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.
Friday, April 26, 2013
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:
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.
Friday, April 19, 2013
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
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
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
Friday, April 12, 2013
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
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
Thursday, April 11, 2013
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:
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:
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/
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/
Saturday, April 6, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, April 5, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)