Post # 28: Mobile Patent Environment

As a final blog and as a snapshot into the mobile patent environment that we have covered this semester, I decided to look at what companies own the most significant amount of mobile patents. In 2012, Samsung received the most Mobile Patents meaning that now it leads the rankings on a global scale; it now holds the most mobile patents of any company worldwide, according to the mobile analyst Chetan Sharma. (The study covered more than 7 million mobile patents awarded in the U.S.)

Interestingly, you can view the state of the leading player’s patent portfolios below:

This is not just an impressive statistic however, it is a clearly strategic move on behalf of Samsung’s top management in order to form a legal defence against Apple and other mobile companies and their legal attacks. At the same time, the greater amount of patents acquired, means that Samsung will be able to form more robust legal assaults if necessary over the next few years.

The study also outlined that the mobile technology arena is specifically on the rise, which I am sure comes as no shock to the students in our course. Furthermore, in the U.S, mobile patents account for around 25% of the total patents granted. This is extremely impressive when this figure is compared to 5% in 2001. Right now, Europe has less of a reliance on mobile patents with only 10% of the whole patent pool being mobile related.

Evidently, mobile patents are a vast and growing part of the economy that cannot be ignored. 

Post # 27: Glass Staircase

After the search to find the most ridiculous patent ever, with the Motorized Ice Cream Cone and the Cry No More from my previous blog posts, I found a series of patents from that could be deemed as strange, but on closer inspection, do have value.

Once again, these patents come from probably the most referenced company from this course – Apple.

Apple is not only well known for its sleek and innovative design of hardware but also its impressive retail outlets that have a strong and individual aesthetic. One of the parts of this individualistic aesthetic is their glass staircases. 

Their Glass Staircase was patented in August 26, 2003 as a design patent with the official registration number D478,999 S:

On a smaller scale, Apple has also patented its purely presentational iPad stand that also appears in stores. It is another design patent, granted from July 3, 2012, with the number D662,939 S:

Although ostensibly irrelevant, these patents provide protection from rival companies where brand image is an essential part to business. These patents demonstrate how far a tech company will go to improve and maintain its brand image and how far companies will go to protect it. 

Post # 26: Cry No More

In a search to find the most ridiculous patent ever, I came across another patent that even surpasses the 1999 Motorized Ice Cream Cone in its ludicrously; the Cry No More.

After the peaceful Motorized Ice Cream Cone that brightens up children’s days, the Cry No More appears even more dreadful. Essentially the Cry No More is a muzzle for infants, stopping their mouth so they are unable to omit any noise. Bearing resemblance to a torcher device, it is described by the inventor as the following:

"The inventive device includes a pacifier having an outwardly extending guard plate, apertures in opposite sides of the guard plate, and adjustable straps employing hook and loop fasteners to form loops for engaging the straps between the apertures in the guard plate and an infant's ears."

What is all the more shocking is that the patent was granted in 2000. Even in the modern age, only 13 years ago, someone believed this idea had value. Ultimately, this patent fails however because its potential benefits are far outweighed by its disadvantages; namely the cruelty enacted upon the child. Indeed, if this patent were to manifest itself in the market, it would most likely fail U.S Department of Health and Human Services laws in its relationship to child abuse and neglect. In this respect, the patent is rendered completely useless.

Post # 25: Motorized Ice Cream Cone

In a search to find the most ridiculous patent ever, I came across the Motorized Ice Cream Cone, which was awarded in 1999.

The description offers the following reasoning:

"The repetitive task of moving one's tongue up and down to manipulate a hollow ring can become monotonous and tiring, especially for a child."

Perhaps this patent could be deemed as useful to an extent – i.e. it rids the need to use your tongue. Perhaps also, it could be seen as an original idea – i.e. the combination of a motorised function along with an ice cream cone is a far-fetched idea. Ultimately, however the overall value of the patent is extremely limited. Not only would the market for this idea be extremely small, the patent evidently lacks economic value. The fact that someone would submit this patent and expect it to be bought by customers is shocking. 

Post # 8: USPTO changes, negative

My previous blog post discussed the positives of the new USPTO changes that were made last month and implemented on March 19th. Here I discuss the potential negative implications. Although, the new amendment greatly favours "Micro entities", on the other hand, the majority of the USPTO fees have inflated in price.

Below are a select few that represent important areas where price inflation occurred:

Filing Application (Filing + Search + Examination Fees): $1,600 up from $1,260.

Additional claims: $80 for each additional claim; $420 for each additional independent claim. This is up from $62 and $250 respectively.

Issue fee: $1,780 up from $1,770. 

Maintenance (renewal) fees:

Due at 3.5 years: $1,600 up from $1,150.

Due at 7.5 years: $3,600 up from $2,900.

Due at 11.5 years: $7,400 up from $4,810. 

Request for Continued Examination:

First Request: $1,200 up from $930.

Second or Subsequent Request: $1,700 up from $930.

Request for Prioritized Examination: $4,000 down from $4,800. 

Arguably, these price increases could lead to a decrease in the quantity of patents submitted to the USPTO. However, the submission of patents is an extremely important part of long term strategy for large companies  Given the fact that large companies are the biggest submitter of patents, it would be reasonable to assume that these price increases would have little impact on a company that is turning over revenues within the millions or more. Patent submission, especially within the current highly competitive environment is essential; companies will most probably make the small adjustments to their budgets to integrate these changes without thinking.  Alternatively, companies can make the necessary financial and budgetary cuts in other areas of the organisation in order to pay the USPTO's new fees. In this respect, I believe that these changes will have limited negative impact on the P+L's of major corporations.

Post # 7: USPTO changes, positive

After blogging about a variety of legal cases concerning mobile device patent litigation I felt that a more practical investigation into what we are learning in class was in order. For this reason, my next two blogs will focus on the newly implemented changes that occurred recently within the USPTO. The USPTO, although known for being laboriously slow, last month, instigated a new fee system. This officially became active on March 19th. Initially, I will talk about the positives of the amendment.

Perhaps the greatest addition to this fee amendment is the 75% reduction of standard fees on "Micro entities." This is clearly delineated on the USPTO website where "The fees subject to reduction upon establishment of small entity status (37 CFR 1.27) or micro entity status (37 CFR 1.29) are shown in separate columns”.

This new change is good news for small scale entrepreneurs  startups and importantly students like us. A micro entity is assessed for qualification on a series of criteria: 

1) Qualification based on experience: No more than 4 previous applications
2) Qualification based on Income: The a applicants gross income (as defined by the IRS) must not exceed three times the median household income
3) Qualification based on Institution of Higher Education status: The applicant’s employer has to be an institution of higher education or the applicant has agreed in advance to pledge the patent to an educational institution upon receiving it

This favouritism for smaller scale inventors is a welcome addition to innovation and in my opinion a long awaited change. 

Post # 24: Cloud computing

A very interesting exploration into cloud computing was brought to light when the CEO of Amazon, Jeff Bezos filed a "remote display" patent recently.

The patent’s functional process is as follows:

1) Initially, the display in question would connect with a nearby base station

2) Secondly, this centrally located base station utilises its local processing power and sources of energy

3) Finally, the base station would then send the mobile device information in the form of data as well as power to sustain its use

Currently, Cloud computing is primarily based within the internet. It is the use of computing resources, wheather they be hardware or software, that are delivered over a network. Conventionally, end users then access cloud-based applications through web browsers or mobile apps, whilst the data is stored on remote servers.

However, this patent takes a step further by broadcasting energy via a network to devices from remote servers that form central base stations. The most exciting part of this, is that this process invalidates the need for a battery. Although, the technology needed is clearly not developed enough yet, the possibility is still exciting.