ENGINEERS IN SOCIETY

GROUP 8
QUESTION 8
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Muammar Akmal Bin Abdul Manab (EP096398)

Mohd Izzuanuddin Fitri Bin Abdul Razak (EP094752)
Mohd Qazar Bin Yusop (CE090758)
Muhamad Shahril Bin Sahar (EP094892)
Muhamad Uzairy Daniel Bin Mohamed Shafie (ME092586)

STATEMENT AND QUESTION

INTERPRETATION OF THE QUESTION

1. How Apple and Samsung resolved patent
infringement?
2. Evolving legislation/act of laws that took
place around the infringement?
3. Consider and discuss the responsibilities
of engineers in preventing intellectual
property infringement
4. Provide recommended action that
engineers should do

QUESTION 3
Check for availability of the idea of the product.
Plan and prepare. Before you begin promoting a product, piece of content, or other material for
your business, take the time to research related patents and copyrights to make sure your idea
isn't already protected by someone else's IP copyright. This is especially important for
crowdfunding campaigns, which can be affected by international patent rights.
Read the fine print. Always read all the terms and conditions in contracts or licenses for online
images, music, video or other content. Even if you don't have time to read the whole thing
immediately, download and save a copy to refer to for any future questions about infringement.
If you're not sure, ask a lawyer. If you're not sure about whether you're infringing on a
copyright, or if you receive a notice about a potential infringement, seek legal help. Gather up
all the information you have samples of the usage; copies of any contracts, licenses, or terms
of use; and the letter or email alleging infringement and bring it to our lawyer for his or her
opinion.
Make sure you can prove you own the rights
Sometimes people may question your rights to intellectual property; you will need to be able to
show that you have ownership of the intellectual property and defend yourself against these
claims.
asking employees - and third parties to whom key information must be disclosed - to sign
confidentiality agreements
keeping important hard-copy information locked up

QUESTION 4
ensure sensitive information is kept on
password-protected areas of your system
install anti-virus software and keep it up to date
install firewalls to prevent unauthorised users
from hacking into your system and update
them regularly
back up your work and ensure back-ups are
stored securely, preferably off site
protect your system against power surges and
failures

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

CASE STUDY
-APPLE SUE SAMSUNG FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

GUCCI VS GUESS
Gucci first filed a lawsuit against Guess in 2009 in both New York and Milan accusing the brand of
counterfeiting, unfair competition and trademark infringement, with particular reference to the use of a
similar "G" stamp appearing on shoes.
In contrast, the Milan court ruled in favour of Guess, ordering the cancellation of several of Gucci's Italian
pattern trademarks including the "G" stamp, declaring that it was common in the world of fashion, and
separate from the brand's interlocking double G logo.
The French court ruled in Guess's favor, finding no trademark infringement, no counterfeiting and no unfair
competition between the luxury Italian label and American mall brand. Gucci's request for 55 million in
damages was denied and instead the company was ordered to pay Guess 30,000.
The court also nullified Gucci's trademark of three of its "G" logos.
In 2012 New York court ruled that Guess was guilty of copying four of the five trademarked logos Gucci
1. the green-red-green Stripe mark
2. the repeating GG pattern
3. the diamond motif trade dress, which is the repeating GG pattern with a pair of inverted Gs in each corner rendered in a
brown/beige color combination,
4. the stylized G design mark
5. the script Gucci design mark.

Guess only ended up having to pay $4.7 million in damages, which was nothing compared to the $124
million Gucci was seeking
Two major points weakened Gucci's case and contributed to the small payout.
1. First, the judge noted that Gucci could not have been ignorant of Guess's designs until it finally filed the case in 2009,
especially since both brands had similar advertising budgets and stores near each other, often in the same mall.
2. Secondly, the judge ruled Guess had diluted Gucci's logos, not counterfeiting them, saying, "courts have uniformly
restricted trademark counterfeiting claims to those situations where entire products have been copied stitch-for-stitch.

In 2013 claim was brought by Guess, seeking to nullify three of Gucci's registered trademarks in Milan. The
court also ruled that Guesss Quattro G-diamond pattern was not derived from Gucci's double-G

GUESS VS GUCCI

-the green-red-green Stripe mark

On the left, a sneaker from Guess;
on the right, a sneaker from Gucci.

-the repeating GG pattern

-the diamond motif trade dress,

which is the repeating GG pattern with a pair
of inverted Gs in each corner rendered in a
brown/beige colour combination

2008

In 2008, Barbie was finally declared the winner in the long-running intellectual property rights
battle between Mattel, Inc. and MGA Entertainment Inc., the makers of Barbie dolls and Bratz
dolls, respectively. In the lawsuit, Mattel sued MGA claiming that MGA stole the concept and
the name of the Bratz doll from them.
Carter Bryant, designer of the Bratz doll, was an employee of Mattel, but also
working as a consultant for MGA when he designed the doll. A few years after MGA
began selling Bratz, Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA alleging copyright infringement.
Because Bryant was on the Mattel payroll when he created the doll, the Bratz name and
design are considered trade secrets. The courts sided with Mattel and ordered MGA to pay
$100 million in damages.
(www.legalzoom.com)

In July 2008, a jury ruled in favor of Mattel, forcing MGA to pay Mattel $100 million
and to remove Bratz dolls from shelves (an court case, underdog MGA prevailed, proving
that Mattel was actually the one to steal trade secrets.
(www.smithsonianmag.com)
injunction that lasted about a year). But the two toy companies continued to duke it out. This
April, in yet another

Bryant signed two separate employment agreements giving Mattel rights

to everything he invented while he worked as a Barbie designer
from 1995 through 1998 and from 1999 through 2000. He and MGA
say he made the first Bratz drawings in 1998.
MGA launched the Bratz dolls in 2001 to phenomenal success with young
girls who are Barbie's target market. MGA said last year that Bratz had
reached $1 billion in retail sales. At the same time, Barbie sales
have dropped.
Court Battle
On January 5, 2011, the district court issued an Amended Order on the Parties Motions for
Summary Judgment .The extensive, 163-page ruling addressed claims based in trade
secrets, copyright, trademark, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and
racketeering.
With regard to the trade secrets claims centered around Bryant, the court found many
genuine issues of material fact to be in dispute: 1) the interpretation of Bryants
inventions assignment agreement with Mattel, including whether it was
unconscionable or contrary to a reasonable employees expectations; 2) the timing
of Bryants conception of the Bratz dolls in relation to his leaving Mattel; and 3)
whether the doll concept, or the names Bratz and Jade, qualify as trade secret.

With regard to the trade secrets claims based on the conduct of the other nine former Mattel
employees, the court individually analyzed the value and secrecy elements of each alleged trade
secret and the misappropriation allegations against each former employee.
The court found genuine issues of material fact as to: 1) whether Mattels unreleased
product plan for a line of dolls with interchangeable heads and fashions qualified as a
trade secret; 2) whether various files and computer programs regarding Mattels
sales projections, inventory and distribution systems, and market analysis tools
qualified as trade secrets; and 3) whether the alleged acts by the nine former Mattel
employees constituted misappropriation.
Consequently, the parties motions for summary judgment were denied on all but a few of these
issues, leaving the vast majority of the issues in the trade secrets claims to be decided by the
jury. The decision also held that the trade secrets claims, governed by Californias Uniform Trade
Secrets Act.
The eight-person jury, made up of four men and
four women, rejected Mattel's copyright
infringement claims; said Mattel did not own the
rights to the dolls, early models or accessories;
and said MGA did not steal trade secrets.
Awards of monetary damages in the case were
read in court much of Thursday morning, and it
was clear that Mattel would owe MGA millions of
dollars. On MGA's claims that Mattel stole trade
secrets, for instance, the jury decided that Mattel
owed its rival $88.5 million.
(http://staugustine.com)