- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
U.S. Court Rules in Favor of Google in Data Retrieval Patent Trial Against Arendi
U.S. Court Rules in Favor of Google in Data Retrieval Patent Trial Against Arendi
The U.S. Federal Court, Delaware has ruled in favor of the tech-giant Google and held that it has not violated the patent held by Luxembourg-based Arendi SARL, concerning data retrieval technology.
The case dates back to 2013, when the Norwegian inventor Atle Hedloy’s Arendi sued the company for violating the patent.
The patents cover technology for accessing information from databases, such as names and addresses and inserting the information into word processors and spreadsheets.
Arendi claimed that several Google products, including Gmail, Chrome, Docs, and Messages, infringed the patents.
According to one of the representatives of Google’s legal counsel Paul Hastings said that the plaintiff had sought $45.5 million in damages from the Court, for the alleged violation.
The jury, however, found that Arendi's patents had not been infringed upon by Google and agreed with the company's argument that the patent was invalid as the concept had already been disclosed earlier.
Arendi has already brought legal actions based on connected patents against tech businesses including Apple Inc, Microsoft Corporation and Samsung Electronics Company. All the cases have either been dismissed or resolved.