose 12 per cent, or 21 cents, to $1.96 on the Toronto Stock Exchange by midday Friday.

Earlier this month, it predicted healthy revenues of up to $20 million this fiscal year and positive cash flow as new deals start to generate results.
It had revenues of $3.2 million in the second quarter ended in March, a 40-fold jump from just $75,000 a year earlier. However, analysts had been predicting $4.5 million in revenues.

The company lost $4.1 million, up 80 per cent from a year earlier, and higher-than-analyst expectations of $2.7 million. However, non-cash accounting charges for acquired licences generated $4.1 million of the costs.
Cash reserves that are used to negotiate future deals and fight patent suits rose slightly to $91.8 million. The company will spend about $6 million this year on legal costs.

Earlier this week, Wi-LAN announced new wireless patent deals with San Jose's Sena Technologies Inc. and Monsoon Multimedia of San Mateo, Calif., bringing the total to 25 of companies that are making or have made payments.

It also announced several more licensing deals for a technology that allows parents to manage their children's television exposure, bringing the total number of such deals to 86.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

In one of the landmark judgments on patents which would benefit HIV patients, Indian Patent Office on Thursday rejected a patent application filed by multinational pharma company Boehringer Ingelheim on paediatric form of anti-AIDS drug nevirapine.

The company was trying to claim a patent on the syrup form of nevirapine, which is particularly important for children living with HIV who are unable to swallow tablets. This is the first decision from the Patent Office on the 13 patent oppositions filed by public health groups against AIDS drugs, and will set an important precedent for the pending patent applications, industry expert pointed out.

If the patent had been granted, price would have increased for children suffering from AIDS. In May 2006, the Indian Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (INP+) and the Positive Women's Network (PWN) had filed a pre-grant opposition against the company's application.

"We opposed the patent application on nevirapine hemihydrate (syrup) to ensure that it remains available for our children and to make sure that the government doesnt say it is too expensive to provide," said, P Kousalya, president of PWN.

Nevirapine is an important anti-retroviral drug, invented in 1989, and was not patentable in India. "Accessing appropriate paediatric formulations of AIDS drugs has been a particular problem around the world, and we hope that this decision can be a step towards making them more available," she added. The Indian Patents Act contains some important safeguards designed to ensure that ‘‘frivolous patent applications are not granted at the cost of public health. These include section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which prevents many "new forms" of known substances from being patented unless there is a significant improvement in efficacy, and section 3(e) of the Act, which prevents "mere admixtures" of substances from being patented.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.

Out-of-court settlements are increasingly the order of the day with pharma companies, and yet, Ranbaxy’s settlement with Pfizer on its estimated $13-billion cholesterol drug is a global show stopper.

Over the last couple of years, more innovative drug companies are forging settlements with companies making generic versions of their drugs, observes a pharma analyst. And that is because legal costs are expensive, he added.
A settlement allows the innovator to keep the generic drug maker at bay till a time close to the patent expiry of the particular drug. As a result, the innovator is assured a few more months of life on its drug and the generic company making the similar version also gets a few months of exclusive global sales.

Though the Lipitor settlement is the largest in the global pharmaceutical space, it is not the first from Ranbaxy. In the recent past Ranbaxy has settled with GlaxoSmithKline on herpes-related drug Valtrex, and migraine drug Imitrex, and with Astra Zeneca on ulcer drug Nexium.
In fact, Imitrex is a settlement that was done serially with other drug companies as well, including Dr Reddy’s Ltd (DRL), a pharma analyst points out. DRL, along with Ranbaxy, was at the forefront of domestic drug-makers taking on aggressive patent litigation. In fact, about half of DRL’s patent filings in the US are patent challenges. DRL’s annual litigation cost is about $10 million.

But DRL’s MD and COO, Mr Satish Reddy, has indicated that companies were looking at innovative ways to settle litigation to improve their chances of launching. DRL has in the past also forged a settlement with UCB on epileptic drug Keppra.

Other drug companies like Sun Pharma and Lupin too have seen similar litigation settlements. Sun Pharma has settled with Novartis on Alzheimer drug Exelon, and in another agreement with Wyeth on anti-depressant Effexor. Lupin settled on antibiotic Cefdinir with Abbott and Astellas Inc.

Overseas drug companies too have settled litigation, say pharma analysts, referring to Mylan and Watson. But, they point out, the Lipitor settlement not only brings in savings on litigation, but also nixes speculation on Pfizer being interested in acquiring Ranbaxy, after its promoters recently sold their stake to Japanese company Diiachi Sankyo.

By Ms.Bobby Aanand, Metropolitan Jury.