I have been following news around patents lately. I have followed what happens on patent field because I am an inventor that has made some patents and being referenced on some other. The patent situation seem to be quite insane right now, especially on smartphone field.
I can agree the comment Patent law is a very imperfect tool for establishing moral culpability I saw in Linux Magazine. Whether you favor patents or not, it is important to face the fact that patent law is a construct of the business world. Patents protect opportunities for patent holders and restrict opportunities for others. What engineers need to know about patents article tells that most engineers know what a patent is broadly; for example, a bundle of rights related to an invention.
Patents are considered by many parties as vitally important to protecting intellectual property. Plenty of creativity occurs within the technology industry, and without patents, executives say they could never justify spending fortunes on new products. And academics say that some aspects of the patent system, like protections for pharmaceuticals, often function smoothly. It’s clearly demonstrably true that wielding patents to stop people copying protected methods obliges them to come up with new methods of their own. This is why patents are so widely supported by inventors, industry and governments. It’s an irreplaceable component of industrial organisation that produces and propagates invention. In April 2012, in its report on Intellectual Property, the US Patent Office (USPTO) concluded that the entire US economy relies on some form of IP, because virtually every industry either produces or uses it.
Patents have become a technology industry battleground as mobile-phone, tablet and computer makers try to lure consumers with constant improvements to their video and sound. Smartphones have become the focal point for lawsuits and licensing talks because the market is so huge, it is growing so quickly and cutting-edge technology is used in them. There Are 250,000 Active Patents That Impact Smartphones; Representing One In Six Active Patents Today. And this is for for an industry that is certainly less than 1% of US GDP. It definitely appears that there’s something of a “bubble” going on around smartphone patents. The explosive growth of the smartphone market means mobile patents are particularly valuable these days. Major players are increasingly going to court with one another over alleged infringements. It also makes for an astounding minefield for anyone new who wants to enter the space, especially if you don’t have a massive war chest to license or fight in court.
Patents have been a very important tool on industrial era to protect companies. Many people argue that the nation’s patent rules, intended for a mechanical world, are inadequate in today’s digital marketplace. Nowadays patents seem to be especially on on the software side especially old-fashioned and even harming economy. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis recently published a working paper calling for the abolition of patents, saying they do more harm than good. Import bans over patents cause ‘substantial harm,’ FTC says.
Unlike patents for new drug formulas, patents on software often effectively grant ownership of concepts, rather than tangible creations. Today, the patent office routinely approves patents that describe vague algorithms or business methods, without patent examiners demanding specifics about how those calculations occur or how the software operates. The patent office has a reputation for being overworked, understaffed and plagued by employee turnover, and employees concede that some of their work is subjective. As a result, some patents are so broad that they allow patent holders to claim sweeping ownership of seemingly unrelated products built by others. And it happens more and more often. Yes, the system is frequently gamed, it generates avoidable costs, it’s unnecessarily complex, and it creates many absurdities. There Are Too Many Patents In America.
Recent research supports view that patent troll activity is rising — costing America a fortune in wasted legal fees and lost jobs. Patent trolls are a plague. And they are every day armed with more and more patents. ‘Patent trolls’ cost other US bodies $29bn last year, says study. And this figure does not include indirect costs to the defendants’ businesses such as diversion of resources, delays in new products, and loss of market share. Direct costs are large relative to total spending on [research and development], which totalled $247bn in 2009, implying that NPE patent assertations effectively impose a significant tax on investment in innovation. Amazon Founder Jeff Bezos Calls For Governments To End Patent Wars. The problems with the current system are so pervasive, that many companies say, that the courts, lawmakers and Silicon Valley must find their own fixes.
In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years — an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings. Apple’s CEO thinks that patent system is broken in a fundamental way. It allows companies to exploit standards-essential patents — patents that must be licensed in order for products to function according to accepted industry standards. The Patent Wars: Infographic confirms that everyone in the tech world is way too sue-happy.
Apple vs. Samsung patent verdict was a lot of talked about event lately. Apple-Samsung trial has clarified that patents are the “lifeblood of business” and putting powerful short-term legal protections under inventions is overwhelmingly more convincing than any mooted alternative. Apple v. Samsung case highlights money to be made from patent litigation. Linux Magazine editor is amazed at how little all the “authorities” seem to know. Is there a lesson in all this? A huge team of lawyers billing US$ 200 to US$ 800 per hour erected weeks of elegant arguments and a jury thought about the whole thing for 21 hours and 37 minutes. The 109 pages of jury instructions contained 700 questions, which means that jury reached consensus on one point approximately every 33 seconds.
The Apple v. Samsung case really ought to shame the industry. It let a jury, also known as “people off the street”, decide on liability and damages amounts and kept a lot of lawyers in alligator skin shoes. And while it is probably the lawyers that benefited the most from the whole ordeal, no one else is. And I’m not convinced that any of these patents are actually valid. Of course, Samsung argued that Apple also copied, which is no doubt true, but just because Apple got away with it doesn’t make it okay. Apple and Samsung would be better off — and their consumers would be better served — if the tech giants took their epic patent battle out of the courtroom and into the marketplace. The best thing about the case is that it has exposed just how awful the patent situation has become in the US.
A new patent case has just started. Microsoft v Google judge could shape the world in new patent punchup because that could finally tell tech companies how much a standards-essential patent is worth is about to kick off in the US. Microsoft filed a lawsuit in 2010 that challenges Google-owned Motorola over the its use of standards-essential patents (SEP) in court cases. Microsoft and Apple have tried to argue that Samsung and Motorola shouldn’t be allowed to use their SEP in court cases. Both European and US authorities have also been investigating whether any firm should be allowed to get the law involved in SEP but haven’t come to any conclusions yet. Motorola has tried to get 2.25 per cent per device out of Apple and Microsoft. The patents this case is are related to for example to H.264 video coding. Redmond is accusing Motorola of violating its responsibilities to standards organisations to license the patents at fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory rates (FRAND).
423 Comments
Tomi Engdahl says:
Brian Fung / Washington Post:
United for Patent Reform launches, a “super-coalition” against patent trolls brings together some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley
Patent reform advocates are launching a ‘super-coalition’ to whack patent trolls
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/01/15/patent-reform-advocates-are-launching-a-super-coalition-to-whack-patent-trolls/
What do department stores and restaurants have in common with search engines and social networks? For one thing, it’s that they’re all getting sued by patent trolls, companies that accuse other businesses of patent infringement in hopes of winning settlement money. Patent trolls are largely perceived as a problem for the tech industry — but the damage done by patent trolls is increasingly spilling over into other sectors, too. And now those industries are joining tech firms in a massive renewed push for patent reform legislation.
On Thursday, advocates for congressional action will debut a massive lobbying coalition drawing together some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley, such as Google, Facebook and Adobe — but also relative newcomers to the patent debate, including Macy’s, JCPenney and the National Association of Realtors. Others in the coalition, known as United for Patent Reform, will include the restaurant lobby, the hotel industry and telecom companies such as Verizon.
“It’s really big. It’s an attempt to get the pro-reform side really working closely together.”
It’s easy to think of patent trolls as a tech-sector problem.
In the past two years, brick-and-mortar businesses have reported a major uptick in lawsuits from patent trolls, too.
Analysts have pointed to patent reform as an area where the White House and the new Republican-held Congress are likely to find easy agreement. It’s unclear when significant action may take place. Still, the bipartisan nature of the issue reflects the way patent trolls have come to affect nearly all businesses
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sorry, Qualcomm, Apple – your patents don’t scare us
Google neutrality pacts has shifted the balance
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/20/qualcomm_and_apple_will_no_longer_be_the_bullies_in_the_patent_playground/
Patent royalties make up a higher proportion of cellular device costs than in most other markets, so the IPR game has been a hard-fought and sometimes vicious one. At the start of 2015, various developments suggest that the playground bullies of the past will lose a lot of their power. Qualcomm is on the defensive in China, while the holders of fundamental mobile patents are hitting back against Apple.
As it becomes clear which firms really hold the crown jewels in LTE and beyond – with China and Korea taking major roles – that will hit Qualcomm, which has huge adjustments to make to its licensing model, to accommodate a world where China is the biggest device market.
But smartphone patents are not just about the modem any more. Equally important are higher layer technologies such as screens and user interface software. While usually not included in standards, this kind of IPR has been at the heart of the past few years’ waves of handset-related patent litigation.
The new complexity of the smartphone allowed Apple to become a new bully. It sought to use its arsenal of hardware and software IPR for two purposes – to dilute the royalties power of the firms with major holdings in 3GPP standards-essential patents (SEP), an area where Apple has not invested; and to weaken the competitive position of Android and Samsung, by getting devices banned and generally undermining confidence in the Google platform.
The ability of both Qualcomm and Apple, in their respective fields of IPR, to dictate terms from rivals is now severely constrained. Apple still has lawsuits outstanding with Samsung, in particular, but it is being squeezed on two fronts – by a series of Google-initiated neutrality pacts which unite many important players against unnecessary litigation; and by its weakness in standards-essential IPR.
However, this is not entirely an outbreak of harmony. Companies with strong SEP holdings are increasingly keen to improve their financial performance, in a world where product margins are tight, by exploiting their IPR more effectively. Giant SEP owners like Ericsson and Nokia traditionally derived limited revenue from licensing but used their patents mainly for bilateral cross-licensing deals which reduced their own costs, especially compared to rivals with no patents to trade. But now they are determined to increase their direct income – especially in the case of Nokia, which has sold its devices division and whose patents are housed in an autonomous business unit.
Apple is an obvious target
Ericsson is claiming that Apple is infringing patents which are essential to cellular standards and therefore included in every 3G or 4G iDevice.
The industry has indeed moved towards chip-based, rather than device-based, royalties calculations, and regulators and governments have become increasingly determined to define and enforce Frand guidelines, with several companies – such as Samsung – being investigated for potential abuses by the European Commission. However, what constitutes Frand is not at all clear, and accusations of excessive or non-uniform charges have become a standard feature of licensing disputes in recent years.
What has thrown a spanner in the works of its master plan seems to be China, whose companies and government agencies are becoming more determined to assert their own patent power and reduce their payments of royalties to western firms, especially Qualcomm. This was anticipated, but the way China has stepped up its efforts in the past year was not, and Qualcomm is now on the defensive in an expected round of tough negotiations of the new deal with Chinese licensees.
That is already causing problems, since many of those customers, Qualcomm says, are withholding royalties payments until the issues are settled, hitting its immediate revenues. And for the past year, the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission has been conducting an anti-monopoly probe of Qualcomm
This comes at a time when Qualcomm is in a weaker negotiating position than ever before, because for the first time it faces significant competition on the cellular modem front, so Chinese handset makers can go to Chinese and Taiwanese chip powerhouses like MediaTek and Spreadtrum.
Sources indicate that China is demanding lower royalty rates for its vendors in return for agreeing a resolution to the antitrust investigation.
The NDRC may also request that Qualcomm unbundles licensing agreements, charging fees for each patent rather than its usual practice of blanket deals which cover all its IPR.
In the latest league table of US technology patents granted, Chinese firms were absent from the top 10, though Korean and Japanese players remained strong. The top 10 was led, as it has been for 22 years, by IBM, followed by Samsung, Canon, Sony, Microsoft, Toshiba, Qualcomm, Google, LG and Panasonic. That indicates where technology (though not specifically mobile) R&D is occurring, but of course, many Chinese innovators will not register initially in the US.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Megan Geuss / Ars Technica:
Patent reform hits Congress again with reintroduced Innovation Act
Patent reform hits Congress again with reintroduced Innovation Act
New act, same as old act, but this time will it make it through the Senate?
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/02/patent-reform-hits-congress-again-with-reintroduced-innovation-act/
Today, Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced a new version of the Innovation Act, a bill designed to curb so-called patent trolls. Patent trolls have no business beyond acquiring patents and suing other companies, knowing that many will pay a settlement rather than pay the $1 million or more it can cost to fight a patent through trial.
The new Innovation Act is largely identical to legislation of the same name introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Goodlatte almost a year and a half ago. That bill had bipartisan support and a surprisingly good chance of bringing real patent reform to the US. It flew through the House easily, passing 395 to 91, and while it looked like such a popular bill would have an easy time clearing the Senate, the first Innovation Act had no such luck. Instead, it was killed
Like the old Innovation Act, the new Innovation Act involves reforms to the way a patent infringement accusation moves through the court system.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mary Jo Foley / ZDNet:
Microsoft, Samsung settle contract dispute over Android patent payments
http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-samsung-settle-contract-dispute-over-android-patent-payments/
Summary:Microsoft and Samsung have settled an Android patent-licensing-related contract dispute, Microsoft officials say, while offering no specific about the terms.
Tomi Engdahl says:
IEEE standards patent rules change
IEEE organization has changed its patent policy. The new policy is intended to prevent Patent troll activities, and to guarantee that the patents used to restrain competition. The new practice is clearly weakens the position of those developing technology.
The most important new policy is that the future of patent fees paid to the IEEE standards – such as, say, WiFi – the components of the price. So far, royalties have had to pay the price of the final product.
IEEE’s view, the former FRAND policy, with standard forming part of the patent must be given to others on fair cost and fair (fair, reasonable and non-Discriminatory) has not worked. This principle has been used to restrict competition.
In practice, all the technology they develop and the patentoimala protect companies seeking to oppose the IEEE’s new practice.
US Department of Justice supports the IEEE’s new rules.
IEEE decision result in the long term is that the techniques that have ratified it becomes less important. For example, the 5G-standardization is going to happen with other organizations such as 3GPP inside.
Source: http://www.etn.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2416:ieee-standardien-patenttikaytanto-muuttuu&catid=13&Itemid=101
Tomi Engdahl says:
Huawei to build 5G patent book
100 billion royalty payments can’t be wrong
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/05/huawei_to_build_5g_patent_book/
MWC1015 Huawei has talked up its plans for 5G at Mobile World Congress, with an emphasis on building its patent book for the next mobile standard.
The company is already in fifth place in European patent applicants for 2014 according to the European Patent Office, and had nearly 500 patents granted in that year. New filings across its whole portfolio came to 1,600 in 2014, the EPO report says.
CEO Ken Hu told MWC attendees the company’s spending on 5G would rise; as Reuters notes, it had previously committed to tip $US600 million into its 5G bucket between 2013 and 2018.
The Register noted that technologies like Huawei’s 5G air interface represent a shot at capturing the flag in the emerging technology.
Hu said the company’s work in 5G was giving it a strong position in intellectual property.
Since he expects the 5G network to have to serve 100 billion “smart nodes”, those that get their patents into standards will ensure a fabulous annuity in the form of license payments.
To get there, he said, will need cooperation between carriers, vendors and verticals.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Law & Disorder / Civilization & Discontents
USPTO ends “warning system” for outlandish patents
“Sensitive” applications included cures for AIDS, perpetual-motion machines.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/uspto-ends-program-for-patents-that-could-create-unwanted-media-coverage/
Earlier this week, leadership at the US Patent and Trademark Office distributed a memo indicating they were retiring the “Sensitive Application Warning System,” or SAWS, a little-known program inside the USPTO since 1994.
SAWS was meant to identify patent applications that claimed controversial material, give them additional review, and alert leadership to them. To win approval, SAWS patents had to be authorized by a Technology Center leader or upper Patent Office management. That slowed some applications to a crawl. The patent office has maintained that SAWS wasn’t a “secret program,” but it’s hard to see it any other way, since examiners were instructed not to talk about it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The European Patent Office EPO, according to statistics, Nokia filed last year in 1040 in the euro patents pending. The number of Nokia ranks EPO major candidates ever place eleven.
Samsung last year filed the most patents in the euro, Korean company sent a total of 2,504 applications. Philips figure was 2317, Siemens in 2133, LG 1638 and Chinese Huawei exactly 1600.
Finland applications went to Munich in 2472 copies, which is more than 9 per cent lower than a year earlier.
Source: http://www.etn.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2524:nokialta-tuhat-europatenttia&catid=13&Itemid=101
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft asks US court to ban Kyocera’s Android phones
Kyocera is alleged to have infringed on seven Microsoft patents
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/569860/microsoft-asks-us-court-ban-kyocera-android-phones/
The Kyocera phones are offered in the U.S. through operators like Verizon and AT&T and retail chains like Walmart and Best Buy.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent Suits Have Global Impacts
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1326115&
Companies found guilty of patent infringement, even those under an injunction, may be permitted to carry out some global activities, according to a recent court decision.
It’s common for electronics companies to engineer their products in the United States but manufacture and sell them abroad. But it’s not always clear when such activity is a U.S. “sale” or “offer for sale” that would be covered by U.S. patent law, as we explained in a recent article.
A recent federal court decision showed this uncertainty also exists in the context of a court-imposed injunction following a finding of patent infringement. By understanding the contours of what constitutes a U.S. sale or offer for sale, companies can better understand the range of activities in which they can still operate should they be held liable for patent infringement and find themselves subject to an injunction.
Under U.S. patent law, infringement exists when, among other things, anyone offers to sell or sells a patented invention in the United States without permission from the patent owner.
Patent Law’s Global Grey Areas
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1325434
Patent law has unresolved grey areas when it comes to patent infringement liability for transactions handled outside the U.S., say two experts.
A company cannot infringe a U.S. patent based on activities that occur entirely overseas. Gray areas in patent-infringement liability exist, however, when some activity occurs in the United States and some occurs overseas. Knowing these gray areas, companies can better understand whether their activities potentially subject them to damages in a U.S. patent infringement case.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why We Disagree with the IEEE’s Patent Policy
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1326144&
The IEEE’s new patent policy could slash royalty revenues and limit ways to enforce patents, says the chief executive of InterDigital.
Wi-Fi, or IEEE 802.11 is one of the technologies that has advanced rapidly based on this system. Since 1997, standards research and innovation has driven speeds from 2 Mbits/second to almost 2 Gbits/s — a 1,000-fold increase — and massively extended the range of applications. These are standards-based improvements that come built into any Wi-Fi device you purchase.
Here’s where patents come in. When an organization does something to improve the standard, they have to commit to negotiate licenses for any patents they have on that technology on reasonable, non-discriminatory terms. What exactly was reasonable and how royalties were to be calculated was left to individual negotiations, which occurred without fanfare for 20 years. That system worked very well and the performance of Wi-Fi grew by leaps and bounds.
This year, the IEEE voted to change its patent licensing policy. Rather than leave it to the parties to decide how royalties would be calculated, the IEEE endorses a calculation based on the value of the chip inside the device, even if many other aspects of the device benefit from or use the contributed technology.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ina Fried / Re/code:
Google and Microsoft case could determine what constitutes a “reasonable royalty” when patents are used as part of a standard
Google Will Battle Microsoft (Again) Over the Value of Patents in Tech Standards
http://recode.net/2015/04/07/google-will-battle-microsoft-again-over-the-value-of-patents-in-tech-standards/
Google and Microsoft will face off in a San Francisco appeals court Wednesday in a case that could define just how much tech companies are entitled to when they contribute to industry standards.
Companies that adopt technologies such as 3G, LTE, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth want to know they can do so without having to pay huge patent royalties forever.
Meanwhile, companies that specialize in standards-based technologies, companies such as Qualcomm and Nokia, also want to make sure they are getting fair value for their inventions.
The case was originally between Microsoft and Motorola, long before it was sold to Lenovo and even well before it was in Google’s hands.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Marvell: We don’t want to pay this $1.5bn patent bill because, cripes, it’s way too much
Chip bods warn 50¢ royalty will have ‘sweeping consequences’
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/08/marvell_to_judges_overturn_carnegie_mellon_verdict_because_we_dont_to_pay_it/
Chip biz Marvell is still trying to wriggle out of paying a whopping $1.5bn to Carnegie Mellon University after infringing the college’s patents. The design firm has now warned the penalty could have “sweeping consequences” – to its existence, we presume.
Marvell, based in Santa Clara, California, was found guilty in 2012 of ripping off these two Carnegie Mellon-owned designs in its hard-drive chips without permission:
US patent 6,438,180: Soft and hard sequence detection in ISI memory channels
US patent 6,201,839: Method and apparatus for correlation-sensitive adaptive sequence detection
The American university has a kept a dossier of its complaints against Marvell online, here. The technology at the heart of the spat lies inside Marvell’s read-channel chips, such as the 88C7500 family, which extract usable data from the analog signals picked up at high speed from spinning disk platters.
“No reasonable jury could have found 50-cents-a-chip on worldwide sales is a reasonable royalty,”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Trade body, universities row over US patent troll act proposals
Academics: legislation goes ‘well beyond what is needed
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/09/row_erupts_over_us_patent_troll_act_proposals/
A spat has erupted between US universities and the trade body representing the $286bn (£193bn) consumer electronics industry, over a proposed crackdown on patent trolls.
The row is centered upon the proposed Innovation Act, a bill which collapsed and died last spring in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but which has now been resurrected, and is intended to make vexatious patent claims more difficult.
However, 145 US universities — including a number of Ivy League institutions — oppose the plans.
They argue the act would do little to deter patent trolls and instead make it more costly for legitimate patent holders to defend their intellectual property.
The Consumer Electronics Association, the standards and trade organization, has written to the universities to say the bill is “fair, common-sense legislation that would curb abusive patent litigation”.
Gary Shapiro, president and CEO, said: “It is disappointing to see universities reject common-sense reform, especially since many universities are licensing publicly-funded patents.”
He added: “Universities should focus on strengthening our nation’s patent system to ensure taxpayer-funded patents are not being used to extort the very companies and entrepreneurs that hire graduates, and contribute to university research or support these institutions as alumni donors.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google tips LTE patents into mostly-public pool
Mountain View offers a fair square of 4G chocolate to the standard
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/13/google_tips_lte_patents_into_via_pool/
The LTE rollout has moved a little closer to avoiding sueball spats that have long plagued the tech biz, with Google tipping a bucket of its IP into Via Licensing.
Via Licensing, set up years ago by Dolby Laboratories, set up an LTE patent pool in 2012, with ten participants including names like AT&T and Clearwire, KDDI, NTT DoCoMo, SK Telecom and ZTE.
The Chocolate Factory stirred a large number of LTE patents into its mix when it acquired Motorola, and it retained most of those patents when it sold Moto to Lenovo.
Although that sale saw Lenovo pay US$10 billion less to buy Motorola (along with around 2,000 of Moto’s patents and an arrangement covering the rest) than Google forked out in 2011, Mountain View reckoned the portfolio it kept from the inventor of the cell-phone were worth the balance.
The members of the Via Licensing pool promise each other to stick to the spirit of standards-essential patents and make their technology available to each other under “fair, predictable and cost-effective royalties”.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Cram my freebies into Android phones and get a royalty discount, says Microsoft (allegedly)
Mobe makers get lower patent fees in exchange for bloatware
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/16/ms_lowers_android_patent_fees_if_you_bundle_its_apps/
A new report claims Microsoft hasn’t been offering Android device vendors any money to bundle its mobile apps on their phones and slabs; rather, it has offered to reduce the tolls it collects from the mobe-makers.
Citing sources among supply chain players in China and Taiwan, DigiTimes Research says Redmond has offered to cut its patent licensing fees if Android vendors agree to ship their kit with Microsoft apps preinstalled, including OneDrive, OneNote, Skype, and in some cases Office.
Nearly every company shipping devices that run Android has now inked a licensing deal with Microsoft, which claims to hold patents covering technologies critical to the functioning of the mobile OS.
The software giant has consistently declined to name just which patents it’s talking about or how Android might infringe, but in the past it has claimed to hold “approximately 200″ patents that it could assert against the OS.
Digitimes Research: Microsoft patent fee cut to attract vendors to pre-install apps in Android products
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20150331VL200.html
According to Digitimes Research’s latest findings from Taiwan’s and China’s smartphone/tablet upstream supply chain, in exchange for hardware players to pre-install its software applications such as Office, OneDrive or Skype onto their Android-based devices, Microsoft is offering them discounts on the patent licensing fees it charges their Android devices.
“On March 23, Microsoft announced it had reached an agreement with 11 hardware players including Samsung Electronics, Dell and Pegatron Technology, for them to pre-install Office programs such as Word, Excel, PowerPoint and OneNote, as well as OneDrive and Skype onto their Android devices.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
If you believe enough, can you invalidate a patent? Supreme Court to decide
A patent case that could seep into copyright, file-sharing, and DVDs.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/03/if-you-believe-enough-can-you-invalidate-a-patent-supreme-court-to-decide/
Commil USA is an Israeli patent-holding company, which says its patent number 6,430,395 solves the problem of “how to manage ‘hand-offs’ between different base stations that together provide wireless coverage over a large area.” Rather than using old base stations, the invention “provides a novel architecture that includes a new hardware device called a switch,’” Commil lawyers explain in their brief.
In 2007, Commil sued Cisco in the Eastern District of Texas, saying that its “Split-MAC WLAN systems” infringe the patent. Technically, though, it’s Cisco’s customers who were said to infringe the patent, which describes the invention in a series of “method claims.”
The issue that has the high court’s attention in Commil v. Cisco is how a defendant should be allowed to defend itself from accusations of infringement. Cisco says, essentially, that when it comes to proving secondhand infringement, intent matters. It should have been allowed to present evidence that showed it had a “good-faith belief of invalidity” to the jury, which the trial judge prevented it from doing.
Commil says that allowing alleged infringers to talk about their “good faith belief” lets them off the hook all too easily. The whole point of being able to win a patent case on “indirect infringement,” Commil argues, is that Congress meant to “provide patent owners with a remedy for infringement” when they can’t practically enforce against direct infringers—in this case, Cisco customers.
Commil is a “non-practicing entity,” the kind of company sometimes derided as a “patent troll.”
The patent-holding company won its initial trial against Cisco in the patent hotspot of Marshall, Texas, but got only $3.7 million.
Believing vs. knowing
The law states that anyone who “actively induces infringement” of a patent is liable for damages under the patent laws.
Both Commil and Cisco have allies in this fight, and they line up along the predictable battle lines.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Docker huddles under Linux patent-troll protection umbrella
OIN prepares to repel tedious fools’ legal droplets
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/21/oin_docker_linux_protection/
Docker has joined an open-source and Linux umbrella that provides shelter against possible patent trolls.
The Linux container, finding favour in the cloud as a foundation of microservices, joins 115 packages protected by the Open Invention Network (OIN).
Joining Docker in the OIN shelter are Puppet, Ceph, the full LibreOffice collaboration suite and the Debian APT packaging tool.
Docker and co haven’t been on the wrong end of any patent-troll calls as yet, but OIN chief executive Keith Bergelt reckoned threats could come with greater use.
For “greater use” read “as more features are added and the code is increasingly deployed.”
“Attacks go hand in hand with success,” Bergelt said. “The more attention you get there’s more potential for infringement. These companies [patent trolls] are like flies around the flypaper – they are attracted to opportunity.”
Docker is, of course, a Linux container: OIN was founded in 2005 by IBM, Novell, Red Hat and Sony as a patent cross-licensing and non-prosecution project.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Google wants to beat the patent trolls
Google is tired of the ongoing patent litigation with various Trolls. In May, the company will organize a two-week campaign, which it provides to owners of patents, the ability to provide technical search engine giant for purchase.
It is a Patent Purchase Promotion campaign, which starts on May 8 and will last for two weeks. Google will evaluate proposals received for one month, after which the patent owner are taken to buying meeting. Sometimes midsummer patent owners get from Google data, if it wants to buy the rights to technology. By mid-August, Google has agreed to pay the rights money.
Google does not hide his motives. It wants to buy the patents before they end up in the hands of companies whose sole business is the money of patent rights. Such companies are called in general patent troll.
Source: http://www.etn.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2751:google-haluaa-peitota-trollit&catid=13&Itemid=101
Tomi Engdahl says:
U.S. jury orders Motorola Mobility to pay $10 million in Fujifilm patent suit
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/05/us-motorolamobility-fujifilm-lawsuit-idUSKBN0NQ09620150505
(Reuters) – Motorola Mobility said a U.S. jury ordered the company to pay $10.2 million in damages for using Fujifilm Corp’s patented technology in its phones without permission.
Fujifilm Corp, a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Fujifilm Holdings Corp, sued Motorola in 2012, accusing the company of infringing three of its patents on digital camera functions and a fourth patent relating to transmitting data over a wireless connection such as Bluetooth.
The damages the jury ordered on Monday were lesser than the $40 million Fujifilm sought while going into the trial, which began on April 20.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Even Uncle Sam admits: US patent law is whack
FTC politely tells PTO: fix your crappy rules
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/07/ftc_patents_pto/
The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is calling on the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to overhaul its rules on licensing intellectual property.
In an open letter [PDF] to the PTO, the FTC called on its fellow organization to simplify patent law.
“Clearer patent notice can encourage market participants to collaborate, transfer technology,” the FTC writes.
“Or, in some cases, to design-around patents, thus leading to a more efficient marketplace for intellectual property and the goods and services that practice such rights.”
The FTC is asking the US patent authority to increase the “quality” of patents in order to encourage companies to build new products without the worry of patent litigation and reduce the number of patent lawsuits currently taking place.
“Because patents publicly disclose the inventions that they embody, the patent system also promotes the dissemination of scientific and technical information that might not otherwise occur,” says the FTC
“Working in tandem with the patent system, market competition stimulates innovation by creating consumer demand for new or better products or processes.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
GSMArena.com:
LG licenses 2G, 3G and 4G patents to Nokia; royalty payments subject to arbitration, will be determined within the next two years
LG licenses 2G-4G patents from Nokia, will pay royalties
http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_licenses_2g4g_patents_from_nokia_will_pay_royalties-news-12673.php
Well, this is a curveball for Microsoft – Nokia and LG have reached a smartphone patent licensing agreement. LG will license over 60 Nokia patents related to 2G, 3G and 4G and will pay royalties to the Finns.
Certain terms of the agreement remain confidential, the details of the royalty payments will be ironed out within a year or two.
Tomi Engdahl says:
SCOTUS Denies Google’s Request To Appeal Oracle API Case
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/15/06/29/1756209/scotus-denies-googles-request-to-appeal-oracle-api-case?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29
The Supreme Court of the United States has today denied Google’s request to appeal against the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling (PDF) that the structure, sequence and organization of 37 of Oracle’s APIs (application program interfaces) was capable of copyright protection. The case is not over, as Google can now seek to argue that, despite the APIs being restricted by copyright, its handling amounts to “fair use”.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Microsoft, Kyocera settle patent suit over Android phones
http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-kyocera-settle-patent-suit-over-android-phones/
Microsoft and Kyocera have settled a dispute over Android patents, and simultaneously entered into a patent cross-licensing arrangement about which no details are available.
In March, Microsoft sued Japanese electronics maker Kyocera, alleging Kyocera’s Android phones violated seven Microsoft patents.
On July 2, the two companies resolved that suit, and simultaneously signed an expanded patent-licensing arrangement, according to a very brief press release from Microsoft.
When Microsoft sued Kyocera, court documents indicated that Microsoft was claiming it had patented thread scheduling, display sensor, network management and communications technologies, among others.
Kyocera is not the first Android vendor Microsoft has sued over patent-related issues.
Microsoft also sued Samsung
Tomi Engdahl says:
Todd Bishop / GeekWire:
Court rejects Intellectual Ventures appeal in Capital One case, citing ‘unpatentable abstract ideas’
http://www.geekwire.com/2015/court-rejects-intellectual-ventures-appeal-in-capital-one-case-citing-unpatentable-abstract-ideas/
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled against Intellectual Ventures in a dispute with Capital One Financial, finding that two of the company’s patents were based on “unpatentable abstract ideas,” and upholding a lower court’s reading of a third patent in Capital One’s favor.
The decision, issued Monday, is a setback for Intellectual Ventures, the Bellevue, Wash.-based patent holding company and invention lab run by former Microsoft technology chief Nathan Myhrvold. The company has filed a series of patent suits against Capital One and other large financial institutions as part of its broader legal strategy.
The appeals court based its ruling this week largely on the determination in the Alice case that “abstract ideas are not patentable.”
As explained by the appeals court, the patent “generally relates to customizing web page content as a function of navigation history and information known about the user.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Giuseppe Macri / InsideSources:
Group of big Silicon Valley firms, including Facebook, Google, Dell, HP, and eBay, filed “friend of the court” briefing siding with Samsung in Apple patent case
Silicon Valley’s Biggest Companies Take Samsung’s Side in Apple Patent Fight
http://www.insidesources.com/facebook-google-others-urge-court-to-review-apple-v-samsung-patent-case/
A group of Silicon Valley’s biggest companies including Facebook, Google, Dell, HP, eBay and others joined the patent war between Apple and Samsung this month with a petition to a federal appeals court, asking the panel to review its decision ordering Samsung to turn over profits from a handful of Apple patent infringements.
The coalition sided with Samsung in a “friend of the court” briefing filed July 1, warning the U.S. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that ordering Samsung turn over the full profits of certain devices over select design elements copied from Apple opens the entire industry up to mass patent infringement lawsuits.
Industry giants and company trade groups argue upholding the ruling threatens to stifle innovation and limit consumer choice across the tech sector.
“If allowed to stand, that decision will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including [the briefing draftees], who spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technologies and their components,” the group wrote in its brief to the court earlier this month.
According to the companies, the nature of technology like smartphones and smart TVs, which contain thousands of individual components, working parts and software, is too complex to lump all of a products’ design and functionality elements into one convenient legal definition of patent infringement in cases when only select design elements appear to have been copied.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Ingrid Lunden / TechCrunch:
Google Offers To Give Away Patents To Startups In Its Push Against Patent Trolls — Back in April, Google launched a pop-up, temporary marketplace for companies to sell patents, with Google being the sole buyer. Today, the search and mobile giant is expanding that marketplace in the other direction …
Google Offers To Give Away Patents To Startups In Its Push Against Patent Trolls
http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/23/google-offers-to-sell-patents-to-startups-to-boost-its-wider-cross-licensing-initiative/
Back in April, Google launched a pop-up, temporary marketplace for companies to sell patents, with Google being the sole buyer. Today, the search and mobile giant is expanding that marketplace in the other direction: Google has started a program for startups to give away up to two non-organic patent families off Google, as well as potentially make offers to buy patents from it in the future. It’s tying up the offer with a requirement to join the LOT Network, a cross-company licensing push (others in the group include Dropbox, SAP and Canon) aimed at driving down the number of patent-trolling suits.
If you are interested, you should get in touch quickly. Initially, this will only be open to the first 50 eligible startups.
Tomi Engdahl says:
The History of the Patent Troll
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/08/13/0310259/the-history-of-the-patent-troll?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29
Patent trolling is not a new problem, although recently it seems that the issue has captured the attention of a broader audience.
David Perry takes a look back at the history of patent trolling, as well as some possible solutions to the problem.
The patent troll problem is not a new one
https://opensource.com/law/15/8/patent-troll-problem-not-new-one
The patent troll problem is not a new one. In 1879, an inventor by the name of George B. Selden filed a patent on a horseless four-wheeled carriage, which he called the “Road Engine.”
He delayed prosecution of his patent for 16 years in order to increase its effective life (then, patents expired 17 years from issuance, as opposed to 20 years from filing, as they do now). This meant by the time his patent issued, despite never developing a working prototype, Selden was able to claim a patent on the automobile and extract licenses from the budding automobile industry.
And the patent troll problem is obviously not new to the readers of Opensource.com. We have published posts questioning whether patent promote innovation, exploring the role of the abuse of software patents in the debate over patent reform, and noting efforts from various states (including North Carolina) to fight patent trolls.
Now, The Economist has decided that, once and for all, it is Time to fix patents. The article begins by rebutting the presumption that patents spur innovation, and claims that, because of patent trolls, the patent system is a net drain
The problem of patent trolls is not new or small. It is going to take bold ideas and broad collective action to solve it.
Tomi Engdahl says:
U.S. patent office considers Apple’s D’677 iPhone design patent invalid on multiple grounds
http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/08/us-patent-office-considers-apples-d677.html
Interesting things are still happening from time to time in connection with the generally much less interesting patent dispute between Apple and Samsung. Three months after the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated $380 million in damages, thus necessitating a third trial in the first California case between these parties, but upheld approximately $547 million in mostly design patent-related damages, it looks like one of the patents underlying that damages claim should never have been granted in the first place.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Howard Mintz / Mercury News:
Samsung plans to petition to US Supreme Court the 2012 verdict that it violated Apple’s patents — Apple v. Samsung: Samsung plans to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court — Samsung plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court by November to hear its appeal of a San Jose federal jury’s stinging 2012 verdict …
Apple v. Samsung: Samsung plans to appeal to U.S. Supreme Court
http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28667408/apple-v-samsung-samsung-plans-appeal-u-s
Samsung plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court by November to hear its appeal of a San Jose federal jury’s stinging 2012 verdict that found the South Korean tech giant violated Apple’s iPhone patents.
In court papers filed Wednesday, Samsung moved to put its ongoing patent feud with Apple on hold while it presses its appeal to the nation’s high court, which will have an opportunity to weigh in on perhaps the most high-profile tech showdown in recent memory.
“The questions present issues of enormous importance to patent litigation and the scope of innovation, especially in high-technology industries,”
Silicon Valley heavyweights such as Google, Facebook and Hewlett-Packard backed Samsung’s request for a rehearing, and are likely to urge the Supreme Court to take the case.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Andrew Chung / Reuters:
ITC clears Microsoft phones of infringing on two InterDigital patents
U.S. International Trade Commission clears Microsoft of patent infringement
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/28/us-microsoft-interdigital-us-idUSKCN0QX2GS20150828
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sunk by ‘patent troll’: Iron Speed director asks ‘anyone want to buy us?’
Legal woes (and cracked licence keys) cause dev favourites to throw in the towel
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/07/sunk_by_patent_troll_iron_speed_stops_ops/
Iron Speed, a firm which provided a rapid application development tool for creating .NET apps, is shuttering itself thanks to “litigation with a patent troll”, according to a letter sent to customers by co-founder and chairman Alan Fisher.
The Iron Speed designer enabled developers to create applications for web, cloud and mobile using a point-and-click interface. Customers include AT&T, Cisco, DHL, Disney, HP and the US Army, according to the company’s website. Yet all this is no more, writes Fisher:
I am writing to inform you that we have decided to discontinue operations after August 31 2015.
There are several reasons for this, one of which has been the ongoing expense of litigation with a patent troll who has challenged our intellectual property. While we feel this is baseless, patent litigation is generally a multi-million dollar exercise. This has put a drain on our resources we can no longer afford, and coupled with excessive cracked key use and license sharing, our product sales have been severely impaired.
Although the product will not be developed further, it will still function
In another post, Kirill asks, does anyone want to buy the company?
Tomi Engdahl says:
Why Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/09/08/2251247/why-patent-law-shouldnt-block-the-sale-of-used-tech-products
Lexmark is best known for its printers, but even more important to its business is toner. Toner cartridges are Lexmark’s lifeblood, and they’ve been battling hard in court to protect their cashflow. The NY Times has published an editorial arguing that one of their recent strategies is bogus: making patent infringement claims on companies who refill used cartridges. Think about that, for a moment: Lexmark says that by taking one of their old, empty cartridges, refilling it with toner, and then selling it somehow infringes upon their patents to said cartridges. “This case raises important questions about the reach of American patent law and how much control a manufacturer can exert after its products have been lawfully sold.”
Patent Law Shouldn’t Block the Sale of Used Tech Products
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/07/opinion/patent-law-shouldnt-block-the-sale-of-used-tech-products.html?_r=0
Tomi Engdahl says:
Assessing Patent Value — Software Inventions
http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1327654&
Determining the value of a patent or a patent portfolio is no easy task for companies looking to maximize the value of their own patents and to minimize their infringement liability.
In Alice, the Supreme Court established a two-part framework for determining patent eligibility that applies to all categories of invention, including software:
1. determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a law or nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea; and
2. if so, determine whether the claimed elements sufficiently ensure that the patent in practice amounts to “significantly more” than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.
The Court went on to explain that this framework is intended primarily to address “preemption”—the notion that patenting concepts that are too fundamental may inhibit further innovation by preventing others from using them.
Despite the Supreme Court’s admonition that, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas,”[1] many of the district courts tasked with implementing Alice have not been shy about invalidating patents for claiming abstract ideas.
But DDR does confirm that some software patents remain viable after Alice, and it provides insight into which ones.
Read more: http://www.embedded.com/electronics-blogs/say-what-/4440299/Assessing-patent-value—-Software-inventions
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple’s latest patent war blow against Samsung: A largely pointless twist in an endless sad saga
Heat death of the universe will occur before this finishes
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/18/apple_samsung_patent_appeal_latest/
Apple should be granted an injunction banning Samsung from selling crappy old Galaxy smartphones in America because they infringe iOS patents, a US appeals court ruled on Thursday.
Said old Sammy mobes being the Galaxy S3 and older models, the latest of which came out in 2012 – which aren’t exactly flying off the shelves these days.
Back in August 2014, after two years of courtroom wrangling, Apple tried and failed to get a banning order in California against Samsung. A jury earlier found that some of the South Korean giant’s Android smartphones had ripped off iOS’s patented slide-to-unlock feature, algorithm to turn telephone numbers and URLs in text into links, and its autocorrect mechanism.
“Apple does not seek to enjoin the sale of lifesaving drugs, but to prevent Samsung from profiting from the unauthorized use of infringing features in its cellphones and tablets,” the appeals court noted on Thursday.
“Samsung willfully stole our ideas and copied our products,” Apple said in a statement today.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Joe Mullin / Ars Technica:
East Texas judge shuts down 168 patent cases filed by most prolific patent troll of 2014, eDekka
East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases in one fell swoop
Judge’s order puts the most litigious patent troll of 2014 out of business.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/east-texas-judge-throws-out-168-patent-cases-in-one-fell-swoop/
The most prolific patent troll of last year, eDekka LLC, has had its patent wiped out. The ruling (PDF) will shut down 168 lawsuits that eDekka filed based on US Patent No. 6,266,674, according to Texas Lawyer, which first reported the ruling.
The ruling comes from a surprising source: US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the East Texas judge who has been criticized for making life extra-difficult for patent defendants.
Gilstrap found that the patent claims “the abstract idea of storing and labeling information” and describes “routine tasks that could be performed by a human.” eDekka said its patent claims to “improve the functioning of technology,” but Gilstrap ruled the claimed improvements simply weren’t present. None of the eDekka claims met the standard for patenting, Gilstrap found.
The judge also invited the defendants to submit a joint brief as to why they should get attorneys’ fees. Just the invite is a sign of changing times: in his four years on the bench, Gilstrap has never granted attorneys’ fees to a defendant in a patent case, according to Texas Lawyer. It became easier to get such fees after the Supreme Court’s Octane Fitness decision last year.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Mary Jo Foley / ZDNet:
ASUS signs patent licensing deal with Microsoft, will pre-install Office suite on its Android devices — Microsoft, ASUS sign combined Android patent, Office bundling deal — Is Microsoft making Office software and services part of its Android-patent-licensing negotiation terms?
Microsoft, ASUS sign combined Android patent, Office bundling deal
http://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-asus-sign-combined-android-patent-office-bundling-deal/
Is Microsoft making Office software and services part of its Android-patent-licensing negotiation terms? A new deal between Microsoft and ASUS makes it seem like it might be.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Samsung/NVIDIA Case Update: US ITC Finds Samsung GPUs Non-Infringing
by Ryan Smith on October 12, 2015 9:00 AM EST
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9713/samsungnvidia-case-update-us-itc-finds-samsung-gpus-noninfringing
Following a six month lull in the ongoing legal battle between NVIDIA and Samsung over GPU updates, there is finally some new movement on the case. After previously receiving a favorable Markman Hearing outcome back in April, an initial ruling from the ITC has been made.
In last week’s ruling, Judge Thomas Pender has ruled that Samsung is not infringing on two of NVIDIA’s patents. Specifically, the judge ruled that none of the relevant Andreo, PowerVR, or Mali GPUs infringe on NVIDIA’s vertex processing patent (7209140) or their patent on multithreaded execution of programs (7038685).
Tomi Engdahl says:
Jack Nicas / Wall Street Journal:
Maker of Polaroid cameras sues GoPro, claiming Hero4 Session violates its patent for the Polaroid Cube camera
Polaroid Maker Sues GoPro Over Tiny, Cubical Camera
C&A Marketing says GoPro’s Hero4 Session violates its patent for the Polaroid Cube camera
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/polaroid-maker-sues-gopro-over-tiny-cubical-camera-1446563105-lMyQjAxMTE1ODA0MzAwNTM4Wj
The maker of Polaroid cameras is suing wearable-camera maker GoPro Inc. for allegedly infringing on its patent for cube-shaped cameras, a dispute between old and new in the industry that poses another problem for GoPro’s latest product.
GoPro said several European Union patents for the Session and a U.S. patent for the Session’s plastic case, all issued in March, show “that GoPro was working on Hero4 Session well before the competitor filed for its patent, which covers its own product—not GoPro’s.”
The year-old Polaroid Cube and the four-month-old GoPro Session look like cubes with rounded corners. Both have a camera lens on the front side and large control button on the top. The Session is slightly larger than the 1.4-cubic-inch Cube.
A federal jury now might have to decide whether those similarities mean GoPro infringed on C&A’s design patent, which has just a 12-word claim—“The ornamental design for a cubic action camera, as shown and described”
If a jury decides the Session infringes on the patent, what does that mean for other makers of cube-shaped cameras?
The lawsuit is the latest Session-related headache for GoPro.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Patent litigation in Europe will look very different in 5 years’ time – expert
And what if the UK exits the EU?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/30/expert_expects_patent_litigation_in_europe_to_look_very_different_five_years_from_now/
Patent litigation in Europe in five years will look very different from now owing to major reforms to the patent framework and a new wave of technology relevant to wearables and the “internet of things”.
It is likely that more companies will choose to settle patent disputes through arbitration. At the same time, we can expect the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) reforms to have influenced the way businesses obtain, defend and challenge patent rights, with different approaches to be expected in different sectors.
The UK’s 2017 referendum on whether the country should remain members of the EU will also have a bearing on patent strategies, with a vote to leave the EU likely to prompt changes in the UK’s relationship with the new UPC regime as well as an overhaul of existing rights and case law.
Future patent wars
Many of the prevailing intellectual property disputes of the past decade have been in relation to patented technology relevant to smartphones. Only in recent months, after years of litigations in jurisdictions around the world, has there been a slowdown in the number of court battles taking place. Many technology companies have called a truce and looked to solutions, such as collaboration and cross-licensing agreements, instead.
The next round of patent wars between technology companies is likely to centre on developments in so-called wearables.
The internet of things, standards and patent licensing disputes
The increasing connectivity of devices, commonly referred to as the internet of things (IoT), is also likely to develop further in the next five years, and have implications for patent litigation.
The IoT age is already well in progress, with examples including smart metering systems in the energy market, to the development of connected cars. The IoT offers the opportunity to make everyday items into devices capable of transmitting and receiving data, and to change the way that businesses operate. In the new industrial age referred to as “Industrie 4.0″, the supply chain in advanced manufacturing is increasingly characterised by connectivity, whether between machines and devices or between parties in the supply chain. However, to harness the potential this connectivity offers, technical standards are vital to achieve interoperability so that different systems and devices can “talk” to one another.
The development of technological standards for the IoT will lead to the generation of a new wave of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Companies that develop SEPs are generally bound by the standard-setting body they have engaged with to licence the patented technology for use by others on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Sued For Using HTTPS: Companies In Crypto Patent Fight
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/12/01/0335225/sued-for-using-https-companies-in-crypto-patent-fight
According to an article in The Register, corporations big and small are coming under legal fire from CryptoPeak. The Company holds U.S. Patent 6,202,150, which describes “auto-escrowable and auto-certifiable cryptosystems” and has claimed that the Elliptic Curve Cryptography methods/implementations used as part of the HTTPS protocol violates their intellectual property.
Sued for using HTTPS: Big brands told to cough up in crypto patent fight
Sony, Macy’s, GoPro, hotels, insurance giants, anyone with money accused of infringement
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/01/cryptopeak_sues_/
Scores of big brands – from AT&T and Yahoo! to Netflix, GoPro and Macy’s – are being sued because their HTTPS websites allegedly infringe an encryption patent.
It appears in May this year CryptoPeak Solutions, based in Longview, Texas, got its hands on US Patent 6,202,150, which describes “auto-escrowable and auto-certifiable cryptosystems.”
CryptoPeak reckons TLS-secured websites that use elliptic curve cryptography are infringing the patent – so it’s suing owners of HTTPS websites that use ECC. Top tip: loads of websites use ECC these days to securely encrypt their traffic.
Starting in July, CryptoPeak began pursuing companies through the courts in the eastern district of Texas. Just in the past week or so, the patent-holding biz filed infringement claims against AT&T, Priceline, Pinterest, Hyatt Hotels, Best Western, and Experia.
CryptoPeak has almost 70 cases in play now. It wants damages, royalties, and its legal bills paid.
“The defendant has committed direct infringement by its actions that comprise using one or more websites that utilize Elliptic Curve Cryptography Cipher Suites for the Transport Layer Security protocol,” CryptoPeak alleged in its lawsuit against Progressive.
The patent in question was crafted by crypto gurus Dr Adam Young and Dr Marcel “Moti” Yung, and granted in 1997
But the patent is focused on “a key recovery agent to recover the user’s private key or information encrypted under said user’s corresponding public key” – which is really not the point of ECC. Yet, CryptoPeak seems to think there’s some overlap between today’s ECC implementations and the patent it holds.
“The defect in these claims is so glaring that CryptoPeak’s only choice is to request that the court overlook the express words of the claims, construe the claims to read out certain language, or even correct the claims,” Netflix’s legal eagles wrote in their filing.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Wall Street Journal:
Qualcomm signs patent-licensing deal with Xiaomi, quieting fears about China and causing stock to jump 5.6%
Qualcomm Inks License Deal With China’s Xiaomi
Deal quiets fears that chip maker’s woes in the Asian country would linger
http://www.wsj.com/article_email/qualcomm-inks-license-deal-with-chinas-xiaomi-1449073395-lMyQjAxMTI1MDA0MjMwMjIxWj
Qualcomm Inc. said it reached a patent-licensing deal with Xiaomi Corp., one of China’s largest smartphone makers, a sign of progress in easing the chip maker’s struggles in the country.
The San Diego-based company’s stock jumped 5.6% to $52.03 in afternoon trading on Wednesday in response to the announcement.
Qualcomm gets more than half its profit from licensing patents, and customers in China accounted for more than half of total revenue during the fiscal year ended in September.
The deal with Xiaomi follows announcements of agreements with China’s Huawei Technologies Co., TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd and ZTE Corp. Qualcomm was in negotiations with Lenovo Group Ltd. as recently as last month, people familiar with the matter said.
Qualcomm’s licensing business generated $6.6 billion in profit last year, compared with $3.8 billion for its chip business.
A pioneer in cellular technology, the company has long charged handset makers royalties to use patents associated with the third-generation cellular technology dubbed 3G. It also licenses patents on 4G technology
Tomi Engdahl says:
Don Reisinger / Fortune:
Samsung agrees to pay $548M in damages awarded to Apple in 2012 patent ruling, but reserves right to seek reimbursement, which Apple disputes — Samsung Will Pay Apple for Damages—But Wants the Cash Back — If you thought the patent battle between Apple and Samsung would finally end with a cash payment, you’re sorely mistaken.
Samsung Will Pay Apple for Damages—But Wants the Cash Back
http://fortune.com/2015/12/04/samsung-pay-apple-patents/
Apple says Samsung shouldn’t get any cash back.
If you thought the patent battle between Apple and Samsung would finally end with a cash payment, you’re sorely mistaken.
While in most cases, a settlement payment would spell the end of a court spat, that is not the case in the interminable battle between Apple and Samsung. In its statement to the court, Samsung wrote that it reserves the right to be reimbursed for part or all of the $548 million it’s giving Apple. The company argues that while Apple may hold the cash for now, if patents are deemed invalid or it were to win a case on appeal, it should be allowed to retrieve at least part of its payment.
Apple said only that it “disputes Samsung’s asserted rights to reimbursement.” The company didn’t say why it believes Samsung should not be reimbursed if a “partial judgment is reversed, modified, vacated or set aside on appeal or otherwise.”
Tomi Engdahl says:
Nokia may have a hefty payday in January
Although Nokia has abandoned the production of mobile phones, smart phone business it produces more money through other licensed patents. In January, may be coming to a hefty pot from Samsung.
Nokia now expects to inform the final settlement of compensation levels determining the arbitration proceedings by the end of january 2016.
Nokia and Samsung the old Patent ended in 2013, and at that time obtained agreement reached will be followed by a new five-year deal. However, the level of compensation was left open, and it was agreed that it will be settled later.
The old contract is believed to have brought Nokia 0.3-0.4 percent of mobile phones sold in each price. Other similar agreements have the objective of 2-3 per cent royalties. If the arbitration reading level raised to even 1 per cent, more than double the Nokia Samsung collects license fees.
Source: http://www.tivi.fi/Kaikki_uutiset/nokialla-saattaa-olla-muhkea-tilipaiva-tammikuussa-6240085
Tomi Engdahl says:
Apple will pay Ericsson for patents
ricsson and Apple have reached an agreement on cross-licensing of patented technologies.
At the same time companies have finished all the legal actions between them.
The new agreement has a 7-year. Its monetary value is not disclosed, but according to Ericsson, Apple will pay a separate fee at the beginning and after the royalties for Ericsson in each year of the contract.
The agreement covers a number of different techniques. These are related to the development of 5G networks to be essential to the optimization of wireless networks and applications such as video traffic management networks.
Source: http://etn.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3778:apple-maksaa-ericssonille-patenteista&catid=13&Itemid=101
Tomi Engdahl says:
Joe Mullin / Ars Technica:
As Microsoft and Corel battle in patent lawsuits, EFF notes the absurdity of one Microsoft design patent, for a slider — Microsoft patents a slider, earning EFF’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” award — The patent is ammo in a battle between MS Word and Corel’s WordPerfect.
Microsoft patents a slider, earning EFF’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” award
The patent is ammo in a battle between MS Word and Corel’s WordPerfect.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/microsoft-patents-a-slider-earning-effs-stupid-patent-of-the-month-award/
Tomi Engdahl says:
Number of Yankee patents decreased
US Patent Office PTO has published in recent years on patenting. IBM continues to clearly the most active patentees of new technologies. Instead, the total number of patents decreased for the first time in seven years.
All in all, the PTO received 298 407 patent applications. The amount is one percent lower than the previous year. IBM names of the applications recorded in 7355, which in itself is a little less than last year.
IBM, following the highest number of applications the PTO for giant Samsung, a total of 5072 pieces. Canon (4134), Qualcomm (2900) and Google (2835) complete the top five patenting stockholder list.
Microsoft (Microsoft Corporation) submitted last year to the PTO for only 465 patent applications
Source: http://etn.fi/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3831:jenkkipatenttien-maara-vaheni&catid=13&Itemid=101
Tomi Engdahl says:
Bloomberg Business:
Transitioning to digital, banks file more patents and educate USPTO about their operations so examiners won’t issue new bad patentsFind
Wall Street Is Trying to Beat Silicon Valley at Its Own Game
Banks race to beat the patent trolls—and Silicon Valley.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-11/disrupting-banks-go-see-what-they-re-doing-at-the-patent-office
Banks and Silicon Valley are on a collision course, the future of finance may be at stake, and one side is brandishing its most dreaded weapon: the PowerPoint presentation.
In January dozens of government patent examiners gathered in a suburban Washington lecture hall to listen to Bank of America employees go through a slideshow. Hundreds more tuned in for a webcast. The presentation detailed 25 ways banks digitally authenticate such things as a customer depositing checks. It may sound agonizingly technical, but for banks, documenting every detail of what they do has become critical. As Silicon Valley entrepreneurs dream up ways to disrupt the financial-services business, bankers and Wall Street companies are taking patents very seriously.
“There is so much innovation in finance right now that if you want to stay ahead and maintain an edge, you have to patent it,” says Linda Coven, a banking and payments analyst at research firm Aite Group.
The biggest U.S. banks, including Bank of America, and payments networks such as MasterCard are applying for more patents than ever before on everything from mobile wallets to blockchain ledgers similar to those used for the digital currency bitcoin. Banks and payments companies were awarded 1,192 patents over the past three years, 36 percent more than the prior three-year period, according to researcher Envision IP.
They’re also hosting seminars for the U.S. patent office to head off what the industry sees as bad patents that cover age-old banking practices. By showing the examiners how the industry already operates, the banks hope the office won’t grant patents to applicants with similar ideas.
Tomi Engdahl says:
IT system lets biz opt out loads of EU patents from Unified Patent Court at once
New Euro court is almost ready to go, it says
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/10/businesses_can_opt_out_unlimited_number_of_eu_patents_from_unified_patent_court_at_once/
Companies will be able to opt out an “unlimited” number of their EU patents from the jurisdiction of the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) at one time, it has been learned.
Mark Craddock, a member of the IT team behind the new UPC case management system, told Out-Law.com that the UPC case management system will feature “a basket capability” that will allow an “unlimited” number of patents to be opted out of the UPC at once. He said the system, currently in its beta trial phase, had enabled testers to opt out 30 patents in a single move.
Craddock also said that IT developers are working on releasing a dedicated API (application program interface) that can link in to third party software and enable multiple patent opt outs to be filed. He said he had held discussions with software companies and law firms that are “considering creating software to allow bulk opt-outs”.
Patent law expert Deborah Bould of Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com, welcomed the development of the mass opt out tools. She said some businesses had expressed concern about the potential “administrative burden” if they were only able to opt out European patents from the UPC one by one.
Tomi Engdahl says:
Joe Mullin / Ars Technica:
$85M patent verdict covering Android’s push notifications, the largest ever against Google, overturned on appeal — $85 million patent verdict, largest ever against Google, wiped out on appeal — Patent describes a failed company’s 1996 desktop notification system.
$85 million patent verdict, largest ever against Google, wiped out on appeal
Patent describes a failed company’s 1996 desktop notification system.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/04/85-million-patent-verdict-largest-ever-against-google-wiped-out-on-appeal/