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.

Post # 23: Apple's argument against Google neutrality

In my previous blog post, I spoke about Apple's frustration over Googles ambiguous association with legal proceeding, especially in relation to Samsung. In this post I will be concerned with what action they took and with what evidence they used to dispute the assertion that Google is simply a 'third party' bystander.

The argument rested on 3 key points:

1) Apple claims that Google involvement and collaboration with Samsung regarding the subject matter lawsuits is far too deep. This is primarily because Google is the primary co-creator of the materials in question, both hardware and software. For example, Google not only developed Android but also collaborated jointly with Samsung in the development of the Galaxy Nexus phone, which has been accused of patent infringement.

2) Secondly, Apple argues that Google purposely chose to involve itself within litigation by providing declarations from their engineers to support Samsung's legal stance. These kinds of declarations can take the form of a written statement submitted to a court in which the writer swears 'under penalty of perjury' that the contents are true. Declarations are usually implemented in legal proceeding to satisfy and replace the need of a live testimony when the court is asked to rule on a motion. Although declarations are specifically factual in nature, and are supposed to be without bias, Apple still maintains that the very act of submitting these declarations shows heavy involvement within legal proceedings. Similarly, it is indicative of a sense of comradery between Google and Samsung.


3) Thirdly, in connection with Apple's Subpoenas (A writ ordering a person to attend a court), Google had engaged with a law firm and the lawyer that was representative of Samsung’s legal proceedings. Furthermore, the company then used the same lawyer Quinn Emanuel that represented Samsung.

Post # 22: Google, involved or not?

Apple is criticising Google for their laissez faire attitude in legal issues that, Apple believes, does actually concern them. The ambiguity of Google’s stance emerges because Google is often a partner of firms that are in legal disputes. The most obvious example of this is their development of the Android operating system that multiple phone company’s use. Indeed Apple formed a very compelling argument that Google could no longer be considered as 'third party' within certain patent lawsuits involving Samsung.

The close association between Google and Samsung calls into question the credibility of Google’s assertion that they are simply neutral third party. In the case of legal disputes between Samsung and Apple, Google is unhappily being pulled into legal proceedings that they would prefer to ignore. It will be interesting to see if Google maintains their stance as a neutral third party or choses to get involved. In the past, for instance, Google has been active in the ITC investigation of Nokia's complaint against HTC and had close dealings within multiple German Nokia v. HTC lawsuits.

Post # 21: iOS's jiggle

Apple recently won their ‘jiggle’ patent that allows customers to more easily organise and move their applications within iOS. Many of you are probably familiar with this idea, but this kind of functionality should not be taken for granted. It is indicative of Apple’s constant attempts to improve and simplify their mobile devices for the benefit of the user.

With all the negative media attention concerning Apple litigation we are exposed to as part of this class, its important to remember that Apple's mobile technology is still an incredibly innovative force within the market, that constantly tailors to user needs.

The functionality of the patent works in the following way:

1) Hold down an app icon

2) All the icons represented on the screen then ‘jiggle’

Then:

3) Delete a chosen app by pressing a small X that pops up, or;

4) Press and drag an icon to move it, or;

5) Press and drag one icon onto another to instantaneously merge them into one folder.

Post # 20: Falling apples in China

Often Apple’s legal debates seem so centred around the US and California, especially in regards to Samsung, that it’s easy to forget that Apple is a truly global organisation and that patent problems emerge all over the world. An excellent example is Apple's current struggle in China.

A year after Siri support was released in China, Zhizhen Network Technology Co, sued Apple for patent infringement. Zhizhen Network Technology Co, based in Shanghai filed their patent for Xiaoi Bot which is basically “a type of instant messaging chat bot system”. This was filed in August 13th 2004 and approved in 2006. Initially, Zhizhen attempted to solve the patent dispute outside of court, however Apple’s lack of response now means that Zhizhen is aiming to over $60 million in settlement. Evidently, if approved, this is major setback for apple’s strategy in china.

To exacerbate this situation, after Apple’s infringement is confirmed, Zhizhen Network Technology Co is demanding Apple to stop manufacturing and selling products using their patent rights in China. When this is accompanied with the possibility of paying future compensation the effects on Apple’s market share in China, appear greatly unsettled.

Post # 19: Google v.s Microsoft, unmapped territory

Under legal pressure in Germany, Google may perhaps be pushed into a licensing agreement with Microsoft regarding potential patent infringement. Namely, Google's data collection process for inputting information onto their Maps app is considered patent infringement by Microsoft’s Bing. But before suggesting that a licensing agreement is even a possibility, an examination of the legal situation is important.

Ironically, it was Google owned Motorola that initially initiated legal proceedings against Microsoft. In response, Microsoft assaulted Google with a threat to sue them on grounds of patent infringement. In spite of this and backed with the confidence of their large store of mobile device patents from their recent acquisition of Motorola, Google maintained its strong stance by denying that any form of license agreement should occur. 

However, Microsoft’s injunction against German Google Maps service would simultaneously benefit Microsoft’s Bing and modify the landscape of map apps. Furthermore, this, coupled with the fact that the German courts are heavily favouring Microsoft, could cause Google to rethink their choice to ignore any kind of licencing agreement.

Post # 18: Google, Genuine or Not?

Recently Google chose not to enforce 10 of its patents on Open Source Software. Is this a simple PR stunt or a genuine expression of Google’s caring culture they often promote?

As a reference, Open Source Software is computer software that’s code originally came from and was made available through an open-source licence in which the copyright holder can distribute the software for free to anyone and for any purpose.

This pledging of patents for the sake of Open Source Software is not something new. Indeed, companies such as Computer Associates, IBM and Sun Microsystems publicly chose not to enforce a series of patents they held against Open Source Software. As a result of this, the companies gained positive PR in exchange for a minimal loss in their patent portfolio. Many proclaimed these companies pledges essentially meaningless, when held in comparison to the patent portfolios they own; as the majority of the companies realised a comparatively small amount of patents.

Like the events that occurred in 2005, my personal belief is that Google’s motivation to choose not to enforce 10 of its patents on Open Source Software, was primarily a PR stunt for brand enhancement. This is to be expected of a large public company that from an investor standpoint, cannot afford to give things of real value away for free. Arguably however, the motivation here is irrelevant – Google did pledge these patents and for many it is a step in the right direction for innovation.

Post # 17: Implications of ITC import ban on Apple

A ruling is due on May 31 by the ITC (International Trade Commission)  most likely to pronounce that Apple has infringed at least one of the claims detailed in U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348. This is supposedly an UMTS-essential patent, which stands for The Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS). As a brief explanation, UMTS is a third generation mobile cellular system for networks based on the Global System for Mobile Communications standard which unties compatible handsets and communication devices.

What is concerning Samsung however, is that this US import ban, if put into effect against apple, would affect only older apple products and thus cause little disruption to Apples mobile device market share.

Nonetheless, it is worth considering the implications of this import ban. Arguably, the removal of older and inexpensive apple products could affect their sales from more traditional, less tech savy consumers who are not concerned with the latest apple product releases. Similarly, this ban would most likely hinder apple’s repair business; as consumer’s older products break, apple will be unable to fix these products as promised. Most importantly, I believe the greatest wound to apple in this case is the negative PR, surrounding the case. We are dealing with a company here that is already being accused of losing some of its innovative touch, with a slightly disappointing release of the IPhone 5, therefore anything that suggests any of their products were in some way plagiarised is detrimental.

Post # 16: Judge uncertainty in Apple and Samsung litigation

In the impending shadow of a second trial for Apple and Samsung in the North of California  there is growing disagreement and uncertainty between the competitors. However, regardless of the lengthening waiting period, the court is in critical indecision over Apples assertion that Samsung's recent envisioned appeal is premature and deployed in order to further delay the legal proceedings at stake. In the midst of this incessant waiting is a growing uncertainty as to whether Apple's asserted claim 19 of their 'rubber banding' or push back patent is still valid.

Apples 'rubber-banding patent' (outlined simply below) is an integrated iOS interface feature that causes the screen to bounce back briefly after reaching the bottom of a scrollable page, as I am sure you have all experienced.





This is especially important in the current situation primarily because this claim was successfully used against a series of Samsung products in the California trial. The USPTO invalidated Apple's U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381 in October of last year which included claim 19. The specific outcome of these series of events is, as of yet, ominously unresolved. It will be interesting to witness the ultimate decision.

Post # 15: Google's innovative new camera patent

Googles new patent will utilize a phones GPS in order to understand current weather conditions in the users vicinity. What makes this different from the simple auto adjust on current cameras and thus patent-able  is its reliance on GPS to achieve this function rather than light sensitivity.

For example, the software will use this data to adapt the camera to favor different saturation or chose weather to use flash or not. This not only enhances the quality of users everyday pictures but also makes the photography experience far more automatic and speedy. If the patent proves as effective as claimed users will no longer have to manually chose many or all of the camera settings they are used to.






This patents could have a allot of potential for the upcoming releases of smart phones. Indeed, Vic Gundotra, senior vice president of engineering for Google, recently stated that that future Nexus smart phones will feature “insanely great cameras”. Furthermore, if this patent is ultimately integrated into future versions of Andriod there is the possibility of interaction with Samsung Galaxy S4′s new temperature and humidity sensors. Although the extended future application of this patent is pure speculation, its immediate advantages for smart phone cameras are very interesting.

Read more: http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/google-exec-says-insanely-great-cameras-coming-to-future-nexus-devices/#ixzz2PRoNcWzH