|
|
![]() | ![]() | ![]() | ![]() |
| |||||||||
INFY » Topics » The laws of India do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as those of the United States, and we may be unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights. We may also be subject to third party claims of intellectual propertThis excerpt taken from the INFY 6-K filed Jul 28, 2005. The laws of India do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as those of the United States, and we may be unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights. We may also be subject to third party claims of intellectual property infringement. We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and design laws, trade secrets, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our intellectual property. However, the laws of India do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Therefore, our efforts to protect our intellectual property may not be adequate. Our competitors may independently develop similar technology or duplicate our products or services. Unauthorized parties may infringe upon or misappropriate our products, services or proprietary information. The misappropriation or duplication of our intellectual property could disrupt our ongoing business, distract our management and employees, reduce our revenues and increase our expenses. We may need to litigate to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others. Any such litigation could be time consuming and costly. For instance, on September 9, 2004 the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India, or IPAB, upheld an application made by an infringer of the INFOSYS trademark, Jupiter International Limited (formerly called Jupiter Infosys Limited), and ordered the cancellation of our registration of the INFOSYS trademark in certain protected intellectual property classes. We moved a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India to stay the order of the IPAB. On October 12, 2004, the Supreme Court of India stayed the order of the IPAB temporarily. On March 11, 2005, Jupiter filed a response and we filed a rejoinder on May 9, 2005. The matter is due for hearing before the Supreme Court of India. Based on our present knowledge, we believe that we will prevail in this action and that the action will not have any material impact on our results of operations or financial position. As the number of patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights in our industry increases, and as the coverage of these rights increase, we believe that companies in our industry will face more frequent infringement claims. Defense against these claims, even if not meritorious, could be expensive and divert our attention and resources from operating our company. Although there are currently no material pending or threatened intellectual property claims against us, infringement claims may be asserted against us in the future. However, if we become liable to third parties for infringing their intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay a substantial damage award and be forced to develop non-infringing technology, obtain a license or cease selling the applications or products that contain the infringing technology. We may be unable to develop non-infringing technology or to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. This excerpt taken from the INFY 20-F filed Apr 26, 2005. The laws of India do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as those of the United States, and we may be unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights. We may also be subject to third party claims of intellectual property infringement.
We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and design laws, trade secrets, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our intellectual property. However, the laws of India do not
16
Table of Contentsprotect proprietary rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Therefore, our efforts to protect our intellectual property may not be adequate. Our competitors may independently develop similar technology or duplicate our products or services. Unauthorized parties may infringe upon or misappropriate our products, services or proprietary information.
The misappropriation or duplication of our intellectual property could disrupt our ongoing business, distract our management and employees, reduce our revenues and increase our expenses. We may need to litigate to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others. Any such litigation could be time consuming and costly. For instance, on September 9, 2004 the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India, or IPAB, upheld an application made by an infringer of the INFOSYS trademark, Jupiter International Limited (formerly called Jupiter Infosys Limited), and ordered the cancellation of our registration of the INFOSYS trademark in certain protected intellectual property classes. We moved a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India to stay the order of the IPAB. On October 12, 2004, the Supreme Court of India stayed the order of the IPAB temporarily. On March 11, 2005, Jupiter filed a response and we intend to file a rejoinder. Based on our present knowledge, we believe that we will prevail in this action and that the action will not have any material impact on our results of operations or financial position. As the number of patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights in our industry increases, and as the coverage of these rights increase, we believe that companies in our industry will face more frequent infringement claims. Defense against these claims, even if not meritorious, could be expensive and divert our attention and resources from operating our company.
Although there are currently no material pending or threatened intellectual property claims against us, infringement claims may be asserted against us in the future. However, if we become liable to third parties for infringing their intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay a substantial damage award and be forced to develop non-infringing technology, obtain a license or cease selling the applications or products that contain the infringing technology. We may be unable to develop non-infringing technology or to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.
This excerpt taken from the INFY 6-K filed Feb 23, 2005. The laws of India do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as those of the United States, and we may be unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights. We may also be subject to third party claims of intellectual property infringement.
We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and design laws, trade secrets, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our intellectual property. However, the laws of India do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Therefore, our efforts to protect our intellectual property may not be adequate. Our competitors may independently develop similar technology or duplicate our products or services. Unauthorized parties may infringe upon or misappropriate our products, services or proprietary information.
The misappropriation or duplication of our intellectual property could disrupt our ongoing business, distract our management and employees, reduce our revenues and increase our expenses. We may need to litigate to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others. Any such litigation could be time consuming and costly. For instance, on September 9, 2004 the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India, or IPAB, upheld an application made by an infringer of the INFOSYS trademark, Jupiter International Limited (formerly called Jupiter Infosys Limited), and ordered the cancellation of our registration of the INFOSYS trademark in certain protected intellectual property classes. We moved a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India to stay the order of the IPAB. On October 12, 2004, the Supreme Court of India stayed the order of the IPAB temporarily. Based on our present knowledge, we believe that we will prevail in this action and that the action will not have any material impact on our results of operations or financial position. As the number of patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights in our industry increases, and as the coverage of these rights increase, we believe that companies in our industry will face more frequent infringement claims. Defense against these claims, even if not meritorious, could be expensive and divert our attention and resources from operating our company.
Although there are currently no material pending or threatened intellectual property claims against us, infringement claims may be asserted against us in the future. However, if we become liable to third parties for infringing their intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay a substantial damage award and be forced to develop non-infringing technology, obtain a license or cease selling the applications or products that contain the infringing technology. We may be unable to develop non-infringing technology or to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.
This excerpt taken from the INFY 6-K filed Jan 18, 2005. The laws of India do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as those of the United States, and we may be unsuccessful in protecting our intellectual property rights. We may also be subject to third party claims of intellectual property infringement.
We rely on a combination of patent, copyright, trademark and design laws, trade secrets, confidentiality procedures and contractual provisions to protect our intellectual property. However, the laws of India do not protect proprietary rights to the same extent as laws in the United States. Therefore, our efforts to protect our intellectual property may not be adequate. Our competitors may independently develop similar technology or duplicate our products or services. Unauthorized parties may infringe upon or misappropriate our products, services or proprietary information.
The misappropriation or duplication of our intellectual property could disrupt our ongoing business, distract our management and employees, reduce our revenues and increase our expenses. We may need to litigate to enforce our intellectual property rights or to determine the validity and scope of the proprietary rights of others. Any such litigation could be time consuming and costly. For instance, on September 9, 2004 the Intellectual Property Appellate Board of India, or IPAB, upheld an application made by an infringer of the INFOSYS trademark, Jupiter International Limited (formerly called Jupiter Infosys Limited), and ordered the cancellation of our registration of the INFOSYS trademark in certain protected intellectual property classes. We moved a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India to stay the order of the IPAB. On October 12, 2004, the Supreme Court of India stayed the order of the IPAB temporarily. Based on our present knowledge, we believe
58
Table of Contentsthat we will prevail in this action and that the action will not have any material impact on our results of operations or financial position. As the number of patents, copyrights and other intellectual property rights in our industry increases, and as the coverage of these rights increase, we believe that companies in our industry will face more frequent infringement claims. Defense against these claims, even if not meritorious, could be expensive and divert our attention and resources from operating our company.
Although there are currently no material pending or threatened intellectual property claims against us, infringement claims may be asserted against us in the future. However, if we become liable to third parties for infringing their intellectual property rights, we could be required to pay a substantial damage award and be forced to develop non-infringing technology, obtain a license or cease selling the applications or products that contain the infringing technology. We may be unable to develop non-infringing technology or to obtain a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all.
| EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:
|
| |||||||