Posts in China

Broadcom Ltd. filed a series of six lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging the infringement of a series of patents covering semiconductor technologies. The patent lawsuits target firms making and selling consumer audiovisual products or other articles which utilize system on a chip (SoC) semiconductors and similar processing equipment… Although most of the Broadcom suits assert multiple patents, there is only one patent asserted in each case: U.S. Patent No. 7,310,104, titled Graphics Display System with Anti-Flutter Filtering and Vertical Scaling Feature.

The absurd way in which important players in the U.S. patent system view the patentability of software innovations will undoubtedly harm our country’s chances of benefiting economically from the coming AI boom. Which is too bad, because that same Accenture study on AI’s economic benefits to the UK predicts that AI could add as much as $8.3 trillion to the American economy, thanks in no small part to “a strong entrepreneurial business climate and advanced infrastructure position.” But that strong entrepreneurial business climate is undercut by the weakening of patent protections for software, which makes up much of the foundation of artificial intelligence technologies.

A growing Chinese consumer electronics firm acquires a patent portfolio that makes them the fourth global producer of smartphones with the capacity to develop semiconductors in-house. The Supreme Court denies writ in a case, leaving in place a lower court’s decision on plaintiff standing in asserting foreign trademarks in the U.S. The Federal Circuit upholds patent invalidations levied against IP monetization firm Intellectual Ventures. Also, songwriter industry groups lobby the Copyright Office to adjust royalty fee structures in light of the growth of online streaming media.

The most recent notorious markets report from the USTR seems to have further galvanized Alibaba into taking action to reduce the number of counterfeit products sold on its e-commerce platforms. In early January, Alibaba filed its first pair of lawsuits targeting retailers selling fake Swarovski watches on the company’s e-commerce platforms. Then in late February, Alibaba released an official corporate statement in which it blamed China’s ambiguous counterfeiting laws for contributing to the problem… Alibaba’s statement goes so far as to equate counterfeiting to drunk driving in terms of how strongly such actions should be criminalized.

Guidelines, set to go into effect on April 1st in China, continue to leave the window open for software and business method patents. For software patents, patent applicants will be able to claim a medium plus computer program process instead of claiming means plus function, a term which has typically been narrowly construed by SIPO examiners. As ZY Partners’ analysis notes, previously ineligible claims directed at “a computer program product” or “a machine-readable medium” will now be eligible for patent protection in China…. Given this trend towards delegitimizing the patentability of inventions within valuable growth sectors in the U.S., it’s particularly galling to see that China, often portrayed as the United States’ top economic competitor, has been moving in the opposite direction, even if only slightly. Last October, China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) released revised guidelines for its patent examiners and some were quick to note that the revised guidelines were friendlier to both software and business method patents.

Another covered business method review is overturned by the Federal Circuit because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a CBM on a patent that was not a CBM patent. China leads the world not only in stealing digital images protected by copyright but also in terms of trademark applications filed. The Catholic Church starts to take action in protecting its own intellectual property. Also, Alphabet’s self-driving car subsidiary files a lawsuit including patent and trade secret claims against ride sharing giant Uber.

Whirlpool successfully argued that it would be irreparably harmed without the relief of permanent injunction in addition to the settlement agreement, which is executed separately of the court order. The recent court order for permanent injunction also affirmed the validity of all four utility patents asserted in the case along with finding that the defendant’s importation and sale of replacement water filters infringed on claims covered by the patents-in-suit.

Multiple members of the hearing’s witness panel attested to the problems created when agency plans change during a change of administration, a problem which Lt. Gen. Thomas P. Stafford, a NASA astronaut during the Gemini and Apollo programs and a member of NASA’s International Space Station Advisory Committee, said has been detrimental to the space program. “We have in recent years seen all too clearly the consequences of a failure to carry out long-term objectives,” Stafford said, referring to NASA’s activities under the Obama Administration as “eight years of lost opportunities… NASA’s present does not do justice to its past.” During questioning, Stafford recommended reestablishing the National Space Council (NSC), which had shown effectiveness in the past in ensuring that multi-year NASA missions which span administrations, such as the Apollo mission to the moon, reach their goal. Stafford also noted that if the federal government had stuck to previous plans to reach Mars, such as were discussed as part of the Space Exploration Initiative carried on under the administration of George H. W. Bush, humans could have reached Mars as early as 2016.

Patent system savvy corporations are ganging up on a smaller developer within the nascent automotive software industry who had the temerity to assert a patent covering a technology it developed in-house… The IPR challenges the validity of a patent owned by InfoGation Corporation, Inc., of San Diego, CA, a designer and developer of navigation software for the automotive industry, which was founded in 1996… The filing of the Google IPR is a direct consequence of Infogation filing suit against HTC, ZTE and Huawei last July, each of which alleged infringement of the ‘743 patent.

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites… Video game systems developed by Nintendo and Sony are targeted in a patent infringement suit filed in Delaware federal court. The infamous scan-to-email patent giving rise to the patent troll debate has finally been invalidated at the Federal Circuit. A multi-billion dollar copyright suits between two American tech giants gets new life from Oracle. California’s state legislature moves to create trademark protections for marijuana products at the state level, circumventing federal restrictions on such trademarks. And Zillow gets hit with a copyright infringement verdict.

Nearly 150 years of development in the field has been supported by both the commercial success of the pipeline concept as well as the incredible importance that fossil fuels have in powering our modern world… With fossil fuel pipeline construction projects back in the news, now seems a good time to revisit the Evolution of Technology series to take a long view look at the history of oil pipeline development… Much of America’s history in domestic oil production and distribution goes back to Edwin Drake, the American who was the first person to turn an oil drilling operation into commercial success. In the late 1850s, Drake was hired by Seneca Oil Company to explore the potential of collecting oil from known deposits in the Titusville, PA area. Drake rejected the notion of digging trenches and instead decided to drill for oil, an unproven method at that time.

NPEs are uniquely positioned to help China by attacking foreign entities to clear the way for Chinese companies by exerting pressure in ways that only NPEs can. Even if Chinese semiconductor companies had the necessary patents and experience to engage their foreign competitors, they would risk retaliation from these foreign parties. NPEs, on the other hand, can unilaterally attack foreigners without fear of retaliatory patent suits. Although there are a few of antitrust issues, I do not believe that NPEs that act in the best interest of China should, or will, be attacked by the NDRC or any other antitrust agency in China.

On Friday, January 20th, Cupertino, CA-based consumer tech firm Apple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) filed a lawsuit against San Diego, CA-based semiconductor giant Qualcomm, Inc. (NASDAQ:QCOM) The lawsuit seeks $1 billion in damages which Apple alleges that Qualcomm is withholding from the iPhone developer in violation of an agreement between the two companies, including injunctive and other relief. The suit, which includes breach of contract claims, patent claims and antitrust claims, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (S.D. Cal.).

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision, a six-figure damages verdict goes in favor of former USPTO Deputy Director Russell Slifer, a TTAB petition is filed to challenge the trademark application for an NFL franchise currently in the relocation process, an announcement by a Japanese academic-industry research project that claims to have doubled the effectiveness of solar cell panel conversion rates, the FTC takes action against a pharmaceutical company and much more.

In his opening remarks, Ross noted that he had been a consumer of various forms of data published by various agencies within the commerce department. He seemed attuned to the importance of data collection and dissemination, noting that 40 percent of publicly disseminated data from all federal agencies comes from the Department of Commerce. With experience operating businesses in 23 countries, Ross was confident in his ability to negotiate foreign trade agreements to the benefit of the American economy. “I know directly what’s good and what’s not good about trade policies in other countries,” Ross said. He added that he was neither pro-trade nor anti-trade but rather pro-sensible trade, which he defined as being supportive of trade deals which were good for American workers and businesses.