Post 28 Deer Stomp Simulator

Among many silly patents, this U.S. Patent 6,889,466 - the Deer Stomp Simulator for hunting lovers is   one of the best to illustrate even registered patents approved by USPTO can violate some essential concept of the definition of patent.

First let's take a look on the abstract of this patent: "a device for imitating the sound of a footfall or stomp of an animal. The device includes a blunt for selectively striking the ground. The blunt can be engaged with a spring and an anchor. A cord can be attached to the spring to draw the blunt back from the ground. The cord can be released and the energy stored in the spring can move the blunt to strike the ground."

The first claim will give us more insight on what this patent is trying to achieve: "1. An apparatus for attracting an animal comprising: means for generating a sound imitating the sound of a footfall of the animal..."

Sounds simple enough right? You drop an object from height to the ground to create sound that resembles the "stomp of deer." Without a second thought, this patent is obvious. That violates the concept of utility patents that they should be non-obvious. Moreover, without any significant of technology implemented into this patent (only a spring with an anchor), this patent is obviously not novel.

This patent seems less legit when we are discussing the usefulness of its application. The idea is to  lure animals (which claimed to be deer) by the sound create by this "Deer Stomp Simulator" because "stomping can occur as a form of communication which can provide a male the opportunity to encounter a female for the purpose of mating." Without debating whether the fact that this simulator indeed simulate the stomp of deer instead of something else (you hope it won't attract bear, or Bigfoot, right?), the statement the inventor made on "stomping can be a form of communication" lacks scientific supports. How can a patent be built on a theory that hasn't been scientifically confirmed yet? Well, then you know how silly this patent is.

Post 27 A preliminary injunction against HTC One in Netherlands by Nokia due to dual-membrane microphones chip

I would like to share this news although there's nothing related to the assignment for this week regarding to useless patents. In fact, the case I am going to discuss doesn't directly related to patent. But it shows injunction can be issued with reasons other than patent infringement.

A week ago, the Amsterdam district court in Netherlands has granted Nokia’s request to block sales of the latest HTC One in the Netherlands market due to the dual-membrane microphones used in HTC’s flagship phone. According to the source, ST Microelectronics was contracted to invent and manufacture the microphone technology and chip exclusively for Nokia. The contract gives Nokia 12 months exclusivity on the microphone chips, but there was a misunderstanding over when the exclusivity deal was set to begin. Since the Lumia 720 was the first Nokia phone to use the chip, the courts have ruled that Nokia has exclusive rights to the technology until February of 2014. While the HTC One uses same microphone chip used by the Nokia Lumia 720, it is believed that ST Microelectronics should be the party to blame to sell products to both Nokia and HTC. Based on this HTC could not do anything but to give up the whole Netherlands market:

“HTC is disappointed in the decision. We are considering whether it will have any impact on our business and we will explore alternative solutions immediately.” -HTC

I am more interested about the fact that Nokia does not own any patents regarding the microphone chips it uses in their Lumia 720, but yet able to pull an injunction on HTC One. The non-disclosure agreement (NDA) between Nokia and ST Microelectronic has given Nokia the power to prevent any 3rd party using that chip. In that sense, the concept was very similar to obtaining a temporary less powerful version of patent (12 month period of exclusivity with legal power to put injunction on products using relevant technology). Obviously now you don't have to be the inventor(s) to own this exclusivity, and this method is a lot cheaper than obtaining the patent of the chip itself. I am really amazed by this kind of agreement, in which I think would be an attractive alternative to tech companies that refused to spend too much on patents.

Same microphone chip is used in Nokia Lumia 720 and HTC One

Post 26 Bad news continues for Motorola with ITC Sides With Apple in Mobile Phone Sensor Patent Dispute

The recent ruling on the patent dispute between Apple and Motorola at ITC has ended in favor of Apple. The ruling dismissed the appeal for patent claims by Google's Motorola Mobility against Apple's iPhone. If Motorola had prevailed, the ITC could have instituted a ban on imports of the iPhone into the United States from Apple's manufacturers in China.

The fact that ITC Judge Thomas Pender invalidated the final patent in the dispute last year did not stop Motorola to regroup and appeal again for the case. Motorola are complaining Apple's violation of U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862 on a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device." The patent relates to the feature that a touch screen ignores touches if the user is on a phone call and holds the device close to his head, which is widely used in all generations of iPhone (and in fact, all smartphones nowadays can be found using similar patents). Judge Pender ruled that Motorola could not patent a sensor that prevents unintended hang-ups and application launches when the phone is close to a person's face because of its similarity to other patents on the market. That is a successful use of prior art search by Apple to defend themselves.

In its appeal of that ruling Motorola argued that it filed the patent in 1999 before mobile touch-screen devices were prevalent in the market. The company also said in its appeal that Apple co-founder Steve Jobs himself called the sensor a "breakthrough," though Apple countered that Jobs wasn't talking about the sensor patent directly.

However, the ITC ended its investigation Monday and sided with Apple's arguments that the sensor patent is invalid dude to its lack of inventiveness. And Google would have to overcome two obviousness theories involving "the same patent and found the patent obvious over the earlier-filed Motorola patent in combination with either common general knowledge or another patent." Of course Google's Motorola can still appeal to this decision, but what in chances they can win? This case seemed just to be done for the time.

Post 25 Microsoft may still need to pay Motorola, but not the rate Motorola wants

Google's Motorola was dealt a setback this week for pursuing royalty payments from Microsoft for sales of Windows and the Xbox. U.S. District Judge James Robart handed down an opinion that laid out how much Microsoft should pay for using technology patented by Motorola in its products - and it was A LOT less than what Motorola expected.

The Judge announced that Microsoft only needs to pay 3.471 cents for each product sold that use a wireless patent (in the Xbox) and even less for products that use advanced video coding patents (in Windows and Xbox) - a mere 0.555 cents. Just make Xbox360 as an example: in Amazon, the 4 GB version of Xbox360 are selling at the price $179.99. That means under this court decision, Microsoft only need to pay 0.0223% of the selling price of Xbox360, which is widely below the 2.25 percent per product originally requested by Motorola. This figure can clearly show how badly Motorola lose in this lawsuit:

Back in Oct. 2010, Motorola offered to license the 802.11 and H.264 patents to Microsoft at a rate of 2.25 percent per product sold. Microsoft, however, argued that the rate was unreasonable and filed suit, and the two have been at loggerheads ever since. After 3 years of litigation, Motorola really got close to nothing in return. This simply shows how much risk is there in patent litigation for patent holder, if the patent user feels the licence is too pricey and rather prefers litigation.

Post 24 The Collapse of the Last Stand: ITC orders import ban against Motorola Android devices that infringe a Microsoft patent

Microsoft aggressive legal actions regarding to patent infringement of Android devices had rewarded Microsoft with another huge success. First, the USITC ordered an import ban against all Android-based Motorola Mobility devices that infringe a particular Microsoft patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,370,566 on "generating meeting requests and group scheduling from a mobile device" yesterday. Second, the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany just announced its finding today that Google's Motorola Mobility is not entitled to an injunction against Microsoft over its push notification patent because Google owes Microsoft a license under an ActiveSync license agreement. Both rulings shows Microsoft is winning "offensively" and "defensively."

According to Microsoft, more than 70 percent of all Android smartphones sold in the United States now have a license to its patent portfolio. Motorola is the only Android device maker to be embroiled in litigation with Microsoft at this stage. Microsoft recently settled an Android patent dispute with Barnes & Noble, which also resulted in a license agreement. With these two rulings against Motorola Mobility, I would picture that the result of patent lawsuits among Microsoft and Android phone OEMs are eventually sliding in favor of Microsoft. Even though I think FOSS patent blog's author, Florain Mueller's statement is exaggerated,  "Android device makers have had zero benefit -- precisely zero -- from Google's $12.5 billion Motorola deal," I agree that the failure of Google's ability to deter third-party patent holders such as Apple, Microsoft and Nokia from winning patent lawsuits really creates confidence issues with Android devices OEMs. I am very curious what Google would do to re-establish the confidence for Android devices OEMs to fight against Microsoft.


Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/05/itc-orders-import-ban-against-motorola.html

Post 23 Microsoft, Foxconn ink patent licensing deal

According to EE Times, Microsoft had recently made a worldwide patent licensing agreement with Taiwan's Hon Hai Precision Co., the parent company of electronics contract manufacturer Foxconn. As many of you may know, Foxconn is the primary manufacturer of Apple's products. But the deal, in fact, is subjected to devices running the Android and Chrome OS, including smartphones, tablets and televisions built by Foxconn. Microsoft said it would receive unspecified royalties from Hon Hai under the agreement.

Microsoft has been aggressive in threatening legal action against handset OEMs. It's known that HTC, Acer, LG Electronics and Samsung Electronics have already agreed to pay Microsoft royalties on Android-based phones. Only Motorola Mobility, a direct subsidiary of Google, is fighting Microsoft in court over patents.  Many believes that Foxconn may have agreed to the deal because it hopes to become an OEM eventually, making its own branded products. HTC took such a path—starting as a contract manufacturer before eventually making its own successful handsets. Foxconn knows that they are building products for customers that are being sued by Microsoft, and they may potentially develop their own products with these patents involved. As for Microsoft, Foxconn is an easy target since Google doesn't sell their OS and apps. There’s no percentage of any revenue that can be usefully charged for having violated Microsoft patents. Here is the quote from the director of IP department at Hon Hai regard to the patent licensing deal:

"We recognize and respect the importance of international efforts that seek to protect intellectual property," said Samuel Fu, director of the intellectual property department at Hon Hai, in a statement. "The licensing agreement with Microsoft represents those efforts and our continued support of international trade agreements that facilitate implementation of effective patent protection."

I think this agreement is a huge sucess to Microsoft's Android licensing program. Without a very time and capital consuming patent lawsuits, Hon Hai has demonstrated the effectiveness and the global reach of the program. I certainly believe that Microsoft will have its next target very soon. It's just a matter of fact whether its next target would follow many Android phones OEMs instead of launching another "patent war."



Source: http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4412249/Microsoft--Foxconn-ink-patent-licensing-deal

Post 22 Updates on Google vs. Microsoft and Apple vs. Samsung ITC cases

According to FOSS patent blog, four petitions for review have been filed to the ITC this week in connection with the investigations of Google's (Motorola Mobility) complaint against Microsoft's Xbox gaming console and of Apple's complaint against Samsung.

First, Google's Motorola Mobility continues pursuing an Xbox import ban over a WiFi-related patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,069,896. Meanwhile, has filed a contingent petition for review. From the blog, Mueller explained "Contingent" means that Microsoft prefers the case to be closed on the current basis, but if the Commission decides to review the remand ID at all, Microsoft wants at least one additional issue to be reviewed.

On the other hand, Samsung is seeking a review of Apple's recent win concerning two more patent claims being found infringed by Android's text selection, which I discussed in Post 20 last week. Apple further brought a petition for review on the infringement on U.S. Patent No. 7,912,501. The patent regards to the "audio I/O headset plug and plug detection circuitry." In fact, this patent may be so common that it involves all electronic devices that have headset plugs (including MP3 players, or even laptops with headset plugs). While the patent is widely used, Apple currently used it only to against Samsung's Spirit product, the "Samsung Transform."

So that's all the updates about ITC cases of Google vs. Microsoft and Apple vs. Samsung. Since ITC process their petitions relatively quickly, I think there would be more update on these cases in the coming week.

     

Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/petitions-for-review-filed-in-google.html