Yahoo and Facebook have inked a deal that settles their ongoing patent dispute. In March of 2012, Yahoo claimed that Facebook’s technology was using many of the patents Yahoo was granted for social networking and online advertising.

Although no money exchanged hands as a result of the agreement, the companies have consented to cross-license some of their key patents. Although the details have yet to be released, the terms seem favorable enough for both sides to not only drop their litigation, but issue statements of excitement regarding their new partnership.

Aker BioMarine had requested a review of the US PTO patent granted to rival Neptune Technologies & Bioresources, and this patent review has now been granted by the US PTO for all 21 claims covered by this patent. The review was granted based on a number of references provided by Aker BioMarine which raised questions as to the validity of the patent, which has been used by Neptune in recent lawsuits against competitors.

Neptune had filed these suits in Delaware, and the fact that the US PTO granted the review is a good indication that Aker and other companies targeted in the suits will prevail in court. The examiner from the US PTO noted that the original patent which was granted to Neptune claimed protection on a natural product (fresh krill meat) which was not invented by the company.

Aker is pleased with the decision by the US PTO and is confident that their freedom to operate with respect to the patent in question will be upheld in the review process. The company has argued that the only reason the US PTO granted the original patent to Neptune is that they were not aware of all the prior art which was relevant to the patent application.

In light of the review decision by the US PTO, Aker is calling on Neptune to withdraw their lawsuits based on this patent and cease the intimidating correspondence they have been sending to marketing companies and distributors of Aker products. The patent in question was only granted one month ago, and it covers methods of reducing the formation of plaque and lowering cholesterol in humans using krill extract. Aker filed a request for a re-examination of the patent on the first day it was granted to Neptune. In spite of the fact that the request for review has been granted by the US PTO, Neptune has refused to withdraw its lawsuits and has stated that they believe that their patent will stand up to the review process.

Neptune has stated that they will defend their intellectual property in court. They argue that simply because a re-examination of that patent has been granted by the US PTO, it does not provide strong indication that the claims of the issued patent will end up being restricted. However, in 89% of USPTO review cases the patent claims are either changed or cancelled.

Google and Microsoft have been continuing a patent war which Google claims is an attempt by Microsoft to suppress growth of the Android OS, while Microsoft alleges that Google is hoarding patents to protect Android. Specifically, Microsoft noted that Google wouldn’t participate in the recent Novell patent bid with Microsoft because those patents weren’t related to protecting Android.

Google responded to this accusation with their own accusations against Microsoft in a scathing blog post. Google accused both Microsoft and Apple of conspiring to gain control of patents from Novell and Nortel, and to keep patents from Google in an attempt to undermine Android. The Android OS is the flashpoint for this patent war, which is not surprising given that it accounts for 40% of the US market and 50% of the worldwide market.

Google also responded to the accusations by Apple and other patent holders that are alleging Android infringes on their intellectual property. Google’s legal defense is quick to paint the battle as the rest of the technology industry ganging up on Android due to its success. Seen from another point of view, though, some in the industry say that Google doesn’t have the right to accuse others of undermining it when it doesn’t own the patents involved.

Basically, if Google had acquired the patents in question it would have been a non-issue, but since these were acquired by other companies Google is accusing them of conspiracy. Also, from Microsoft’s point of view Google is undermining their business by giving Android away for free. The fact is that other companies outbid Google for the Nortel patents by banding together in a consortium shows how much these patents are really worth.

The United States Congress is in the process of working on patent reform entitled the America Invents Act. Some commentators, such as Forbes columnist Timothy B. Lee, suggest that Google is one of the leading victims of the US patent system which often hampers innovation, and the current move towards patent reform could help the internet tech giant.

A recent patent suit which was filed by Akamai against Contendo has resulted in a buyout of Contendo by Akamai. The patent infringement case was filed by Akamai about one year ago, and the fact that it resolved in a $268 million bid in cash for Contendo is a good sign that there is a silver lining to many patent suits today. It is also a reflection of the fact that Akamai saw value in Contendo’s business as more than just a copy cat of its intellectual property.

This is one of several similar cases in recent weeks in which patent infringement suits have led to buyouts or acquisitions. For example, Nuance Communications also bought out a smaller rival called Vlingo following a patent suit lodged against this voice recognition company.

A patent infringement lawsuit is increasingly a sign that a start up company has potential in the tech world, and the pattern seems to be that more of these companies are resolving the suits in a positive manner through acquisitions. This pattern became evident back in 2007 when Data Domain issued millions to Quantum as part of the settlement terms on a patent infringement case.

Two years later, Data Domain was purchased by EMC for over $2 billion, which represented a doubling in price from the IPO issue. Quantum, on the other hand, has seen their stock drop by more than 25% since the IPO of Data Domain due to falling tape system sales, which have decreased by more than 30% year on year to around $250 million.

Another way of looking at the patent suit resolution between Akamai and Contendo is that it helps to bolster Akamai’s competitiveness. Unsurprisingly, news of the deal caused the share price of Akamai to pop when the deal was announced. Another aspect of the story to consider is how the lawsuit and acquisition will affect the relationship of Contendo with AT&T. It is rare for a company like Akamai to get a deal on a company like Contendo for such favorable terms.

The total cash buy out for about $268 million represents 6 times the revenue estimates for Contendo for fiscal year 2012. Wall Street pushed up the market cap of Akamai to $1 billion on news of the deal because it represents an answer to the assault on Akamai’s business and shows the company has found a way of fighting back.

Embattled camera-maker Kodak Eastman Co., has filed patent infringement cases against Apple for its four patents relating to digital camera technology.

Apple however denies this claim and petitioned the US Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York hearing Kodak’s bankruptcy case to attach “clarifying language” to such orders by the court that will allow financing to Kodak. It asked the court to indicate that the patents owned by Apple or those it claims which remain disputed should not be attached as security or lien. It clarified that they are not blocking any request of Kodak for post petition financing but that Kodak cannot use the patents that they do not own as collateral.

Apple maintained that during the early 1990s, they had a partnership with Kodak which among others, focused on how Kodak can help Apple in the further development and commercialization of its digital cameras. This resulted in the sharing of digital camera technologies. The two companies entered into a non-disclosure agreement which also includes a provision that all the developments or changes in those technologies will remain with Apple. Therefore, ownership of the patents is with Apple and not Kodak. As a matter of fact, Apple added, that when the information that Kodak was using the subject technology and that they were already claiming the patents as their own, came to their attention in 2010, they were consequently pressed to file a patent infringement case. This still remains under litigation. Kodak on the other hand denies the allegations and maintains that they are the owner of the patents and not Apple.

Kodak has been aggressively claiming its patents in an effort to produce capital to sustain its operation. However, the efforts were still insufficient, prompting it to declare bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in New York. Kodak failed to adapt to the technological advances in digital photography which, ironically, it invented.