Posts Tagged: "patent"

The Federal Trade Commission will require Honeywell International Inc. to license patents critical to the manufacture of two-dimensional (2D) bar code scanners, under a settlement resolving FTC charges that Honeywell’s acquisition of rival scan engine manufacturer Intermec Inc. would be anticompetitive. The proposed FTC consent order preserves competition in the market for 2D scan engines by requiring Honeywell to license its and Intermec’s patents for 2D scan engines to Datalogic IPTECH s.r.l for the next 12 years.

Not surprisingly, the decision of the latest Federal Circuit case on software patent eligibility – Accenture Global Services, GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. – could be predicted from the makeup of the CAFC panel. Judge Lourie, joined by Judge Reyna, issued the majority opinion that the system claims were invalid. The Court followed the analysis for determining patent eligibility from CLS Bank, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and affirmed the district court’s finding that the system claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,013,284 (“the ‘284 patent”) were ineligible. Judge Rader predictably dissented from the majority and stated that he would hold the system claims to be patent-eligible subject matter. One takeaway from this decision is that the Court remains predictably divided. In this case, all three judges on the panel ruled in a way that was consistent with their ruling in CLS Bank, 717 F.3d 1269 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

In perhaps lesser known fashion Congress made two significant, but limited, statutory changes to what is considered patent eligible subject matter. In a bizarre circumstance Congress chose not to render tax strategy patents patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Rather they chose a far more convoluted route. Tax strategy patents are still patent eligible subject matter pursuant to Section 101, but for purposes of evaluating an invention under section 102 or 103 of title 35, any strategy for reducing, avoiding, or deferring tax liability, whether known or unknown at the time of the invention or application for patent, is deemed insufficient to differentiate a claimed invention from the prior art.

One patent application discusses a solar collector that is low in price while providing sun tracking capabilities. Additionally, a number of applications and issued patents we cover today deal with human sensory or biomedical developments. One patent application describes a system of using porous film to delivery medication to the eye. A recently issued patent protects a system of detecting heart arrhythmias without invasive ablation procedures. Another patent application would protect a method for sampling aromatic compounds to determine their chemical composition and a person’s olfactory response to segments of the aromatic compound.

Let’s take a step back and consider the nuance of the so-called grace period that remains under the AIA. Under the new law we know that in some cases an inventor who publishes information about his or her invention will not be prevented from obtaining a patent if someone obtained or derived a subsequent disclosure from the inventor. The USPTO has told us that the second party, the deriving party, does not have to publish something that is verbatim in order for the true first inventor to be able to prove that the second party is a deriving party. In other words, the USPTO is telling us what the second party does not have to do in order for the first, disclosing inventor to claim entitlement to the grace-period. Unfortunately, stating something in the negative is not particularly illuminating as any patent practitioner can tell you. Saying something is “non-planar” is useful information but it doesn’t exactly tell you what that something is, instead it only removes one of an endless number of possibilities.

The Bayh-Dole Act was passed because Congress was rightly concerned that potential benefits from billions of dollars of federally funded research were lying dormant on the shelves of government. Government funded inventions tend to be very early stage discoveries—more like ideas than products—requiring considerable private sector risk and investment to turn them into products that can be used by the public. Under prior patent polices government agencies took such inventions away from their creators and offered them non-exclusively for development. There were no incentives for the inventors to remain engaged in product development. Not surprisingly, few such inventions were ever commercialized even though billions of dollars were being spent annually on government R&D.

What we find is an eclectic mix of computer systems, display devices and even an automated vacuum cleaner. Improved display devices are featured in a number of USPTO patent applications that we discuss in today’s column, and are an important focus for Samsung. One particular application would protect a display that is capable of providing a cleaner three-dimensional image, while another application would protect an LCD screen that can display a wider viewing angle for users. Other patents and applications we explore show the wide scope of Samsung’s development activities. One patent application describes a motorized robotic floor cleaner that can better clean under furniture. Another patent application has been filed for a system of providing personal health records to medical professionals in a way that better benefits patients. Finally, we look at a recently issued patent that gives Samsung protections over a system of simultaneously translating a voice message into a different language.

Notwithstanding Google’s Jekyll and Hyde approach to patents, Figure 14 together with the associated textual discussion is extremely interesting because it shows rather conclusively that “software” isn’t really all that “soft.” Even many so-called math experts and mathematicians refuse to acknowledge what is really happening on the basic level within a computer when “soft”—ware is being used, instead preferring to pretend that it has to do with basic math rather than manipulation of logic gates and switches. We can complain and lament their lack of understanding if it makes us feel better, but in the meantime we need to realize that their ignorance with respect to what is really occurring is having an enormously negative impact on the future of software patentability.

Consider the following: On Friday, March 15, 2013, an applicant could file a U.S. patent application covering an invention that was the subject of a publication provided the publication was dated less than 1 year earlier. This was true even if the publication was by another individual or entity that independently arrived at the invention on his or her own. Effective Saturday, March 16, 2013, if another individual or entity independently arrived at the invention and published an article before the first inventor filed the first inventor who filed will be unable to obtain a patent unless the subsequent disclosure was nearly identical to the first disclosure.

A few of the patent applications from Google we’re looking at today focus on improvements to mobile devices of various kinds. One patent application would protect a system of improving security measures for a portable device based on the device’s actual location. Another application would aid the image capture process on a mobile device based on the user’s field of vision. Other patent documents we feature discuss improvements created by applied computer analysis of various network data. One patent application filed by Google would allow users to monetize pictures that they share on social networks. We also explore a patent application that gives advertisers better insight into the demographics of a certain television show’s audience. But the reference that was by far the most eye-catching was an issued patent that gives Google the right to protect a system of paying tax for the recipient of a gift card, instead of that tax being applied to the recipient’s purchases.

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.