鹿晗关晓彤被曝分手？？？鹿晗微博取关引爆热搜？？？PPT模板，一键免费AI生成鹿晗关晓彤被曝分手？？？鹿晗微博取关引爆热搜？？？PPT 小米新款手机从小米16改名成小米17的好处和坏处分析PPT模板免费下载，一键免费AI生成小米新款手机从小米16改名成小米17的好处和坏处分析PPT 万达王健林被限制高消费事件介绍及现状分析PPT模板免费下载，一键免费AI生成万达王健林被限制高消费事件介绍及现状分析PPT 缅怀杨振宁先生PPT模板免费下载，一键免费AI生成缅怀杨振宁先生PPT 鹿晗关晓彤被曝分手？？？鹿晗微博取关引爆热搜？？？PPT模板，一键免费AI生成鹿晗关晓彤被曝分手？？？鹿晗微博取关引爆热搜？？？PPT 小米新款手机从小米16改名成小米17的好处和坏处分析PPT模板免费下载，一键免费AI生成小米新款手机从小米16改名成小米17的好处和坏处分析PPT 万达王健林被限制高消费事件介绍及现状分析PPT模板免费下载，一键免费AI生成万达王健林被限制高消费事件介绍及现状分析PPT 缅怀杨振宁先生PPT模板免费下载，一键免费AI生成缅怀杨振宁先生PPT

Case 1: Adobe vs. WixIn 2017, Adobe filed a lawsuit against Wix, alleging tha...

Case 1: Adobe vs. WixIn 2017, Adobe filed a lawsuit against Wix, alleging that Wix’s online website builder infringed Adobe’s patent and copyright. Wix is a leading online website builder that allows users to create and maintain websites without any coding knowledge. Adobe accused Wix of infringing 20 patents and six copyrights related to web design and image processing.The primary issue in this case was whether Wix’s website builder, which allows users to drag and drop pre-designed website elements into a website layout, constitutes an infringement of Adobe’s patent and copyright. Additionally, Wix was also accused of copyright infringement for using Adobe’s Photoshop and Illustrator design software to create website elements.The court found that Wix did not infringe Adobe’s patent and only one copyright related to the use of Adobe’s software to create website elements. The court held that Wix’s website builder did not constitute a direct infringement of Adobe’s patent because the technology used by Wix was not identical to the technology covered by Adobe’s patent. Additionally, the court held that Wix did not infringe Adobe’s copyright because Wix did not have access to Adobe’s original source code or image files when creating the website elements.Lesson: Even if a company’s technology is similar to patented technology, it is not automatically infringing if it does not use all the elements of the patented technology. Similarly, using software without access to original source code or image files does not constitute copyright infringement.Case 2: Apple vs. SamsungIn 2011, Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung alleging that Samsung’s Android smartphones and tablets infringed Apple’s patents related to design and user interface. Apple claimed that Samsung’s devices “slavishly copied” the iPhone’s and iPad’s design and user interface. Samsung counter-claimed that its devices did not infringe Apple’s patents and that Apple’s patents were invalid.The primary issues in this case were whether Samsung’s Android devices infringed Apple’s patents related to design and user interface and whether Apple’s patents were invalid. Additionally, Samsung also argued that Apple’s patents were overbroad and covered common design elements and functionalities present in all smartphones and tablets.The court found that Samsung infringed Apple’s patents related to design and user interface. The court held that Samsung’s devices were “not as cool” as Apple’s iPhone and iPad and that Samsung had “engaged in a conscious mimicry” of Apple’s patented designs. Additionally, the court held that Apple’s patents were valid and not overbroad. The court awarded Apple $598 million in damages, which was later reduced to $399 million by the appeals court.Lesson: Design patents can protect unique and ornamental aspects of a product even if they cover only a small part of the product’s overall design. However, it is important to ensure that the claims of the patent are not overbroad and do not cover common design elements or functionalities present in other devices.Case 3: Nestlé vs. KitKatIn 2016, Nestlé filed a lawsuit against Mondelez International (the owner of KitKat) alleging that KitKat’s “four-finger” chocolate bar shape infringed Nestlé’s shape trademarks for KitKat’s predecessor, Rowntree’s KitKat Chunky. Nestlé argued that Mondelez International was infringing Nestlé’s trademarks by selling KitKats with a similar “four-finger” shape in Nestlé’s home market of Switzerland.The primary issue in this case was whether KitKat’s “four-finger” chocolate bar shape infringed Nestlé’s shape trademarks for KitKat Chunky. Additionally, Nestlé also argued that KitKat could not use its “four-finger” shape trademark in Switzerland because KitKat Chunky had never been registered as a trademark in that country.The court found that KitKat did not infringe Nestlé’s trademarks for KitKat Chunky because KitKat Chunky had never been registered as a trademark in Switzerland. The court held that KitKat could use its “four-finger” shape trademark in Switzerland because KitKat Chunky had been registered as a trademark in other countries, which allowed KitKat to use its registered trademarks in Nestlé’s home market. However, Nestlé was allowed to continue using its KitKat Chunky trademarks in Switzerland until they