Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Koninklijke Philips Electronics, NV and Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc., (collectively, Philips) filed a complaint in U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington in January 2008 alleging that BC Technical, Inc., infringed Philips' trademarks and copyrights. In its answer, BC Technical has denied the allegations. The case was transferred to U.S. District Court, District of Utah in August.

According to Philips' complaint, the infringement regards ADAC, a trademark under which Philips' imaging systems are sold. In 2000, Philips says in the complaint, it acquired all stock of ADAC Labs, including assets, trademarks, trade secrets and copyrights. Philips alleges that BC Tech's principal business is servicing Philips nuclear medicine imaging systems (the ADAC systems) as well as purchasing, selling and refurbishing used systems.

Philips' allegations include that as part of BC Tech's refurbishing process, it replaces outdated/nonworking PROM or EPROM chips in the imaging machine circuit boards with a new chip that copies a functioning chip. Philips has copyright on the information on the PROM and EPROM chips. Philips also alleges that BC Tech has copied and reprogrammed PROM and EPROM chips from ADAC circuit boards without permission. Philips has several other allegations, including BC Tech infringing upon Philips' trademarks by promoting its business at tradeshows featuring the ADAC trademark more prominently than its own name or marks, and that BC Technical uses the ADAC name prominently on the web and in promotional materials such as brochures, which Philips says disparage Philips' servicing contracts.
Aside from denying the allegations, BC Technical's answer raised several affirmative defenses, including but not limited to, that it was entitled to use and/or copy Philips' allegedly copyrighted materials, that the use and/or copying was authorized under 17 U.S.C.A. Section 117 (which allows for copying of a computer program under certain circumstances for maintenance or repair of a machine that lawfully contains an authorized copy of the computer program), "fair use" (a legal doctrine that has developed over the years as an exception to copyright law, allowing reproductions as example for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research), that some or all of Philips' claims are barred for failure to register their alleged copyrights prior to filing the Complaint, that the alleged use was de minimus (where a mistake or violation is so small that a court will not or should not consider it), and that Plaintiffs do not have a copyright in the subject matter alleged in its Complaint because protection for original works of authorship does not extend to ideas or procedures.

Philips is asking for injunctive relief, to prevent BC Technical from using Philips' copyrighted and trademarked materials, and damages. According to the Court Docket and a Scheduling Order filed November 20, discovery in the case will continue into 2009 prior to trial.

More Industry Headlines