Business method claims have had less luck than software claims after the Supreme Court’s Alice decision. Most business method claims reviewed by the Federal Circuit are found invalid under Section 101 for merely reciting an abstract idea. As an example of business method claims found valid under Section 101 post-Alice, we have to turn to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), which recently found valid business method claims directed towards a method for processing paper checks in U.S. Bancrop v. Solutran, Inc. During the review, the PTAB examined each claim as a whole finding that the method for processing paper checks “is more akin to a physical process than an abstract idea.” The PTAB reasoned that limitations, such as “receiving said paper checks and scanning said checks with a digital scanner,” and “comparing by a computer said digital images,” cause the claim as a whole to recite patent-eligible subject matter rather than merely an attempt to claim “fundamental economic practices, mathematical algorithms, or basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Reasoning that the claims were not directed towards an abstract idea, the PTAB did not analyze the claims under the second prong of the Alice/Mayo test.
Wednesday, June 03, 2015
Tuesday, June 02, 2015
Tracking #AliceStorm
It's been six weeks since my last AliceStorm update, and we've had plenty of action: twelve section101 decisions, and fourteen patents invalidated in just that period. That said, the success rate of motions on the pleadings is dropping, now down to a mere 69.6%. At PTAB, ten new institution decisions, all of which were granted on ineligibility grounds. And PTAB continues with its 100% kill rate, with seven (!) final decisions invalidating patents.
Monday, June 01, 2015
Naked Emperors, the US Supreme court
Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog.com has written this essay on why the US Supreme court is incompetent to rule on technology issues.
He points out that they are old, were all educated in "Ivy League" universities, "all went to the same places, they ate the same places, they drank the same drinks, were taught by the same people and now they lived the same lives for the vast majority of their professional careers"
He then shows how they made simple mistakes of fact such as declaring a new manmade molecule that does not appear in nature to be naturally occurring and (in a reply to a comment on the blog) of confusing the two different elements manganese and magnesium.
"The idea that the Supreme Court is at all capable of understanding — let alone deciding — issues of a technical nature is ridiculous. Yet their individual and collective lack of knowledge hasn’t prevented them from reaching misguided decisions in a variety of cases."
He points out that they are old, were all educated in "Ivy League" universities, "all went to the same places, they ate the same places, they drank the same drinks, were taught by the same people and now they lived the same lives for the vast majority of their professional careers"
He then shows how they made simple mistakes of fact such as declaring a new manmade molecule that does not appear in nature to be naturally occurring and (in a reply to a comment on the blog) of confusing the two different elements manganese and magnesium.
"The idea that the Supreme Court is at all capable of understanding — let alone deciding — issues of a technical nature is ridiculous. Yet their individual and collective lack of knowledge hasn’t prevented them from reaching misguided decisions in a variety of cases."
Full article at IPWatchdog.com
Sunday, May 31, 2015
An Abstract Idea by Any Other Name - Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC
Addressing the issue of unpatentable subject matter in a post-Alice world, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) recently invalidated two patents under � 101 in separate covered business method (CBM) proceedings. Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., Case CBM2015-00006 (PTAB, Apr. 21, 2015) (Petravic, APJ); Google Inc. v. Unwired Planet, LLC, Case CBM2014-00004 (PTAB, Apr. 6, 2015) (Bisk, APJ).
Delayed since
Delayed since
Does the US Supreme Court’s latest move further obviate patent reform efforts?
One of the key components of patent reform has been increased disclosure requirements for patent complaints. Patent infringement defendants have long derided the sparsity of information provided by patent infringement plaintiffs in opening pleadings. Traditionally, after providing information proving that the plaintiff owns the patent in question (or holds adequate rights to assert the patent) and other jurisdictional requirements, plaintiffs need only assert that the actions of the defendant violated the exclusive rights of the plaintiff in the patent to adequately have pleaded a case of patent infringement.
But recent Supreme Court action may have addressed the issue. In an order issued in late April, the Supreme Court, without comment, adopted changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would abolish Form 18 and its model patent infringement complaint from the Federal Rules.
The rule changes take effect on December 1, unless modified by Congress. But with Congressional patent reform contemplating heightening patent infringement pleading standards, it would appear that modifications would seem unlikely.
Delayed since
But recent Supreme Court action may have addressed the issue. In an order issued in late April, the Supreme Court, without comment, adopted changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that would abolish Form 18 and its model patent infringement complaint from the Federal Rules.
The rule changes take effect on December 1, unless modified by Congress. But with Congressional patent reform contemplating heightening patent infringement pleading standards, it would appear that modifications would seem unlikely.
Delayed since
Patent Litigation Report Raises Questions
A recent publication by PricewaterhouseCoopers announced that patent suit filings in 2014 had reduced by 13% from the prior year, and concluded that this "dramatic shift" was "[d]riven by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, which raised the bar for patentability and enforcement of software patents"
A more careful analysis of the government's data, however, shows that PricewaterhouseCoopers' theory is almost certainly wrong.
Delayed since
A more careful analysis of the government's data, however, shows that PricewaterhouseCoopers' theory is almost certainly wrong.
Delayed since
Is there a future for software patents in an age of software innovation?
Numerous patents have been lost with claims invalidated as being patent ineligible in the wake of Alice. This has negatively affected patent valuation, rendering many patents worth far less if not completely worthless. this has led some commentators to lament the toxicity of the patent asset and question whether the the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has the bandwidth to cope with the increased time demands placed on patent examiners as they navigate the patent eligibility issue in as many as 50% of all pending patent applications.
In December 2014, the USPTO provided interim guidance on patent eligibility. The guidance provided the below flowchart to describe the two-step analysis required when patent examiners are confronted with software patent claims.
Delayed since
In December 2014, the USPTO provided interim guidance on patent eligibility. The guidance provided the below flowchart to describe the two-step analysis required when patent examiners are confronted with software patent claims.
Delayed since
PatentVue by Envision IP
With the annual software developer conference Google I/O approaching next week, many in the wearable industry are wondering what place Glass will have on the agenda, and to what extent Google will continue to promote its augmented reality platform. Glass was not a main focus during the 2014 I/O conference, however, that may change this year as Google Glass officially became integrated as a division within Google this past January.
Canon, LG Electronics, Sony, Microsoft, IBM, Siemens, and Samsung are also significant patent owners in this space. Other large companies which have a smaller number of issued US patents (<20) related to AR and HMD technology are Intel, Nokia, Apple, Qualcomm, Sharp, Panasonic and GE, defense contractors Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell Collins and Raytheon, automotive manufacturers Ford and Honda, and entertainment giant Disney.
Delayed since
Canon, LG Electronics, Sony, Microsoft, IBM, Siemens, and Samsung are also significant patent owners in this space. Other large companies which have a smaller number of issued US patents (<20) related to AR and HMD technology are Intel, Nokia, Apple, Qualcomm, Sharp, Panasonic and GE, defense contractors Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell Collins and Raytheon, automotive manufacturers Ford and Honda, and entertainment giant Disney.
Delayed since
Patent reform could do terrible damage to our many successful programmes, says Columbia's tech transfer chief
Patent reform could do terrible damage to our many successful programmes, says Columbia's tech transfer chief
Orin Herskowitz is head of technology transfer at Columbia University, one of the most respected and successful university licensing operations in the United States. His role not only means that he is plugged into the steady stream of new technology coming out of the New York institution, but also gives him a detailed insight into the burgeoning start-up community in the city and further beyond.
Delayed since 2015-5-26 1:11am
Orin Herskowitz is head of technology transfer at Columbia University, one of the most respected and successful university licensing operations in the United States. His role not only means that he is plugged into the steady stream of new technology coming out of the New York institution, but also gives him a detailed insight into the burgeoning start-up community in the city and further beyond.
Delayed since 2015-5-26 1:11am
Saturday, May 23, 2015
Google Goes Patent Crazy, Seeks one for ‘Creepy’ Toys
Google has filed an interesting patent application for toys which watch moving objects and interact with other media devices in a room.
The toys also interact with other devices using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, to play videos or songs for children whose command pattern is pre-recorded. The interactive toy can communicate with at least one remote entity, which could be a mobile phone.
The patent application notes that the toy device works like an “intelligent remote control” for home entertainment and activate automation systems.
The toys also interact with other devices using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, to play videos or songs for children whose command pattern is pre-recorded. The interactive toy can communicate with at least one remote entity, which could be a mobile phone.
The patent application notes that the toy device works like an “intelligent remote control” for home entertainment and activate automation systems.
Lycos patent sale may be happening two years too late
The news this week that Lycos is looking to dispose of some of its patents afforded tech bloggers the opportunity to remind their readers that yes, one of the iconic internet search brands of the before-Google era still exits. For those in the patent community the reaction may have been equally mystified – something along the lines of, they still have anything worth selling? And, have they seen the market out there, particularly for software patents?
Several of the patents have hundreds of forward citations which gives some indication that they are good quality. According to Maulin Shah of EnvisionIP who has published a quick analysis of the portfolio, one of the patents related to relevance ranking in internet search has a “staggering” 566 citations. So maybe there will be some buyers even in a post-Alice world. The patent deals market could certainly do with a shot in the arm.
Several of the patents have hundreds of forward citations which gives some indication that they are good quality. According to Maulin Shah of EnvisionIP who has published a quick analysis of the portfolio, one of the patents related to relevance ranking in internet search has a “staggering” 566 citations. So maybe there will be some buyers even in a post-Alice world. The patent deals market could certainly do with a shot in the arm.
Software is not Patent Eligible unless Claimed as a Process or Physical Object (US Federal Circuit)
In an interesting – though non-precedential – opinion, the US Federal
Circuit has ruled that a “speech-recognition interface” software lacks
subject matter eligibility “because [the claims] are not directed to one
of the four statutory categories of inventions identified in 35
U.S.C. § 101.
Recent action in patent eligibility doctrine has primarily focused on the judicial prohibitions against patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. However the statute does have some meat of its own. In particular, Section 101 particularly creates eligibility for four categories of inventions: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Inventions that cannot fit within the four statutory categories are not patent eligible.
Recent action in patent eligibility doctrine has primarily focused on the judicial prohibitions against patenting abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. However the statute does have some meat of its own. In particular, Section 101 particularly creates eligibility for four categories of inventions: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Inventions that cannot fit within the four statutory categories are not patent eligible.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Patent reform could be end of invention
Invention in America has turned ugly – it costs too much and risks are too high.
So what happened to bring this kind of damage to all of us? I think it’s because we are hunting a comic book character – a patent troll. Many describe this fictitious character as an unscrupulous inventor who sues a small business for infringement. The small business has to settle even though it doesn’t feel they infringe, because it is far too expensive and risky to fight it.
To slay the patent trolls, since 2005, virtually every significant change to [US] patent law has had the by-product of increasing the risks and costs for inventors. The America Invents Act did this in 2011, and now, four years later, we are told the patent troll problem has worsened and we need to pass the Innovation Act, which would further raise those risks and costs. The result is that the solution is creating a new problem.
So what happened to bring this kind of damage to all of us? I think it’s because we are hunting a comic book character – a patent troll. Many describe this fictitious character as an unscrupulous inventor who sues a small business for infringement. The small business has to settle even though it doesn’t feel they infringe, because it is far too expensive and risky to fight it.
To slay the patent trolls, since 2005, virtually every significant change to [US] patent law has had the by-product of increasing the risks and costs for inventors. The America Invents Act did this in 2011, and now, four years later, we are told the patent troll problem has worsened and we need to pass the Innovation Act, which would further raise those risks and costs. The result is that the solution is creating a new problem.
The Case For Patent Reform In High Tech
Gary Shapiro, head of the CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) explains:
But in their defense, there’s just no room for employees in their tiny office just down the street from the federal courthouse.
Naturally, Apple will fight the verdict and they have the lawyers and money to do it.
“This case is Exhibit A for patent reform. The patent troll in this case doesn’t produce any products and services, has zero employees and operates from an office across the street from the courthouse in the notoriously troll-friendly Eastern District of Texas,”
But in their defense, there’s just no room for employees in their tiny office just down the street from the federal courthouse.
Naturally, Apple will fight the verdict and they have the lawyers and money to do it.
New patent lawsuits are down for the first time in five years. Here’s why that’s a huge deal.
Here's another newspaper article explaining the Price Waterhouse report on patent lawsuits in the USA.
The Washington Post writes:
"This is a big deal for a whole range of industries, not just the tech sector. It's happening at a time when the spotlight on frivolous patent lawsuits has never been brighter. And that makes it a surprising find.
Here's the key chart from PricewaterhouseCoopers' latest report on patent litigation. The line in gray shows the number of new patent lawsuits that were filed each year.
How to kill the next generation of startups
It’s one of the slickest bait-and-switch maneuvers in recent congressional history. A bill advertised as a targeted approach to reining in patent trolls who extort small businesses has been twisted into a measure to immunize big tech companies against the patent rights of the startups and small businesses who create nearly all breakthrough innovation and job growth in the U.S.
The last time a legislative miscarriage of this scale occurred, it was the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was supposed to prevent financial misconduct by big businesses like Enron. Instead, the law burdened small public companies with multi-million-dollar accounting costs and killed the IPO market for nearly a decade, while still allowing the biggest banks in the world — all of them Sarbanes-Oxley compliant — to plunge the world into the economy-shattering financial meltdown of 2008.
Is America about to shoot itself in the foot again — only this time with patent rather than accounting reform bullets?
The last time a legislative miscarriage of this scale occurred, it was the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which was supposed to prevent financial misconduct by big businesses like Enron. Instead, the law burdened small public companies with multi-million-dollar accounting costs and killed the IPO market for nearly a decade, while still allowing the biggest banks in the world — all of them Sarbanes-Oxley compliant — to plunge the world into the economy-shattering financial meltdown of 2008.
Is America about to shoot itself in the foot again — only this time with patent rather than accounting reform bullets?
Thursday, May 21, 2015
New immunotherapy technology company launched
An immunotherapy technology for treating cancer and other diseases, jointly developed by Victoria University of Wellington’s Ferrier Research Institute and the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research, has been patented and will be the initial focus of a newly-formed company.
The research has been led by Dr Gavin Painter from Ferrier Research and Dr Ian Hermans from the Malaghan Institute, and works as a therapeutic vaccine, activating a patient’s own immune system to recognise and attack cancer cells.
The research has been led by Dr Gavin Painter from Ferrier Research and Dr Ian Hermans from the Malaghan Institute, and works as a therapeutic vaccine, activating a patient’s own immune system to recognise and attack cancer cells.
$1B lawsuit filed against U.S. government for voice and face recognition patent infringement
Texas based 3rd Eye Surveillance and Baltimore based Discovery Patents have filed an infringement lawsuit against the U.S. federal government seeking damages of more than $1 billion for unlawful use of the company’s three video and image surveillance patents, two of which covered voice and facial recognition software by James Otis Faulkner.
Faulkner’s invention includes the method of transmitting real-time surveillance video and images to emergency workers via a communications link, as well as two subsequent patents that were issued to cover voice and facial recognition software.
The three patents allow the government to provide real-time surveillance video, audio recognition, facial recognition and infrared images to emergency responders and defense agencies.
Faulkner’s invention includes the method of transmitting real-time surveillance video and images to emergency workers via a communications link, as well as two subsequent patents that were issued to cover voice and facial recognition software.
The three patents allow the government to provide real-time surveillance video, audio recognition, facial recognition and infrared images to emergency responders and defense agencies.
US Congress seeks to quash patent trolls
Predatory ‘patent trolls’ could soon find it harder to operate in the
United States. Legislation to curb frivolous patent lawsuits has
regained momentum after lawmakers in the US Senate added a provision to
stop university patent holders from being penalized along with the
trolls.
The process is moving quickly. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote on the bill by the end of the month, readying it for a final Senate vote this summer, and the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee is likely to vote this week on a similar measure. That gives observers optimism that Congress will finally enact patent-troll legislation after a failed effort last year.
The process is moving quickly. The Senate Judiciary Committee plans to vote on the bill by the end of the month, readying it for a final Senate vote this summer, and the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee is likely to vote this week on a similar measure. That gives observers optimism that Congress will finally enact patent-troll legislation after a failed effort last year.
Copyrighting Your Patent?
Although it sounds of a malformed naive question, at times patent
applicants do want to copyright their patent. The patent application
may, for instance, include software code, prose, or particular
schematics that would seemingly be amenable to copyright protection.
Published works are no longer required to include any copyright notice, and the PTO has never indicated (AFAIK) that submission without the copyright notice constitutes a waiver or abandonment of copyright protections. However, the failure to include a (c) notice could potentially be relevant to fair-use analysis.
Published works are no longer required to include any copyright notice, and the PTO has never indicated (AFAIK) that submission without the copyright notice constitutes a waiver or abandonment of copyright protections. However, the failure to include a (c) notice could potentially be relevant to fair-use analysis.
RPX Insurance Services Launches Indemnification Coverage for NPE Litigation
RPX Corporation RPXC a provider of patent risk management solutions, today announced that it is offering a solution for software companies to insure their contractual indemnity obligations, with policies where both a supplier and its downstream customers are covered if a non-practicing entity (NPE or "patent troll") sues for alleged patent infringement.
"Based on our unique ability to quantify patent risk company by company, we have designed an effective risk transfer solution for companies to insure themselves and their customers against NPE litigation,"
A patent problem
Earlier this year, a group of 51 legal scholars and economists sent a letter to the US Congress urging it to take action on the increasing toll of frivolous patent lawsuits. Over the past five years, they said, researchers have published more than two dozen studies on the economic consequences of patent litigation. The view that has emerged is grim: the lawsuits are hindering research and development, and slowing the launch of firms.
Less than a month later, another 40 scholars rebuffed the claims, saying that the impact of the lawsuits has been exaggerated. Furthermore, they argued, patent litigation is on the wane, and legislation to rein it in could damage the US “engine of innovation” by weakening patent protections for inventors.
Less than a month later, another 40 scholars rebuffed the claims, saying that the impact of the lawsuits has been exaggerated. Furthermore, they argued, patent litigation is on the wane, and legislation to rein it in could damage the US “engine of innovation” by weakening patent protections for inventors.
Google patents a way to win a text message argument
Google might have found a way to settle such arguments almost instantly.
In a patent awarded May 12, Google outlined a system for getting search results without having to leave a voice, instant message or text message conversation. The patent calls for a piece of software that could be incorporated into a messaging program that would allow users to query Google’s search engine in the same way as responding to the person they’re talking to.
In a patent awarded May 12, Google outlined a system for getting search results without having to leave a voice, instant message or text message conversation. The patent calls for a piece of software that could be incorporated into a messaging program that would allow users to query Google’s search engine in the same way as responding to the person they’re talking to.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Drop in Patent Lawsuits, Damages Blunts Call for US Congress to Act
The number of US suits dropped 13 percent to 5,700 in the fiscal year ended in September, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s PwC. Median damage awards from judges and juries fell to $2 million, the second-lowest amount in 20 years, PwC said in the study released Wednesday.
The findings signal a reversal of the rising number of lawsuits in the past decade, which led companies such as Google Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. to lobby Congress for curbs on patent-licensing firms. Often derided as “trolls,” the companies profit by obtaining patents cheaply and turning them into big payouts with lawsuits or royalty demands. Even after passing a 2011 law overhauling the patent system, lawmakers are weighing more lawsuit curbs, such as making the loser pay the winner’s court costs.
The findings signal a reversal of the rising number of lawsuits in the past decade, which led companies such as Google Inc. and Cisco Systems Inc. to lobby Congress for curbs on patent-licensing firms. Often derided as “trolls,” the companies profit by obtaining patents cheaply and turning them into big payouts with lawsuits or royalty demands. Even after passing a 2011 law overhauling the patent system, lawmakers are weighing more lawsuit curbs, such as making the loser pay the winner’s court costs.
How to kill the next generation of US startups
The proposed Innovation Act (HR 9) is supposed to target only patent trolls. But as the National Venture Capital Association and 144 major universities warn, the bill's poorly drafted provisions actually will undermine the startups and small businesses responsible for nearly all breakthrough innovation and job growth in the United States.
At the very least, Congress should ask powerful supporters of the bill like Google and Amazon to explain their recent (and rather convenient) change of heart regarding patents.
When Google was a startup, after all, it filed its seminal PageRank patent before it even had a business plan, venture funding or a domain name -- and then paid Stanford University $336 million in shares for an exclusive license to it. But today Google claims that patents (especially software patents) "hinder innovation" -- a rather disingenuous argument from the first company in the world to build its initial success on a software patent.
And what about Amazon's famous one-click software patent, granted in 1999? Only 23 days after it obtained that patent, Amazon filed a patent suit against its then-larger competitor Barnes and Noble.
At the very least, Congress should ask powerful supporters of the bill like Google and Amazon to explain their recent (and rather convenient) change of heart regarding patents.
When Google was a startup, after all, it filed its seminal PageRank patent before it even had a business plan, venture funding or a domain name -- and then paid Stanford University $336 million in shares for an exclusive license to it. But today Google claims that patents (especially software patents) "hinder innovation" -- a rather disingenuous argument from the first company in the world to build its initial success on a software patent.
And what about Amazon's famous one-click software patent, granted in 1999? Only 23 days after it obtained that patent, Amazon filed a patent suit against its then-larger competitor Barnes and Noble.
Patent trolls down but not out
The number of patent litigation cases filed in U.S. courts dropped in 2014, the first decrease in five years. That's according to a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
The report comes out Wednesday. It credits the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank for much of the drop in patent litigation. The case, which was decided in June 2014, raised the bar for software patents, the sort that many nonpracticing entities (aka NPEs, or patent trolls) prey upon.
"We'll probably see this trend continue, and more dramatically," Barry said. That's because the case was concluded halfway through 2014, meaning a full year's worth of effects in 2015 should really show a big decline.
The report comes out Wednesday. It credits the Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank for much of the drop in patent litigation. The case, which was decided in June 2014, raised the bar for software patents, the sort that many nonpracticing entities (aka NPEs, or patent trolls) prey upon.
"We'll probably see this trend continue, and more dramatically," Barry said. That's because the case was concluded halfway through 2014, meaning a full year's worth of effects in 2015 should really show a big decline.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
Hungarian Innovation Protection Software Earns Success In California - Hungary Today
Hungarian innovation protection software that uncovers counterfeits was received in California with plaudits. At the congress of the International Trademark Association, Pintz and Co presented the product to 10,000 patent and trademark lawyers from 150 countries, the Hungarian Intellectual Property Protection Association told news agency MTI.
The software, which runs on several servers, simultaneously monitors the entire web’s one billion sites in real time, including Chinese sites and Facebook, uncovering fake products. The application is unique because it trawls through logos as well as text. The association said in a statement that the company will be making the software free of charge to Hungarian companies within a year.
The software, which runs on several servers, simultaneously monitors the entire web’s one billion sites in real time, including Chinese sites and Facebook, uncovering fake products. The application is unique because it trawls through logos as well as text. The association said in a statement that the company will be making the software free of charge to Hungarian companies within a year.
Congress must thwart patent trolls, promote innovation
We at Collage.com make custom products like photo books and photo blankets for anyone to make using simple and powerful software tools our team designs in-house.
We're always rolling out new features and new products but are worried about the threat posed by "patent trolls," shell companies that exist solely to extort other companies for alleged patent infringement.
We're always rolling out new features and new products but are worried about the threat posed by "patent trolls," shell companies that exist solely to extort other companies for alleged patent infringement.
Apple Samsung partial Win
The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s ruling that Samsung copied specific Apple design patents related to the iPhone. However, the court also threw out part of the ruling and asked a lower court to reduce the amount Samsung is to pay Apple.
This ruling partly closes the book on a 2011 legal battle that caused the two companies to wage a global patent war. The two companies have since dropped other battles except this one and another case involving what Apple contends are specific patented software features found in Galaxy phones.
This ruling partly closes the book on a 2011 legal battle that caused the two companies to wage a global patent war. The two companies have since dropped other battles except this one and another case involving what Apple contends are specific patented software features found in Galaxy phones.
Sunday, May 17, 2015
Both sides of the patent reform debate have been giving Hilary Clinton cash
Timothy B. Lee writes
The pro-reform names Lee mentioned: Cisco, eBay and Salesforce are all big businesses that would benefit from having a president beholden to them while of the five anti-reform names Xerox and Corning are not active anti-reform lobbiests, one of them is a pro patent lobbiest while two of them are technology companies. Other than the pro-patent lobiest, are the other businesses supporting her for patent reasons or other reasons?
"On Friday night, Hillary Clinton revealed the names of the various companies and trade groups that have collectively given her millions of dollars in speaking fees since the beginning of 2014. Looking through the list, one thing that stood out to me was how many of the payments came from companies with a strong interest in the patent reform debate.Unfortunatly I'm not convinced that the money is directly related to her stance or lack of it on patent reform.
[...]
"Overall, Clinton was paid speaking fees by about 50 companies and groups, receiving around $225,000 for a typical speech. Of those 50 organizations, at least five have a record of lobbying against reforms to the patent system, while three are in the pro-reform camp."
The pro-reform names Lee mentioned: Cisco, eBay and Salesforce are all big businesses that would benefit from having a president beholden to them while of the five anti-reform names Xerox and Corning are not active anti-reform lobbiests, one of them is a pro patent lobbiest while two of them are technology companies. Other than the pro-patent lobiest, are the other businesses supporting her for patent reasons or other reasons?
Saturday, May 16, 2015
Patent-Eligibility of Computer Software Inventions in a Post-Alice Era
Thomas Nguyen of Lewis Roca Rothgerber writes
Decided on June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decision on Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International[1] has introduced a lot of uncertainty regarding patent-eligibility of certain types of technologies. In particular, Alice indicated that abstract ideas (e.g., business methods), even when carried out by a generic computer, do not automatically become patent eligible. Alice did provide, however, that if the subject matter “improves the functioning of the computer itself” or “any other technology”, such subject matter may be patent-eligible. In this way, one can see this as leaving open the possibility of finding computer software patent-eligible.
Since then, a number of cases have tackled the issue on how to apply the new Alice guidelines set by the Supreme Court with respect to computer software. In the following decision (summary judgment at a district level court), the remarks provided by Judge Pfaelzer may be helpful in evaluating the patent-eligibility of computer software under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in the post-Alice era.
US Federal Circuit rules company’s TV software patent indefinite
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cracked down on a vague software patent in a ruling last week.
The Federal Circuit, which hears all U.S. patent appeals, affirmed a decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in two cases brought by EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC.
“Resolution of this case is straightforward,” Chief Judge Sharon Prost wrote in the May 6 opinion. “The district court made explicit factual findings, based on expert testimony, that each of the eight claim terms at issue recited complicated, customized computer software.
“We see no clear error in any of the district court’s factual findings, nor any error in the district court’s ultimate conclusion of indefiniteness.”
Prost noted that EON does not contend on appeal that the terms at issue recite functions that are coextensive with a microprocessor.
EON also does not differentiate between any of the claim terms in its argument, the chief judge said.
“In fact, EON cites to testimony from its expert that a person skilled in the art would need to consult algorithms outside the specification to implement the claimed functions,” she wrote in the 14-page ruling. “Similarly, based on expert testimony, the district court found that ‘special code would have to be written in order to accomplish the claimed functionality.’
“Resolution of this case is straightforward,” Chief Judge Sharon Prost wrote in the May 6 opinion. “The district court made explicit factual findings, based on expert testimony, that each of the eight claim terms at issue recited complicated, customized computer software.
“We see no clear error in any of the district court’s factual findings, nor any error in the district court’s ultimate conclusion of indefiniteness.”
Prost noted that EON does not contend on appeal that the terms at issue recite functions that are coextensive with a microprocessor.
EON also does not differentiate between any of the claim terms in its argument, the chief judge said.
“In fact, EON cites to testimony from its expert that a person skilled in the art would need to consult algorithms outside the specification to implement the claimed functions,” she wrote in the 14-page ruling. “Similarly, based on expert testimony, the district court found that ‘special code would have to be written in order to accomplish the claimed functionality.’
Friday, May 15, 2015
Who Wins With Google's New Patent Marketplace?
There’s something off about Google’s Patent Purchase Promotion. Purchasing patents is not new. In fact, Google has a long history of buying patents. What’s new is the idea of a limited-time solicitation. To me, Google’s announcement evokes a stereotypical used-car ad—“Get a great deal on your patent, but you better hurry, because this offer won’t last!” And just as the car dealership continues to sell cars after the “big, blowout sale,” Google will continue to buy patents after the promotion ends.
During Google’s promotion period, sellers get one shot at naming their price for a single U.S. patent. No counter-offer. No negotiations. Although this greatly simplifies that patent purchase process, sellers may not receive top dollar for their patent, because the short length of the program makes it difficult for patent holders to shop around for competitive bids. Another gripe is Google’s motivation for this promotion. Google tells us that this program will “remove friction from the patent market” and “improve the landscape.”
But for whom—the public, startups, or Google? It’s true that the usual patent marketplace can sometimes be challenging. But how does Google’s purchase of hundreds or potentially thousands of patents solve that problem?
During Google’s promotion period, sellers get one shot at naming their price for a single U.S. patent. No counter-offer. No negotiations. Although this greatly simplifies that patent purchase process, sellers may not receive top dollar for their patent, because the short length of the program makes it difficult for patent holders to shop around for competitive bids. Another gripe is Google’s motivation for this promotion. Google tells us that this program will “remove friction from the patent market” and “improve the landscape.”
But for whom—the public, startups, or Google? It’s true that the usual patent marketplace can sometimes be challenging. But how does Google’s purchase of hundreds or potentially thousands of patents solve that problem?
Thursday, May 14, 2015
If patent reform goes wrong
Let me start with a disclaimer that may soon become obvious to you all, I’m the least expert member of this panel when it comes to analyzing the specifics of the pending patent reform bills and how they will impact various constituencies. Luckily, the other panelists more than make up for my deficiencies.
If we try and look at the current patent reform debate objectively there are some overall themes it might be helpful to consider. One is what a poor job we have done as a community over the years presenting the importance of the patent system to the American public and our political leaders. That’s now come back to bite us.
If we try and look at the current patent reform debate objectively there are some overall themes it might be helpful to consider. One is what a poor job we have done as a community over the years presenting the importance of the patent system to the American public and our political leaders. That’s now come back to bite us.
Limelight did not infringe Akamai patent
Limelight Networks Inc did not directly infringe a patent on managing Web images and video held by rival Akamai Technologies Inc because it did not carry out all the steps, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also said there was no basis to find the media content delivery company and its customers could jointly be held liable for infringement because Limelight was not in direct control of its users.
"Limelight’s customers do not become Limelight’s agents simply because Limelight provides its customers a written manual explaining how to operate Limelight’s product," the appeals court said in a 2-1 majority opinion.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit also said there was no basis to find the media content delivery company and its customers could jointly be held liable for infringement because Limelight was not in direct control of its users.
"Limelight’s customers do not become Limelight’s agents simply because Limelight provides its customers a written manual explaining how to operate Limelight’s product," the appeals court said in a 2-1 majority opinion.
Veeam Software defeats Symantec in favourable USPTO rulling
Veeam Software has announced a victory over Symantec, with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board issueing final written decisions on four more inter partes reviews in Veeam's favor. The decisions conclude that all of the remaining patent claims Symantec asserted against Veeam in its second lawsuit in U.S. District Court of Northern California are invalid, thus vindicating Veeam’s innovative approach to delivering availability solutions for the modern data center.
These USPTO decisions are the latest triumphs for Veeam in a three-year dispute initiated by Symantec because its legacy physical backup products could not compete with Veeam's innovative approach to delivering availability solutions for the modern data center
These USPTO decisions are the latest triumphs for Veeam in a three-year dispute initiated by Symantec because its legacy physical backup products could not compete with Veeam's innovative approach to delivering availability solutions for the modern data center
CCGroup Seeks Injunction Against OptumInsight
A California federal jury determined that UnitedHealth Group’s subsidiary OptumInsight infringed Cave Consulting Group’s patent for measuring physician efficiency by operating and licensing its Impact Intelligence software, a competing solution for developing physician efficiency scores.
“The jury found that OptumInsight’s Impact Intelligence software infringed because it uses, among other things, a pre-defined set of medical conditions to evaluate each specialty type,” “Despite the federal jury verdict,
"OptumInsight continues to offer Impact Intelligence to health plans, health systems and others,” explained Dr. Cave. To prevent this Cave recently filed for a permanent federal injunction against OptumInsight. If granted, the permanent injunction will prevent OptumInsight from offering its competing Impact Intelligence software in the marketplace.
“The jury found that OptumInsight’s Impact Intelligence software infringed because it uses, among other things, a pre-defined set of medical conditions to evaluate each specialty type,” “Despite the federal jury verdict,
"OptumInsight continues to offer Impact Intelligence to health plans, health systems and others,” explained Dr. Cave. To prevent this Cave recently filed for a permanent federal injunction against OptumInsight. If granted, the permanent injunction will prevent OptumInsight from offering its competing Impact Intelligence software in the marketplace.
FatPipe Networks Files Infringement Lawsuit Against Talari Networks
FatPipe Inc, the inventor of software defined networks for wide area connectivity and hybrid WANs, announced that it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Talari Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The company asserts that Talari Networks' products infringe on FatPipe Networks patents and seek injunctive relief to stop further sale of the infringing Talari Networks products.
FatPipe currently has 11 U.S. patents and over 180 technology claims related to multipath, software defined networking and additional patent applications pending. This complaint asserts that the technology in Talari Networks products infringes on one or more claims of certain FatPipe's patents.
FatPipe currently has 11 U.S. patents and over 180 technology claims related to multipath, software defined networking and additional patent applications pending. This complaint asserts that the technology in Talari Networks products infringes on one or more claims of certain FatPipe's patents.
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Seminar Software licenses and software patents
On the May 19, seminar on IP in software development will be held in the Institute of Computer Science of the University of Tartu, Estonia. Our special guests from acknowledged patent and trade mark company Kilburn and Strode, represented by associate Jeremy Smith and from leading international lawfirm Bird & Bird, represented by associate Tim Harris, offer their extensive knowledge and expertise in the fields of software patenting and licensing.
Have a question? Free one-on-one consultation available.
Have a question? Free one-on-one consultation available.
Fujifilm Patent On Converting To Greyscale
One of the most protracted lawsuits concerning smartphone patents has concluded. The case was brought by Fujifilm against Motorola for infringing its patents in mobile phones. The jury brought in a mixed verdict, rejecting three of the patent claims relating to face detection and WiFi/Bluetooth. But one of the patents was deemed valid and Motorola was ordered to pay $10 million. This isn't much of a victory for Fujifilm as they asked for $40 million and probably won't make a profit on the award after the lawyers have been paid.
This might be a timely warning to any company thinking of entering the patent wars, but it is also worth looking at the patent that Fujifilm used to get $10 million out of Motorola.
Those skilled in the art almost certainly knew how to convert an RGB image into greyscale long before the patent.
There are lots of silly patents on the obvious in photography and computational photography but not that many that get $10 million awarded on their strength.
Those skilled in the art almost certainly knew how to convert an RGB image into greyscale long before the patent.
There are lots of silly patents on the obvious in photography and computational photography but not that many that get $10 million awarded on their strength.
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
Legislation to Reduce Uncertainty in AIA Grace Period Introduced in US Congress
On April 14, 2015, the US House of Representatives introduced a bill to amend the pre-filing grace period provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA). The bill, entitled "Grace Period Restoration Act of 2015" (H.R. 1791), proposes to clarify the standard for determining whether a third-party disclosure subsequent to an inventor disclosure eliminates the grace period. If enacted, the effect of the legislation will be important to inventors and applicants who make an early disclosure of an invention and rely on a one-year grace period to decide whether to pursue patent protection for the invention.
Compiling Successful IP Solutions for Software Developers (Video)
Patent eligibility for software has been in a state of flux ever since the 2014 US Supreme Court ruling in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. Attorneys Seth Northrop and David Prange discuss the two-step framework for software patentability in a post-Alice world, recommended strategies for software patent holders, and options for protecting intellectual property outside the patent system.
Sunday, May 10, 2015
'Economic and health benefits' from QuakeCore funding
A University of Canterbury earthquake engineering expert sees economic and health benefits from the university being awarded $21.5 million of government funding over five years to run the QuakeCore, centre of research excellence for earthquake resilience.
"QuakeCoRE research will underpin export growth in New Zealand goods and services related to earthquake engineering, principally through increased international competitiveness of our engineering consultants engaged in our research and training programmes and the development and sale of novel seismic-resistant systems and devices, and patented software tools for seismic protection of infrastructure.
"We want an earthquake-resilient New Zealand where communities recover rapidly after major earthquakes as a result of mitigation and pre-disaster preparation informed by internationally-leading research. A reduction in infrastructure damage, fewer casualties and lower business disruptions, through faster recovery in future major earthquakes will reduce stress and long-term psychological impacts in affected communities.
"QuakeCoRE research will underpin export growth in New Zealand goods and services related to earthquake engineering, principally through increased international competitiveness of our engineering consultants engaged in our research and training programmes and the development and sale of novel seismic-resistant systems and devices, and patented software tools for seismic protection of infrastructure.
"We want an earthquake-resilient New Zealand where communities recover rapidly after major earthquakes as a result of mitigation and pre-disaster preparation informed by internationally-leading research. A reduction in infrastructure damage, fewer casualties and lower business disruptions, through faster recovery in future major earthquakes will reduce stress and long-term psychological impacts in affected communities.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
EFF Asks Patent Office to Focus On Protecting Public from Bad Patents
This week, together with Public Knowledge and Engine, EFF submitted written comments to the Patent Office regarding its Patent Quality Initiative. We urge the Patent Office to ensure that this program actually reduces the number of invalid patents being issued. Its quality efforts should serve the public interest, not the special interests of patent applicants.
[EFF has] written before about the Patent Office’s problem with software patents. The Patent Office does a very poor job searching for prior art and protecting the public from vague and overbroad claims. There are good reasons to think that software patents are a bad idea even if applications are reviewed carefully. But they cause even more harm when the Patent Office does a bad job. Once issued, invalid patents are very expensive to formally invalidate. Patent litigation can cost millions of dollars—an unreachable sum for members of the public wishing to reclaim property that ought to have been the public’s from the start.
[EFF has] written before about the Patent Office’s problem with software patents. The Patent Office does a very poor job searching for prior art and protecting the public from vague and overbroad claims. There are good reasons to think that software patents are a bad idea even if applications are reviewed carefully. But they cause even more harm when the Patent Office does a bad job. Once issued, invalid patents are very expensive to formally invalidate. Patent litigation can cost millions of dollars—an unreachable sum for members of the public wishing to reclaim property that ought to have been the public’s from the start.
Patent Laws Are Getting Cloudy - Post - No Jitter
Regarding the cloud and intellectual property, "the barrier to entry into a new business has been reduced," Fred Logue, founder of New Morning IP, an Irish law firm specializing in intellectual property law for technology industries said. "In some ways this is good, because it means that more people can enter into a market and they can innovate. But in other aspects it's a bad thing, because a market with a low barrier to entry ... is open to wider competition than is the case where there is a high barrier to entry."
While the cloud reduces the barrier to entry for innovation, moving from a hardware to a software model makes getting a technology patent more difficult, he added. He attributed this to biases in U.S. and European patent law.
Brainwave-reading patents spike on commercial mind-reading apps
More developers are creating commercial applications that use brainwave-reading technology that was previously found only in the medical field.
Last year, brainwave-reading patents quadrupled compared to 2010 and doubled over 2012, according to SharpBrains, a market researcher focused on this type of technology. Sharpbrains CEO Alvara Fernandez said "[the] expansion into non-medical use shows that we are at the dawn of the pervasive non-medical neuro-technology age," explaining the spike in patents.
Last year, brainwave-reading patents quadrupled compared to 2010 and doubled over 2012, according to SharpBrains, a market researcher focused on this type of technology. Sharpbrains CEO Alvara Fernandez said "[the] expansion into non-medical use shows that we are at the dawn of the pervasive non-medical neuro-technology age," explaining the spike in patents.
Why America’s patent system is not killing innovation
U.S. laws over intellectual property give companies the incentive to invest billions in research and development of new products and services.
“Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.”
The old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain, is as applicable today as in his time. And in the intellectual property arena, a “good story” has been going around recounting the death of American innovation at the hands of an outmoded and obstructive patent system. But, again to paraphrase Twain, rumors of innovation’s death have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, American innovation is thriving—and not in spite of patents but because of them.
The old saying, often attributed to Mark Twain, is as applicable today as in his time. And in the intellectual property arena, a “good story” has been going around recounting the death of American innovation at the hands of an outmoded and obstructive patent system. But, again to paraphrase Twain, rumors of innovation’s death have been greatly exaggerated. In fact, American innovation is thriving—and not in spite of patents but because of them.
Eon v. AT&T and the role of "Pure Functional Claiming"
The one area where patent-challengers see continued success is when means-plus-function claims lack appropriate structural support in the underlying patent document. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) allows a patentee to claim a “means” for accomplishing a specified function without reciting the actual structure of the mechanism or material used to accomplish the function.
However, as a rule of construction, the statute indicates that the “means” will be construed to “cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The impact is that, although the claim appears to broadly cover a “function” it will be construed to be much more limited. When an applicant follows this claiming approach, but fails to specify any corresponding structure within the specification then the claim is deemed invalid as indefinite.
In Eon Corp v. AT&T (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit has affirmed that Eon’s asserted patent claims are invalid for failing to specify the structure associated with a purely functional claim element.
However, as a rule of construction, the statute indicates that the “means” will be construed to “cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” The impact is that, although the claim appears to broadly cover a “function” it will be construed to be much more limited. When an applicant follows this claiming approach, but fails to specify any corresponding structure within the specification then the claim is deemed invalid as indefinite.
In Eon Corp v. AT&T (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit has affirmed that Eon’s asserted patent claims are invalid for failing to specify the structure associated with a purely functional claim element.
Patents in Taiwan
The criteria for patentability in Taiwan include:
To what extent can inventions covering software be patented?
To determine whether a software-related invention meets the definition of an ‘invention’, the content of the claimed invention – rather than the recitation form of the claims – must be considered in order to identify whether the invention (as a whole) is of a technical nature. If a portion of the claimed invention does not use the laws of nature, it will still meet the definition of an ‘invention’.
Judgments are made based on the technical features recited in the claims; but due to the special nature of software-related inventions, the specification must also be reviewed in order to understand the essential meaning of each feature of the claim.
- statutory subject matter;
- enablement;
- written descriptions;
- industrial applicability;
- novelty; and
- non-obviousness.
To what extent can inventions covering software be patented?
To determine whether a software-related invention meets the definition of an ‘invention’, the content of the claimed invention – rather than the recitation form of the claims – must be considered in order to identify whether the invention (as a whole) is of a technical nature. If a portion of the claimed invention does not use the laws of nature, it will still meet the definition of an ‘invention’.
Judgments are made based on the technical features recited in the claims; but due to the special nature of software-related inventions, the specification must also be reviewed in order to understand the essential meaning of each feature of the claim.
Friday, May 08, 2015
Does Your Mobile App Need A Patent?
So you’ve got an app idea and want to protect it. Is a patent the right route to keeping it safe?
The answer to this question is rather complex. At the heart of the matter is the need for protecting your idea, but does it even meet the criteria?
Before we get into the specifics, let’s understand what a patent is [...]
If you’re entering a crowded market, getting a patent issued will be a tall order. Although, if your technology is innovative, unique and there’s no directly competing technology, you have a better chance of it being issued.
The answer to this question is rather complex. At the heart of the matter is the need for protecting your idea, but does it even meet the criteria?
Before we get into the specifics, let’s understand what a patent is [...]
If you’re entering a crowded market, getting a patent issued will be a tall order. Although, if your technology is innovative, unique and there’s no directly competing technology, you have a better chance of it being issued.
Thursday, May 07, 2015
Last Week Tonight Stuck in 2012
The heady days of 2012 saw “Gangnam Style” dominate the U.S. music charts, Patricia Krentcil rocket to fame as the “New Jersey Tanning Mom,” and the New York Giants win the Super Bowl. That year also is the source of nearly all the statistics John Oliver cited on the April 18, 2015 edition of his HBO program Last Week Tonight during a very humorous but potentially misleading piece about abuses in the patent system.
John Oliver echoes complaints others have raised against the patent
system, namely that (A) patent owners that don’t practice their patents
shouldn’t be able to assert them; (B) patent owners enforcing their
patents are extorting parties, including small businesses and end users,
that lack the funds or capability to litigate; and (C) patents,
especially software patents, are too vague, resulting in uncertainty as
to what products or actions are encompassed. The solution to most of
these problems, he posits, is the Innovation Act, H.R. 9, the latest
version of which was introduced on February 5, 2015. Seemingly, John
Oliver is unaware that the last several years have seen judicial action
and legislation that address the costs of patent litigation and the
vagueness of software patents. Whether these measures are sufficient
without additional legislation is up for debate, but John Oliver’s
hypothesis is weakened by his reliance on outdated and largely
irrelevant facts and data.
Google Wants to Buy Your Patent—To Keep it Away from a [Different] Patent Troll
In an apparent effort to generate good karma, Google is purporting to
buy patents in order to keep them out of the hands of patent trolls.
But what then does Google intend to do with all these newly acquired
patents that it so gallantly saved from the trolls?
While Google holds itself out as strongly against the traditional patent system, it continues to amass an enormous patent portfolio for itself. In 2014, Google earned the 8th-highest number of patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for a total of 2,566 U.S. patents. When Google purchased Motorola in 2011, discussions focused on the valuable patent portfolio Google obtained in the deal. In recent years since the Patent and Trademark Office instituted a “fast track” program by which applicants can pay fees in order to have their patents cut in line and be examined more quickly, Google has utilized the program extensively in order to push its patents through the system. In 2014 for example, Google obtained 875 patents through the fast track program.
While Google holds itself out as strongly against the traditional patent system, it continues to amass an enormous patent portfolio for itself. In 2014, Google earned the 8th-highest number of patents from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, for a total of 2,566 U.S. patents. When Google purchased Motorola in 2011, discussions focused on the valuable patent portfolio Google obtained in the deal. In recent years since the Patent and Trademark Office instituted a “fast track” program by which applicants can pay fees in order to have their patents cut in line and be examined more quickly, Google has utilized the program extensively in order to push its patents through the system. In 2014 for example, Google obtained 875 patents through the fast track program.
Wednesday, May 06, 2015
The PATENT Act: US Senate’s Solid Start to Reforming their Patent System
Will this be the year the US passes patent reform? With both houses of the US Congress finally introducing strong bills to target patent trolls, the EFF sure hopes so.
EFF supported the House’s Innovation Act through its passage in 2013. Unfortunately, the Senate did not respond with a bill worth fighting for. This year, though, not only is the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) back, but the Senate has responded with its own comprehensive legislation—the PATENT Act (S. 1137).
The "Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015" includes some much-needed reforms, and EFF supports its passage.
Here’s what we like about the PATENT Act—and what we think could be improved.
EFF supported the House’s Innovation Act through its passage in 2013. Unfortunately, the Senate did not respond with a bill worth fighting for. This year, though, not only is the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) back, but the Senate has responded with its own comprehensive legislation—the PATENT Act (S. 1137).
The "Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015" includes some much-needed reforms, and EFF supports its passage.
Here’s what we like about the PATENT Act—and what we think could be improved.
How to Fix the Software Patent Mess: Go Back to Basics
Not all patents that are granted foster innovation. Indeed, after
experiencing the mischief arising from undeserved privileges bestowed by
the British Crown, the U.S. founders deemed the concept of patents to
be a public embarrassment.
[...] the authors of the U.S. Constitution thought it worthwhile to accept such embarrassment in return for a patent system that would “promote the useful arts.” The term, useful arts, as used at the time, referred to practical knowledge, in distinction to the performing or fine arts. In crafting the provision for patents found in Article I of the Constitution, they effectively directed that the government be “stingy” in granting patents, issuing such exclusive rights only when it would promote important practical knowledge.
Bradley J Hilbert IP Watchdog
[...] the authors of the U.S. Constitution thought it worthwhile to accept such embarrassment in return for a patent system that would “promote the useful arts.” The term, useful arts, as used at the time, referred to practical knowledge, in distinction to the performing or fine arts. In crafting the provision for patents found in Article I of the Constitution, they effectively directed that the government be “stingy” in granting patents, issuing such exclusive rights only when it would promote important practical knowledge.
Bradley J Hilbert IP Watchdog
Apple’s HealthKit Faces Patent Lawsuit
Apple has been sued for patent infringement regarding HealthKit
technology by New Jersey-based LMG 3 Marketing and Development Corp which holds two patents related to the digitization and storage of a patient’s medical records on a mobile device. Those patents were granted in 2002, 12 years before Apple unveiled HealthKit and a slew of mobile apps aimed at health care providers.
Much of the new tools similarly digitize and store patient records for easy access by those providers. LMG 3 claims that Apple touted the adoption of these tools by major health care institutions, some of which had already been approached by LMG 3 with its technology.
Much of the new tools similarly digitize and store patient records for easy access by those providers. LMG 3 claims that Apple touted the adoption of these tools by major health care institutions, some of which had already been approached by LMG 3 with its technology.
Einstein Medical, Inc. Announces Pending Patent of CMS "Lucid"
Exactly how this isn't either prior art or published far too long ago eludes me, but they are making the claims:
Einstein developed the LUCID CMS® because it identified a need for software that would allow a medical practice to manage its website in a cost-effective and timely manner. The company has continued to refine the software and build compatible applications to keep up with the changing needs of the healthcare industry and the evolving standards of the Internet. The name LUCID CMS® was successfully trademarked by the company earlier this year.
Einstein Medical, Inc., a leading provider of Internet marketing strategies to elective healthcare professionals, has submitted a patent application for its proprietary LUCID CMS®(content management system) software
Patents in Indonesia
Software cannot be patented in Indonesia. The Patent Law specifically excludes rules and methods of doing business, as well as rules and methods concerning computer programs, from the definition of ‘invention’.
In practice, inventions consisting of computer software that are combined with hardware and result in a technical contribution outside the prior art can be patented.
OpenTV Sues Apple, Alleging Patent Infringement
Interactive television pioneer OpenTV has sued Apple, alleging that the Cupertino technology giant infringed on its patents. The civil suit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, alleges that several Apple products and services violate five of OpenTV’s patents related to streaming digital video. The San Francisco company is asking the court to award it unspecified compensation for Apple’s alleged infringement.Meanwhile, other reports include:
Interactive television pioneer OpenTV has sued Apple, alleging that the Cupertino technology giant infringed on its patents. The civil suit, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court, alleges that several Apple products and services violate five of OpenTV’s patents related to streaming digital video. The San Francisco company is asking the court to award it unspecified compensation for Apple’s alleged infringement.Background
OpenTV was an early entrant in the arena of digital television industry, it provides middleware, which enables set top boxes to be interactive with the users. The company’s software was among the first few to provide Internet browser in TV. Presently, OpenTV is providing software solutions that enable video on-demand services and digital video recorders. In accordance with the complaint filed by the firm in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, OpenTV is asking the court to grant it undisclosed compensation for Apple’s alleged infringement. These patents were registered by the OpenTV in 1990s and early 2000s.
Tuesday, May 05, 2015
MS offers to cut patent fees for Samsung, LG
Microsoft (MS) has offered to cut annual patent fees for Samsung and LG Electronics, sources said Monday. "MS approached Samsung and LG Electronics to provide them with sizable discounts to the licensing fees in an attempt to sell more of its cloud computing and software products," a source said.
"MS also has a competitive Google Android patent portfolio. MS is trying to crack down on Google's dominance by promoting its software to be used in companies and consumers to leading smartphone manufacturers. MS exactly knows what its clients want and I believe this company is really smart," said another source.
In the case of Samsung, the world's biggest smartphone vendor decided to install MS's office programs such as OneDrive on its Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge devices. Both of them are powered by the Google Android system.
Samsung said it paid about 1 trillion won to MS for patent fees in 2013. Samsung paid between $2.6 and $2.7 to MS for fees on every Samsung tablet and smartphone that are sold.
"MS also has a competitive Google Android patent portfolio. MS is trying to crack down on Google's dominance by promoting its software to be used in companies and consumers to leading smartphone manufacturers. MS exactly knows what its clients want and I believe this company is really smart," said another source.
In the case of Samsung, the world's biggest smartphone vendor decided to install MS's office programs such as OneDrive on its Galaxy S6 and S6 Edge devices. Both of them are powered by the Google Android system.
Samsung said it paid about 1 trillion won to MS for patent fees in 2013. Samsung paid between $2.6 and $2.7 to MS for fees on every Samsung tablet and smartphone that are sold.
Bitcoin API provider BitGo Commits to Defensive Patenting
The Bitcoin API provider, BitGo, recently received backlash for filing a patent for multi-sig technology the company developed. BitGo responded by announcing their adoption of the Innovator's Patent Agreement, which eliminates the ability for the company to use patents “offensively.” The company has continued to show their support for free technology by open sourcing their Chrome app today.
BitGo Co-Founder Michael Belshe, commented on the Reddit
post, “First off, note that I also was the co-inventor of spdy, which
has just recently become http/2.0. During the course of creating spdy,
we filed a slew of patents. I, and the other engineers on the spdy team,
all made sure that google was willing to give that IP away for free
before we filed the patents. [...] Google came through on its promise to
give away the IP.”
“We recognize the value of making technology open, mitigated with the reality that all your competitors have patents too. ” - Michael Belshe
Monday, May 04, 2015
Google collects patents despite lobbying against them
Despite what Google lobbyists may say in Washington, DC, the company has always supported a strong patent system, at least for themselves.
It’s great to see that the company, which popularized the corporate catchphrase “Don’t Be Evil”, is taking action and getting vocal about making the patent system better. It’s just not a sure thing that will happen, and actually, it should be pointed out that this system at least flirts with the idea of draining intellectual property from innovators under the guise of restoring stability to the patent system. The HBO television show Silicon Valley used a very unsavory term for a tech company trying to learn more about a patented technology which they want to develop without licensing: “brain raping.”
Of course, if this is the company that still intends to not be evil, none of this will ever be a problem. But it is hard to forget that Google also promised not to be evil with the patents acquired from Motorola and then subsequently was adjudicated to be a patent troll with respect to those patents.
On its face, the Patent Purchase Promotion program doesn’t look evil, just highly suspicious and wrought with pitfalls.
It’s great to see that the company, which popularized the corporate catchphrase “Don’t Be Evil”, is taking action and getting vocal about making the patent system better. It’s just not a sure thing that will happen, and actually, it should be pointed out that this system at least flirts with the idea of draining intellectual property from innovators under the guise of restoring stability to the patent system. The HBO television show Silicon Valley used a very unsavory term for a tech company trying to learn more about a patented technology which they want to develop without licensing: “brain raping.”
Of course, if this is the company that still intends to not be evil, none of this will ever be a problem. But it is hard to forget that Google also promised not to be evil with the patents acquired from Motorola and then subsequently was adjudicated to be a patent troll with respect to those patents.
On its face, the Patent Purchase Promotion program doesn’t look evil, just highly suspicious and wrought with pitfalls.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
Last Week Tonight’ Host Ignores the Last Three Years of US Patent Reform
In another rebuttal of John Oliver's piece on problems with the US patent system, Michael T. Renaud posted:
"[John Oliver's] reporting posited the idea that the Innovation Act, H.R. 9, working its way through the House of Representatives, would solve most of the problems he identified in our patent system. Far from providing the solutions its proponents claim, that legislation would do little or nothing to limit the sending of bogus demand letters to unsophisticated targets in hopes of extracting nuisance value settlements – a practice that many decry as the most egregious example of patent abuse. Further, Mr. Oliver seems unaware that the last several years have seen judicial action and legislation that address the costs of patent litigation and the vagueness of software patents. Whether these measures are sufficient without additional legislation is up for debate, but John Oliver’s hypothesis is weakened by his reliance on outdated and largely irrelevant facts and data"
Patent troll's bad ethics costs them a case
As it turns out, one patent troll is also really awful at ethics.
Seriously, what kind of shenanigans do you have to be up to for every single member of your in-house legal department and outside law firm to be disqualified from a case?
In 2013, Acacia Research Corp. hired Charlotte Rutherford, who’d worked in the oil industry for years, including, most relevantly for this story, at Schlumberger Limited, the world’s largest oilfield services company. Amongst Acadia’s acquired patents was the ‘319 patent which relates to Schlumberger’s 3-D oil drilling software, Petrel.
Seriously, what kind of shenanigans do you have to be up to for every single member of your in-house legal department and outside law firm to be disqualified from a case?
In 2013, Acacia Research Corp. hired Charlotte Rutherford, who’d worked in the oil industry for years, including, most relevantly for this story, at Schlumberger Limited, the world’s largest oilfield services company. Amongst Acadia’s acquired patents was the ‘319 patent which relates to Schlumberger’s 3-D oil drilling software, Petrel.
BitGo Accused of Seeking Patent of Bitcoin Multisig Technology
Bitcoin wallet company BitGo, Inc. is currently alleged to be making attempts to patent the Bitcoin multisig technology.
The San Francisco based company had submitted a patent request to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on February 4th last year, a document of which was published yesterday, on April 30th 2015. The document reveals BitGo’s application in which it is seeking a patent for a network device that is “configured to receive public keys, over an electronic network, of two or more second public-private keys,” something that is reportedly identical to the multisig functionality.
The San Francisco based company had submitted a patent request to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on February 4th last year, a document of which was published yesterday, on April 30th 2015. The document reveals BitGo’s application in which it is seeking a patent for a network device that is “configured to receive public keys, over an electronic network, of two or more second public-private keys,” something that is reportedly identical to the multisig functionality.
Payment Information Does Not Necessarily Make a Covered Business Method
Addressing the issue of what qualifies as a covered business method (CBM) under the America Invents Act (AIA), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) denied institution of a CBM review, finding the patent was directed to technology that restricts the use of software and had no particular relation to financial products or services. SEGA of Am., Inc. v. Uniloc USA, Inc.
Amazon Web Services earns $5.16 billion despite modest patent portfolio
Amazon is currently disputing two allegations of wrongful patent
infringement filed in U.S. district courts over its AWS business. St.
Louis-based cloud computing startup Appistry is accusing Amazon of infringing two patents which were the topic of discussions between Appistry and Amazon officials between August and September of 2004. U.S. Patent No. 8200746, titled System and Method for Territory-Based Processing of Information,
claims an information processing system comprised of a plurality of
networked hive engines grouped into a plurality of territories, the hive
engines configured to receive processing job requests. The distribution
of processing jobs within particular territories is advantageous for
the reliability and performance of cloud processing.
Amazon is also facing suit from ZitoVault, LLC, over a patent related to AWS’s Elastic Compute Cloud and Virtual Private Cloud products, among other Amazon cloud offerings. U.S. Patent No. 6484257, titled System and cryptographic sessionsMethod for Maintaining N Number of Simultaneous Cryptographic Sessions Using a Distributed Computing Environment. Issued to solo inventor Alonzo Ellis of San Jose, CA, in November 2002, the patent claims a software architecture for conducting a plurality of cryptographic sessions over a distributed computing environment.
Amazon is also facing suit from ZitoVault, LLC, over a patent related to AWS’s Elastic Compute Cloud and Virtual Private Cloud products, among other Amazon cloud offerings. U.S. Patent No. 6484257, titled System and cryptographic sessionsMethod for Maintaining N Number of Simultaneous Cryptographic Sessions Using a Distributed Computing Environment. Issued to solo inventor Alonzo Ellis of San Jose, CA, in November 2002, the patent claims a software architecture for conducting a plurality of cryptographic sessions over a distributed computing environment.
Friday, May 01, 2015
A New Index of US Copyright Fair Use Cases
Slightly off topic for this blog but I just wanted to mention the U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index.
"This Fair Use Index is a project undertaken by the Office of the Register in support of the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC).
"Fair use is a longstanding and vital aspect of American copyright law. The goal of the Index is to make the principles and application of fair use more accessible and understandable to the public by presenting a searchable database of court opinions, including by category and type of use (e.g., music, internet/digitization, parody).
"The Fair Use Index tracks a variety of judicial decisions to help both lawyers and non-lawyers better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. The decisions span multiple federal jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit courts of appeal, and district courts. Please note that while the Index incorporates a broad selection of cases, it does not include all judicial opinions on fair use. The Copyright Office will update and expand the Index periodically."
I found a pointer to this on Wondermark comic site. They note:
"The Index itself is a series of summaries of key legal decisions regarding copyright and fair use, largely from the last sixty years.
"The Fair Use Index includes some watershed copyright cases, such as 1978′s Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, the precedent that defines the infringement threshold for copying copyrighted characters for “parody” purposes. It might be said that under the Air Pirates test, the entire product line of the t-shirt website TeeFury is illegal, and I notice that very conveniently, most of their designs are only available in strictly limited, before-they-can-send-us-a-cease-and-desist editions."
"This Fair Use Index is a project undertaken by the Office of the Register in support of the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement of the Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC).
"Fair use is a longstanding and vital aspect of American copyright law. The goal of the Index is to make the principles and application of fair use more accessible and understandable to the public by presenting a searchable database of court opinions, including by category and type of use (e.g., music, internet/digitization, parody).
"The Fair Use Index tracks a variety of judicial decisions to help both lawyers and non-lawyers better understand the types of uses courts have previously determined to be fair—or not fair. The decisions span multiple federal jurisdictions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit courts of appeal, and district courts. Please note that while the Index incorporates a broad selection of cases, it does not include all judicial opinions on fair use. The Copyright Office will update and expand the Index periodically."
I found a pointer to this on Wondermark comic site. They note:
"The Index itself is a series of summaries of key legal decisions regarding copyright and fair use, largely from the last sixty years.
"The Fair Use Index includes some watershed copyright cases, such as 1978′s Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates, the precedent that defines the infringement threshold for copying copyrighted characters for “parody” purposes. It might be said that under the Air Pirates test, the entire product line of the t-shirt website TeeFury is illegal, and I notice that very conveniently, most of their designs are only available in strictly limited, before-they-can-send-us-a-cease-and-desist editions."
Patent on sending text messages is EFF's stupid patent of the month
Imagine you’re on your way to deliver a case of beer to a party. Before you get there, your boss sends you a text: They want 2 cases now.
You read the text while driving (don’t do that), so you deliver an
extra case when you arrive. Having successfully completed that task, you
leave for your next delivery.
Congratulations! You might get sued by the owner of April’s stupid patent of the month.
Eclipse owns a patent family of more than 20 patents, all of which claim priority back to a single 2003 provisional application. These patents claim various closely related “notification systems.” Eclipse interprets its patents very broadly and has asserted them against a wide range of mundane business practices. For example, in January it sent a letter claiming that Tiger Fitness infringes one of these patents by sending emails to customers updating them about the status of orders. This letter explains that “Eclipse IP aggressively litigates patent infringement lawsuits” and that “litigation is expensive and time consuming.” The letter demands a $45,000 payment.
We think that all of Eclipse’s patents deserve a stupid patent of the month award. But the ’334 patent is especially deserving. This is because the Patent Office issued this patent after a federal court invalidated similar claims from other patents in the same family. On September 4, 2014, Judge Wu of the Central District of California issued an order invalidating claims from three of Eclipse’s patents. The court explained that these patents claim abstract ideas like checking to see if a task has been completed. Judge Wu applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice v CLS Bank and held the claims invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Creative Comons By Electronic Frontier Foundation
Congratulations! You might get sued by the owner of April’s stupid patent of the month.
Eclipse owns a patent family of more than 20 patents, all of which claim priority back to a single 2003 provisional application. These patents claim various closely related “notification systems.” Eclipse interprets its patents very broadly and has asserted them against a wide range of mundane business practices. For example, in January it sent a letter claiming that Tiger Fitness infringes one of these patents by sending emails to customers updating them about the status of orders. This letter explains that “Eclipse IP aggressively litigates patent infringement lawsuits” and that “litigation is expensive and time consuming.” The letter demands a $45,000 payment.
We think that all of Eclipse’s patents deserve a stupid patent of the month award. But the ’334 patent is especially deserving. This is because the Patent Office issued this patent after a federal court invalidated similar claims from other patents in the same family. On September 4, 2014, Judge Wu of the Central District of California issued an order invalidating claims from three of Eclipse’s patents. The court explained that these patents claim abstract ideas like checking to see if a task has been completed. Judge Wu applied the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice v CLS Bank and held the claims invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act.
Creative Comons By Electronic Frontier Foundation
Big companies are stopping US Congress from fixing their patent system
Trolls aren't the primary problem with the [US] patent system. They're just
the problem Congress is willing to fix. The primary problem with the
patent system is, well, the patent system. The system makes it too easy
to get broad, vague patents, and the litigation process is tilted too
far toward plaintiffs. But because so many big companies make so much
money off of this system, few in Congress are willing to consider
broader reforms.
The problem of large companies exploiting the patent system hasn't gone away. If anything, it's gotten worse as the courts made it easier to get broad, vague patents in the 1990s and early 2000s. A modern example is Microsoft, which has more than 40,000 patents and reportedly earns billions of dollars per year in patent licensing revenues from companies selling Android phones.
The problem of large companies exploiting the patent system hasn't gone away. If anything, it's gotten worse as the courts made it easier to get broad, vague patents in the 1990s and early 2000s. A modern example is Microsoft, which has more than 40,000 patents and reportedly earns billions of dollars per year in patent licensing revenues from companies selling Android phones.
New Taiwanese electronic payments law will encourage patent growth
I'm not sure I understand this article, perhaps it lost something in the translation. It seems to be saying that because Paypal can't operate in Taiwan that patents are difficult to obtain but a change to the electronic banking law may let them operate. -- Bruce
Article at Lexology
Thursday, April 30, 2015
US Senate Is Finally Getting Serious About Slaying Patent Trolls
Patent reform is back in the US Senate, and it's going to be tougher for Harry Reid to get in the way this time.
Seven members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—including Majority Whip John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat—unveiled legislation Wednesday that would overhaul several aspects of the patent-litigation landscape and clamp down on predatory patent-troll behavior.
The contents of the measure are the product of months of deliberations that began in January between Cornyn and Schumer, according to congressional aides close to the process.
US Senate Tees Up Bipartisan Bill Aimed at Patent Litigation
Last year, the US House of Representative cast a strong vote in support of patent reform, specifically for measures intended to clamp down on a flood of patent lawsuits. Corporate defendants, academics and others thought plaintiffs were abusing the court system, filing “nuisance” lawsuits that were likely to trigger quick settlements.
But the Senate’s effort to play ball with the House died amid a flurry of finger-pointing.
Earlier this year, the House reintroduced its bill — the Innovation Act — and Wednesday afternoon, the Senate offered up a companion to the House bill that seems to have bipartisan support among some influential senators.
US Senate Is Finally Getting Serious About Slaying Patent Trolls
Patent reform is back in the US Senate, and it's going to be tougher for Harry Reid to get in the way this time.
Seven members of the Senate Judiciary Committee—including Majority Whip John Cornyn and Chuck Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat—unveiled legislation Wednesday that would overhaul several aspects of the patent-litigation landscape and clamp down on predatory patent-troll behavior.
The contents of the measure are the product of months of deliberations that began in January between Cornyn and Schumer, according to congressional aides close to the process.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
Patent and Copyright Protection for Software API
the Court’s decision revolved mostly around copyright issues, the court acknowledged the potential relationship with patent laws and indicated that computer software may be covered by both copyright and patent laws.
Copyright protection has the potential to be extremely problematic. However, patent protections are equally problematic. In truth, both forms of protection have inherent balancing factors.
Don’t Reward the Patent Troll that Lies in Wait
They "think laches should still be available, and here’s why: patent defendants and copyright defendants are in very different positions when it comes to defending against stale claims. Patent defendants, unlike their copyright counterparts, often defend themselves by showing that the patent owner’s claimed invention was obvious at the time of filing (thus making the patent invalid). But by delaying a lawsuit, a patent owner can make it difficult for the defendant to find what was known back when the application was filed; records get lost through the passage of time."
"Laches should exist in patent law, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella, because this is a place where patent law and copyright law differ. We hope the Federal Circuit recognizes the important differences between copyright law and patent law, and how patent owners, by delaying, seriously impact the ability of an innocent defendant to invalidate bad patents."
"Laches should exist in patent law, despite the Supreme Court’s decision in Petrella, because this is a place where patent law and copyright law differ. We hope the Federal Circuit recognizes the important differences between copyright law and patent law, and how patent owners, by delaying, seriously impact the ability of an innocent defendant to invalidate bad patents."
Microsoft phones face US import ban for patent infringement
Microsoft could be banned from importing a number of its smartphones into the U.S. after it was found guilty of patent infringement.
The software giant used wireless cellular technology owned by InterDigital without permission. U.S. International Trade Commission judge Theodore Essex found Microsoft guilty of infringing two patents owned by InterDigital, which reportedly cover technology that moderates a mobile phone’s power to reduce signal interference.
The software giant used wireless cellular technology owned by InterDigital without permission. U.S. International Trade Commission judge Theodore Essex found Microsoft guilty of infringing two patents owned by InterDigital, which reportedly cover technology that moderates a mobile phone’s power to reduce signal interference.
Tuesday, April 28, 2015
Google wants to buy more patents
Google's public policy blog has announced a "Patent Purchase Promotion" that is a simple, easy to use, and fast experimental marketplace for patents.
"Patent owners sell patents for numerous reasons (such as the need to raise money or changes in a company’s business direction). Unfortunately, the usual patent marketplace can sometimes be challenging, especially for smaller participants who sometimes end up working with patent trolls. Then bad things happen, like lawsuits, lots of wasted effort, and generally bad karma. Rarely does this provide any meaningful benefit to the original patent owner.
"So today we’re announcing the Patent Purchase Promotion as an experiment to remove friction from the patent market. From May 8, 2015 through May 22, 2015, we’ll open a streamlined portal for patent holders to tell Google about patents they’re willing to sell at a price they set. As soon as the portal closes, we’ll review all the submissions, and let the submitters know whether we’re interested in buying their patents by June 26, 2015. If we contact you about purchasing your patent, we’ll work through some additional diligence with you and look to close a transaction in short order. We anticipate everyone we transact with getting paid by late August."
2015 could be the year US Congress takes action on patent trolls
There's a growing problem with patent trolls, the companies that create no products of their own but earn money threatening other companies with patent lawsuits. The problem has become so widespread that even low-tech companies like restaurants and grocery stores have begun lobbying Congress to do something about it.
Now Congress could be on the verge of taking action. On Friday, a Senate aide close to the negotiations told me that a bipartisan group of senators is "very close" to introducing legislation with broad support in the Senate.
Chinese High Court Returns Zhizhen's patent to SIPO
This has been reported on a number of different media site as Apple winning, but this report makes it seem that it has only been returned to SIPO for re-evaluation. Certainly a plus for Apple but if correct then the fight's not over yet.
"Apple was sued in 2012 over these allegations, which prompted it to file a petition in the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China (SIPO). Initially, the case seemed to be in favor of Zhizhen but it was until the last week, when the court asked the SIPO to further probe into the authenticity of the Zhizhen’s patent. "
Monday, April 27, 2015
Rebuttal of John Oliver on patents
A few days back John Oliver's segment on Patents was being reported all across the web. Michael Gulliford of Soryn IP Group, a patent advisory company has written a rebuttal.
"Indeed, if Mr. Oliver wanted to tell the real story of today’s patent world, he would have had plenty of good material. Instead of relying on litigation statistics from 2012, for instance, he could have explained how current patent reform, in making it so much easier and significantly cheaper for defendants to win patent cases, has already caused litigation filings to drop markedly in 2014. After all, no one likes losing money, least of all NPEs.
"At the end of Mr. Oliver’s admittedly humorous diatribe, we learn his real motivation: passage of the Innovation Act (HR 9) — the patent reform bill currently pending in the House that would no doubt benefit Mr. Oliver’s employers.
"But even here, Mr. Oliver strongly misses the mark. It is not trial lawyers who are blocking the Innovation Act, as Mr. Oliver claims. Rather, it is a large swath of the technology community — from universities, to technology companies, to small businesses, to professors, and even venture capitalists — who understand that many innovators are now at a breaking point when it comes to patent rights and that the potential for further unintended consequences via additional reform is just too great."
U.S. Patent Filings Rising Again, After Brief Dip
USA Patent litigation is once again on the rise after what now appears to be an only temporary dip in 2014.
There were 1,443 patent filings in the first quarter this year, according to an analysis by Unified Patents, which hand sorts out duplicate filings. Unified is an advocacy organization with the stated goal of deterring frivolous patent litigation.
If present trends continue, there would be an estimated 5772 filings for calendar 2015, a 15% increase over the previous year, when Unified reported there were 5,002 suits.
Patent litigation filings have been up and down in recent years, with a record high of more than 6,000 filings in 2013. In 2014, however, patent litigation declined slightly for a variety of reasons.
If present trends continue, there would be an estimated 5772 filings for calendar 2015, a 15% increase over the previous year, when Unified reported there were 5,002 suits.
Patent litigation filings have been up and down in recent years, with a record high of more than 6,000 filings in 2013. In 2014, however, patent litigation declined slightly for a variety of reasons.
Trend Micro Vindicated in U.S. District Court Ruling on Patent Infringement Claims by Intellectual Ventures
Trend Micro announced Wednesday that Judge Leonard Stark for the U.S. District Court of Delaware invalidated two Intellectual Ventures patents that have been asserted against Trend Micro since 2010. Judge Stark ruled that the patents were too abstract and not patent eligible. Trend Micro applauds the court’s decision which voids the need for a trial in early May.
“At Trend Micro, we recognize how important patent rights are for companies who invest millions of dollars in research and development, in addition to the human capital required to create innovative products in a competitive industry like software security,” said Eva Chen, CEO, Trend Micro. “We respect the judge’s decision that patents should protect new, original thinking and generic or abstract ideas do not become patentable merely because they are embodied in software. This validation is positive for our entire industry.”
Intellectual Ventures sued Trend Micro in 2010, seeking $150 million for its alleged infringement of U.S. Patents 6,460,050 (‘050) and 6,073,142 (‘142), along with two other patents that are no longer being asserted against Trend Micro. The ‘050 patent concerns generation of a digital identifier for email messages through a method of filtering. The ‘142 patent describes an “automated post office” which allows for the analyzing and filtering of vetted emails recognized to be unsafe.
“At Trend Micro, we recognize how important patent rights are for companies who invest millions of dollars in research and development, in addition to the human capital required to create innovative products in a competitive industry like software security,” said Eva Chen, CEO, Trend Micro. “We respect the judge’s decision that patents should protect new, original thinking and generic or abstract ideas do not become patentable merely because they are embodied in software. This validation is positive for our entire industry.”
Intellectual Ventures sued Trend Micro in 2010, seeking $150 million for its alleged infringement of U.S. Patents 6,460,050 (‘050) and 6,073,142 (‘142), along with two other patents that are no longer being asserted against Trend Micro. The ‘050 patent concerns generation of a digital identifier for email messages through a method of filtering. The ‘142 patent describes an “automated post office” which allows for the analyzing and filtering of vetted emails recognized to be unsafe.
Friday, April 24, 2015
The Basics Of Open Patent Licensing
A new trio of open patent licenses can help encourage innovation, discourage patent trolls and help companies attract top engineering talent. These licenses aren’t just for open-source romantics. They are practical legal tools used by software companies like Google, Twitter and Dropbox.
Last month, Eric Adler gathered a panel of experts at General Assembly in NYC to talk about open patent licenses. Here’s what he learned.
Software to automate patent application process launched by startup
Patent Navigation this week launched TurboPatent, a cloud-based tool that automates the patent application production and prosecution process and is designed to minimize time, expenses, and mistakes for attorneys who prepare patent applications.
The idea is to allow lawyers to focus on drafting robust claims, rather than tasks like formatting or document preparation, for example. The company said it is “doing for the patent attorney what CAD did for the architect.”
“Unlike so many other professions, patent attorneys have not had an automated solution,” CEO James Billmaier said in a statement. “Think about it — no architectural or engineering firm could remain competitive without utilizing CAD tools. We want legal professionals to benefit from automation tools in the same way.”
The idea is to allow lawyers to focus on drafting robust claims, rather than tasks like formatting or document preparation, for example. The company said it is “doing for the patent attorney what CAD did for the architect.”
“Unlike so many other professions, patent attorneys have not had an automated solution,” CEO James Billmaier said in a statement. “Think about it — no architectural or engineering firm could remain competitive without utilizing CAD tools. We want legal professionals to benefit from automation tools in the same way.”
John Oliver: Innovation Act vs Strong patents act
"It’s great that John Oliver brought the subject of patent trolls, about which IPWatchdog has already produced some considerable coverage, to an audience that topped 1.4 million viewers. But there are a significant number of stakeholders in the ongoing patent debate who are not in favor of the Innovation Act and they’re not, as John Oliver would have you believe, simply lobbyists for trial lawyers. For example, the Innovation Alliance, which is made up of innovator companies, does not support the Innovation Act. Neither do independent inventor groups, independent inventors, innovative startup companies, biotechnology companies or universities. If John Oliver is for helping small business victims of patent trolls while preserving patent rights he should actually be promoting the STRONG Patents Act and not the Innovation Act.
"Much of the small business community that Oliver purports to be speaking for is in favor of the STRONG Patents Act instead of the Innovation Act."
"Much of the small business community that Oliver purports to be speaking for is in favor of the STRONG Patents Act instead of the Innovation Act."
Thursday, April 23, 2015
U.S. judge cancels patents on eve of Trend Micro trial
A U.S. judge has invalidated two patents owned by Intellectual Ventures just weeks before its lawsuit against Japanese security software provider Trend Micro Inc over the same patents was set to go to trial.
U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark in Delaware said on Wednesday the two patents were too abstract to deserve legal protection.
The ruling likely means Intellectual Ventures' infringement trial with Trend Micro will not proceed.
Trolling for an Inventive Method for Patent Enforcement
Much of the discussion of the “patent troll” surrounds how exactly a “patent troll” is defined. Some refer to patent trolls as “non-practicing entities,” and others to “patent assertion entities.” These sound in the media like lazy, menacing, evil, money-grubbing corporate shells waiting for their crossing fee from under the bridge – and surely there are some of those. But that “patent troll” definition can also appear as an independent inventor who doesn’t make, use, or sell his invention. Maybe that inventor’s idea was stolen by another company that now makes, uses, or sells it. Before filing a lawsuit, he may set up a corporate entity to hold the asset to help protect him from personal liability or fund the litigation. Patent litigation is expensive and shouldn’t that right be afforded to everyone? Otherwise wouldn’t the Apples and the Samsungs be the only ones skating in the rocket docket of Marshall, TX? We need to think very carefully about how we define “patent troll” before we try to make it unjustly hard for so-called trolls to litigate.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Techdirt Podcast Episode 21: How The Patent System Can Be Fixed
Last week, podcast co-host and patent attorney Hersh Reddy helped [Techdirt] navigate the many ways in which the patent system is broken. This week, we turn our attentions to the ways in which it might be fixed, whether by small changes or sweeping reforms.
For music, they've got more of Destroy All Patent Trolls by Jonathan Mann (CC-BY).
For music, they've got more of Destroy All Patent Trolls by Jonathan Mann (CC-BY).
Apple wins voice recognition patent case in China
The
patent infringement dispute between Apple and Zhizhen goes back to June
2012, when Zhizhen, developer of speech recognition technology Xiao i
Robot, filed a case against Apple for infringement of intellectual
property rights, claiming that Siri technology violates its patent for
"a type of instant messaging chat robot system."
Xiao i Robot, which began in 2003 as a chat bot for MSN, Yahoo Messenger and other chat programs, has expanded to iOS and Android, where it bears a striking resemblence to Siri.
At the same time, Apple applied to the Patent Review Committee under the State Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the Xiao i Robot patent. When the committee supported Xiao i Robot, the US-based tech giant sued the committee and the Shanghai company.
Xiao i Robot, which began in 2003 as a chat bot for MSN, Yahoo Messenger and other chat programs, has expanded to iOS and Android, where it bears a striking resemblence to Siri.
At the same time, Apple applied to the Patent Review Committee under the State Intellectual Property Office to invalidate the Xiao i Robot patent. When the committee supported Xiao i Robot, the US-based tech giant sued the committee and the Shanghai company.
[As I found multiple copies online, I believe this story is syndicated. As this seems to be a major news site I presume I'm crediting a legitimate reprint -- Bruce Clement]
US software copyright registration is game changer
Israeli website Globes English published this claim that US copyright is an alternative to patent registration:
"Every Israeli software company should protect their software with registered US copyrights, says Adv. Mitchell Shelowitz.
"Global software leaders, Including Oracle, Sony, Adobe, Microsoft, SAP, Apple, and Amazon recognize the importance of US software copyrights and have registered thousands. Every Israeli software company should also protect their software with registered US copyrights.
" While Israeli companies are leaders in encryption, network protection, and cyber security, many companies do not realize that their most valuable software assets are dangerously exposed to theft and misuse. Due to a confluence of very recent events, the US legal landscape for software protection has been completely reshuffled - placing US copyrights as the vanguard for software protection."
Tuesday, April 21, 2015
How east Texas became the epicenter for 'patent troll' lawsuits
Of the 4,070 patent lawsuits filed in the USA in 2012, 3,000 of them were of the trolling kind. East Texas seems to be a particular popular spot for these types of cases. Apple alone has been sued 84 times in area patent courts in the last six years, Chron.com reported in March.
A quarter of all patent cases are filed in the East Texas city of Marshall, according to Last Week Tonight. But this is not a community of regular Einsteins.
Patent holders have a higher winning percentage here than in other parts of the country (Most cases are settled out of court since it costs millions of dollars to defend a patent suit). The number of patent infringement cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has skyrocketed since 2002.
A quarter of all patent cases are filed in the East Texas city of Marshall, according to Last Week Tonight. But this is not a community of regular Einsteins.
Patent holders have a higher winning percentage here than in other parts of the country (Most cases are settled out of court since it costs millions of dollars to defend a patent suit). The number of patent infringement cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas has skyrocketed since 2002.
Patent trolls are out of control. John Oliver explains why.
This is currently all over the internet. Heres' a couple of references to it.
"If you’re creating a new technology or have a business idea beware. Patent trolls are everywhere.
"HBO’s Last Week Tonight with John Oliver took on the world of companies that fish for other companies to sue for infringing on their patents, or, as Oliver puts it, “legally binding dibs,” in this segment on “patent trolls.”"
"A lot of people have credited a John Oliver segment for catalyzing a successful grassroots effort to get the Federal Communications Commission to institute strong network neutrality rules back in February. In yesterday's show, Oliver tried to get the same results with another tech policy issue: patent trolls and the broad software patents they use to shake down the American economy. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)