Posts Tagged ‘IP Korea’

KORUS FTA and You–Next Steps?

Saturday, June 16th, 2012
KORUS FTA and You  Next Steps?

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

I’m working with several clients to better understand and benefit from KORUS FTA.

Country of Origin is one areas that often needs to be addressed.

Working through the paperwork is also challenging.  I can assist and facilitate.

I was recently asked for a copy of the Treaty. Here’s the LINK.

http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/korus-fta/final-text

 

 

KORUS FTA and You  Next Steps?

Kolon Loses $920 Million Lawsuit to Dupont

Friday, September 16th, 2011
Kolon Loses $920 Million Lawsuit to Dupont

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

I’ve been following the Kolon-Dupont case for months. At one time Kolon’s lawyers contacted me. I was to provide a cultural dimension to the case. They sought a different strategy— ignoring Culture.  Not a smart idea.  For the appeal,  Kolon needs to reconsider  I can help.

Kolon Loses $920 Million Verdict to Dupont in Trial Over Kevlar

Sept. 15 (Bloomberg) — Kolon Industries Inc. lost a $919.9 million jury verdict to DuPont Co. over the theft of trade secrets about the manufacture of Kevlar, an anti-ballistic fiber used in police and military gear.

Jurors in federal court in Richmond, Virginia, deliberated about 10 hours over two days before finding Gyeonggi, South Korea-based Kolon and its U.S. unit wrongfully obtained DuPont’s proprietary information about Kevlar by hiring some of the company’s former engineers and marketers. The award yesterday is the third-largest jury verdict this year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

DuPont, based in Wilmington, Delaware, is spending more than $500 million to boost Kevlar production and meet rising demand for armor and lightweight materials that reduce energy use. Kevlar and Nomex, a related fiber used in firefighting gear, accounted for about $1.4 billion of DuPont’s $31.5 billion in sales last year.

The “jury decision is an enormous victory for global intellectual property protection,” Thomas L. Sager, DuPont’s general counsel, said in a statement. “It also sends a message to potential thieves of intellectual property that DuPont will pursue all legal remedies to protect our significant investment in research and development.”

DuPont rose 86 cents, or 1.9 percent, to $45.52 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading yesterday. The shares have declined 8.7 percent this year.

Kolon said it disagrees with the verdict and will appeal.

‘Multiyear Campaign’

The “verdict is the result of a multiyear campaign by DuPont aimed at forcing Kolon out of the aramid fiber market,” Kolon said in a statement e-mailed by Dan Tudesco of Brodeur Partners, a public relations agency. “Kolon had no need for and did not solicit any trade secrets or proprietary information of DuPont, and had no reason to believe that the consultants it engaged were providing such information. Indeed, many of the ‘secrets’ alleged in this case are public knowledge.”

Kolon said it will continue to pursue an antitrust case against DuPont, which is scheduled for a March trial. DuPont will file motions later this year to have the case dismissed, Sager said in a telephone interview.

DuPont will pursue recovery of the award “wherever we can find Kolon assets,” Sager said. The company also will seek punitive damages for each of the 149 stolen secrets, reimbursement of more than $30 million in attorney’s fees and an order barring Kolon from making products with DuPont’s information, Sager said.

Body Armor

DuPont, the largest U.S. chemical company by market value, sued Kolon in February 2009 alleging it stole confidential data about Kevlar. DuPont began selling the bullet-resistant fiber in 1965 and it’s used in body armor, military helmets, ropes, cables and tires. Kolon began making its own version of the para-aramid fiber in 2005.

DuPont argued in court filings that Kolon executives conspired with five former employees of the U.S. chemical maker or its Japanese joint venture, DuPont-Toray Co., to gain access to Kevlar information.

To spur sales of its Heracron aramid fiber, Kolon hired Michael Mitchell, a former DuPont engineer who also had served as a Kevlar marketing executive, DuPont said in court papers. DuPont contended that Mitchell, hired as a consultant, provided Kolon with proprietary information about Kevlar.

‘Home Computer’

Mitchell “retained certain highly confidential information on his home computer” and passed the information to Kolon, DuPont alleged in court filings.

After learning about Mitchell’s activities, DuPont executives alerted the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to U.S. Justice Department officials.

During a search of Mitchell’s Virginia home, FBI agents uncovered DuPont documents and computers containing confidential information belonging to his former employer, federal prosecutors said last year.

Mitchell pleaded guilty to theft of trade secrets and obstruction of justice and was sentenced in March 2010 to 18 months in prison.

Kolon recruited other former DuPont workers, including engineers and researchers, as part of a “concerted effort” to obtain information about Kevlar, according to court filings.

“DuPont’s investment in developing this information, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars over many years, was thereby essentially lost,” the company said in a filing in October. “Kolon is now able to compete against DuPont in the aramid marketing using DuPont’s own information against it.”

The case is E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc., 09-cv-58, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond).

 

Kolon Loses $920 Million Lawsuit to Dupont

Lone Star–Hana Tensions Loom

Sunday, April 24th, 2011
Lone Star  Hana Tensions Loom

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor
This has been a week of suits and counter lawsuits. Samsung and Apple are battling, so are Lone Star and Hana Bank. The Apple-Samsung issue are IP related, so nothing new there.

Regarding the latest chapter in the Lone Star–KEB–Hana saga…

Korea Times notes:
A legal dispute is looming between Hana Financial and Lone Star due to a delay in the government’s approval of their deal over Korea Exchange Bank (KEB).

A source close to Lone Star told The Korea Times, “It’s in the contract. A delay means compensation. If it comes to litigation, so be it.”

Hana is also equally adamant, saying that it is Lone Star’s fault so there is no need for it to pay.

At issue is a clause in the contact in which Hana will pay 4.7 trillion for Lone Star’s 51-percent stake in KEB and management control. The clause stipulates that Hana will have to pay 32.9 billion won ($30 million) per month, for April and May or about 66 billion won, if the deal is not completed by the end of March.

The contract was signed by Kim Seung-yu, Hana chairman, and Lone Star Chairman John Grayken in London, last November.

The sum accounts to 100 won per share for Lone Star’s KEB stake. The clause has come into sharp relief as regulators have indicated that no approval can be expected this month.

“We are not responsible for the delay because Lone Star’s eligibility as the major shareholder of KEB is the main cause,” an official of Hana Financial said, asking not to be named. “We are not ruling out a lawsuit against Lone Star if it insists on having us pay.”

In contrast the source said, “The contract calls on Hana to do its best to get the deal done. Is it doing its best? That is a very important legal question that determines whether Hana should be held responsible or not.” The source, however, said that it could be “legally very tricky.”

Some analysts think it could be hard to hold Lone Star accountable, saying that the clause is aimed at protecting the firm from costs incurred by the delay. Thus, a holdup in the regulators’ decision on the legality of Lone Star’s status as KEB’s majority shareholder is beside the point. If the deal is not consummated by May, their contract will allow one party to call it quits, which would free Hana from any compensation payment.

The compensation clause was included in the contract at the request of Lone Star, which argued that the delay of the deal may limit its rights to sell the lender to other potential buyers. Hana Financial agreed to it because the financial group was sure the deal would be completed by March.

It was encouraged by FSC Chairman Kim Seok-dong, who vowed to conclude the case this month. But a decision may not come until next month at the earliest because the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), the FSC’s executive body, said that no decision was likely in April.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs, the erstwhile biggest shareholder of Hana Financial, unloaded about half of its stake in the banking group Thursday.

The U.S.-based global investment bank sold 7.5 million shares in Hana Financial in a block deal, bringing down its stake to 4.46 percent from about 7.56 percent. The shares, sold in blocks to institutional investors before Thursday’s market opening, fetched 43,000 won ($39.80) each, a discount of about 6.5 percent from the market price. Some say that Goldman Sachs wanted to reduce exposure, judging the Hana-Lone Star deal has become precarious. Others say that it was related to Goldman’s internal cash flow situation.

An appellate Seoul court is currently reexamining a stock manipulation case after the Supreme Court sent it back. Paul Yoo, head of Lone Star’s Korean unit, was cleared of stock manipulation of KEB’s credit card subsidiary in 2003 in a reversal of a lower court’s ruling. The highest court disagreed. Under the Korean Banking Law, a major shareholder of a financial company must not have committed any financial crime within five years.

It is quite possible that the regulators will wait for the high court’s decision before coming up with its own at the risk of going against the ruling.

Lone Star  Hana Tensions Loom

2011 Trends and Expectations—A Commentary on Korean Global Business

Friday, January 7th, 2011
2011 Trends and Expectations—A Commentary on Korean Global Business

For a full text of the report CLICK HERE

2011 Trends and Expectations—A Commentary on Korean Global Business

Legal Battle-Korea’s MBC Game vs. Blizzard Entertainment’s StarCraft

Sunday, December 5th, 2010
Legal Battle Koreas MBC Game vs. Blizzard Entertainments StarCraft

By Don Southerton, KoreaLegal.org Editor

Gaming in South Korea is huge. It’s also subject to legal battles over  IP rights. He’s the latest fight between US-based Blizzard Entertainment–makers of Starcraft and  World of Warcraft–and Korea’s MBC. My advice for the Blizzard leadership team is to stay well informed on not only Korean IP, but how to manage their image–this takes lots of cross-cultural savvy and a sound strategy. I know, since it’s what I do…  BTW  Going after Korean media like MBC, even if you win a lawsuit will still have huge costs in terms of image.

Korea Times shares–Blizzard Vows to Take MBC to Court

By Kim Tong-hyung

Blizzard Entertainment is bracing for a bruising legal fight with Korean cable television stations over the broadcasting rights for professional video game tournaments based on its immensely popular StarCraft franchise, according to a senior company executive.

In a lengthy news conference in Seoul Thursday, Paul Sams, Blizzard’s chief operating officer, lashed out at cable channels MBC Game and OnGameNet for televising StarCraft tournaments without the company’s consent.

The U.S.-based games giant, which boasts a broad lineup of strategy games that also include the World of Warcraft series, sued both cable channels last month. A lawsuit against the Korea e-Sports Players Association (KeSPA), which has been managing the tournaments broadcasted on the channels, is also being considered, Sams said.

“It’s unfortunate that the e-sports industry in Korea is lagging behind other industries in recognition of intellectual property (IP) rights and the basic principles related to them. Korea is the only region in the world where we have had to resort to litigation to protect our IP rights,’’ Sams told Korean journalists at the Park Hyatt Seoul in Samseongdong. He added that Blizzard hasn’t decided whether to consider filing a preliminary injunction against the StarCraft broadcasts.

Sams blasted the arguments that StarCraft and other games used in professional tournaments should be regarded as part of the public domain. Such views originate from KeSPA, which claims that Blizzard collecting license fees for StarCraft tournaments would be equivalent to Adidas levying costs on its balls used in football matches.

“StarCraft is not a public domain offering, as Blizzard has invested significant money and resources to create the StarCraft game and the overall StarCraft universe,’’ he said.

“Classifying StarCraft and other e-sports as part of the public domain deprives developers such as Blizzard of their IP rights. There will be no incentive to do what Blizzard had done to balance the games for competition, which is a more difficult task than creating a normal game.’’

StarCraft is a military science-fiction game that has permanently reshaped Korean leisure habits and spawned a massive market for computer gaming since its debut in 1998.

Blizzard sold more than 5 million copies of the first StarCraft game in Korea alone, which accounted for half of its global sales, and is currently enjoying a bright start to the sequel StarCraft II that was released this summer.

StarCraft is also credited for the emergence of professional gaming, which is practically a national sport here, hooking millions of television viewers to watch professional players battling in packed arenas.

The emergence of electronic sports (e-sports) led to a tight partnership between Blizzard and KeSPA, but the relationship began deteriorating in 2007, when KeSPA sold the broadcasting rights to local broadcasters without Blizzard’s consent.

After months of circular negotiation, Blizzard cut ties with KeSPA in May and instead inked a partnership with online video firm Gretech-GomTV, which was granted exclusive rights to operate and broadcast StarCraft tournaments and also negotiate television deals.

Although Blizzard had allowed MBC Game and OnGameNet to broadcast KeSPA-arranged StarCraft leagues until August, which marked the end of the previous season, this didn’t prevent the channels from broadcasting new tournaments since then.

Gretech-GomTV has currently been offering cable television firms 12-month contracts that demand broadcasting fees of 100 million won (about $86,800) per league and other conditions. This will amount to around 700 billion won in annual payments for the cable television firms, which operate about three StarCraft leagues per season in both individual and team competition.

Sams dismissed the idea that Blizzard has been using e-sports to drive up revenue, and added that the company’s revenue from Korea, despite the immense popularity of its games here, contributed only five percent of its worldwide sales over the past three years.

“Back in 2007, KeSPA sold the broadcast rights for 1.7 billion won to cover three years, despite the fact that we never granted them the broadcast rights to sell, and they do not have the rights today. The yearly broadcasting fees were five times more than what Gom TV is asking for today, so I think it’s hypocritical for MBC Game and OGN (OnGameNet) to complain about the proposal,’’ Sams said.

Source: Korea Times

Legal Battle Koreas MBC Game vs. Blizzard Entertainments StarCraft

Louis Vuitton, Hyundai Motor Trademark Infringement

Friday, March 5th, 2010
Louis Vuitton, Hyundai Motor Trademark Infringement

By Don Southerton, Editor Korealegal.org

Recently the luxury fashion firm Louis Vuitton filed a trademark infringement suit against Hyundai Motor (see below). As the news broke it caught my attention on several levels. For one this Blog looks at U.S. Korea legal issues. IP is a common theme. Moreover, Lux and the Korean car market are common themes of our sister website–Bridging Culture Worldwide Blog.

Trademark infringement can be a sensitive issue. I understand Vuitton has a brand and image to uphold. That said, they might be getting this one wrong—Hyundai had been driving toward Luxury. The Genesis model has won a number accolades.  In fact, the Lux brand Prada and Hyundai did strong co-branding last year in Korea—with a Genesis Prada model. More significant, Hyundai will soon launch in the U.S. market its luxury model the Equus.

Hyundai is sued over Super Bowl ‘Luxury’ ad
LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA , the world’s largest luxury-goods manufacturer, sued Hyundai Motor Co. accusing the  car company of trademark infringement in a Super Bowl ad. The complaint was filed in Manhattan federal court. LVMH, based in Paris, is seeking unspecified damages and an order barring Seoul-based Hyundai, South Korea’s largest automaker, from diluting its trademark.

The suit is over a commercial Hyundai broadcast on Feb. 7 to a record 106 million people watching the football game. In a commercial entitled “Luxury” Hyundai featured a group of men playing basketball with a dark brown ball covered in a pattern of initials that resembled Louis Vuitton’s trademark, according to the complaint. Hyundai’s conduct is likely to both dilute the distinctiveness and tarnish the reputation of the LVM marks, according to the trademark dilution complaint.
Detroit News

Louis Vuitton, Hyundai Motor Trademark Infringement

US International Trade Commission To Investigate Samsung

Saturday, February 6th, 2010
US International Trade Commission To Investigate Samsung

US International Trade Commission To Investigate Samsung By Don Southerton, Korea Legal Editor

IP issues interest me. For one, as Korea moves from a heavy industy, labor intensive export production model to more gray matter sectors like bio tech, Green and renewable, and high tech I see more and more IP issues surfacing. On another level, vicious competition within the high tech sectors coupled with internal corporate pressure to perform add to the situation.

Seems like Samsung at the center of many controversies. It’s shear and scale had lots to do with this…

DOW JONES NEWSWIRES Feb. 4, 2010

The U.S. International Trade Commission said it has voted to embark on an investigation into allegations that Samsung Electronics Co. (005930.SE) has violated Sharp Corp.’s (6753.TO) patents used to make components in flat-screen televisions.

The latest complaint comes after the Korean electronics giant in December filed a complaint with the U.S. commission against Sharp alleging that the Japanese firm infringed on Samsung’s patents for liquid crystal display devices. It joins a growing list of disputes about patent breaches in the highly competitive electronics industry as companies strive to protect their intellectual property and cutting-edge technologies.

Patent-related legal disputes happen often in the flat-panel display industry, although in most cases they end up in cross-licensing deals.

Officials at both Samsung and Sharp said they had no immediate comment on the issue.

In a statement on its Web site, the ITC said the products involved the probe are LCD modules for products used in televisions.

The ITC is beginning the investigation after Sharp filed a complaint against Samsung on Jan. 8. In the complaint, Sharp asked that the ITC issue a cease-and-desist order on the export and sale of such products.

“By instituting this investigation, the U.S. ITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case,” the commission said in the statement.

The ITC’s chief administrative law judge will assign the case to one of the ITC’s six administrative law judges, who will schedule and hold a hearing.

The administrative law judge will then make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation, it said.

Samsung in November lost a patent infringement case raised by Sharp in 2008 that involved LCDs. In that case, the U.S. ITC ruled that Samsung infringed on four of Sharp’s patents for technology to improve the picture quality of LCDs and said the South Korean company should stop selling devices in the U.S. that trespassed on the patents.

Link http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100204-722715.html?mod=WSJ_World_MIDDLEHeadlinesAsia

US International Trade Commission To Investigate Samsung

Kodak, Samsung, LG and Patent Infringements

Monday, January 18th, 2010
Kodak, Samsung, LG and Patent Infringements

By Don Southerton, Korea Legal Editor

One common concern with doing global business is trade and patent infringement, which are complex and costly–to both defend and protect. This recent case involving Kodak, Samsung, and LG provides some insights into Korean business. First Kodak is vigilant in protecting its IP. Next, Samsung and LG eventually saw that settling the case was in their best interest and would open doors for cross-licensing technology. That said, LG settled first, while Samsung waited until the U.S International Trade Commission ruled against them.

In comparing Samsung and LG, I see shrewder brinkmanship on the part of Samsung. This is no surprise and points out the need to understand Korean business and their unique corporate cultures. (Samsung, LG, Hyundai-Kia, Lotte, Hyosung, Hanjin, SK, Doosan, etc–all differ).

A Brief Overview
Kodak Takes Action Against Samsung and LG For Patent Infringement
Kodak Asserts that Samsung and LG Camera Phones Infringe its Digital Camera Patents

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Nov. 17 2008 — Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:EK) announced today that it has filed complaints against Samsung Electronics, LG Electronics and other related entities for infringement of Kodak patents.

The Kodak actions specifically allege that Samsung and LG camera phones infringe Kodak digital camera patents. The patents in question cover technology related to image capture, compression and data storage and a method for previewing motion images.

Kodak filed against Samsung and LG in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, as well as in the U.S. International Trade Commission. Kodak’s District Court complaints request compensation for damages resulting from the companies’ infringement, and both the District Court and ITC actions seek injunctions prohibiting Samsung and LG from further importation and sale of products cited in the complaints. Kodak did not disclose the amount of damages it is pursuing.

Full Circle
In February 2009 both Samsung and LG flied suits at the U.S. International Trade Commission over some alleged patent infringement by Kodak.


LG Settlement
ROCHESTER, N.Y., Dec. 4, 2009 — Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: EK) announced today that it has entered into a technology cross-license agreement with LG Electronics, Inc., which will allow each company broad access to the other’s patent portfolio.

ITC Ruling
December 18, 2009 – An administrative law judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled that Samsung has infringed two camera patents developed by Kodak.

Samsung Settlement
ROCHESTER, N.Y, January 11, 2010. —Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: EK) announced today that it has entered into a technology cross license with Samsung Electronics Co Ltd. that will allow each company access to the other’s patent portfolio.

The license agreement, which provides significant benefits to both companies, is royalty bearing to Kodak. The company received a payment from Samsung in December that has been credited toward its royalty obligation. Additional financial details were not disclosed.

In December, Samsung and Kodak agreed to negotiate a settlement over digital camera patents issues, which could include a cross-licensing deal, Kodak said Wednesday.

The companies also entered into an agreement to file joint requests for the termination of patent infringement proceedings before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and to settle their patent infringement lawsuits against each other, which are pending in U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York and in the German courts. Both the settlement of the litigation and the license agreement become effective upon approval by the International Trade Commission of the joint requests for termination. The ITC is expected to make its determination by the end of January 2010.

Kodak, Samsung, LG and Patent Infringements