Posts Tagged: "patent"

Earlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued it latest decision in Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg, Inc. (Fed. Cir., September 4, 2013). This latest decision was necessitated by the limited grant of rehearing ordered on June 13, 2013. The rehearing was granted for the purpose of clarifying the status of claims 34 and 35 of Patent No. 5,715,314. Before jumping into the substance of this case, the first thing I noticed was that Seth Waxman of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr was listed as the lead attorney for Soverain Software in both the petition for rehearing and the ensuing briefs. It is hard to imagine that Soverain has brought in Seth Waxman at this late stage if they are not contemplating an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Some of these developments aid drivers and improve their routing while out on the road. An issued patent from the USPTO gives BMW rights over a system of broadcasting traffic data to inform drivers about optimal speed based on stoplight schedules and other drivers. An Audi patent application protects an adjustable front-facing camera that can scan various ranges in front of the car to determine obstacles. A Toyota patent application would protect a system of improving routing results based on road work or other road obstacles. Better fuel systems and entertainment access are other goals that some of these vehicle manufacturers are working towards. BMW is hoping to patent a user display that allows drivers to access entertainment systems without having to take their eyes off the road. Finally, we explore a Toyota patent application that would protect a system of maintaining a hydrogen fuel cell’s temperature within an optimal range for fuel operation.

Today at IPWatchdog in the Companies We Follow Series, we’re looking at the Big Three to see what developmental goals these companies are planning for the future. Many deal with better systems of obtaining vehicle repairs. Ford has been issued a patent pertaining to online service scheduling for vehicle repair. As well, General Motors has filed a patent application for a system of vehicle repair that provides better resources than a typical service manual. We also explore three patent applications related to improvements in the driving experience. Two of these deal with safety: Chrysler has a patent application filed to prevent unintended operation of the gas or brake pedals, and Ford is seeking to protect a new airbag design that better prevents neck and head trauma. Finally, General Motors has filed an application to protect a telematics system providing contact information for known drivers within a certain proximity.

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the latest appeal in the Apple/Samsung epic patent battle. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Fed. Cir., August 23, 2013). In this situation the parties really were not fighting against each other; instead finding themselves arguing on the same side against the decision of the district court to allow sensitive information to be publicly available. On August 9, 2012, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision that denied in part the parties’ motion to seal certain filings. In general, Judge Koh sealed information about the parties’ production and supply capacities, confidential source code, third-party market research reports, and the pricing terms of licensing agreements. However, Judge Koh ordered unsealed documents disclosing the parties’ product-specific profits, profit margins, unit sales, revenues, and costs, as well as Apple’s own proprietary market research reports and customer surveys and the non-price terms of licensing agreements. The Federal Circuit, per Judge Prost with Judges Bryson and O’Malley joining, determined that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to seal the confidential information at issue in the appeals, ultimately reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Many of these patent references reviewed this week show us Siemens involvement with electrical and Internet systems on all levels, from personal to industrial. For example, one patent application would protect a floating sensor capable of detecting foam formation in industrial liquid production, a symptom of process issues. An issued patent, with an extremely narrow Claim 1, protects a system of analyzing industrial facility processes to identify energy cost savings. On an individual level, one patent application describes a system of creating anonymity among mobile device owners using cloud application resources. Siemens is also involved in medical technology upgrades that aid various bodily systems. One patent application filed with the USPTO would protect a system of training the hearing impaired to better understand speech, even when amplification affects the signal. Finally, we feature one last patent application that discusses a system of measuring heart activity non-invasively.

Many of these documents that we look through today deal with mobile wireless technology and media presentations. One patent application describes a system of analyzing a person’s geographical location to create a map detailing wireless coverage in the area. Another patent application provides for a system of developing three dimensional media content for images or video. Also, one patent issued by the USPTO protects a system of enhancing phone calls between business acquaintances by providing local news and weather information. A few other patent applications covered here relate to law enforcement and security. One application would make it easier to track suspects using stolen or prepaid phones by searching for voiceprints. Finally, one last patent application would protect an e-mail system that provides for deletion of sensitive e-mails after a period of time has elapsed.

A few patent applications filed with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office show IBM’s interests in improving online shopping experiences. One application provides a chronological timeline view for user review interfaces in an online store. Another application creates a virtual cart system that multiple users can interact with collaboratively, whether shopping online or at the store. Other documents we feature here pertain more generally to computer systems, especially those with business applications. One recent issued patent protects a system of prioritizing e-mail to prevent against automated deletion of important data. A patent application filed by IBM would protect a system of analyzing a business’s computer systems and making suggestions for cloud computing resources. Finally, we look at a patent application that provides a system for recycling solid state devices discarded by users.

Design patents are essential in protecting the ornamental design of consumer products and their components; the intense litigation of the Apple v. Samsung lawsuits stressed the importance of design protection. The significance of design patents to the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit appears to have affected other companies’ patent strategies as well. The fifty companies on the IP Record’s list of the top 50 U.S. design patent grantees for 2012 were collectively granted greater than 150 more patents than the top 50 companies of 2011. Samsung, the top design patent recipient in both 2011 and 2012, alone accounts for almost a third of this growth—it was granted 378 design patents in 2012, exactly 50 more than in 2011. Apple, the #7 patent owner in 2011, rose one spot in 2012 and acquired 25 more patents than its total in its previous year.

Our inter partes challenge data from pre- and post-passage of the AIA clearly show that of the relatively few initial denials made by the USPTO of an inter partes challenge request, most fell on entities that typically file as small entities. We found 88% of denied petitions for inter partes review were filed by small entities, while only 12% of those denials related to petitions filed by large entities (Fig. 6). That is, small entities are 7 times more likely to have their petitions for inter partes review denied than large entities.

The issue of interest in this case centered around whether there was a pre-AIA 102(b) on-sale bar. You might expect such issues not to be worthy of a Federal Circuit precedential opinion, but there was an issue with respect to whether there really was a contract in place before the critical date, but also an issue about whether the on-sale bar could apply when the offer for sale was from a Hamilton Beach supplier to Hamilton Beach themselves. The short answer is that the Federal Circuit, over a dissent by Judge Reyna, determined that there was a triggering offer for sale and it is of no concern whether the offer for sale was initiated by a supplier who was making the units at the request of the patent owner.

Innovation has not been occurring at Qualcomm simply for the sake of innovation. Since 2010, Qualcomm’s quarterly sales have increased each year by 31 percent. On the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index, Qualcomm is the third-fastest growing large technology company in America as of 2013. Other Qualcomm operations involve the medical industry, for which they’re developing a wireless monitoring system for children with asthma, and video gaming, as many in the industry believe Qualcomm and Amazon are working together to build a console.

A troubling fundamental aspect of the proposed mandatory stay is that it would chip away at the quid pro quo of the patent bargain. To ensure the Constitutionally-protected exclusive right, patent rights have long been recognized as covering multiple and independent separate causes of action: “whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (emphasis added). Strict liability attaches to each one of these forms of infringement independently of the others. These are separate violations, any one of which being subject to injunctive relief “to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 283.

Today, we check in with General Electric to see what technological systems it’s trying to protect through the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Many of the published USPTO documents we feature here discuss improvements to energy systems. These include two patent applications, one that would protect smart energy storage for in-home water heaters and another that would protect a system of monitoring damage to power cables. An issued patent discusses GE’s development of a self-healing electrical power grid. We also take a look at two other patent applications that showcase General Electric’s activities in other areas of consumer and industrial innovation. One application is filed to protect a detachable dishwasher door that makes it easier for technicians to provide maintenance. One final application we include discusses a system of trapping gaseous carbon dioxide exhaust from power plants in a solid state.