POST 18: Patent Application Filings Increasing

It seems that the amount of patent filings is growing at a rapid pace. 

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/03/pre-aia-filing-numbers.html
What is the cause of such an increase of patent filings? It is partly due to a March 15th deadline of way a patent could be filed. New rules, set in place March 16th, have made it harder to gain patents. 


"In January and February 2013, filing averaged about 7,100 non-provisional applications per week. In the three weeks before the change-over, the filing increased substantially. In all, about one-month worth of extra applications were filed during those three weeks (about 33,000 non-provisional applications). As the chart shows, applicants also ramped-up filing of provisional applications"

Is this a good idea? Should patents be harder to file or easier? Will this new law help lessen the amount of legal battles over patents? Will the law instead make these legal battles even bigger?

It's hard to say now. However, it is clear that those who were able to file their patent prior to the march 15ht deadline have an advantage over those who don't. The value of a patent therefore went up, meaning that the stake are higher than ever in the outcomes of these patent wars. It will however, create less of these battles despite the stakes being higher. By making patents harder to file, the holder will have to be even more specific. 

POST 17: Ericsson V. Micromax

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/standard-essential-patent-litigation.html

Recently, Sony Ericsson sued Indian Micromax. This conflict has arrived over an increasing enforcement of Standard-essential patents (SEP) in Asia. The Delhi High chourt order the company, Micromax, to "make a deposit" for Ericsson's financial interest.

"The royalties to be deposited are category-specific and set forth in the order as follows:

• "A. For phones/devices capable of GSM : 1.25% of sale price.
• B. For phones/devices capable of GPRS + GSM : 1.75% of sale price.
• C. For phones/devices capable of EDGE + GPRS + GSM : 2% of sale price.
• D. WCDMA/HSPA [UMTS] phones/devices, calling tablets : 2% of the sale price.
• E. Dongles, data cards : USD 2.50""

These Royalty rights are quite high, although we are dealing with intellectual property infringement in India. IP is critical to the growth of an emerging market, and Ericsson is no exception.  Afterall India does not have the best reputation so far when it comes to patent protection. Compared to China, India is far less advanced in protection of foreign and Domestic IP. This needs to change. A emerging market can have loose patent laws, in fact many should. However, if a country like India, has too loose of a legal enforcement, companies like Sony Ericsson will leave India. While Ericsson leaving India would not destroy the economy, it would create a chain reaction of other companies leaving. That would cause a economic disaster for India.

An interesting note, is that Ericsson has been on an patent suing rampage recently, with Ericsson accusing Samsung of FRAND violations, and many more SEP cases with various other companies.

Leave your opinions below!

POST 16: Apple Can Seek More Money From Samsung

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/samsung-filing-confirms-apple-can-seek.html

It seems that the $1,000,000,000 dollars in damages that Samsung has payed to Apple may be just he beginning.  The California trial of Apple v. Samsung could lead to a damages award that is much greater than the original 1 billion dollar ruling. Earlier there were rumors that the 1 billion dollar verdict was cut down to only 600 million. Yet while the ruling was reduced, it actually allows Apple to gain more money from Samsung. 

"A new jury could theoretically even arrive at a higher number given that the first jury granted Apple only about 40% of what the court allowed it to present as a damages claim". Judges are gatekeepers with respect to what damages theories are presented to a jury, so Apple apparently had a plausible, defensible claim to a total of $2.5 billion. The jury sided with Apple on the vast majority of liability issues, but it didn't award Apple even half of what it legitimately asked for in damages."

The March 1 damages have shortened the product-specific periods of time in which Apple can seek new damages against Samsung basically. Apple could stand to not make back the 450 million dollars, yet they likely will. In fact, according to the article, its likely they will gain much more than the 450 million that they lost. I would not be surprised if they increase the damages to 700 million. That would make a damage verdict of 1.35 billion.  While this is certainly a steep price to pay, Samsung clearly stole from Apple. Even more so, Samsung looks like its going to dominate the smartphone market in the near future. 

While I think that a 1+ Billion damages verdict is fair in the case of Apple v Samsung, there should be limits when a large company is seeking damages against smaller companies.  Do you agree? Let me know. 

POST 15: Google's Greedy Pledge

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/googles-promise-not-to-assert-10.html

Google is trying to improve its image it seems. Last week, Google decided that it would allow 10 of its patents to  be unasserted against open source software. The move is certainly more of a public relations effort than a genuine gift by Google. Google may be allowing these patents to go unasserted, but Google has hundreds of other patents - many of them very similar to the 10 unasserted - that they could assert against your company. 

"The problem with patent pledges and pools is not what's in them -- it's what's not in them. As a result, those pledges didn't prove to be helpful in any way (I'm sure that not even one lawsuit has been avoided because of those pledges) and quickly fell out of favor. For almost eight years no major industry player joined these companies in publishing a list of patents that would not be asserted against open source."

Its interesting to compare Google's pledge with other companies with a large stockpile of patents at their disposal. For example, currently IBM has pledged 500, and Sun approximately 1,600. Its amazing how few patents Google pledged in comparison

I have to question why Google even did this. Pledging ten patents just makes them seem greedy and seem like a tyrant compared to its patent pledging rivals. 

What do you think? Was this worth Google doing? Was this a mistake? Is Google trying to cover up its inner evil?

POST 14: Inventors Race to File Patents

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324077704578360681887241150.html

This weekend I came across an interesting Wall Street Journal Article about the race to file patents. the article talked about the current changes in the United States that will recently took effect. These changes made the process much harder and a lot more expensive. 

"On Saturday, the U.S. will switch to a "first-to-file" system. As a result, the PTO will give priority to those who file their applications first regardless of any independent evidence that another inventor may have actually come up with the idea earlier. The switch was made largely to harmonize U.S. law with the rest of the world, most of which follows versions of the "first-to-file" system."

Such changes could pose many challenges to entrepreneurs or small business owners. The new measures will raise the bar on what it takes to establish a viable patent.

"For instance, patent applications made in other countries have long been considered prior art only if they were published in English. Under the new law, foreign patent applications will be considered prior art regardless of what language they're in."

In my opinion, such patent law is harmful to the U.S. economy. The United States has always been the inventor rather than the copier. Small businesses and inventors should be helped not hurt! The U.S. does not need this strict rules, its the countries that copy us that do...

Post 13: The FRAND Ruling

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/itc-postpones-samsung-apple-ruling.html

The ITC, or the United States International Trade Commission, recently extended its ruling over Samsung vs Apple. This extension give the commission more time to assess the outcome of the case. The Extension was necessary due to a recently found infringement of the FRAND Patent.

"The Commission notice focuses on the scenario of an infringement finding of the asserted claims (75, 76, and 82-84) of U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348 on an "apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system", an allegedly UMTS-essential patent. Given the advanced stage of this investigation it's pretty clear that the Commission is presently inclined to hold Apple to have infringed at least one of the asserted claims of the '348 patent. That's why public interest considerations regarding an import ban against the accused products as well as FRAND licensing issues (relating to the history of negotiations between the parties) are now the kinds of topics on which the Commission is seeking further input."

If Samsung convinces the ITC that all the previous rulings were wrong, and Samsung does get a import ban on apple, the ban would not include current products. In fact, if Samsung were to get the ITC to rule in favor of the ban, the ban would not even apply to most of the old apple products. 

"In the proceedings before the ALJ Samsung accused only older Apple products of infringement of the '348 patent: the AT&T models of the iPhone 4 (but not the 4S or 5), 3GS and 3, and of the iPad 3G and iPad 2 3G. The specific issue here is that Apple switched baseband chip suppliers. Its newer products come with Qualcomm chips, and the licensing situation between Qualcomm and Samsung is a different one than the agreement Samsung had in place with Intel and Infineon (Intel acquired Infineon's wireless baseband chip division). The iPhone 4S and the "new iPad 4G" were the first Apple products to come with Qualcomm chips. Courts in France and Italy agreed with Apple that Samsung's license agreement with Qualcomm precluded it from seeking cellular SEP-based injunctions against Apple products incorporating Qualcomm baseband chips."

Hopefully the extension of the ruling will allow the ITC to better look over the infringement. A ban of previous Apple products would be, in my honest opinion, absolutely crazy. What do you think?

Post 12: A Future Germany Without Google Maps.

http://www.geekosystem.com/google-maps-facing-german-ban/


The Germans are lost. Not in ideology, but in literally. Or at least they may be in future with the fact that Google Maps may soon be banned in Germany's future. This ban is a result of a violation of European Union Privacy law. However the actual reason for the ban is due to a patent dispute with none other than the ugly kid on the block, Microsoft.

The patent in question is for “a computer system for identifying local resources,” and although Microsoft originally brought suit against the Google subsidiary Motorola. Mobility to block the Android app for Google Maps, but Motorola said they didn’t know how the Google Maps servers operated. That’s when Microsoft added Google itself to its lawsuit.

Now if Microsoft actually wins this legal matter, Google Maps will either have to completely leave Germany, or pay a steep royalty. Google Maps would not be allowed from any computer with a German IP address. It would also stop Android phones form downloading Google Maps in the future. Google in reality would have no choice. Many other companies already pay Microsoft for these exact patents. Examples are LG, Samsung, HTC, and many other lesser known companies.

Here's the thing, Google is likely to lose this case. Soon enough the world will know the outcome of this case. What should Google do if they lose? Give in to Microsoft or leave Germany completely?

Post 11: Apple Wins, Over The Pond.

Earlier today I saw this article pop up on my news feed.

http://www.cogonews.com/aapl-apple-inc-nasdaqaapl-wins-another-patent-war-against-apple-in-the-uk/125049/#

Apple has won once again. The loser is once again Samsung. However, this trial did not happen in America - instead it took place in the United Kingdom. The Judge gave a verdict that believed that Apple products do not infringe on any patents Owned by Samsung over the ability to receive and send data from devices. This patent ruling was only having to do with 3G networks. A separate trial having to do with Apple stealing 4G related patents is still on going.  While Apple is obviously quite happy with the outcome, Samsung is quite anger. This anger stems from a recently ruling in the U.S. ordering Samsung to pay Apple almost 500 Million dollars. 

"A spokeswoman for Samsung stated that the company is not satisfied with the court’s decision and that Samsung will review the verdict meticulously and decide whether to file for an appeal. She also said that the company has heavily invested in championing the growth of technological innovations in the mobile industry for years which has been constantly revealed in its products."


Perhaps the reason why Samsung lost was due to the fact that they wanted a whopping "2.5% royalty on all Apple devices enabled with 3G. Im sure that 2.5% royalty would blow the 500 million dollars owed by Samsung out of the water. The royalties would include all previously sold Apple devices as well as future ones. 

"Software patents expert Florian Mueller told ZDNet that Apple has now managed to repulse 24 assertions of Standard Essential Patents by Samsung on an international basis. Samsung has been able to fend off only three patents, two of them being in Korea. He also said that Samsung’s claim for 2.4% royalty on Apple’s sales of 3G-capable products appears to be more ridiculous with Apple winning each lawsuit."

While Samsung is surely upset over the ruling, this is good news for the patent world and creativity. The less companies can use patents as an tool for financial gain the better in my opinion. 

Confused

Last weeks class was very interesting. I must ask a question though. I am still very confused about the difference of a patent and a clause in the patent.

I understand that a clause is something in a patent. However,  I still don't understand whether one can sue over a patent protection void, or instead a clause problem. 

In last weeks lecture the interim professor did not give a clear answer. While I learned a lot and most of his lecture was fantastic, this question was not clearly and directly addressed. Do any of you understand? A few of you raised questions about this last week, so let me know. When you sue someone for patent infringement, do u sue about the entire patent or just the clause???

 Let me know below!! Thanks!

Samsung V Apple: Part Duex

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20130304/NEWS01/303040307/Samsung-s-1B-bill-Apple-case-reduced-by-450M

The outcome of the Samsung V. Apple has been reduced by quite a lot this last week. The outcome changed from a whopping 1 billion to 450 Million. Thats less than half of what was originally owed.

I bet Samsung is happy.

The world should be happy too. The less patent rules are enforced to insane heights, the higher the world will make progress. If patent rules are too intense, the world suffers creatively.

Are you happy? Are you angry with the change? Let me know below! :)