#17-18 Videos: Google patents for PR and Skyhook vs. Google postponed

#17 - Google patents for Public Relations 

#18 - Skyhook vs. Google case consolidated and postponed to the next year

#18 - Skyhook vs. Google trial consolidated into the future

Back in 2010, Skyhook Wireless and Google were embroiled in a patent infringement case. Google had "bullied" some potential partners for Skyhook out of a partnership for its location-position software, which was also anti-competitive behavior. This case should have been looked at (along with the two patents asserted in the case), but it was merged with another case of Skyhook v. Google for another NINE patents. Now, both of these cases will be looked at in the coming year. (See the full analysis on Foss Patents here)

The Skyhook vs. Google case form 2010 consolidated with recent filing and postponed a year.

A strange thought comes to mind--this industry is evolving so rapidly, and more legal procedures have been put in place since 2010, and yet a patent infringement filed three years ago is still delayed another year. This patent war is even more about patent infringements: by delaying these court cases, you're also delaying the competitor's actions and therefore gaining benefit in profitability. It's all so tactical.

This really brings to light the fact that the patents wars aren't just about patent litigation anymore. Companies are using patents as resources for competitive advantage. IP isn't even entirely about securing the rights to your ideas anymore, but about keeping others out of your space, and often using them as legal tools to delay the course of your competitors. In this case, perhaps Google anticipated the hairy legal implications of its meddling in Skyhook's affairs, but it had done a cost-benefit analysis to realize that it would benefit from this more than it would take damage.

#17 - Google's patent news is just a PR stunt?

Around eight years ago, a few large companies including tech giants like IBM and Sun Microsystems, pledged to not assert patents against open source software to support its movement in the industry. Unfortunately, these promises didn't exactly hold up in the court of law to help in the avoidance of lawsuits. No other industry players joined these companies to create the listing of patents that would not harm open source IP. (See the full story here at Foss Patents)

Google pledged a total of 10 patents (yes, only 10 while IBM pledged around 500). You can imagine that this is just a microscopic size of its patent portfolio.

Google owns at least 17,000 patents, by estimates.

As you can imagine, there was no real commitment in Google's pledge other than the positive press that it could achieve by supporting the open source movement. If one tried to find out exactly how many patents Google owns, they would have a hard time, because its very own patent search tool doesn't reassign new owner to second-hand patents unless asserted in court. 

So the issue still stands: Google has the power and the right to sue open source developers over at least the 17,000 or so patents that it owns that are not covered under the pledge. So this humongous concept that had good intentions of standing in solidarity for open source--well, it will be even less effective if Google's planning to use those 10 to support open source.

#15-16: Ericsson dispute vs. Google's allies in court

#15: Ericsson's extended dispute vs. Samsung

#16: Google's allies in court vs. Apple

#16 - Qualcomm, BlackBerry stand with Google vs. Apple

Once again, FRAND pledged SEP's are back on the scene, and this time Google has an allies with Qualcomm and BlackBerry backing the defense of SEP-based injunctions against Apple. (Read the full story here on Foss' Patent Blog.)

I imagine this is how Apple is reacting right now

But in all seriousness, Apple has quite a bit on its hands right now with its case against Samsung being taken to Federal Courts for the first time, and in the meanwhile they've got their allies and their foes against them alongside Google.

In the complicated web of patent litigation, it turns out that Apple is actually a customer of Qualcomm for its OS ecosystem, but Google's Android platform is as well. The real tipping point for Qualcomm, I would think, is that they are the world's largest SEP-centric company, so their business model very much depends on the enforceability of SEP's. As a result in this case, Google's measures aligns more with their operating model. 

Another unexpected ally for Google is BlackBerry. And it turns out that Blackberry is not an avid, official supporter of any specific party per say, but BB clearly opposes the judge's stance and hence is mostly on Google's side.

This is becoming a hairy mess. They've even brought in law professors with specialty knowledge in IP litigation, and still not everyone emerges a winner. I suppose when something is brought into court, whether or not you've been business partners or not will have no bearing on your stance in court.

#15 - Samsung deflects Ericsson's 15 patent claim assertion

Ericsson gets in on the action of patent litigation in the increasingly complex web of offensive and defensive actions taken in the mobile device space. In this case, Ericsson adds fuel to the fire in its attempt to tack on 15 additional claims to its ITC complaint against Samsung (view the full analysis on Foss Patents blog here.)

After Ericsson brought this amendment to court, Judge David Shaw decided not to accept the 15 add-ons, partly because the original investigation already involves more than 130 claims. Samsung apparently had chimed in declare it unfair to tack on fifteen new claims given the already broad scope of investigation that will take approximately 15 months to complete as it is.

As usual, the patent war is taking twists and turns that often are hard to justify. In this case, the judge could have chosen to accept Ericsson's assertion, but instead it chose to narrow the case by focusing on the investigation at hand rather than broaden the scope of claims examined, which essentially would have dragged out the length of the case. At the same time, Ericsson could have waited for patent reissue before bringing the ITC complaint against Samsung. Meanwhile, Samsung is busy fending off dozens of litigation cases all at once. I can imagine that they've hired a humongous legal department to deal with this all.

#13-14 Videos - Germany Patent Battles: Apple v. Samsung and Google v. Microsoft

Video 1: Google v. Microsoft over Google Maps infringement

Video 2: Apple v. Samsung gives another go in Germany

#14 - Re-trial for Samsung in Germany for 3G patent... Again

Samsung's dashed hopes have been revitalized as German courts ordered a retrial scheduled for this coming summer 2013. (See the full story here)

For those who have been following this case for a long time, we know that in Germany, the previous ruling was that Samsung was required to stop its shipments for a time. This particular trail was against a 3G standard-essential patent. Samsung managed to show the courts after the ruling that Apple had technically not yet shown its burden of proof given its position as a defendant. Furthermore, Samsung now potentially qualifies to file for damages caused by the dispute. Samsung continues to try to sue Apple for damages over SEP's, but in the UK it hasn't worked in Samsung's favor. 

Samsung's first try at three SEP assertions against Apple in Germany failed since the courts couldn't identify the infringement. Samsung really has been unsuccessful on this end, and it's tried in courts nearly 25 times and failed each of those times in Germany. 

Even more than the 3G SEP, Samsung's other German lawsuits have also flopped. Some of these trials included iPhone's voiceover feature, and also a emoticon input method patent. There is really just some small functions that these debates surround. Our guest lecturer in the patent course this week, Mr. Jonathan Wells, shared with us the statistics that there are nearly 250,000 patents relevant to a single smartphone. This is really an astounding number. 

This is not to say that Apple is a victor in Germany, either. Apple tried to assert a patent claim against Samsung for a design-related issue with Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1, and though it hasn't stopped Samsung altogether, it did manage to create a temporary ban on the device.

As the patent battle moves to international spaces, we'll see how it unfolds.. There is no clear victory

#13 - Microsoft burns Google Maps in Germany

How can anyone use a smartphone without Google Maps? And wasn't Google the first one to get into this space? Turns out that Google is likely to be held liable in court for infringement of a Microsoft patent regarding computer systems for identifying local resources and method thereafter. (See the full story here!)

Google maps running on Android devices.

Europe uses a different patent system than the US, but Microsoft has ownership of the European equivalent of the patent as well. So far, Google has failed to persuade the German courts that their interpretation does not align with Microsoft's patent. And so Microsoft is seeking a patent injunction against the Google Maps service (the same one that we see on our mobile devices, except in Germany). If this goes through fully, Google will be forced to stop selling the Google Maps app in Germany, and will even need to disable existing access to Google Maps for users with German IP addresses.

The interesting part is that Microsoft initially started out by suing Motorola over the distribution of the Google Maps app. Motorola denied to have knowledge of how Google's servers work and so Microsoft swooped Google into the accusation. But other Android device maker's using Google's systems have already recognized that the Android mobile OS uses Microsoft's patented technology, and so they have already set up license agreements. On the other hand, Motorola has refused to admit to the use of Microsoft's technology, but with this recent battle on the horizon, Google ought best to be truthful and submit to a license agreement before they are banned completely.

#11-12 Videos: Google's Motorola Patents & Nokia on the patent scene

Video 1: Google's Motorola Patents

Video 2: Nokia rises in the patent scene

#12 - Court invalidates Google's Motorola patents?

Around a month ago, news emerged that the US Court had ruled 13 of Google's patents gained from its Motorola acquisition as invalid. (See full article here)This was triggered by Microsoft's assertion that patent claims asserted by Motorola against Microsoft were actually indefinite in function. We actually just learned about what is patentable and what is not patentable in class, so in this case, these patents were deemed to have not fit the criteria of what qualifies as a patent.

 

Two giants stake it out in the patent war house.

As part of this, the courts went through all of the said patents and highlighted which claims in the patents were invalid. While many of the claims in the examined patents were deemed invalid, there were also some patents that survived for now, meaning that they might later be examined for reasons other than indefiniteness.

A lot of this had to do with the specific wording, in the form of "means-for-xfunction." Phrases like "means for using" versus "means for decoding" clearly delineate the intent of the functions, but don't provide clarity for the computer invention means for the algorithms, so the court had to invalidate all patent claims containing these elements.

This goes to show that in filing patents, one must be aware of making the intent, configuration, and purpose very clear. Another thing is that these patents should be better streamlined in the filing process so that it doesn't become a problem later on to determine whether or not they are valid or not. Then we'll have less subjectivity in all of these patent cases.

#11 - Nokia and Apple team up against Samsung on infringements

Patent war update: the battle ensues (as expected), and this time, Nokia has stepped in in support of an injunction against Samsung. (See more behind the cut here )

(How I envision the battle lineup)

As of late, the Apple v. Samsung dispute has been leading to ""compulsory-licensing system wherein patent holders are forced to license patented technology to competing firms, which could in turn harm incentives to innovate," which concerns Nokia. In general, this type of system will stifle innovation if rivals all have access to the technology, which would result in a battle of marketing cash spend. This is potentially a great concern to smaller companies with inadequate cash flow spending. This would be very anti-competitive.

The strange thing to me about this whole patent war is that Samsung is found to have infringed against dozens of IP (mostly patents) in the court of law, and yet the firm is not called out as guilty for it. It really speaks the flaws of the existing patent system if there is so much subjectivity involved that different judges would potentially have different rulings. Instead, the case rulings should be more grounded in specifics like first filing date, and the intent of the original inventors.

Speaking of inventors, I'm curious how the inventors have a stake in the entire Apple vs. Samsung battle. Given that the infringement of any patent would require understanding of the intent of the original claim, I'm curious how a company understands an intent once it owns the patent, if it wasn't the first one to own it. And, even if it is the first one to own it, it is not the inventor speaking for the patent in the court of law.

So now we're at the stage where Nokia has filed its amicus brief in the good name of innovation and fair competition. I'm not sure how much longer Samsung can deflect these criticisms in the public eye, so we'll have to wait and see. My feeling is that it won't be terribly deterred, but it may face more restrictions going forward to be less blatant about benchmarking specs in competitors' products.

#9-10 Videos - Patent Filing, Apple v. Samsung

Basics of Patent Filing

Apple vs. Samsung continues in Japan--Samsung loses?

See you next week!

#10 - Apple +1 vs. Samsung in Japan

This patent war has really escalated to be global in nature. An interesting turn of events came about in Japan recently, as Samsung's accusation of Apple's infringement was rejected. It turns out that the scope of their patent war spans about 10 countries, with a dozen or so cases pending in Japan.

A few months ago, Samsung won a case regarding patent infringement. This particular case that was recently overturned has been considered since nearly two years ago. Samsung has claimed that Apple is using one of its data transmission techniques without paying the licensing fee. If this case had gone through in Samsung's favor, there was the likelihood that Apple's products could have been banned in Japanese markets.

The real interesting part of it all is that I had assumed that Samsung was playing the defensive consistently. Now that the firm is playing the offensive, there is a lot more interesting patents that come to light. Data transmission is one, but we also can't forget that there are design patents too, like the rounded corners that Apple has so publicly fretted over.

#9 - Patent Filings 101

In our last class we went through a patent from beginning to end.

Some key things to point out on the first page includes the patent number. Usually, one refers to the patent by the last three digits of the assigned patent number. This is located in the top right corner of the patent filing. The information is divided into two even columns, and the first part of the left column gives basic information about patent ownership. This includes the names of the patent authors, and this often includes multiple authors. Following that, the assignee, or the person who owns the patent, is listed. Blackberry actually owns a ton of patents in the space of mobile devices, so I wager the company is capable of getting attractive acquisition offers at some point in time.

In many patents, there are illustrated diagrams of the patent being explained. These diagrams clarify what the particular idea being patented looks like, and is a helpful reference when browsing through the body of the patent literature.

The important part toward the end of the patent filing is the claims, and the claims are made up of different elements that are clearly enumerated. Our guest speaker warned us to be aware of the language, especially around the technical construction of the patent. For example, a platform might exist under LAN if specified as so, but could be a new process and idea for another type of data transmission.

Ultimately, the takeaway was that one must be concise with the language used.