Both are suing over alleged infringement of intellectual property rights having to do with look-a-likes. Apple claims the new Galaxy tablet is a mimic and that Samsung “copied the look, product design, packaging and user interface of [Apple's iPhone and iPad] products.” Kim Kardashian asserts that Old Navy used a model as her stand-in for the retailer’s latest advertising commercial because the woman featured in the ad looks like her.

Apple has the power and punch of a patent and trademark portfolio to back up its claim against Samsung over the design of the Galaxy tablet. In her suit against Old Navy, Ms. Kardashian is relying on the weight of her Twitter and Facebook following to substantiate her celebrity and claims of IP rights stemming from her visage and persona.

While Apple’s suit could have implications for the smartphone and tablet device marketplace, Ms. Kardashian’s suit could affect the marketplace for those persons unfortunate enough to possess similar features as that of a celebrity. Perhaps the model, Melissa Molinaro, used in the Old Navy commercials should counter-sue for loss of future earnings due to Ms. Kardashian’s monopoly of physical features. Just a thought.

On April 27, 2010, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent 7,704,507 directed to a method for creating an anti-cancer vaccine. This patent is assigned to the University of Virginia Patent Foundation and the University of Pittsburgh.  This method primes T cells against tumor antigens using a culture of antigen presenting cells (APCs) with protein or peptides from cancerous cells, then uses the primed T cells as an antigen identifier or treatment for cancer.

Super Bowl weekend is here with the Saints and the Colts about to face off for the championship!  Parties are planned, chip and dip aisles are all but bare, and the beer is chilling.  Merchandising aficionados are in a frenzy as team apparel flies off the racks and into the hands of eager fans.  And the NFL has dispatched a massive cease and desist campaign . . . wait, what?

In the past several weeks, businesses offering Saints merchandise have received ominous missives ordering them to terminate the making and selling of any paraphernalia with the words “who dat” inscribed or depicted.  The NFL is sending these cease and desist letters to merchants of Saints apparel and memorabilia, demanding that any inventory with the words “who dat” be purged as well.  Claiming ownership of the phrase, a phrase that has purportedly been in existence since before the formation of the National Football League, is an interesting move by the NFL.  Especially considering the iconic nature of the phrase and the deep attachment felt by the natives and residents of Louisiana, and of New Orleans in particular.

Ah, the irony.

A Chinese company by the name of Shenzhen Great Long Brother Industrial Co is preparing to sue Apple if the iPad enters the Chinese market.  This company – let’s call it Shenzhen for brevity – pre-emptively cloned the iPad and released their cloned version, called the P88, three months prior to the Apple release.  It should be noted that the P88 looks remarkably similar to the iPad concept sketches and the final product. Hmmm.

The president of Shenzhen is now threatening a lawsuit, claiming Apple stole their designs!  A news report quotes President Wu of Shenzhen as being “very angry and flabbergasted” at Apple’s release of the iPad.  President Wu also stated that the P88 and iPad designs are “identical.”  Well, now, I wonder whose fault that is?

Judge Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas entered a final judgement against Microsoft today, following a jury verdict issued on May 20, 2009.

The suit originated in 2007, when Canadian software firm i4i Ltd sued Microsoft for infringing their U.S. Patent 5,787,499.  The suit alleged that Microsoft knowingly infringed on this patent in its Word application and its Vista operating system.

The judgement entered today includes a permanent injunction prohibiting Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products capable of opening .XML, .DOCX, or DOCM files containing custom XML.  Microsoft must comply with the injunction within sixty days.  Microsoft is also required to pay total damages and interest of more than $290 million to i4i Ltd.

Interesting article on why this shouldn’t worry Word users here.

Update: Good blogpost here that breaks down the injunction terms, infringed claims, and more