Apple Inc. filed an amended complaint against Samsung Electronics Co. on Friday bringing additional Samsung devices, including the company’s Galaxy S III phone, into the massive patent infringement battle against its Korean rival that yielded a $1 billion jury verdict in Apple’s favor in a related suit just one week earlier.

Despite Apple’s April 2011 lawsuit, Samsung has continued to flood the market with copycat products, including at least 17 new infringing products released prior to filing the original complaint in the current action, the amended complaint says.

Since then, Samsung has continued to release new infringing products, including its current flagship device, the Galaxy S III, Apple says.

While Samsung’s new products infringe many of the same design patents, utility patents, trademarks, and trade dress rights that are at issue in the earlier case, Samsung’s new products also infringe additional utility patents, some of which issued after Apple filed the earlier case.

“Samsung has systematically copied Apple’s innovative technology and products, features and designs, and has deluged markets with infringing devices in an effort to usurp market share from Apple,” the amended complaint says. “Instead of pursuing independent product development, Samsung slavishly copied Apple’s innovative technology, with its elegant and distinctive user interfaces product design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights.”

The new complaint focuses on eight Apple utility patents, four of which were issued after Apple filed its earlier lawsuit, and none of which were at issue in that lawsuit. They include U.S. Patent Numbers 5,946,647, titled “System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data;” 6,847,959, titled “Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system;” 8,046,721, titled “Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image;” and 8,074,172, titled “Method, system, and graphical user interface for providing word recommendations.”

The remaining four include U.S. Patent Numbers 8,014,760, titled “Missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device;” 5,666,502, titled “Graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes;” 7,761,414, titled “Asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices;” and 8,086,604, titled “Universal interface for retrieval of information in a computer system.”

The allegedly infringing Samsung products include at least 21 new smartphones, media players, and tablets that Samsung has released since August 2011. Apple’s amended complaint specifically names the Galaxy S III, Galaxy S III – Verizon, Galaxy Note, Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II – T-Mobile, Galaxy S II – AT&T, Galaxy Nexus, Illusion, Captivate Glide, Exhibit II 4G, Stratosphere, Transform Ultra, Admire, Conquer 4G, and Dart smartphones, the Galaxy Player 4.0 and Galaxy Player 5.0 media players, and the Galaxy Note10.1, Galaxy Tab 7.0 Plus and Galaxy Tab 8.9 tablets.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Friday issued a mixed ruling upholding a $100 million damage award against Verizon Communications Inc. in a patent dispute with ActiveVideo Networks Inc. over video on demand technology.

ActiveVideo asserted U.S. Patent Numbers 5,550,578, 6,205,582, 6,034,678, and 6,100,883 against Verizon at trial, alleging that Verizon’s video on demand feature of the Verizon FiOS-TV system infringed.

The ’578, ’678, and ’883 patents share a common specification and generally disclose and claim interactive television systems and methods for delivering interactive television to subscribers, according to the Federal Circuit.

The ’582 patent generally discloses an interactive television system where the headend processing center includes a frame server component and a plurality of individually assignable processors, which communicate with assigned home interface controllers.

Verizon asserted counterclaims that ActiveVideo infringed U.S. Patent Numbers 6,169,542 and 7,561,214, as well as U.S. Patent Number 6,381,748, which was held invalid by the district court prior to trial. The three Verizon patents generally disclose systems and methods related to interactive television features, including internet access, two-dimensional channel navigation, and advertising.

After a three-week trial, the jury found that the parties infringed each others’ patents and awarded ActiveVideo $115,000,000 and Verizon $16,000 in damages.

After trial, the district court entered a permanent injunction against Verizon, established a sunset royalty for Verizon’s continued infringement until the injunction was to take effect, and denied Verizon’s motions for JMOL or new trial on infringement, damages, and invalidity. Verizon and ActiveVideo then cross appealed to the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment of infringement against Verizon as to the ActiveVideo ’582 patent. The appeals court vacated and remanded the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity as to the Verizon ’748 patent.

The district court’s entry of a permanent injunction was reversed, while its imposition of a sunset royalty was affirmed. The district court’s judgment of infringement with respect to the ActiveVideo ’578, ’678, and ’883 patents is affirmed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the damages award in full, saying Verizon has not argued either before the district court or on appeal that a finding of non-infringement of the ’582 patent should result in a reduction of damages.The district court’s judgment in all other respects was affirmed.

Los Angeles – Although Lululemon Athletica has built a reputation based on the promotion of the peaceful practice of yoga, it recently showed the world that it is ready to fight if necessary. The yoga and athletic apparel manufacturer proved this point when it initiated a lawsuit against clothing giants Calvin Klein and G-III Apparel Group, over the design of its pricey yoga pants. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Delaware, accuses both Klein and G-III of infringing on three separate patents related to its high-tech yoga pants. Lululemon is seeking an injunction to prevent further sales of the infringing products, as well as damages from lost profits, a reasonable royalty award, disgorgement of Calvin Klein profits, and court related costs.

In its court documents, Lululemon alleges that Calvin Klein’s “Performance” brand incorporates the same waistband and other design elements as Lululemon’s patented pants. In particular, Lululemon produces an “Astro” line of yoga pants and crop pants with a signature overlapping style waistband. The pants are made from Lululemon’s trademarked Luon fabric and incorporate the unique patented waistband. The waistband in question is v-shaped and formed by angular pieces of cloth that can be rolled so that the pants sit higher or lower on the waist. Lululemon is claiming Calvin Klein produces pants with the same waistline style at a significantly reduced price.

Lululemon Athletica Inc. is based in Vancouver, Canada and was founded in 1998. The brand was created in response to increased female participation in sports and a rise in the popularity of yoga. To extend its support of yoga as a healthful and beneficial practice, every Lululemon Athletica offers free yoga classes. The company offers health benefits and growth opportunities to its employees and customers at store locations. In addition to its elevated standards in business practices, treatment of employees and attention to customer satisfaction, the apparel company has a reputation for making high quality and expensive yoga pants with sophisticated designs and high-tech materials. Additionally, the Vancouver based apparel manufacturer has become well known for its use of unique fabric choices, proprietary blend of signature fabrics, moisture wicking and 4-way stretch material. Lululemon currently holds at least 14 separate U.S. patents for its athletic apparel and specific design elements.

G-III Apparel Group Ltd. was founded in 1956, and has grown into a major designer and manufacturer of outerwear, apparel, sportswear, handbags and luggage. Through a series of licensing agreements, G-III currently produces products under the following brand names: Jones New York, Sean John, Timberland, Kenneth Cole, Calvin Klein, Ellen Tracy, Tommy Hilfiger and many more.

The famous designer with the same name founded Calvin Klein in 1968. Based in the fashion Mecca of New York City, the clothing house was sold to Philips Van Heusen in 2002 and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of PVH.

Los Angeles – This entry has been moved here

Los Angeles – After a protracted legal battle, Apple announced this week that it has secured an injunction in a German Court against Samsung to prevent further distribution of its Galaxy Tab 7.7. Much to the delight of Apple, the result of the injunction is a ban on all sales of its competitor’s tablet in the European Union. The German Court rejected Samsung’s argument that the ban should only be applicable to German markets, and not the entire European Union. In anticipation of the wide reach of the ban, products have already been pulled from stores in Germany.

According to reports, the German court determined that Apple’s South Korean competitor copied its 2004 product designs. However, regardless of the final outcome of the EU patent infringement action, all is not lost for Samsung. German courts neglected to direct a full ban on sales of the redesigned Galaxy Tab 10 and allowed it to continue being sold in Germany. A redesigned tablet case likely saved the latest version of the product from also being banned.

Despite this recent ruling, Samsung continues to insist that its product, the Galaxy 10, does not infringe on Apple’s patents or violate laws of unfair competition. Apple’s most significant competitor argues that innovation and progress in the industry will be severely restricted if Apple is continually allowed to win legal claims based what it considers generic design patents. It is also important to note that Samsung recently won a similar case in the United Kingdom. Unlike the courts in Germany, the UK courts ruled that the Galaxy Tab 7.7 did not infringe on Apple’s patents. To the surprise of many who were watching the case, the judge stated in his decision that Samsung could not have copied the Apple patents because the Samsung products were “not as cool” as the iPad. In the ruling, Apple was also ordered to publicly state on its website that Samsung was not guilty of infringing on its patents.

Meanwhile, back in the United States, Samsung and Apple continue to battle over intellectual property. Preliminary injunctions against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus are currently pending. Both parties eagerly await the outcome of upcoming rulings, as they will likely dictate the degree of success each will have in the very hot tablet marketplace in the upcoming months.