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

Post 21 Apple Patent envisions Wireless Charging on convertible laptop

According to CNET, Apple's proposed new patent was published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Apirl 4. This patent implies that Apple is now developing technologies that may be applied to the next generation convertible MacBook-iPad hybrid device.

The patent application titled "Wireless display for electronic devices" reveals a convertible device technology between its laptop form and its hand-held tablet form. Not only the patent describes the convertible devices functions such as wireless transmission of data between the base and the display, it also reveals that power can be supply from the base "wirelessly" to the display. Here is the original abstract:

"A computer including a base and a display selectively removable from the base. The base includes a processor, a base wireless chip, and a power source. The display includes a screen for displaying a video output, a display wireless chip in communicating with the base wireless chip, and a power wireless chip in communication with the power source. The base wireless chip transmits data from the processor to the display. Also, when the display is at least in one position with respect to the base, the power source transmits power to the power transition member of the display."

This sounds like a fascinating idea, but I have to say that this patent sounds more like a combo of multiple existing technologies. First, convertible devices is obviously very common in the market:

Lenovo IdeaTab Lynx

But wait, the patent also includes the functionality of charging the display wirelessly by the base station. Well, that is not sometime new on electronic devices either:

Nokia Lumia 920

The only new things that sounds more innovative is the function that "base wireless chip transmits data from the processor to the display." This function can be implement as a pure display device that acts like a "TV display" which solely relies on the transmitted data "broadcast" by the base station. It means all the computation and data processing was done by the base station. If the patent is intended to create this type of devices, then I think the possibility of the approval of this patent application is pretty high. Yet only a question left, how can a patent like this not infringing the patents that involves convertible devices and wireless charging? Is this patent application legit? What do you think?


Source: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57578054-37/apple-patent-envisions-wireless-charging-on-convertible-laptop/

Post 20 More Details on Apple vs. Samsung ITC Case

Last week I've covered the ITC case where Apple seeks full injunction against Samsung. Now FOSS Patent Blog has more updates on the case. According to the blog, the Android's text selection function may infringe two more claims of an Apple patent.

The first one would be U.S. Patent No. RE41,922 on a "method and apparatus for providing translucent images on a computer display" was found infringing by Samsung's Android devices, particularly through the text selection feature of the Android Browser application and the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery. However, ITC Judge Pender cleared Samsung's "design-around products." So Samsung may reduce the amount of products that may face banning from ITC.

The author of FOSS Patent Blog, Florian Mueller, suggested a minor oversight on Judge Pender's decision on RE'922 patent. He disagree with the Judge's decision of  no infringement of claims 34 and 35 by the text selection feature because "claim 33 is not infringed." According to Mueller, "feature to infringe claim 33" was found in Samsung's product, thus claims 34 and 35, which are derived from claim 33, should be considered to be infringed.

I think that is a legit argument that if the following claims are derived from the previous claims, it just takes the infringement of some (not all) features of the previous claims to establish the infringement of the following claims. However, I am also aware that from the lecture, the importance of the claim was put in a descending order, meaning the first few claims are the most important claim of the patent. While features of these main claims can be derived and expanded into the following claims, it's hard to tell if the product really infringe the patent if the main (mother) of the claims are not infringed (not all features on the main claim are infringed). Hence I think ITC Judge's decision is still fairly reasonable.

Post 19 Qualcomm Extends Collaboration with Facebook to Enhance Performance on Facebook for Android

On my previous post, Facebook recently is very active in further development on the Android platform. Now Qualcomm, as the world leader in 3G, 4G and next-generation wireless technologies, extends its collaboration with Facebook to improve performance on the Facebook App for Android.

The improvement will be applied to all Qualcomm Snapdragon-powered devices, which are mainly Android smartphones. Facebook Home optimizations are designed to enable better overall performance, lower power consumption and improved data efficiency for consumers using Facebook Homeand Facebook for Android. The vice president of the mobile & corporate development for Facebook had shared what this collaboration provides:

"By working with Qualcomm Technologies, a leader in the mobile industry, we are able to offer Facebook Home and Facebook for Android utilizing the capabilities of the Snapdragon platforms that power a large portion of commercial 3G/4G devices," said Vaughan Smith, vice president of mobile & corporate development for Facebook. "We are excited about our collaboration with Qualcomm Technologies and our ability to jointly improve consumers' Facebook experiences."

It's not surprise that Facebook are allied with Qualcomm, which is one of the largest patent holders for mobile technologies (In fact, the Qualcomm's licensing business is so huge that it is managed by an independent company). The collaboration would allow Facebook to design its software without worrying too much about patent infringement, which ultimately encourage technological product improvements. 

Post 18 Facebook Phone!?

If you think Samsung, HTC, Motorola and LG would still be the main smartphone bands for android phones in the next few years, you may be wrong. On Mar 28, Facebook invited members of the press to attend a media event at its Silicon Valley headquarters. The invite said, "Come see our new home on Android."

Facebook is working closely with HTC on this first device, according to anonymous sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, though other manufacturers are on deck, too. It is not surprising that HTC would be Facebook's first choice so far. In 2011, HTC released the Status, a QWERTY-equipped Android smartphone that had a dedicated Facebook button. Using the Facebook button made it easy for Status owners to share content such as pictures, video, Web links, and so on, directly to the social network. Sure Samsung, as the largest android phone producer, is in the mix.

It will be very interesting to see how the joining of Facebook will stir the smartphone market, especially on the patents end. I am pretty sure that Facebook does not have many patents involving smartphone hardware/software. But will Facebook be subjected as the hottest target of the heated smartphone patent war which involves Apple, Nokia, Microsoft and RIM? It's still too early to judge. But I am sure we will have more insight after Facebook's press conference on April 4.

This is not an actual Facebook phone design. Just a concept art by Michal Bonikowski
(Source: http://www.designscene.net/2012/08/facebook-phone.html)

Post 17 Apple seeks full injunction against Samsung

According to Foss Patent Blog, ITC judge issues preliminary ruling on Apple v. Samsung case six days ahead of schedule. I think this case is a good indicator on the flexibility and efficiency of ITC cases.

In December 2012, a federal judge denied Apple a permanent injunction against Samsung despite multiple findings of infringement at a trial held last summer in the Northern District of California. Apple is appealing that denial, but it shifts to the ITC investigation the find the opportunity to obtain injunction against Samsung in the U.S.

The complaint filed by Apple is responded by ITC Judge Pender, who set the target date for the further process and said his remand determination would issue no later than April 1, 2013. He actually filed it six calendar days ahead of schedule on March 25, 2013. Although this does not move up the target date for the final Commission decision, which is still August 1, 2013, it shows ITC is more flexible and efficient comparing to general courts. However, I found that even Judge Pender had handed down his initial determination in October 2012 and held Samsung to infringe four Apple patents, the time to let the Commission to make the final decision may be enough for Samsung to workaround its products to avoid further products infringement of other Apple patents filing to ITC in the mean time. Even so, if the judge approves a workaround, the decision is based exclusively on whether the workaround falls outside the legal scope of the relevant patent, and unrelated to commercial considerations.

Post 16 Andriod's Internet Tethering may infringe Nokia patent

According to Foss Patent Blog, Android's popular tethering feature, which enables mobile phones to act as network routers in order to share their Internet connections with portable computers, appears likely to infringe on a key Nokia patent.

At the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), Nokia has just defeated Google and HTC with respect to the proper legal interpretation of U.S. Patent No 5,884,190 on a "method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to a mobile communication network for transmission of analog and/or digital signals". Note that this patent was file on June 7, 1996, which is almost a decade before Google implements this function to its smartphone platform Android.

After ITC's victory, Nokia will sure extend this patent infringement case to the courts around the world where they can do financial damages to HTC. Again, the claim of this patent is pretty board, and thus make it very lethal even through I question the patent inventor(s) had though about the application on smartphones in 1996:


"Method for making a data transmission connection from a computer to any one of a plurality of mobile communication networks for transmission of analog and/or digital signals, wherein the computer is connected with one of the mobile communication networks via a telecommunication terminal which is in local data transmission connection with the computer; and wherein the data transmission connection utilizes at least a first operation mode for connection with a first of said telecommunication networks and a second operation mode for connection with a second of said telecommunication networks, the method comprising steps of:

• testing said communication networks to determine which of said plurality of mobile communication networks are available for a connection to be made via the telecommunication terminal;

• selecting one of the available mobile communication networks;

• at the telecommunication terminal, setting an operation mode corresponding to the selected one of the mobile communication networks; and

• setting the data transmission connection for transmission via the selected operation mode."

HTC (and Google) tried to narrow the meaning of two passages of the claim language, the judge rejected all the arguments made to defend the patent infringement. If the judge eventually favors Nokia, HTC and Google may need to ask the ITC Commission to overrule the judge if they wanted to avoid an import ban. But that means there are chances that HTC smartphones may face an import ban of all its android smartphones (internet tethering is a default function of android system). This may also means other Android phones made by Samsung, Motorola and LG may face the ban since this Nokia patent applies to all Android phones.

Post 15 iPhone 5S and its design rumors

According to sources from the upstream supply chain of Apple phone, the new iPhone 5S will not receive a major upgrade and may just be a slightly enhanced version of iPhone 5. The conclusion is drawn by citing their latest specification data. Meanwhile, there are also rumors stating that Apple also plans to release an iPhone model using plastic chassis to push its global smartphone market share, the sources added.

There are rumors that to offset the cost and make the price to be more competitive, Apple's new phone will have a plastic shell rather than metal casing. While Apple has not commented on any of these reports, it would be interesting to see the the adoption of plastic shell will trigger the design patent infringement cases with Samsung. Samsung Galaxy smartphone products are currently the major opponent of Apple's iPhone products. Due to the result of Samsung vs. Apple patent law case in 2012, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $1.05 billion (which recently changed to $599 million) for multiple patent infringements. One major patent infringement involves the smartphone outer case design. Although the shape of the phone is the main focus of design patents, I think by choosing plastic case, the new Apple iPhone may be too similar to the Samsung Galaxy phone.

Note that Samsung's phone design has infringed the Apple iPhone design. Now if Apple iPhone uses the same material (high-end plastic) as Samsung Galaxy phones, I believe it would bring more controversy to the design patent infringement.

Post 14 Petition and Complaints filed with USITC Part 2

Today I am going to continue my share on the latest petitions and complaints filed with the USITC. This case is particularly interesting since I had discussed so much about wireless devices, yet hadn't covered the other aspect of wireless communication industry: the wireless network providers. The complaint #2934 on "Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof" was filed on Jan 24. This complaint was filed by USITC IP trial attorney, Daniel E. Yonan, on behalf of Adaptix Inc. Adaptix is a company that has been recognized as one of the first developers of OFDMA-based wireless systems and 4G-related technologies. Adaptix is now pursuing an import restriction on the products developed by Ericsson, the world's largest maker of equipment for building mobile telecommunications networks.

This complaint involved a patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,870,808, regarding to the wireless network application of the base station using an orthogonal frequency-division multiple-access (OFDMA) protocol. Again, because the case is relatively new, according to the news released on Feb 25, the court have not make a decision yet. But note that USITC guarantees a target date for completing the investigation within 45 days after institution of the investigation, which is generally much faster than a court investigation. I am curious about whether this would affect the mobile network operations if this complaint get approved since ITC can only penalize the violators by import restrictions. While Adaptix sure have similar products as the Ericsson's base stations, I doubt their software and communication protocol will be the same. So the result of this complaint may result in some headaches not only to Ericsson, but wireless network providers companies (Verizon, AT&T, T-mobile, Spirit ... etc.) that uses Ericsson's base stations for their mobile networks.

Post 13 Petition and Complaints filed with USITC Part 1

Recently I checked on the information about recent petitions and complaints filed with the USITC. It's not surprise that many cases are related to the wireless devices related industries and products. The followings are the list of petition and complaints filed since 2013:

Docket No.	Received		Type		Commodity	Investigation No.
2944	2013/03/14		103 Request		North American Free Trade Agreement Rules of Origin	Pending Institution
2943	2013/03/12		337 Complaint		Certain Electronic Devices having Placeshifting or Display Replication Functionality	Pending Institution
2942	2013/03/11		337 Complaint		Microelectromechanical Systems ("MEMS Devices")	Pending Institution
2941	2013/02/22		337 Complaint		Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Products	Pending Institution
2940	2013/02/20		337 Complaint		Products Having Laminated Packaging, Laminated Packaging, and Components	Pending Institution
2939	2013/02/19		337 Enforcement Complaint		Dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps and Products	Pending Institution
2938	2013/02/08		337 Complaint		Integrated Circuit Devices	337-TA-873
2937	2013/01/30		332 Request		United States-Korea Free Trade	Pending Institution
2936	2013/01/29		337 Complaint		Omega-3 Extracts from Marine or aquatic Biomass	Pending Institution
2935	2013/01/28		337 Complaint		Compact Fluorescent Reflector Lamps	337-TA-872
2934	2013/01/24		337 Complaint		Wireless Communications Base Stations	337-TA-871
2933	2013/01/18		337 Complaint		Sealing Rings for Utility Meters	Withdrawn
2932	2013/01/14		337 Complaint		Electronic Bark Control Collars	337-TA-870
2931	2012/01/10		332 Request		Generalized System of Preferences	Pending Institution
2930	2012/01/04		337 Complaint		Robotic Toys	337-TA-869
2929	2013/01/02		337 Complaint		Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components	337-TA-868

From the list, we can see three complaints are related to the wireless communication industry. I am going to start with case #2929, the complaint regarding to "Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities and Components." The complaint was filed by Bert C. Reiser, a member of the Latham & Watkins’s Intellectual Property Practice Group and International Trade Commission (ITC) Patent Litigation Practice Group, on behave of several telecommunication companies. The list of targets in this complaints, are very interesting:

 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Korea; Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Ridgefield Park, NJ; Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Richardson, TX; Nokia Corporation, Finland; Nokia Inc.,White Plains, NY; ZTE Corporation, China; ZTE (USA) Inc., Richardson, TX; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., China; Huawei Device USA, Inc., Plano, TX; and FutureWei Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Huawei Technologies (USA), Plano, TX.

So, Samsung, Nokia, ZTE and Huawei were all subjected in their wireless devices with 3G/4G capabilities. However, according to this web page, ITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. I am very curious to see what would be the result of this complaint and what impact it would make to the product sales of these companies in the US.

Post 12 An Update on Google vs Microsoft in Germany

Here is an update on the latest German lawsuit of Microsoft against Google-owned Motorola Mobility. The focus is still on the core android app, Google Maps, may infringe of a key Microsoft patent, EP0845124 on a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor", which is the European equivalent of U.S. Patent No. 6,240,360.

If Motorola Mobile loses this court cases, it may be just a start of massive patent lawsuits between Microsoft and Google on the android app "Google Maps" around the world. According to Mueller on his FOSS Patents, "Google has not been able so far to convince the court that the patent is highly probable to be invalidated at the end of a parallel nullity proceeding." The ultimate goal of Microsoft is to process a German patent injunction against the Google Maps service, the Google Maps Android client app, and web browsers providing access to Google Maps. It means Google would have to "disable access to Google Maps from computers using a German IP address, discontinue shipping the Google Maps Android app in the German market, and distribute web browsers in Germany only if they block access to Google Maps."

While Google's situation is not optimistic, the German court inclined to ban Google Maps before it has a conclusive decision. I am very curious how would this goes and what Google will do to response to defend against the charges.

Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-about-to-lose-patent-spat-with.html

Post 11 Google faces patent fire from Microsoft & Nokia ... in Germany

According to German lobbyist Florian Müllera's blog, FOSSPatents, Google now faces patent infringement rulings from both Microsoft and Nokia on its android apps Google Play and Google Map. Mueller pointed out that "the more difficult it is for innovators to obtain timely patent infringement rulings and meaningful remedies in U.S. courts, the more popular and relevant certain German courts, especially the ones in Mannheim and Munich, become."

The cases involving Google and Microsoft started with Google-owned Motorola Mobility suing Microsoft. During the court investigation, Microsoft was managed to counter Motorola Mobility with its own sue, in which the target is the android app - Google Maps' infringement of patent EP0845124 on a "computer system for identifying local resources and method therefor".

On the other hand, Nokia is suing HTC in Mannheim over its distribution of the Google Play app and content store client. HTC, as a major android-platform smartphone manufacturer, are attacked by its pre-loaded Google Play app, which is claiming to infringe patent EP0812120 on a "method for using services offered by a telecommunication network, a telecommunication system and a terminal for it".

While there are many patent lawsuits happening everyday in the United States, it's not surprise that the "patent war" will spread to any major countries with patent laws. Interestingly, the lawsuits in Germany seemed to be more aggressive in my opinion. As you may know, Google Play and Google Map are the core android apps that every android-platform phones are pre-loaded with. It means these two lawsuits directly firing against every android phone on the planet. While patent laws, in theory, are very similar, it's not surprise that court decisions would vary among courts in different locations/countries. It's interesting to see how these two cases develop in Germany, and how Google, which headquartered in the US, will response to it.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-faces-critical-week-in-german.html

Post 10 Samsung's damage payments to Apple slashed

Just to share a quick news to you guys. According to EE Times, a U.S. federal judge, Lucy Koh, cut the $1.05 billion award Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. had been ordered to pay Apple Inc. by more than 40 percent today. It means Samsung now has reduced the payment to Apple to around $599 million.

Judge Lucy Koh of the U.S. District Court Northern District of California in San Jose also denied a request by Apple to increase the damage award. "Because the court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury, the court hereby orders a new trial on damages," Koh wrote in a 27-page opinion.

Note that last year Apple had been actively seeking as much as $2.71 billion in damages in charging patent infringement of Samsung over multiple patents. Apple scored a significant legal victory when the jury ruled that Samsung must pay Apple $1.05 billion plus a verdict of willful infringement on many counts. It is interesting to see even Apple got its full victory on court, the actual damage to Samsung is actually not immediate. It shows that patents legal cases require a long period of time to process, and it takes a serious degree of infringement to cause immediate impact to companies which infringe other's patents.


http://www.eetimes.com/design/microwave-rf-design/4408121/Samsung-s-damage-payments-to-Apple-slashed

Post 9 History of Patent Law (and War) Part 3

Here is what I want to bring about the history of patent war: the Wright brothers patent war. This case just shows the central argument of whether patents really fortified its main purpose: to reward inventors and to encourage more inventions. As we all know, the Wright brothers had invented and built the world's first flyable airplane and making the first controlled, powered and sustained heavier-than-air human flight on December 17, 1903. This revolutionary and world-changing invention, of course, was granted as one of the most valuable patent. In fact, their patent - the 3-axes flight control of pitch, roll and yaw are still being use as even in the most advance aircraft nowadays.

This U.S. Patent 821393 specified their flight control system . Since this invention was so fundamental, other foreign and domestic aviators and companies, especially another U.S. aviation pioneer, Glenn Curtiss, adopted a very similar flight control system in their airplane designs. The first sign of the patent war started in 1908, when the Wrights brothers warned Glenn Curtiss not to infringe their patent by profiting from flying or selling aircraft. But Curtiss refused to pay license fees to the Wrights and sold an airplane to the Aeronautic Society of New York in the next year after Wrights warning. The Wright brothers filed lawsuits to multiple aviators including Curtiss, beginning a years-long legal conflict. While Wright brothers got their full victory in US courts, they were only partly successful in European courts.  Legal maneuvering dragged in France until the patent expired in 1917. Meanwhile, German court ruled the patent not valid due to prior disclosure in speeches by Wright (thus the content of the invention was no longer new/latest). Still, the Wright brother patent war suppressed aviation development in the U.S. to such an extent that when the country entered World War I, no acceptable American-designed aircraft were available, and U.S. forces were compelled to use French machines.

Ultimately, US government, which desperately needed more aircraft for its entering of WWI, proposed a patent pool solution between the Wright Company and the Curtiss Company. A committee formed by president Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Assistant Secretary of the Navy pressured the industry to form a cross-licensing organization, the Manufacturer's Aircraft Association. This arrangement was designed to last only for the duration of the war, but in 1918, the litigation was never renewed. And the patent war ended as the death of Wright brothers.

The lawsuits damaged the public image of the Wright brothers, who previously had been generally regarded as heroes. This patent war also led to a government-enforced patent pool. Despite the wireless device industry today is a totally different situation from the aviation industry in the early 20th century, I think the industry should learn from the mistake and avoid falling into the same path as the patent war started by the Wright brothers, where lawsuits ultimately hurts the industry.

Post 8 History of Patent Law (and War) Part 2

The industrial revolution accelerated the system of patents. It was widely adopted by various countries. The United States introduced its first Patent laws in 1790 and France in 1791. The signing of the Paris Convention internationalized the patent system in 1883. Under the Paris Convention, an applicant can file a patent application for the invention in any of the Paris Convention ember countries within one year of the filing of the first filed patent application.

Once there were patent laws, there would be patent wars. In 1834, Walter Hunt built America's first sewing machine. He later lost interest in patenting because he believed his invention would cause unemployment. Hunt never patented and in 1846, the first American patent was issued to Elias Howe for "a process that used thread from two different sources." However, sewing machines did not go into mass production until the 1850's, until later Isaac Singer built the first commercially successful machine. Singer built the first sewing machine where the needle moved up and down rather than the side-to-side and the needle was powered by a foot treadle. Previous machines were all hand-cranked. However, Isaac Singer's machine used the same lockstitch that Howe had patented.That led to extensive patent litigation between Howe and Singer.

A series of court battles in the 1850s conclusively gave Elias Howe the patent rights for his sewing machine because of the lockstitch patent. If Walter Hunt had patented his invention, Elias Howe would have lost his case and Isaac Singer would have won. Since he lost, Isaac Singer had to pay Elias Howe patent royalties. This was one of the first "patent war" that result in success of the patent holder.

Post 7 History of Patent Law (and War) Part 1

Since we don't have class yesterday and thus we don't have a specific topic to talk about, I am thinking why not dig in to the history of patent. So according to the wiki page of History of Patent Law, patent laws are considered to have started in Italy with a Venetian Statute of 1474 which was issued by the Republic of Venice. This Statute, regarding the quality of clothing and related apparel (Well, I guess that's why fashion brands like Gucci, Prada and Armani are Italian), also included the law that "anyone who invented a new machine that processes the threads and materials into quality garments more productively or efficiently must disclose their invention to the proper authorities in order to obtain protection from possible infringements for a given period of time."


But interestingly, patents did exist before the first establishment of patent law. John of Utynam was granted the first recorded patent in 1449 and was awarded a 20-year monopoly for a stained glass-making process previously unknown in England. Although this might be the first recorded patent, there was no documents left recording how successful is the patented process, or whether it had been enforced to prevent infringement.

Post 6 Rethink the definition of Patentability

This is actually from the powerpoint slides Professor Lavian provided. It's about the fact that Apple gets design patent on virtual page turning, but doesn't own the page turn. That makes me rethink what is patent, and how it may affect the development of something we thought to be very natural.

So what is this US patent D670,713 that claimed by Apple as a patent for virtual page turning? The patent specify that the bottom-right corner is being pulled to lead the way and that the paper is folding over at a fairly consistent angle along its length. The animation ends at the flipped bottom-right corner reaches the bottom-left.

Obviously Apple cannot extend the patent to the page turn animations, so it is a non-factor to potential patent war. But I question the innovations behind this patent since page turning seems to be the most natural physical form that humans do since the invention of printing press in 1450. Since when animations of real life motions can be registered as a patent?

If simple animations of daily life motions can be patented, that may lead to the end of animated media industry. Just imagine the animated motions of loading ammo to the gun in those first-personal shooter games, or the motions of the car racing on the street leaving traces on the road are being patented. That means the most accurate, natural motion physics cannot be reproduced and appeared in other media/products. It makes me wonder, while patents are about innovations and ideas, are the patenting of virtual animations adapting "idea/motion" of real life legit? Sure it takes time and dedications to make the animations looks like objects/motions in real life, but with the fact that the functions of patents are to protect inventors and promote innovations, I think my answer is no.

Post 5 Blackberry Z10 - Next trigger for a new patent war?

As you may know, two of the most dominating smartphone before the emerge of iPhone and Android-platformed smartphones are produced by Nokia and Blackberry. Now both companies found themselves struggling to gain back the market share of the smartphone industries. Nokia, well, is launching its Lumia series loaded with Microsoft mobile platform, hoping to fight back from at most 5.4% of the market share since Feb 2012 (as shown in the image below).

Nokia and Blackberry are struggling, obviously

Meanwhile, Blackberry loaded with RIM OS is still holding its ground, and is still quite popular among business users. However, it's been a while since its had a growth in the smartphone market. The latest product of Blackberry, Z10, bears the hope to win back its users. Note that this product has already suffers from endless series of delays from an April 2012 release all the way to Jan 2013. So what's the spec of this new phone from Blackberry?

The BlackBerry Z10 is the first BlackBerry smartphone to feature a dual-core processor.  There will be 2 GB of internal RAM. The Z10 also claims to feature a display of higher resolution than Apple’s “Retina” technology while also incorporating an 8-megapixel auto-focus camera with backside illumination (BSI) and a 2-megapixel camera for use in video conferencing. However, many engineers and tech analysts agree that Z10 "seems to incorporate many of the component selections of the Samsung Galaxy S3 LTE." In fact, from this detailed breakdown, many of the components used by Z10, is in fact, manufactured by Samsung. I am very curious about the reaction of Samsung about the resemble of Galaxy S3's IC designs and the applications of 4G LTE chips from Qualcomm. Will there be another series of lawsuit coming?

The story does not end here, Z10 has a rectangular shape with rounded corners, a black box, and an icon with a telephone, three of the design patents infringed in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit. Although undeniably Blackberry finally makes a step to make a more conventional smartphone for general market, I am not certain about how Blackberry will handle waves of potential lawsuits as the product releases. What do you think? Please comment :)

Post 4 Trade Secrets? Or no secret?

Happy Chinese New Year! Today I am going to share some thoughts about trade secrets. First, let's define trade secrets. From the TRIPS agreement, trade secret is defined as information that:

• is not generally known to the public;
• confers some sort of economic benefit on its holder (where this benefit must derive specifically from its not being generally known, not just from the value of the information itself);
• is the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.

For small/medium-size companies, trades secrets are particularly important since their resources are no match to large corporations. However, trade secrets also weight heavy in the eyes of large corporations. It is a common sense that tech companies, like Intel, Apple or Google will classify their product R&D information as their trade secrets. But trade secrets are actually beyond that. For instance, Intel treats their fabrication yield (how many chips are function per wafer) as their top secret. By knowing the fabrication yield, people can predict how much Intel profit from these chips. Also the information on fabrication yield may reveal possible methodologies of Intel chip manufacturing. Leakage of these trade secrets will directly harm companies by letting their opponents to gain unfair advantages.

But as professor Lavian mentioned in the class, some companies, like Apple, always appear to have information leak that considered as "trade secret." Whether it is intentional for advertising effect or not, the fact that trade secrets are hardly to be kept in secret, makes me wonder how companies actually "value" their trade secrets. In my opinion, legal actions on violating trade secrets are much less effective than those on patent infringement. Don't get me wrong, law enforcement of violating trade secrets are very effective individually. But the targets of the legal actions on trade secret violations are never on the companies which gather these trade secrets, since that are incredibly hard to provide strong and clear evidence that the information/data is, in fact, not original. That means the companies that have their trade secrets leaked, usually cannot cover up their losses. And that really makes me rethink the importance of patent, with the truth that, you can't guarantee today's trade secrets of yours, are still your trade secrets of tomorrow.

Post 3 Power of Patent - Qualcomm

Hi everyone, sorry for not updating anything for a few days. Seriously, I am still developing the habit to blog... Today I am going to discuss how patents help tech companies to have their edge in their industries. Since this class, IEOR190G, is about wireless devices, so let me start with a company which provide chips for smartphones and mobile devices - Qualcomm.

For those who don't know Qualcomm, it is a fabless chip design company founded in 1985 by Irwin Jacobs and Andrew Viterbi. The company is famous for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) chips, which in fact, is still the dominant technology for telecommunications nowadays. The current CEO of the company, Paul Jacobs is our fellow alumnus graduating in 1989 with a Ph.D. in EECS. Qualcomm has been doing really well recently, with the global trend of the increasing sales of smartphones and wireless communication devices. Qualcomm (San Diego) reported record quarterly sales of $6.02 billion, up 24 percent from the previous quarter and up 29 percent compared with the year ago quarter. The company reported a net income for the quarter of $2.2 billion, up 42 percent from the previous quarter. Why it has such an awesome performance?

From the news that Qualcomm has lifts sales target after record quarter, Paul Jacobs, the CEO of Qualcomm, said Qualcomm now has more than 225 CDMA licensees. “We continue to invest and innovate across a broad set of technologies and believe that our patent portfolio applicable to 3G and 4G products is the most widely licensed in the industry,” Jacobs said.

This shows the importance of patents for tech companies to sustain their competitiveness. It would be interesting to see if it can maintain its aggressive expansion in patent development, and how would it further affect the company sales.

Post 2 My little thought about IEOR190G and patents in general

Greetings everyone, I got sick for a while during the weekends (and being lazy too) -.- Anyway, I am going to share some quick thoughts on this patent engineering course. First, I am absolutely curious how far we will go into the tech side of patent engineering. I mean, there is a engineering specialized path as referred as the patent engineer, so theoretically the class can become pretty technical. The main goal of this course, I believe, is to get some introductory insight to the technical aspect of patent prosecution. I agree that the rapid evolving wireless/mobile industry is the right topic to study patent engineering. There are lots to cover, from the IC design up to the UI design would be very interesting topics to discuss about patents.

As for my personal goal in this course, I hope I can know about patentability of inventions/designs. To my understanding, patents are applicable to the new designs/inventions if and only if there are engineering applications. Obviously there are many cases that inventions have been put into categories of either "physics/science" (physically), or "protocol" (virtually). So there is why patents are very special to engineers, since it is a unique system that most engineers would be dealing with.

In fact, my main motivation to take the IEOR 190G is to understand how to incorporate engineering patents into research/product designs. I can imagine the following situation:

Two ambitious intern engineers in the middle of night...
Intern Engineer A: "B, we stuck here for 3 hours. I can't think of anything to solve this."
Intern Engineer B, get so used to the college style of solving problems, said, "Let's google it!"
Well, all they find are patents of competitor companies...
Intern Engineer A&B: "%*&^#@!"  

So hopefully I can learn some technique how use patents in engineering application too, like avoiding infringement of a competitor’s patent, or using your own patents as business assets to negotiate with other patent holders. Well, that's about it :)

Post 1 Introduction - Operation "Hello World"

Ok, let me confess two things first: one, I am not entirely a social media guy and two, as you will inevitably find out in my following posts, that I am definitely not a good writer. So please forgive my bad English. Of course, I would be greatly appreciate if you buy my excuses as a "English as a secondary language" student.

Now you know two things about me, but I guess you are not giving up yet. I will try to make it short.  I was born in Hong Kong. I lived in this lovely city for 17 years until my family decided to immigrate to the United States. Despite all the unknowns, I was actually pretty excited at that time. The path of pursing a career as an engineer became clear once I was no longer bounded by the narrow engineering/science career opportunities in Hong Kong. Instead of finishing my high school education as a 12th grade student, I studied in a local community college for 3 years. In my three years of studying in community college, I developed a diverse, yet solid foundation in the preparation for engineering careers. And the next turning point of my life: going to UC Berkeley. I had to admit that UC Berkeley was on my "impossible list" when I first came and study in community college as a high school student that still taking ESL classes. But fate still rewarded my hard work over the course of 3 year community college life (in a total of 109 units!) to let me have the chance to study in the best public university in the world as a junior transfer. Of course none of my classes took in community college would be as in-depth and competitive as the classes offered in UC Berkeley, but I guess the office of undergrad admission was pretty impressed with the diversity and completeness of the courses that I had taken. I admitted as a junior, joint majoring in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science/Material Science and Engineering. As my major indicates, my main focuses will be on circuit design, device physics and material science aspects of electronic designs.

I took this class because I am working towards the CET Concentration in Engineering Leadership curriculum. However, I am also very interested in knowing more about patents in electronic technologies. I believe that a good knowledge of patents helps individually as an engineer/researcher, but it also helps in the aspects of product designs. I am looking forward to learn more and apply what I learned in my future career.