A federal appeals court is set to hear arguments in the trademark infringement case between sports artist Daniel Moore and the University of Alabama, whose football program is portrayed in a number of his works.

They present their cases to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Thursday.

The university filed suit in 2005 alleging that Moore violated trademark law in painting scenes from football games by showing Crimson Tide players in their crimson and white uniforms without permission.

The suit also contends that Moore reissued previously licensed prints without paying royalties.

A federal judge's ruling in 2009 found that Moore's paintings and prints were protected but that other items ? like coffee mugs ? weren't. Both sides appealed.

"The University of Alabama believes the court ruled correctly when it found that Daniel Moore and his company engaged in activities that infringe on the University's trademarks," university spokeswoman Deborah Lane said in a statement. "While we regret the necessity of having to involve the courts in this matter, the lawsuit was necessary since UA must protect the value and reputation of our trademarks, name, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used."

Moore denied violating trademark laws and said his art constitutes free speech protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Samsung took a double-hit in its battle against archrival Apple on Tuesday, when the European Union announced it would investigate whether it was illegally trying to hinder competitors and Germany blocked sales of some of its tablet computers.

Samsung Electronics and Apple Inc. are engaged in a strategic war over patents in many countries across the world as they try to draw market share away from each other.

The EU's antitrust watchdog thinks the South Korean company may be overstepping the bounds and launched a formal investigation into whether Samsung is using law suits over key patents on 3G wireless technology to hinder competitors — including Apple.

The European Commission, which is acting as the EU's antitrust enforcer, said it suspected Samsung of not giving other companies fair access to patents it holds on standardized 3G technology for mobile devices — despite committing to do so in 1998.

A spokeswoman for the Commission said the probe also affected tablets such as Apple's newest iPad, which uses standardized wireless 3G technology.

The Commission said that Samsung last year sought legal injunctions against other device makers in several EU states, alleging patent infringement.

Under EU patent rules, a company that hold patents for standardized products are required to license them out indiscriminately at a fair price.

If Samsung is found guilty of unfairly restraining competition, it can be fined up to 10 percent of annual revenue related to the investigation.

A court has temporarily banned Samsung from selling its new Galaxy tablet computer in Australia, another setback for the South Korean electronics giant in a global patent battle with Apple Inc. that accuses it of slavishly copying the iPad and iPhone.

Federal Court Justice Annabelle Bennett on Thursday granted a temporary injunction against sales of Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia. The decision prevents Samsung Electronics Co. from selling the device in Australia in its current form until a further court order, or until a pending patent lawsuit between the warring technology giants is resolved.

The ruling is a blow for Samsung, which had hoped to launch the new product in time for Christmas sales. It comes after courts in other countries including Germany and the Netherlands made judgments that upheld Apple's claims that its intellectual property had been appropriated by Samsung.

The patent battle spanning 10 countries has underlined the perception of Samsung as an efficient imitator among technology companies rather than a pace setter. Over the years, the company has grown to become the global No. 1 in TVs and No. 2 in smartphones by sales. But unlike archrival Apple Inc., it has not mesmerized consumers with its originality and innovation.

In April, Cupertino, California-based Apple Inc. sued Samsung in the United States, alleging the product design, user interface and packaging of Samsung's Galaxy devices "slavishly copy" the iPhone and iPad.

Drug developer Pozen Inc. said Monday that a Texas court upheld three patents supporting its migraine drug Treximet.

Pozen said the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the patents were valid. The court also found that generic versions of Treximet developed by Par Pharmaceutical Co. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd. infringed on all three patents, while a version developed by Alphapharm Pty Ltd. infringed on two patents. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. had also challenged the patents, but was dismissed from Pozen's lawsuit in April 2010 after it agreed to abide by the court's decision.

The court said the Food and Drug Administration cannot approve the generics made by Dr. Reddy's and Par until Feb. 2, 2025, and that the agency can't approve the Alphapharm generic until Aug. 14, 2017.

Treximet is a combination of GlaxoSmithKline PLC's drug Imitrex and an anti-inflammatory drug developed by Pozen. GlaxoSmithKline markets the drug and pays royalties to Pozen. In the second quarter, those royalty payments accounted for $4 million of Pozen's $4.6 million in total revenue.

The FDA approved Treximet in April 2008 after years of delays, and Par filed for approval of its generic in October of that year.

Apple Inc. is bringing its patent fight with Samsung Electronics Co. over smartphones and tablet computers to South Korea.

Apple spokesman Steve Park said Friday that the company filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Seoul Central District Court.

Apple sued Samsung in the United States in April. Apple alleged Samsung's Galaxy line of smartphones and tablet computers copy its iPad and iPhone.

Samsung responded by filing lawsuits in South Korea, the U.S. and elsewhere alleging patent violations by Apple.

Park said the Cupertino, California-based company needs "to protect Apple's intellectual property when companies steal our ideas."

Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung said, "We will continue to actively defend and protect our intellectual property."

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Microsoft Corp. must pay a $290 million judgment awarded to a small Toronto software company for infringing on one of its patents inside its popular Microsoft Word program.

The high court unanimously refused to throw out the judgment against the world's largest software maker.

Toronto-based i4i sued Microsoft in 2007, saying it owned the technology behind a tool used in Microsoft Word. The technology in question gave Word 2003 and Word 2007 users an improved way to edit XML, which is computer code that tells the program how to interpret and display a document's contents.

The lower courts say Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft willfully infringed on the patent, and ordered the world's largest software maker to pay i4i $290 million and stop selling versions of Word containing the infringing technology.

Microsoft wanted the multimillion dollar judgment against it erased because it claims a judge used the wrong standard in instructing the jury that came up with the award.

The software company said a jury should determine a patent's validity by a "preponderance" of the evidence instead of the more heightened "clear and convincing" evidence standard instructed by the judge.

The Supreme Court said the "clear and convincing" standard was the correct one.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote the court's opinion, said the courts have interpreted the law the same way for 30 years. During this period, Congress has often amended the patent law, she said.

The Supreme Court has upheld a $5 million judgment to the maker of a patented deep fryer, but in a ruling that makes it harder to claim patent infringement.

The justices voted 8-1 Tuesday in favor of France-based SEB, S.A., on claims that a Hong Kong company copied features of its innovative home fryer in which the outside stays cool to the touch. A unit of Global-Tech Appliances Inc., began selling its own fryer, based upon the SEB-owned technology.

The high court upheld an appeals court ruling for SEB, but adopted a tougher standard than the appeals court used for proving the patent violation.

Computer and other technology companies argued for the higher standard. Pharmaceutical manufacturers wanted stronger patent protection.