1. “Genes are not an object to be patented.”

"Gene separation is not an invention," the United States government presented its view that it will not acknowledge gene separation as a patent. This fact was clarified by a written document that the U. S. Department of Justice submitted to a court in a suit for a patent relating to breast cancer. The document ruled that DNA, which does not have reorganization, is a product of nature, so it is not an object to be patented, and separating such genes cannot be regarded as an invention."

Such a view has a possibility of bringing about objections from American biocompanies possessing a number of gene patents, and also it appears to exert an influence on Japan or Europe which regard genes as an object to be patented. The conventional policy that extensively acknowledges patenting genes has been criticized that it impedes research and development of medicine and biotechnology due to a high amount of licensing costs .

Experts think that if the policy is changed based on such a view of the U. S. government untrammeled research and development will be accelerated.

2. Samsung Electronics signs a license contract with Intellectual Ventures

Samsung Electronics announced on November 12th that they signed a patent license contract with Intellectual Ventures.

Samsung Electronics expects that this contract can reduce patent risks that could occur in the future by strengthening patent portfolios and will be helpful in supplying customer companies with innovative products and services in the long term.

Samsung Electronics declared management with an emphasis on patents in 2005 and has been investing in training of professional manpower and research and development for strengthening its own competitiveness and has been turning out good results such as maintaining the second position in America since 2006 as well as keeping the top position in this country in the ranking of patent registration.

Intellectual Ventures is a company established in 2000 in America and specializes in patent funding and licensing and owns over 30,000 patents in various fields of technology.

3. Gemalto sues Google, Samsung Electronics, etc. for patent infringement on its Android Operation System

Gemalto, a digitial security company of France, announced on 25th that it filed a suit with the U. S. Texas Federal Court saying Google, HTC, Motorola, etc. infringed on the technical patent for its Android Operation System.

Gemalto said the technology at issue was developed in a Gemalt's research facility in Texas, U. S. A. in the 1990s and explained that they filed a suit with a competent court.

Samsung Electronics, Motorola, etc. are selling smart phones loaded with the Android operation system, which is being used second mostly after Apple's iOS in world markets.

Gemalto contended in the complaint submitted on the 22nd that smart phone makers using the Android operation system used without permission the Java card technology that is necessary to drive the software designed in the Java language and other high-level programming languages.

4. 'Think' cannot be registered as a trademark

It was ruled that since ‘Think’ is a basic English word it cannot be registered as a trademark.

The Korea Patent Court, Patent Section 2 (Judge Kim Eui-hwan chief judge) ruled on the 2nd against the plaintiff in the decision cancellation lawsuit (☞2010 Hu-case 3431) that A Company, which is engaged in the bag and clothing business, filed against the Commissioner of KIPO requesting to "cancel the decision to refuse patent application and registration."

The Court said in the ruling that "the English word 'Think' is an English word so basic that related data are searched many times in Internet portal sites and more than 10 trademarks that include 'Think' are already registered in the commodity group of clothing and bags, and considering this, 'Think' lacks the power of discernment with other commodities in similar commodity groups," adding that "if the emblem 'Think,' which is a basic English word, is monopolized by a specific person, the trademark 'Think' could be used and recognized as a superordinate concept of trademarks that include 'Think' so it could bring about a result of diluting the power of discernment of the trademarks in the consumer market."

5. The court ruled for the defendant in the service mark infringement injunction suit that plaintiff 'Pizzabene' filed against defendant 'Caffebene'.

In a service mark infringement injunction lawsuit (2010 Gahab-case 55359) that Mr. Choi (plaintiff), who is engaged in the business of a pizza store with a service mark Pizzabene, recently filed against Caffebene, Ltd. (defendant), the Seoul Central District Court Civil Section 11 (chief judge Kang Young-soo) ruled against the plaintiff, saying, "Since both service marks can be called in short as 'bene,' which means 'good, 'fine,' 'nice,' 'Caffebene' has infringed the service mark right of Pizzabene."

The court said in the ruling that "Although the 'bene' portion is a prefix having meanings of 'good', and 'nice' and is an adjective having a meaning of 'fine' in the Italian language, it is difficult to deem it as a generally widely known word so it is difficult to definitely say that both emblems are similar in its notion for general consumers."

And the court explained that "it is common that the trademarks or service marks that contain 'coffee' or 'caffe' such as 'Coffeebin' and 'Caffe Luca' and the trademarks or service marks of pizza stores that contain 'pizza' such as 'Pizza Hut' and 'Mister Pizza' are used as a unit and general consumers recognize and call them as a unit, so they cannot be deemed similar to each other as it is difficult to deem that both emblems could cause misconception or confusion.