A Better Mouse Trap #28

A patent for a better mouse trap features a fake cat that has an apparatus inside that entices mice to enter the mouth of the cat and become trapped inside of a vacuum like box that kills the mouse. The device dispenses an odor that smells like cheese to capture the attention of the prey. This device attempts to kill mice by catering to one of their most powerful instincts, an addiction to smelly cheese. This device, although is much more complicated than a typical mouse trap, can definitely be considered useful, nonobvious, and novel. That being said, it's silly. Why would you create a mouse trap made of a scary looking cat when mice are genetically predisposed to fearing sharp teeth on cats?

Take a look at the youtube video that was created here as a satirical description of the patent. The other issue I'd like to raise is about requiring short video clips to become a part of the patent filing process. In an age where technology and efficiency are keys to success, I believe the patent system could be vastly improved by requiring a 3-4 minute video as a part of the patent process. This added requirement could serve as a good and simple synopsis of any filed patent, one that explicitly states the structure and function and ultimate use case of any intellectual property in a single video clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fLe8rIy_FeY

Silly Patent: Optical Illusion Wear #27

On September 19, 2006, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for optical illusion wear. Filed under bathing suits and exercise wear, this patent protects any clothing that has optical illusions on it to deceive someone into thinking the person who is wearing said clothing is slimmer. There are many ways to become thinner: exercise, dieting, dietary supplements. But even those methods might require too much work. Sometimes, creating a "false or deceptive visual impression" is all you need to achieve that ideal look.

In order to assess this patent objectively, we must recall the three pillars of a good patent: novel, nonobvious, and useful. Sometimes they can qualify for all three characteristics but are not feasible and are seemingly ridiculous. In this case, although the USPTO determined this idea as worthy of a patent, I think it falls under the "seemingly ridiculous" category. Furthermore, I actually think that although this product is novel, and nonobvious, I believe it is not useful at all. Perhaps my misunderstanding of the fashion industry does not make me a credible critic, but I truly do not see a world in which people would go out a buy "optical illusion wear" just so they could look slimmer. But then again, people do some innovative and sometimes crazy things to lose weight, or at least look like they've lost weight. 

 

Silly Patents #26

Inventions are not always novel, nonobvious, and useful. Sometimes they're not even feasible and are seemingly ridiculous. There are a number of characteristics that should be considered when thinking about the viability of a patent: validity, prior art, enablement, obviousness, and common sense. But it is important to note that not all issued patents are smart. Many of them don't even make practical sense.

One of the patents we discussed in class is the "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force." The patent describes an apparatus on which a mother giving birth would be strapped down to and ultimately be spun around to pop the baby out through the force of centrifuge. Although I initially reacted by thinking how simply stupid and dangerous this idea was, a further analysis of it revealed its qualification for a patent on several fronts.

Based on some of the qualifying criteria, for example, this patent is definitely not obvious, which we've learned is a basic tenant for a patent to become viable. Another requirements that the device must be novel. It goes without saying that this product is one of the more novel ideas I've seen in quite some time. I've now proven that this device qualifies for two of the major requirements for a valid patent. The device, however, fails in achieving the third criteria of "usefullness." I can never imagine how such a device could be considered useful given the impracticality of spinning a birthing woman on a table and shooting a newborn out of a womb. I wonder, then, how this patent was actually issued.

This brings me to my point: how can the patent system be taken seriously if devices like this are protected under the rule of law? At what point does a product become unpatentable? It seems as though anything under the sun can be patented, even devices that have zero practical or safe implication in the real world. It's patents like these that create a slower turnaround time, and ultimately clog the bureaucracies to prevent faster and more efficient turnover for more valid patents.  The question then becomes, where do we draw the line, and how do we determine what is worthwhile and what is not?

Rejecting the Injunction on iPhones #25

The US International Trade Commission rejected Motorola's patent claim that attempted to block the import of some Apple iPhone products into the US. The ITC dismissed Motorola's claim that accused Apple of infringing on patented technology that makes touch screens ignore fingers when people are holding their smartphones up to their ears during a call.

Lisa Barton, the acting commission secretary, indicated the investigation into the Motorola complaint filed in 2010 was terminated. The ITC explained that the technology being considered in the patents was not original enough to support an accusation.

The patent wars between tech giants like Google, Apple, and Samsung have been battling for market supremacy in the booming areas of smartphones and tablets. The question then become, what will these companies focus more on in order to achieve market power? Will they continue litigating and fighting tooth and nail to assert injunctions, license technologies, and undermine one another through the patent litigation system? Or will they use this regulatory system to boost innovation and beat each other out by simply being better than the last?

Just last month, a judge cut $450 million from a $1 billion award to be paid by Samsung in a major patent lawsuit from Apple, claiming that the jury had wrongly calculated the damages. I wonder if these mini victories of receiving damages is a sustainable solution to generating profits or if companies will begin to focus on other revenue streams that don't rely on litigation. 

"Obviousness" #24

One of the five basic tenants of patentability is "nonobviousness."

The other four are: subject matter requirement, written description, utility, and novelty. For the purpose of this blog, I'm not going to go into these other four and will simply discuss the word "obviousness." Nonobvious means that a "person having ordinary skills in the art wouldn't have easily thought of it given the plurality of prior art."

Even when combining two prior art references, it may not be obvious to do so, for example a glow stick and a toothbrush to create a glow-in-the-dark toothbrush. Are the two products obvious to combine? If so, then a patent might not be granted, but if it's not, then a patent could be issued.

Also, the more prior art references an examiner needs to cite in order to reject claims based on obviousness, the weaker their argument against patentability.

I want to discuss how the patent system has incorporated such a subjective notion into a legal framework. Although it seems as though there is some legal precedent to distinguish between what is obvious and what is not in certain industries, I feel that the concept of obviousness is too hard to legally define from an objective standpoint.  

Computer Pen? #23

A patent was granted to Apple last month that describes a pen that doubles as a wireless device: capable of sending and receiving text messages, emails, and voice data. This patent reveals a portable wireless computer of sorts that would be equipped with a cellular and or GPS technology that would allow for wireless communication. It would also act as an advanced digital pen that would include accelerometers to recognize handwriting and facilitate speech-to-text and text-to-speech conversations. This pen would also feature a touch screen, a microphone, speaker, and rechargeable battery. Interestingly, in some cases the patent describes the device as a cellular telephone and in others, a portable computer. Based on our deconstruction of a patent last week in class, I think it's interesting to note that these alternating names may significantly impact the effect of this patent.

Perhaps most notable is the turnaround time it took for this patent to get approved and issued. Initially filed in 1998, the the patent was first issued in Sept. 2011, but was again examined and approved by the USPTO after Apple decided to add descriptions about the wireless and cellular features.

Perhaps Apple will never make this product and may only sit on the patent for as long as they have legal oversight over it. But this story brings up two very important questions about the patent system.

1. Why did it take so long for the patent to get issued when it was initially filed in 1998?

2. What are Apple's intentions with this patent? To actually create the product? To protect themselves against competitors who want to make a similar product? To create a revenue stream by licensing this technology to other companies? 

Aquire a company and the patents with it #22

The U.S. Department of Justice has endorsed Google's decision to sell the Motorola Home set-top business to Arris Group for $2.35 billion. This was the last regulatory hurdle that the deal faced, and now the broadband technology provider expects to close the deal by Wednesday. Arris Group is expected to use this tuck-in acquisition to improve the networking equipment it offers to cable providers.  


When Google inherited Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last year, Google was more interested in Motorola's mobile business and wasn't eager to invest in the set-top box business, especially since it didn't appear to offer much to Google's TV initiative. The deal will transfer 7,000 Google employees to Arris's employment, as well as a series of patent infringement lawsuits with TiVo, related to digital video recorders that Arris's CEO Bob Stanzione has expected to result in damages of billions of dollars.


During negotiations, Google offered to cap any liability Arris might face in the event Motorola Home is found to violate any patents owned by TiVo. Under the terms of the deal, Google will receive $2.05 billion in cash and $300 million in newly issues stock, giving it at 15.7% ownership stake in Arris upon the deal's closure. The deal will also allow Arris to license a number of Motorola Mobility patents.

Remote Display Tablet: Innovative Patent #21

Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon, has filed a patent for a "remote display" devices that would take cloud computing to a whole new level. GeekWire reports that the display would get data and power from a centrally located primary station. The tablets or simple screens would not then need to include a large internal battery or significant local processing power, since both those concerns would be taken care of in the primary base station.

The patent views processors and large internal batteries as the next major roadblocks in the pursuit of thinner and lighter devices in the mobile industry. The patent claims, "The ability to continue to reduce the form factor of many of today's devices is somewhat limited, however, as the devices typically include components such as processors and batteries that limit the minimum size and weight of the device. While the size of a battery is continuously getting smaller, the operational or functional time of these smaller batteries is often insufficient for many users."

The patent also provides other use cases for these "remote displays" that wouldn't need to wait on this theorhetical wireless tablet to be developed. For example, a camera or sensor can detect when a hand is passed over a reader display and can respond by turning the page. Transferring power and data wirelessly to displays as described in the patent is currently not feasible with existing technologies, but it does present an interesting idea for the future of tablets and e-readers.

It's interesting to consider that companies can file patents with non existing technology. They are literally monopolizing an idea because they simply filed it first. I think this provides an interesting point about the patent system. Perhaps someone out there has the technology to create and facilitate such an idea but are discouraged from doing so because Jeff Bezos owns the patent to the idea itself. On the other hand, perhaps this notion of filing patents before the technology is built will actually encourage innovation and force the company to incentive the R&D of that product.

It all depends on that intention of the person/company filing the patent. If the filer is looking to maximize profits by claiming non-existing technologies and then charging licensing fees to those that do, or if it is to discourage others to innovate so certain technologies can stay relevant on the market for longer, or if they are creating incentives for their company to be the first to develop the product.

All these are valid, but only few reasons actually promote innovation while the other reasons inhibit it. 

Samsung Violates Apple Patents #20

An ITC Judge said that Samsung infringed an important piece of an Apple patent by including a text-selection feature in its smartphones and tablets. If this decision is upheld, a decision that is expected in August, the ITC can order any infringing device to be barred from importation into the United States. Apple had claimed that that the Samsung Galaxy, Nexus, and Transform devices are all made with the infringing technology. Applie filed a complaint in mid-2011, accusing Samsung of infringing its patents when manufacturing many of their smartphone and tablet devices. ITC Judge Thomas Pender said in a discussion in October, that Samsung infringed 4 of Apple's patents but did not infringe 2 others listed in the complaint. The full commission said it wanted the judge to take another look at the portions of two patents where he initially found that Samsung infringed.

Apple is also waging an offensive war on several fronts against Google, whose Android software powers many Samsung devices. The legal battles between Samsung and Apple have now taken place in over 10 countries as they fight for market share in the mobile industry. Google's Android software has become the world's number 1 smartphone operating system. Apple's battle against the software has dragged to hardware vendors that use it, including HTC and Samsung.

Samsung also supplies parts to Apple, producing multiprocessing chips, flat screens, and memory chips for the iPhone, iPad, and iPod. Apple has reduced orders from Samsung for chips and screens.

It is interesting to consider how this litigation will play out and whether or not Apple will decide to continue this process and sacrifice relations with Samsung as a supplier. Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive, but it's hard to imagine high profile patent litigation cases while also wanting cooperation on the business side of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FzRefGDPgk

Samsung affirms that import bans on iPhones and iPads would only affect older models #19

A ruling is due on May 31 by the ITC to make a final decision on the Samsung and Apple case to determine whether or not Apple infringed on one or more claims of Samsung's patents. In March they asked questions to define the scope of an import ban on Apple related products, should one be ordered. Since the case dealt with third and fourth generation Apple products that operate on AT&T networks, the Commission is wondering if an import ban would apply to Apple products that operate on other wireless networks and later generation Apple products. In the proceedings, Samsung accused Apple products of infringement, only for AT&T models of the iPhone 4 (not the 4S or 5), 3GS and 3, and for the iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G.

Apple responded by saying that Samsung couldn't enforce an exclusion order against newer Apple products since those don't infringe because they use Qualcomm baseband chips which are licensed. The ITC staff agreed with Apple and acknowledged that there is no evidence in the record concerning other networks or newer Apple products.

Samsung has finally admitted that the newer Apple products which incorporate Qualcomm chips should not apply to this ban (if granted) but still contend that other carriers outside of AT&T should also be considered as infringing. That being said, the past where Samsung confirms that Applie products with Qualcomm baseband chips are fine is much more important that the other carrier claim. Should there be an import ban of older iPhones and iPads, Apple will only be affected at the low end and in the repair business. In the meantime, a new generation of Apple products will come to market thus making the older models even more irrelevant to their revenue streams. Even if the ITC does ban any Apple products, which it is unlikely to do because regulators have concluded that Samsung failed to comply with its FRAND licensing obligations, its impact will be very miniscule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5jJXisLRSU

Increase in Mobile-Related Patents #18

-->
A new report from an analyst at Chetan Sharma Consulting predicts that one fourth of all patents granted this year will be mobile related with Samsung and IBM leading the way. Many observers believe that the increasing volume in patent applications is a sign that the global mobile patent war is just beginning. The number of mobile related patents granted by the USPTO and the European Patent Office increased significantly over the past decade; the US market saw a 591 percent increase while the European market experienced a 76 percent increase in mobile related patent grants. Authors of the report stipulate that the increasing numbers in mobile patents is not surprising since smartphones and tablets have become the center of the knowledge economy. These products give companies a lot more incentive to patent innovations both to maximize their returns on R&D and to prevent potential suits from patent trolls, among other reasons. 

With all these statistics about increasing filing rates and patent grants, we must ask what it all means? While it may be a good sign that the mobile industry is alive and well, it may also be a bad sign. Perhaps many of the patents this year were ill conceived, overly broad, or simply stupid. We've talked a lot about how the patent system is broken and needs reform; an increase in patent volume cannot make matters any better before real change can influence the patent system. For many people, the fact that our patent system is alive and well is precisely the problem. 

Patent Reform from Within? #17

Just about all major role players in the tech industry are copying Google. Facebook, Yahoo, eBay, and others are taping into the open source software program for crunching data called Hadoop. Hadoop was based on a technology originally developed by Google. About ten years ago, Google published a couple papers that explained some of the software that manages data inside its data centers, including a platform called MapReduce. Other major players like Facebook and Yahoo quickly recreated these tools with open source codes.
The problem is that Google owns several patents relating to MapReduce and other data center technologies that have sparked widely used open source projects. Although Google is typically viewed as a friend of open source software, the patents have posed a looming threat to the internet at large. Google's philosophy on open source software could change, or their patents could get sold.

On Thursday, however, Google pledged to not assert 10 patents related to MapReduce unless it is attacked first. The idea here is to create a kind of patent shield around open source software that could potentially inspire other companies to do the same with their open source coding.

Google calls this an Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge which is part of a larger effort to fight aggressive patent tactics in the tech world. This pledge even applies if the relevant patents are sold, which perhaps seems silly since not many companies would buy them if they cannot bear monetary gains.

We've talked so much about needing patent reform, but it seems as though much of the positive change is coming from the major role players themselves. Just last year, Twitter introduced what is called the Innovator's Patent Agreement which stipulates that they will not use patents from employee inventions in "offensive litigation," unless the inventor agrees to it. A coalition of companies including Google, IBM, and Red Hat, created the Open Invention Network, which seeks to provide patent protection for the open source Linux operating systems. Google is looking to create a similar coalition surrounding their most recent pledge, which is a testament to their effort that tries to preserve technological innovations for the public rather than indulging in self-promoting sabotage campaigns to turn a profit at the public's expense.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/03/google-hadoop-patent/

Samsung calls Ericsson a patent troll #16

In the Eastern District of Texas, Samsung finally responded to Ericssons lawsuits against Samsung. Samsung made a bold claim that Ericsson became a patent troll in the mobile handset business once they decided to exit the market (when it sold its stake in Sony-Ericsson to Sony).

They claim that:
"[...] Ericsson has recently jettisoned its mobile phone business and it now feels unhinged as a non-practicing entity in the mobile phone market to extort vastly unreasonable and discriminatory license fees from Samsung under threat of product exclusion resulting from a simultaneously filed complaint in the U.S. International Trade Commission ('ITC'). Ericsson's misguided actions epitomize the patent 'hold up' problem that has been the recent subject of wide discussion within standard-setting organizations and other authorities around the globe [...]"

"Ericsson seeks to dismantle the standard-setting framework with unreasonable and discriminatory license demands from a willing licensee under threat of product exclusion."

This beckons the interesting question of whether or not we should consider companies who exited certain industries as non practicing entities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2VkApqzkS4
 

Time is of the essence! Samsung vs. Apple #15

The fight between Samsung and Apple, happening in both the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, is escalating over the appropriate course of action to take in these cases. The situation was complicated by Judge Koh's decision to deny Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung in December 2012, and because of her decision to strike $450 million from a $1 billion damages awarded to Apple. As more time passes by, the divergence between the two parties continues to widen. Apple would like to see the appeals court to look at the injunction as quickly as possible and also wants a new damages trial in California in the near future. Samsung on the other hand wants these proceedings delayed so they can merge additional issues into them. Samsung, moreover, cites the Seventh Amendment to claim that a new jury can't determine new damages for the 14 Samsung products because of the fact that another jury already identified infringements. They contend that any trial of this sort should involve a retrial to reevaluate whether or not any intellectual property rights were infringed at all.

It is typical for a losing party in a trial (in this case Samsung) to want to broaden the scope of a retrial, while the prevailing party (in this case Apple) would like to keep the scope of the retrial as narrow as they can. Samsung now wants a new opportunity to convince a new jury that there was no infringement in the first place, and since Apple essentially got all they could ask for last year in the case, it would be hard for Apple to get a more favorable outcome this time around. After a number of extension appeals and opposition briefs filed by Samsung and Apple respectively, it seems as though these two tech giants are playing a legal game of hooky.

It has been 7 months since the court reached a verdict and Apple still doesn't have an injunction or a damages award to show for it. The question then becomes, what legal routes are going to be implemented to progress this legal battle forward?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIOJum_I5hw  

Blame the Trolls? #14

When thinking about reforming the Patent system, it is easy to target Non Practicing Entities, or trolls as the scapegoat. No matter how good of a case they have for participating in the patent eco system, it is hard to sympathies with their cause given that they are not contributing to the innovation revolution that we as consumers are thriving for. The latest example of the attempt to punish trolls can be seen with the SHEILD act, (the piece of legislation I talk about in my previous post) that would make trolls pay for legal fees of both parties if they lose the lawsuit. This SHIELD act, however, sweeps in and disrupts instances like mergers, acquisitions, and corporate financing. Some argue that the problem with "SHIELDing" against trolls alone does not get at the fundamental issues with the patent system. Rather, curing the patent system requires general solutions, not just targeted ones on patent trolls. Suggestions include: more patents should be rejected, damages should be limited and controlled, and litigation should be more efficient. The argument here is that the patent system has many more ills than are produced by NPEs alone. Therefore, patent solutions should focus on patents and practices rather than isolated perpetrators like trolls.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4NP9mhFflU

Legislation that Hurts Non Practicing Entities #13

A piece of legislation is being considered on Capitol Hill that would limit the number of times a year a "non-practicing entity" can sue a tech company such as Google and Apple. This legislation was introduced by Oregon Democrat, Representative Peter DeFazio, which is aimed at hurting "patent trolls" by allowing judges to force such firms to pay the legal fees of companies they unsuccessfully sue. Mark Chandler, general counsel for Cisco Systems, testified saying that Cisco supports this legislation given the $50 million a year they spend on fighting lawsuits fighting companies that do not make or sell anything. However, several lawmakers were worried at the prospect of non-practicing entities needing to pay the legal bills if they lose infringement lawsuits. John Conyers, a Michigan Democrat, stated that they "have a measure before us that the plaintiff pays and the defendant who might be an alleged patent infringer pays nothing. This is disturbing." Non-practicing entities sued 5,570 defendants in 2011, which is twice as many as in 2009. Unlike previous years when these patent lawsuits focused on manufacturers, retailers, restaurants and other companies, these patent lawsuits are now including department stores like JC Penny that are forced to settle instead of fronting the cost of the legal fees. Forced to defend patents that cover drop-down menus of websites, gift card activating technologies, and mobile phone web browsing, patent litigation now accounts for about half of the total legal fees JC Pennny has to pay. They are now reluctant to buy any technologies from small companies that are incapable of defending infringement lawsuits. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22792482/anti-patent-troll-bill-faces-questions-capitol-hill?source=rss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-G2ZWBbhHSc

Nokia vs. HTC in Germany and the UK #12

Nokia is asserting that HTC smartphones and tablet computers running Android versions 2.3 ability to decode VP8 videos. Specifically, Nokia is suing the Germany and UK branches which were presided by Judge Andreas Voss. Nokia based the infringement allegation on what the specifications of the Google-controlled VP8 standards say, which means that Nokia believes their patent has large claim over the VP8 market. Google is therefore participating in the lawsuit as a third party intervenor. A decision on the German case will be presented on May 3, of this year but will have no effect on the UK decision. If the decision goes in HTC and Google's favor, Nokia can still appeal on the grounds that they believe many of their other patents are infringed by VP8.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY11lnGUy5w

Apple Violates Page Limit Ground Rules #11

On September 5 2012, AJL Pender (who I assume is a Judge) granted HTC Corp.'s motion to cut Apple's Pre Hearing Brief for failure to comply with ground rule 9.2, which provides a page limit to briefs. In other words, the International Trade Commission actually has a page limit for the amount of information and claims that can be covered in any given brief. Ground Rule 9.2 asserts that “The pre-hearing brief shall be a complete stand-alone document” that “shall not exceed one-hundred seventy-five (175) pages and shall have no more than fifty (50) pages of relevant attachments." The article seems to stipulate that Apple was penalized because of a simple breach in a page limit ground rule. Although as university students we are all too accustomed to the concept of page limits and formatting rubrics, I feel that when so much money and credibility is at stake with billion dollar companies, such trivial matters should not matter. The fact that HTC gained an upper hand on Apple simply because of a breach in the technical page limit format seems ludicrous to me and something that should perhaps be reevaluated when discussing patent litigation for Electronic Devices with Communication Capabilities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJJL3Ufnv0g

Samsung Dominates Apple #10

Samsung's latest offering, the Galaxy Note 8.0, had a fantastic showing at this week's Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. The product is directly competing with the iPad mini that was recently been launched. The Note features an 8 inch screen compared to the iPad's 7.9 inch and a higher resolution than the Apple product. Likely to launch in late April or early June of this year, Samsung boldly claimed that they will double their tablet sales from last year. Interestingly, Apple was nowhere to be found at the week's international conference despite the fact that it has been trying to find growth opportunities in the BRIC markets of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. In India particularly, Apple is struggling to take the lead against Samsung. At the MWC, Samsung also introduced the Samsung Wallet, which will be launched on March 7th, and is directly aimed at Apple's passbook. With the leaders in the industry striving for more market power, it is interesting to wonder what tactics they will chose to implement: offensive innovations or defensive patents? Perhaps it is up to the consumer to decide which they respond to more. 

Conflict of Interest? #9

A UK judge, Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob, who ruled in favor of Samsung against Apple has been hired by Samsung. Just last year he issued an order forcing Apple to promote Samsung's products as a punishment for not complying with the initial ruling. Although the judge retired in 2011 and became a professor, according to  Section 9 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, ex-judges can still be invited to sit on the bench. This, I believe poses a issue of a conflict of interest. After having ruled in favor of a party and then consequently being hired by that party, the Judge is showing a lack of integrity, regardless of its legality. For an industry that is so heavily regulated, it's ironic that such such seemingly questionable deals would be allowed in the first place.  

A Patent for an iWatch? #8

A patent application was recently found by AppleInsider which reveals that Apple is investigating a wearable accessory device that features a flexible touchscreen display and conforms to the user's body through the use of a "slap bracelet" mechanism. Apple first filed their patent application for a "Bi-stable spring with flexible display" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in August of 2011. The patent describes and contains mock ups of a wearable accessory device that can be easily worn on a persons wrist. When activated, the device connects via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to a portable base device like an iPhone or iPod. The "Bi-stable spring" is most related to the slap bracelet that many of us wore growing up. According to the patent filing, this device features a flexible display screen with the necessary electronic components all fitting into the convenient body of a sleek wristband. The patent seems to make a wide range of design claims that allow Apple to iterate and develop the product even more before launch. This tactic is strategic on Apple's side since this seemingly broad based patent allows them to have claim over a wide range of wristband types and features. A patent like this gives Apple wiggle room before finalizing a design.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/02/21/apple-patent-filing-points-directly-to-iwatch-concept-with-flexible-touchscreen-display 

Apple and Motorola: The Power of a Sensor #7

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) will be revisiting the patent infringement lawsuit between Motorola and Apple where Judge Thomas Pender found that Motorola's patent for a sensor that prevents accidental hang-ups based on proximity was invalid. The ITC has the power to block imports of the iPhone if the body finds that Motorola did in fact have a claim on that feature based on their patent. In early December, the Judge ruled that Motorola's patent was not substantially different from a previous invention that prevented accidental dialing, a decision that cleared Apple of Motorola's infringement claims. Motorola, however, argued that the earlier invention the Judge was referring to concerned physical keys and not touchscreens. The commissions six-member panel will deliberate the initial ruling and come up with a final decision by April 22. This decision can have a huge impact on Apple's sales if it doesn't go in their favor.

http://bgr.com/2013/02/20/apple-motorola-patent-infringement-332171/

Injunction or no Injunction? #6

Once again, I'm going to turn your attention to Apple and Samsung; but this time focusing on Apple's challenge of Judge Lucy Koh's decision to allow Samsung to continue selling products that were found to infringe some of Apple's patents. Last class we learned about injunctions, and how if a product were found to infringe a patent, the court could order the violator to stop the shipment, manufacturing, and sale of that particular product. Judge Koh's decision in this particular instance is interesting given that Apple believes that the court did not go far enough. Apple claims that Samsung "deliberately copied" their iphone and ipad products and are simply getting away with it. Overall this is an ongoing debate that becons the questions of how far is too far? Is paying $1 billion in damages enough? What about an injunction? Does that go too far? Although motivations for resorting to patent litigation are often multipronged, it is clear that in this instance, Apple feels incredibly threatened by Samsung's Galaxy and tablet devices, enough to want the court to forcefully stop its production. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/apple-samsung-judge-says-she-may-put-second-patent-case-on-hold/2013/02/15/7bc0f8b2-7730-11e2-b102-948929030e64_story.html?wpisrc=nl_tech

Patent War: Friend or Foe? #5

With Apple unable to support claims that their sales have been "seriously damaged" by Samsung imitating and releasing its products, the Smartphone war has reached a recent stalemate. Although the media has recently portrayed these two companies as rivals, there are many claims that reveal these two "opponents" share some similar interests by partnering up in some respects. Apple's operations Chief explained that Samsung is a great partner to Apple on the supply side, proven by the $8 billion worth of parts Apple bought from Samsung just last year. (This relationship dates back to 2005 where Samsung provided the initial memory chips that allowed the ipod to be manufactured) On the other side of the relationship, Samsung has immensely benefited from insights Apple has provided them regarding smartphone and tablet production. Now, as their legal scuffles have slowed down, it seems as though they even share common enemies that are threatening their collective market share: Blackberry and Microsoft. This is also contrasted by the fact that industry rivalries have changed in nature over the past decade. In the past, companies sued with the intention of effectively killing their opponents. Nowadays, the competitive landscape between companies like Apple and Samsung are multilayered and complex. Yes, there are many instances of litigation that costs billions of dollars, but on the whole, their relationship is both friendly and harsh. Apple and Samsung sometimes have scuffles, but they also pose a dynamic threat to the market where pairing up against competitors like Nokia, Blackberry, Sony, HTC, and even Google, can help them both in the long run.

Overall, Apple and Samsung have different market strategies and ways of appealing to the market. While it may seem like an all out war is what these companies desire, a second look at the situation reveals that quiet cooperation could be a better strategy for the both of them.

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/stalemate-between-apple-samsung-in-smartphone-wars 

Trade Secres vs. Patents #4

When considering how to protect sensitive and valuable information, companies are often faced with a choice: to file a patent or keep a trade secret. In this blog post I will outline some of the pros and cons of both and let you decide which you think might best accommodate your particular asset. The first component we must look at is time: while a patent can only stay valid for about 20 year, a trade secret can last indefinitely, so long as the secret is not revealed. The trade secret process requires no formalities or bureaucracy which allows it to go into effect immediately. On the other hand, because of that lack of formality, there is no legal code protecting it from being replicated or stolen. In other words, the only line of defense with a trade secret is the ability to keep it secret. Another disadvantage of a trade secret is how vulnerable your product may become to the public market. If your product is one that can be reverse engineered, third parties may be able to obtain the secret information by legitimate means and even file to patent the secret. Depending on the patentability of a given product, companies have to assess the pros and cons of these various methods of protection and make the decision based on a very precise calculated risk.

http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/trade_secrets/patent_trade.htm

Samsung's Superbowl ad Mocking Apple's Patent War #3

Samsung produced a Superbowl commercial that featured Paul Rudd and Seth Rogan, to ultimately shed light on the absurdity of the patent war recently led by Apple. Although they didn't cite Apple by name, the commercial was a clear attempt to make a jab at their arch nemesis who led the recent litigation campaign against them for allegedly infringing its design patents. The commercial featured a witty conversation in which Paul Rudd and Seth Rogan attempt to say the word "Superbowl" and the names of the teams playing, but are stopped because those terms are trademarked and Samsung could get sued. Instead they have to refer to the teams by using alternative names such as "the San Francisco 50 minus ones" and the "Baltimore BlackBirds." This comedic depiction of the sensitivity surrounding patents and trademarks reveals that when advertising products and designing features, a lot of precaution must be taken to avoid getting sued. This conversation related to our class discussion regarding the various types of intellectual property and how easily they could be infringed without even intending to.

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2240800/samsungs-superbowl-ad-teaser-mocks-apples-patent-war?WT.rss_f=Home&WT.rss_a=Samsung%27s+Superbowl+ad+teaser+mocks+Apple%27s+patent+war

Why Patent Engineering at Berkeley? #2

I am taking Patent Engineering (IEOR 190G) because of my passion for technology and entrepreneurship. During my time at Berkeley I have had the opportunity to work with a number of start up companies in Silicon Valley and have learned much about the high tech industry as a result. The bay area is the hub of one of the most profitable and revolutionary industries in the world, one that is founded upon a process of innovation and creative thinking. Intellectual property and patenting create frameworks in which those ideas become profitable realities and allow inventors and entrepreneurs to contribute to society as a result. I am truly interested in learning about the process surrounding intellectual property from engineering and business perspectives. I want to learn how to avoid infringement on other patents, how to identify the "patentability" of inventions, and ultimately how to use patents to turn a profit. This past summer I worked in Venture Capital and was constantly asked to assess the viability of a company's patents. Does a particular patent have any claim on the market? If so, how large is that market and what value proposition does that particular patent have from a competitive standpoint. How can a particular patent be used as leverage in an industry to obtain market power as apple has done? I want to understand how to use patents not only as a business tool but also how protecting intellectual property can become a profitable investment. The last piece I want to understand about patent engineering is how to file a patent and be comfortable doing so. This will enable me to ask tough questions to start up teams that are looking for partnerships and or seeking investments. I look forward to working with Dr. Tal Lavian as I have worked with him in the past through my student organization, TAMID Israel Investment Group.

Aviv's Introduction #1

My name is Aviv Gilboa and I am a senior at UC Berkeley studying Political Economy and Entrepreneurial Leadership. I was born and raised in Los Angeles California and was heavily involved in my Jewish community back home as I attended Jewish private school up until college. After coming to Berkeley, I became involved with a number of different organizations and activities ranging from social, academic, professional, and extra curricular. During my freshman year, I joined a social fraternity, Delta Chi, became involved in Hillel, the center for Jewish life on campus, and began getting acquainted with the ASUC, Berkeley's student government. During my sophomore and junior years, I took on leadership roles in each of those organizations. I served as the recruitment chair for Delta Chi for three consecutive semesters, founded and became president of a student led organization called TAMID Israel Investment Group that seeks to connect American college students with Israel's economy, and served as an ASUC Senator where I was elected to represent the 37.000 students at UC Berkeley on our legislative body as the chair of the External and University Affairs committee. As a senior, I am continuing my work with all of these organization and activities respectively while also trying to explore new and unique experiences during my last semester. I have truly tried to take advantage of every opportunity at UC Berkeley both in a out of the classroom and have enjoyed every second of it. Here's to making lasting memories during my last semester as an undergraduate! Cheers!