Posts Tagged: "patent"

With Black Friday later this week, we take a closer look at one of the companies that has drastically changed the current reality of retail. As you can see, Amazon is busy finding new and more effective ways of putting consumers in touch with useful multimedia. Today’s featured patent application would protect a software widget for handheld electronic devices that allows playback of Amazon digital files. This widget would save system resources that typically get drained when users open multiple applications for video and audio playback or eBook reading. A couple of other patent applications discuss improved delivery systems for physical copies of media, including a system of creating custom shipping containers. Another patent application allows handheld electronic devices to conserve energy typically used by touchscreen operations.

Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917), sets the standards for imposing reciprocal discipline on the basis of a State’s disciplinary adjudication. Under Selling, State disciplinary action creates a federal-level presumption that imposition of reciprocal discipline is proper unless an independent review of the record reveals: (1) lack of due process, (2) an infirmity of proof of the misconduct, or (3) that grave injustice would result from the imposition of reciprocal discipline. The standard the responding attorney must meet is one of clear of convincing evidence that the Selling factors preclude reciprocal discipline.

On the method claims, the test, derived from Prometheus, is whether the claims add enough to a natural principle/law of nature/ natural phenomenon to make them go beyond claiming just the natural principle/law of natural/natural phenomenon alone and to ensure practical application. If they do and if that extra stuff isn’t just routine or conventional steps known in the field, the claims are patent eligible. So, are diagnostic method claims acceptable, or what about personalized medicine claims outlining which drugs work better for specific patient populations? How about a kit with instructions? We can look to the PTO Guidelines and to the case history after Prometheus to give us a some tips on what may not be eligible and how put our best foot forward when preparing biotech process patent applications.

The Federal Trade Commission has extended the deadline for public comments on its proposed study of patent assertion entities (PAEs), which it announced on September 27. To provide additional time for interested parties to submit comments on the proposed study, the deadline has been extended throughDecember 16, 2013. The Commission will not consider requests for further extension. Comments can be submitted electronically.

This ruling cannot stand, and the CAFC needs to step back from the brink. The CAFC has vastly overreached in Soverain v. Newegg, and it is imperative that the Supreme Court hear the case and that Soverain prevail. This attack on patent-holders and the adverse implications from the change proposed by Newegg are unprecedented, and would deal a devastating blow to any U.S. patent-holder, large or small. The proposed change would alter the law and effectively eviscerate the patent system.

We’ve chosen for our featured patent application an interesting development that may finally make practical indoor mapping applications for electronic device owners feasible. This system, developed by Texas Instruments, would use wireless local access network analysis of device motion within a building instead of satellite-based systems to provide an exact location of a device user. Other patent applications have been filed by TI to protect systems of determining accurate touch commands on a multi-touch screen surface, as well as a plastic-packaged semiconductor device that is lightweight and better protected against electrical shorts. The patents issued by the USPTO to any corporation are an important indicator of that company’s strength in intellectual property, and we have an intriguing assortment of patents assigned to Texas Instruments recently. One issued patent focuses on better systems of video processing to prevent digital video from developing a flicker effect. Another patent protects a system of improving digital navigation programs that respond better to a device’s actual state within a moving vehicle. We’ve also taken a look at one patent that provides adaptive forms of partitioning system resources within an electronic device.

We’ve got a couple cases following CLS Bank that give us clues as to what a computer-related claim should look like post-CLS Bank. In the Ultramercial v. Hulu case, Rader and Lourie are surprisingly on the same side. The patent covers a method relating to a user seeing an advertisement before getting exposure to his desired media content. A point that I’ll circle back to in a minute is that there were 11 steps recited in the method claims in Ultramercial. As expected, Rader writes an opinion saying this stuff goes on in a computer so we find it’s patent eligible– think Diehr/CLS Bank logic. What’s interesting is Lourie writes a concurring opinion, using as precedent his oh-so-decisive plurality opinion in CLS Bank. He found that unlike in CLS Bank where intermediation was too abstract a concept and the claims added nothing inventive, in this case the limitations represent significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of using advertising.

“Notably, the concerns of key inventor stakeholders like us – principally small companies that create the fundamental inventions that drive our innovation economy – have not yet been evaluated in depth. Historically, the vast majority of legitimate patent holders have honorably sought the fruits of their labor through patent rights promoted by the Constitution and secured by Congress, by licensing when possible and litigating when necessary. Our nation and, indeed, our planet have benefitted enormously as a result of the identification and disclosure of these discoveries through the U.S. patent system. Legitimate inventors and patent holders should not be confused with, or punished as a result of, a small minority of bad actors who create shell entities that send mass demand letters for the purpose of seeking money under the threat of unjustifiable litigation.”

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that the San Jose City Hall building, located at 200 East Santa Clara Street, has been selected as the permanent location for the USPTO’s Silicon Valley satellite office. The search for permanent office space was put on hold in July due to sequestration. Generous support and assistance from the City of San Jose, the California State Assembly’s Speaker’s Office, along with the collective support for the satellite office championed by members of the California congressional delegation, will enable the USPTO to move forward with occupying permanent space in Silicon Valley by the end of 2014.

So can we stop pretending that Google isn’t like every other user of the patent system? They are not Snow White. They are not the Mother Teresa of patents. Google seeks broad, sometimes nearly ridiculously broad, patent claims must like everyone else. Yet to listen to them they would have you, and Members of Congress and the media, believe that they are the only altruistic actor and impartial voice in the patent debate. They criticize other companies, but their own practices are no different. I have no problem with Google seeking this or any other patent, but can we stop pretending that Google is somehow different than other technology companies and a true defender of a patent-less world? They pursue patents of all varieties that they think they can obtain, including patents on an electronic skin tattoo capable of being applied to the throat region of the body of a wearer.

We profile one patent application that seeks to converge content from social networks with the news feed that a person sees when browsing a news aggregator service. Google wants to patent a system that analyzes a user’s social media feeds to pull up relevant media or comments that may enhance the value of browsing through news stories. Other patent applications protect better routing systems, both for public transportation as well as personal vehicles, and one discusses an interesting system of providing instant text translations between two foreign parties on one tablet computer. In the section regarding the patents issued recently to Google, we’ve found a few interesting improvements to online digital technologies, especially those meant to help digital rights owners and legal teams. One patent protects a system of identifying a copyrighted composition by analyzing the melody of a live recording, while another provides a more cost-effective process of electronic discovery of legal documents. More routing services are protected by other Google patents that we discuss here, showing Google is actively seeking to expand its holdings in online mapping applications.

Calling the Innovation Act fast-tracked doesn’t do justice to what is really happening. The Innovation Act was only officially introduced on October 23, 2013, and the Committee has not heard from any independent inventors or small businesses. Even the innovator community that stands to lose big is just warming up, this past week with a substantial coalition of University groups and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) weighing in for the first time, with BIO concluding that the “proposals are not supportable without significant amendment.” The University groups weighing in against the Innovation Act are the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association for American Medical Colleges, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of University Technology Managers and Council on Government Relations, collectively referred to in their position statement as “the Higher Education Community.”

Just because getting a confidentiality agreement is difficult doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t try. There are those out there that are used to signing confidentiality agreements, such as manufacturers and engineers who you might need to work with to create engineering drawings or a prototype. Whenever you are showing your invention to someone within your industry or to those who would have the technical knowledge and ability to move forward with your invention without you, a confidentiality agreement is both essential and more likely to be obtained. Just don’t expect investors or potential licensees to be all that interested in signing a confidentiality agreement , at least at first. However, if they like what they hear it is not unheard of that at some point they might be willing to sign a confidentiality agreement. So there is many times a delicate dance where you show a little to entice the reluctant signer of the confidentiality agreement. As interest builds they may become more willing to sign.

The testimony further discusses the Commission’s interest in the problem of “patent hold-up” that can arise during an industry standard-setting process. Patent hold-up occurs when the holder of a standard essential patent (SEP), which has previously committed to license that SEP on reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms, violates its RAND commitment and uses the leverage of the standard setting process to negotiate higher royalties than it could have before the patent was incorporated into the standard. The FTC recently pursued several enforcement actions related to patent holders who seek injunctive relief or exclusion orders for alleged infringement of their RAND-encumbered SEPs.

Jaeger did not file a response to the complaint, despite being granted two extensions of time to do so. He did, however, send two brief fax messages to OED, in one pointing out that he was an honorably discharged veteran who served during the Vietnam era, and in another pointing out that the underlying complaint that initiated disciplinary involvement stemmed from a disagreement with a client who did not want to pay his bill. Unfortunately for Jaeger, however, he never filed an answer, which meant that the allegations within the complaint were all deemed to be admitted. See 37 CFR 11.36(d).