Posts Tagged: "patents"

Last week’s published patent applications include a more space-effective design for mobile devices as well as an innovation that may possibly be revolutionary for the entire subscription publication industry. The Apple subscription patent application looks to take advantage of the retail sale of more than one billion single-issue magazine copies that occur in American stores each year. As the application notes, these single issues are often two or three times the rate of the same issue when a subscription is purchased. They can send in a subscription card, but many find this time consuming. The result is a lot of lost revenue for the publishing industry, which thrives on subscription bases.

Whenever there is interesting IBM news of a patent variety Schecter has been gracious enough to make time to chat. The news of IBM’s patent supremacy wasn’t just any run-of-the-mill news, at least not in my opinion. The commitment to innovation and belief in the patent system has served IBM well for many decades, and twenty years as #1 at anything is astounding in a world dominated by parity and antitrust regulators that don’t want any single company to succeed too much. We discuss the commitment to excellence required to stay #1 for twenty years, the process for deciding which patents to keep paying maintenance fees on, what may change once the U.S. converts to first-to-file on March 16, 2013, how Watson is being put to use and the parting of USPTO Director David Kappos.

The USPTO suspension was applied nunc pro tunc. Discipline imposed nunc pro tunc is appropriate only if the practitioner: (1) promptly notified the OED Director of his or her suspension or disciplinary disqualification in another jurisdiction; (2) establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the practitioner voluntarily ceased all activities related to practice before the Office; and (3) complied with all provisions of 37 CFR § 11.58. That was found to be the case effective October 17, 2011, thus the six (6) month suspension started effective that date.

Do you ever have trouble remembering when to replace your running shoes? Apple seems interested in introducing an intelligent piece of footwear that will warn wearers of when a critical level of wear and tear has been reached. Worn out shoes don’t offer the correct amount of support to your feet and can cause injury to your feet, knees and even back, so Apple’s newest wearable technology venture is a health asset and not just something that looks cool.

This Tuesday, Apple Inc. was once again the recipient of a number of issued patents, as 26 intellectual property patents were awarded to the company. As we’ll see, a number of these are related to improvements in resource efficiency, especially those tailored to mobile devices like the iPhone. Apple also received a patent that may save many iPhone users hours of time: a system that automatically syncs important account data with a new device when replacing a broken or outdated model.

The latest statistics show that the cumulative value of U.S. intellectual property is approximately $5.8 trillion (or 48.4% of GDP), and each year over half a million patent applications are filed, over a quarter million patents are issued, over 4000 patent infringement suits are filed and IP verdicts total over $4.6 billion with a median patent damage award of approximately $4 million. Against this backdrop, I now present an updated taxonomy containing 19 IP-related business models. The business models are in addition to the “traditional” operating companies and their “traditional” IP law firms. Further, while not pretending to be all-inclusive, a directory of players implementing one or more of these 19 IP business models is available for download at the end of this post.

What follows is discussion of the two disciplinary proceedings undertaken by the USPTO during the month of October 2012. First up is a situation where the USPTO went after an attorney in California who engaged in representation of trademark clients. Richard Gibson was not a patent practitioner, yet OED went after him for violation of various ethical rules, which is something recently new for the USPTO to do. The second case is a case where a patent practitioner was caught up in a sting operation. The sting was searching for adults soliciting sex from minors in Seattle, Washington.

These related patents pertain to a system and method for streaming media to a viewer and managing the media. The patents in question define media to “include audio, video, and other data,” which is a rather broad definition for media. Based on this definition of “media” then it would seem that what Facebook does to push data to a user’s news feed could be generally captured within what is described in these patents. That is not to say that I think Single Touch will be ultimately successful, but there is at least on its face a plausible connection to what is covered in these patents and what Facebook does. Enough so that further inquiry would seem advisable for both Facebook and Single Touch.

What you think of Ryan and Acacia is almost entirely dependent upon the side of the aisle on which you sit; namely whether you are an innovator or a practicing entity. Even more specifically, those who are innovators but don’t have a voice loud enough to be heard by practicing entities are likely to believe that Ryan and Acacia are the answer to their prayers. Those practicing companies that simply want to make a product and sell it without regard to the underlying patents that might be in place are likely to believe Ryan and Acacia are the poster children for everything wrong with the patent system. But you can decide for yourself. Without further ado, here is the culmination of the interview with Paul Ryan.

if you ask me the Kappos legacy is not going to be the America Invents Act. The Kappos legacy will be that he managed to put the USPTO back on track. The agency is open for business and is issuing patents. It is odd to say it, but the USPTO had become so dysfunctional over the years that the allowance rate had slipped to never before seen lows. The feeling was that the USPTO was the “No Patent for You Office,” which did nothing to help foster the growth of innovation, and more importantly jobs.

Paul Ryan is a more common name than you might think. In the world of politics when one speaks of “Paul Ryan” they are talking about the Republican Congressman from Wisconsin who was Mitt Romney’s running-mate and would-have-been Vice President. But in the intellectual property world, particularly the patent litigation world, the name “Paul Ryan” refers to the CEO of Acacia Research Technologies. It is the later Paul Ryan that went on the record with me to discuss Acacia, patent enforcement, how large companies who are infringers disregard innovative independent inventors and more.

Apple Inc. is always applying for protections on different device designs and computer systems. As happens every once in a while, three of these 18 published patents are part of a single series; these patents pertain to linking user accounts for mobile app software to obtain upgrades. Other patent applications seek protections on applications that provide parental oversight of a child’s pre-paid debit account or aid zoom functions on picture viewing applications.

The final rules on patent fees will publish in the Federal Register on Friday, January 18, 2013. Fees are going up for most, but not as much as feared. It will be more expensive to file a utility patent application, except for micro-entity applicants (see Utility Filing Fees Table), but it will be less to pay the issue fee once you get a Notice of Allowance (see Issue Fee Table). It will cost 29% more to file the first RCE for large and small entities (see First RCE Fees Table), and 83% more for subsequent RCE filings for large and small entities (see Subsequent RCE Fees Table). The ex parte reexaminations fees are much lower, down 32% and 66% respectively for large and small entities (see Reexam Fees Table), but are still much higher compared to where they were prior to them being raised over 600% recently. Of course, cutting ex parte reexamination fees means the overall cost is still roughly 250% higher for small entities and 500% higher for large entities than this time last year.

Tuesday’s list of issued patents published by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office includes 27 patents assigned to Cupertino, California device manufacturer Apple Inc. Each week, Apple is awarded a few patents that pertain to their electronic devices or computer systems. This week, Apple was awarded a new design patent for its laptops, as well as patents protecting methods of either creating more rugged touchscreens or finding useful social network recommendations through data analysis.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Smithsonian Institution have signed a Memorandum of Agreement for the USPTO to support the Smithsonian’s development of an “Innovation Pavilion” that will showcase educational programs and exhibitions about American innovation. The pavilion will be housed at the Arts and Industries (A&I) Building in Washington, DC, after the historic building’s re-opening in 2014. It will serve as a forum for public discussions, symposiums, workshops, and recognition ceremonies related to American innovation, highlighting the vital role patents play in supporting that innovation. Also, the USPTO and the Smithsonian will partner in hosting an Innovation Expo on June 20-22, 2013, at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia.