Posts Tagged: "innovation"

Consumers benefit most when patents are strongest and act to block actors. When competitors are blocked that means they cannot simply copy and flood the market with knock-offs or products that at their core are essentially identical. Competitors that are blocked by strong patents have a choice. Either they ignore the patent rights and infringe, which is sometimes the choice made particularly when a small company or individual owns the patent and it is believed they can be bullied. Alternatively, competitors must figure out how to design around the patents in place and find new, creative ways to do what they want to do. When patents are designed around that is when paradigm shifting innovation can and does happen. Unfortunately, thanks to the Supreme Court and Congress we have a patent system that today incentivizes copycats and bullying of innovators.

While the startup probably had an initial 100% market share due to a temporary de facto monopoly, such share rapidly decreases as soon as others start selling to the same customers. Worse, many times, one of those fast followers is a large entrenched company that has deep R&D teams, seemingly unlimited budgets, well-known brands and established distribution channels in many key geographies that took decades to build. They can play catchup really fast. In other words, the only thing going for the startup at that point (assuming it could not possibly achieve this scaling up over such a short period of time) is the uniqueness of its technology and its ability to out innovate others. This in turn is only true if the new technology it brings to market is adequately protected against free riders; otherwise one is simply doing others’ bidding and subsidizing their R&D… In short, innovation without protection is simply a form of philanthropy!

Phil Johnson on IPR: “I think with hindsight we might say they made the mistake of relying on the Patent Office to promulgate regulations for fair proceedings for both patent owners and to challengers. And they expected, for example, that the same claim instruction standards would be used in IPRs are as used in the courts. They expected that when the law said that a patent owner could file a reply in the institution phase that it wouldn’t be told oh, no, you can’t include new evidence for that reply. They expected that other burdensome presumptions, including things like consideration of objective indicia of nonobvious would be treated the way it is in the courts, and so on. So in the end they expected that the outcome in IPRs would be approximately the same as in the courts and what we have seen is that that absolutely is not the case and, therefore, it’s not that — necessarily that the law was wrong, it’s that I don’t think pharma decisions and bio decisions have been promulgated properly.”

Biosensor technologies, a tech sector which involves the use of devices that can detect and measure biological functions in living things, is set to become a very valuable business in the coming decade. According to a recent report from Frost & Sullivan, the global market for biosensors generated $11.53 billion in revenues during 2014, a figure that the firm expects to rise to $28.78 billion by 2021. According to the Invention Evaluator analysis of smart vision systems the highest proportion of applications for patents relating to face or eye recognition systems originate from China, followed by the United States. Spielo International, Fuzhou Fufeng, and Mitsubishi Electric are among the most prolific applicants (see chart below taken from the report), and patent activity over the past decade shows a consistent rise in applications, indicating a technology growth phase.

Facial recognition technologies often raise privacy concerns, but as it becomes more reliable and accurate it can also identify suspicious persons before they are able to execute an attack. Research taking place at Old Dominion is also leading to better prototypes for facial recognition technologies that can recognize terrorists before they enter the country. A project funded by the DoD has been looking into ways to improve facial recognition technologies for use at vulnerable locations like airports and sports stadiums.

MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, is a bacteria highly resistant to antibiotics and causes tens of thousands of invasive infections every year in Americans, often in hospital or nursing home settings. Patients who may be susceptible to any bacterial infections of this type will be able to breathe a great sigh of relief thanks to a new paint formula developed by Sherwin-Williams Co. (NYSE:SHW) of Cleveland, OH. The buildings material developer, known primarily for its paint products, announced at the end of October a new antimicrobial paint formulation known as Paint Shield which will begin selling in the first quarter of 2016. A Sherwin-Williams press release states that this is the first U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-registered paint capable of killing up to 99.99 percent of staph, MRSA, E. coli and other infection-causing bacteria within two hours of the bacteria’s exposure to the paint.

Given all of these issues with these conventional bomb detection methods, what are the innovations being developed in response? One Israeli explosive detection tech developer, Tracense Systems, has developed a biosensor nanotechnology which mimics the way dogs can sense explosives through smell and reportedly outperforms canine bomb detectors. The University of California, Berkeley, has also contributed to research and development in nanotechnology fields for detecting bombs. Mechanical engineering researchers have created a light-based plasmon sensor capable of detecting chemical traces up to 0.4 parts per billion. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have innovated a bomb sensor system which utilizes the properties of proteins found in bee venom.

Looking at raw numbers, California was by far the most inventive state, with over 329,000 non-design patents filed, over 254,000 disposed, and over 180,000 allowed between 2000 and 2010. Texas, New York, Massachusetts, and Washington rounded out the top five, but together had fewer applications, disposed applications, and allowed applications than California alone. The states with the highest allowance rates were Vermont (84%), Idaho (77%), Kansas (74%), Washington (74%) and Iowa (73%).

Google, now Alphabet Inc., is one of the world’s most valuable companies but employs only a tenth of the number of workers of past giants of industry like AT&T and General Motors did about a half century ago. But we need to point out some obvious problems with the theory that technological innovation is dealing irreparable harm to the American workforce. Simply stated, you cannot ignore the reality that technological innovation is a net creator of jobs, from those who create the innovation, to those who market and sell the innovations, to those who install and maintain the innovations. Focusing only on the low income workers who will be displaced by robotics, for example, creates an inaccurate picture that significantly distorts the workplace realities. Further, it is those innovation based jobs that are the high paying jobs that our economy most wants and which will pay livable wages.

It appears that we’re on the way towards the creation of an artificial skin product for bionic prostheses that would be able to restore the sense of touch in a person who has lost an appendage. An electronic skin developed by researchers working at Stanford University is capable of transmitting pressure changes through nerve cells, triggering a response from the brain that the artificial skin is in contact with something or someone. The research project, funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and led by head researcher Zhenan Bao, has developed a new type of pressure sensor made from a thin, flexible material that can be laid over existing prostheses.

Properly used, a qualified search can be one of the most cost-effective and valuable tools a company can have to not only capture and create innovation, but also to avoid being sued for infringement. This dual purpose for a search is important to understand. A novelty search is intended to determine whether a patent can likely be obtained, but sometimes it will be quite useful to undertake a more comprehensive analysis of the search results to determine whether moving forward might result in a charge of patent infringement. In order to maximize the value of a company’s portfolio it is critical for business managers to understand the of importance of a search— including what kinds of searches are available, why to consider search before filing patent application, when to get searches, who should conduct and review search, and how to strategically use search result.

Development is underway on a generation of guns that wouldn’t eliminate every homicide but could prevent even one massacre event, which no one could argue is a bad thing. As with just about every other sector of American technological development, there’s been quite a bit of activity coming from Silicon Valley. Tech investors from that region have joined together to form the Smart Tech Challenges Foundation, an organization dedicated to funding gun safety innovations. The San Francisco-based foundation awards funding levels ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 to projects in pursuit of safer firearms. The organization’s Smart Tech Fire Challenge is designed to distribute $1 million in funding to 15 innovative firearms safety projects.

It is quite surprising to see that with all of the work being done to strengthen the patent systems across Europe with the creation of the Unified Patent Court, we see The Economist recently publishing a number of authorless articles calling for dramatic curtail of patent rights – on the edge of abolishment… We are currently witnessing some patent owners enforcing their patent rights exclusively using the European courts, some of these are companies based in the United States. Now with the Unified Patent Court on the horizon, it is expected that we will see more enforcement actions in London, and Europe more broadly. This again is a clear sign that Europe sees value in a strong patent system and recognizes the importance of a patent owners ability to enforce those rights.

It’s unfortunate that NASA has had to operate in such a unfavorable climate, being pushed for more and more answers out of its space exploration program while suffering uncertainty in its federal funding amounts. It would be a mistake for Congress to ground NASA unless fine details on its Mars program are forthcoming. Having a goal oriented target has proven helpful for NASA, but scientific discoveries and the innovations that come therefrom are not easily or even appropriately quantifiable on a spreadsheet, business plan or budget. Historically, NASA space exploration mission objectives have led to great benefits for the American people, even when their plans and mission goals have been a little light on the technical details.

The most common type of severe weather emergency that affects American citizens and property owners is flash flooding, according to the National Flood Insurance Program. Flash floods, which can be caused by torrential downpours or the failure of man-made structures like dams or levees, causes rapid flooding of a low-lying area within six hours of the flood’s precipitating event. Half of all flash flooding fatalities are vehicle-related. With a coming El Niño that could dump a heavy amount of rainfall on southern California this winter, we wanted to revisit our Disaster Tech series to take a closer look at some flood management innovations being pursued to aid those in areas prone to flooding.