Posts Tagged: "patent"

This system creates data that obfuscates the search query submitted by a user so that it cannot be tracked by a third party, while still providing relevant search results. Other patent applications describing business software innovations include a method of generating consumer decision trees based on in-store transaction records, and a way to prevent others from copying the text of sensitive electronic documents. The issued patents assigned recently to Oracle highlight some interesting intellectual property holdings that further advance the corporation’s goal in providing inclusive software solutions for businesses. Business connected to a distributed pool of network resources shared with others will benefit from an electronic resource broker agent protected in one patent.

On January 27, 1880, Thomas Edison received U.S. Patent No. 223,898, which was simply titled “Electric Lamp.” Perhaps Edison’s most famous inventions were the phonograph, motion pictures and the light-bulb. Truth be told, however, Edison didn’t really “invent” the lightbulb, but rather he improved upon the technology by developing a light-bulb that used a lower current electricity, a small carbonized filament, and an improved vacuum inside the globe. Edison’s invention lead to a reliable, long-lasting source of light. Prior to Edison’s invention lightbulbs lasted only a few hours and now they could last 50 to 60 days, making them practical. So it is entirely fair to say that Thomas Edison invented the first commercially useful lightbulb.

Live music performance broadcast across Internet channels is the focus of today’s featured patent application here at IPWatchdog. Intel is hoping to protect a system that builds off of previous systems of networked music performances to better incorporate audience reactions and build a more inclusive entertainment experience. We’ve also picked up on a couple of user recognition systems, one for improving gesture-based user interfaces and another that enhances facial recognition software for computer security by registering genuine human facial reactions. Today’s issued patents protect some novel innovations related to the way a computer system can interact with an individual, instead of the other way around. One patent protects a system that can provide advertising content to device users who are offline, while another protects a second facial recognition for computer security technology, this one capable of identifying unknown faces by accessing an image database. We also have some interesting Internet TV technologies that are assigned to Intel today, but may quickly be moving to Verizon.

A federal jury in the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict on Saturday, January 18, 2014, following a week-long trial presided over by the Honorable Rodney Gilstrap, that found that Google infringed SimpleAir’s U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914. The services accused of infringing the ‘914 patent were the Google Cloud Messaging (GCM) and Android Cloud to Device Messaging (C2DM) services. Those services are used by Google to process and send instant notifications for Android applications, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Gmail. The damages issue will be decided by a separate jury in a second trial limited to the issue of damages. SimpleAir has announced that they will seek damages in excess of $125 million for Google’s infringement in the damages retrial.

“The first rule of any patent legislation should be to do no harm, particularly to the inventors, start-ups and universities that create our nation’s next big fundamental technology breakthroughs that drive GDP and job growth,” said inventor Earl “Eb” Bright, COO ExploraMed and Board member USIJ. “The Senate has an opportunity to get this right and I hope they seize it – our standing as a global leader is directly dependent on the strength of our patent system and its ability to support innovative enterprises of all sizes.”

In Novartis, this Federal Circuit panel (opinion by Judge Taranto, joined by Judges Newman and Dyk) ruled that the second exclusion from PTA in the “B period” portion (i.e., 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii)) excludes from PTA any time consumed by a Request for Continued Examination (RCE), even if that RCE is filed more than 3 years after the “actual filing date” of the patent application. Not only is this ruling a questionable interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) for reasons I’ll discuss below, but it creates an unfortunate, and surely unintended impact on RCEs specifically, as well as continuation practice generally. And the more I dig into the PTA statute, the more problematical this ruling in Novartis becomes.

In part 1 of the interview we discussed why he choose McDermott, what it was like working for David Kappos and working with Federal Circuit Judge Ray Chen when he was Solicitor at the USPTO, and the appointment of Michelle Lee to be Deputy Director of the USPTO. In part 2 of the interview, which appears below, we discuss the new ethics rules adopted by the USPTO, the future of the USPTO, patent reform legislation, abusive patent litigation, and what the AIA was attempting to achieve relative to post grant patent challenges.

The featured application today discusses a novel GE system of flight management that has the potential to create great savings in costs incurred by airlines on a flight-by-flight basis. This system can respond dynamically mid-flight to changes in weather conditions and other parameters that affect fuel usage and other costs. Additional patent applications we discovered involve improvements to dosimeters and other chemical sensors as well as a newly designed dishwasher heating element that can improve user safety. General Electric has also been the happy recipient of a number of issued patents that protect a series of interesting inventions related to electronic appliances. Two of these discuss methods of using energy more cheaply by drawing it off a grid at non-peak hours, both within the appliance and through a control module that interfaces between appliances and a smart home electrical system. Finally, we focus on a couple of patents that describe improvements to diagnostic and communication systems for locomotives.

There was nothing off the table for discussion in this interview. We discuss how and why he choose McDermott, as well as what it was like working for David Kappos and working with Judge Ray Chen when he was Solicitor at the USPTO. We also discuss the future of the Patent Office, the appointment of Michelle Lee to be Deputy Director of the USPTO, substantively what the USPTO was trying to do with respect to post grant procedures, the new ethical rules applicable to Patent Attorneys and Agents, and a variety of other issues.

Several years ago I was speaking to an inventor group about carefully selecting who they work with so they work only with reputable companies. At the time one particular invention promotion company, as near as I could tell had a remarkably low success rate. This company reported their successes all-time and reported the number of clients over 5 years, making it impossible to know what the success rate actually was. At best the success rate was approximately 1 in 2,700, but likely was much worse. I asked the room full of inventors this simple question: If I told you that only 1 in 2,700 inventors would ever succeed how many of you would be convinced that you would be the 1 and not the other 2,699? Virtually everyone raised their hand. That eternal optimism is wonderful, but it also contributes to getting taken advantage of by those who make money by telling you your invention is wonderful when that really isn’t the case.

Our feature patent application today almost sounds impossible, or at least exceptionally futuristic. The application discloses a novel way of using image processing to aid in speech recognition services. The system described in this application could use a camera to analyze a user’s lip activity so that sounds picked up by a microphone can be differentiated as ambient background noise or genuine speech. We also discuss a few other patent applications, including one describing more efficient blade computer system architectures and another that discusses automated methods of delegating resources to individuals using an organization’s computer network. Patent holdings are of great interest to us in this series, as is HP’s clear focus on printing technologies in their recently issued patents. A couple of issued patents that we explore today discuss improved methods of inkjet printing for pigment opacity or reducing abnormalities in print media. We also were intrigued by a novel system devised to ensure that networked printers handle print jobs with better respect to user printing preferences.

Starting January 15, 2014, some EFS-Web and Private PAIR users experienced issues when authenticating to the system… The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank on March 31, 2014.  This case is being briefed on the merits right now, and Trading Technologies is looking for parties interested in sighing onto their brief in support of software patents… South Florida Inventor Expo – This annual event will include programming that will help inventors learn how others promote their products… Ray Millien joins GE Healthcare as Senior IP Counsel.

It seems that this article caught the attention of Newegg’s Chief Legal Officer, Lee Cheng, who proceeded to contact me through LinkedIn and berate me in bizarre fashion throughout the day yesterday… Cheng first reached out to me with a simple message: “You are hilarious.” I responded: “Thanks for reading IPWatchdog.com. I hope you learn something.” And then I got a real look into the top legal mind of Newegg. The only word I can use to describe Cheng, at least based on this exchange, is schizophrenic. He went from telling me I was “a smart guy ” that he wanted to meet to someone who was nothing more than an incompetent patsy on the patent troll payroll. This occurred over the span of only several e-mails.

MPHJ employed a strategy of targeting small and medium-sized businesses, which in and of itself is not legally problematic. The fact that MPHJ acquired patents of dubious validity is interesting, but again, patents are presumed valid, so that is not terribly probative either. The problem with the MPHJ strategy is that it was deceptive. They sent out letters to a large number of small businesses in an effort to extract small, nuisance-value license payments from them. Indeed, some patent trolls seek far less than even a fair nuisance-value, asking for $500 or $1,000. It is this type of behavior that is the hallmark of a patent troll. The mere fact that one has acquired patents and seeks to license them is in and of itself irrelevant because that activity is completely legal. In the letters sent by MPHJ hundreds of New York businesses were told that it was “likely” that they were infringing MPHJ patents and, therefore, needed to take a patent license. By saying that they were “likely” infringing an impression was created that MPHJ had conducted at least some kind of individualized analysis of the targeted company’s business. But MPHJ did no investigation, choosing merely sent out form letters in bulk to companies of a certain size and industry classification.