#26 - Microsoft is patent-savvy and licenses to China's ZTE
Friday, April 26, 2013
#25-26 - Google vs. Apple for push notification patent & Microsoft licenses to ZTE
#25 - Google vs. Apple push notification patent case stayed in German courts
#26 - Microsoft is patent-savvy and licenses to China's ZTE
#26 - Microsoft is patent-savvy and licenses to China's ZTE
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
#26 - Microsoft, the "Best Licensing Team," licenses to China's ZTE
Microsoft as of late has signed a license agreement to collect royalties from China's large handset maker, ZTE. ZTE also makes Android smartphones and tablets, so the patents it has licensed relate specifically to various aspects of Android smartphones. (Foss Patents has an interesting take on this case on the blog here.)
Microsoft has one again shown its savvy nature in the realm of intellectual property management. It turns out that around 80% of Android phones sold in the US have licensed Microsoft's patents. This is an overwhelming number, given that Android phone adoption is expected to reach one billion by the end of the year (this is a projected and quoted number by Eric Schmidt from Google). That totals around 800,000,000 phones in the U.S with a Microsoft smartphone patent in it. Microsoft's patent portfolio highly lucrative as a result of this.
Ever since Google acquired Motorola Mobility, the relationship between Google and Microsoft has been an interesting one. They have achieved a relationship, no doubt, and the success of one drives the success of the other. Such a symbiotic relationship reminds me of the ecosystem between Apple and Samsung. Clearly the patents have bolstered Android phones, and apparently the device makers find the patents crucial to the success of the phones. Google, on the other hand, has apparently tired to dissuade Android device makers from signing license agreements with Microsoft. (This sounds quite anti-competitive to me, but Google manages to get away with a massive amount of things.) They are mutually benefiting each other and yet in the courts they are vicious to be the victors. The solution? Certainly the licensing system is a step closer to it, but there's no 'real' punishment. Even Microsoft, who has been crowned as the "best licensing team" by a widely-read IP magazine, can't guard all corners.
 |
| One of ZTE's smartphone models |
Microsoft has one again shown its savvy nature in the realm of intellectual property management. It turns out that around 80% of Android phones sold in the US have licensed Microsoft's patents. This is an overwhelming number, given that Android phone adoption is expected to reach one billion by the end of the year (this is a projected and quoted number by Eric Schmidt from Google). That totals around 800,000,000 phones in the U.S with a Microsoft smartphone patent in it. Microsoft's patent portfolio highly lucrative as a result of this.
Ever since Google acquired Motorola Mobility, the relationship between Google and Microsoft has been an interesting one. They have achieved a relationship, no doubt, and the success of one drives the success of the other. Such a symbiotic relationship reminds me of the ecosystem between Apple and Samsung. Clearly the patents have bolstered Android phones, and apparently the device makers find the patents crucial to the success of the phones. Google, on the other hand, has apparently tired to dissuade Android device makers from signing license agreements with Microsoft. (This sounds quite anti-competitive to me, but Google manages to get away with a massive amount of things.) They are mutually benefiting each other and yet in the courts they are vicious to be the victors. The solution? Certainly the licensing system is a step closer to it, but there's no 'real' punishment. Even Microsoft, who has been crowned as the "best licensing team" by a widely-read IP magazine, can't guard all corners.
#25 - Google v. Apple case over push notification patent in German courts
The proceedings in the German appeals court has been temporarily halted for a case between Google and Apple over the push notification patent. (See the full story on Foss Patents here.)
The history of this patent in courts has been long-winded. A real milestone was back at the end of 2012, during which a court in England ruled the invalidation of this particular patent. From there, this patent has been in contention, and this patent asserted by Google's Motorola Mobility arm was used to force Apple to turn off its iCloud mail push notifications. The reason for the invalidation of the patent in the UK primarily surrounded the lack of novelty and obviousness. Now that it's being investigated in German courts, and the German courts and headed toward the same direction as the precedent rulings. It's very likely that the ruling is invalid, but for now, both parties have agreed to a stay (I can't imagine why Google would agree to this, but it looks like they have.)
At one point, Microsoft was also involved with using the push patent notification patent. Even in this case, Google was found to not be entitled to an injunction against Microsoft over the push notification patent given that Google owed Microsoft a license under the previous ActiveSync license agreement they both undertook together. The best Google could have done in this case would be to claim past infringement for the periods prior to their acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
This particular case, for me, brought up some thoughts regarding the enforcement of patents. Other than licensing, joint ownership, and outright purchasing the patents, it's difficult to really effectively enforce and assert IP. Right now, the alternative to the aforementioned means is litigation, which is why we see six-digit and seven-digit dollar sized litigation cases that appear to be financially draining.
 |
| Push notifications pop-up on screen while you're working to let you know that something new has happened. |
The history of this patent in courts has been long-winded. A real milestone was back at the end of 2012, during which a court in England ruled the invalidation of this particular patent. From there, this patent has been in contention, and this patent asserted by Google's Motorola Mobility arm was used to force Apple to turn off its iCloud mail push notifications. The reason for the invalidation of the patent in the UK primarily surrounded the lack of novelty and obviousness. Now that it's being investigated in German courts, and the German courts and headed toward the same direction as the precedent rulings. It's very likely that the ruling is invalid, but for now, both parties have agreed to a stay (I can't imagine why Google would agree to this, but it looks like they have.)
At one point, Microsoft was also involved with using the push patent notification patent. Even in this case, Google was found to not be entitled to an injunction against Microsoft over the push notification patent given that Google owed Microsoft a license under the previous ActiveSync license agreement they both undertook together. The best Google could have done in this case would be to claim past infringement for the periods prior to their acquisition of Motorola Mobility.
This particular case, for me, brought up some thoughts regarding the enforcement of patents. Other than licensing, joint ownership, and outright purchasing the patents, it's difficult to really effectively enforce and assert IP. Right now, the alternative to the aforementioned means is litigation, which is why we see six-digit and seven-digit dollar sized litigation cases that appear to be financially draining.
Friday, April 19, 2013
#23-24 Videos: Google called out on 'search method' and Patent maintenance fees rise
#23 - Google is called out on search methodology by Apple
#24 - USPTO raises patent maintenance fees
#24 - USPTO maintenance fee increase and implications
A short blog post on PatentlyO brings to us news that the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) has, of today (March 19, 2013) increased the patent maintenance fees. (See the full story here on PatentlyO).
The way that patent fees work is that there is an initial filing fee, depending on what type of patent you are filing. The maintenance fee is a separate fee that you continue to pay even after the patent has been filed and approved. These fees are paid at three intervals, the 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years marks.
As the graph illustrates, the fees climb at every interval. The interesting part here is that in the past, the fees grew somewhat proportionately at every interval. With the new fees in place, however, there is real curve ball at the 11.5 year mark, at over a 50% increase from the previous interval.
I actually think the fee hike is somewhat of a disincentive both to file and to keep a patent. Given that as the patent ages, the fees to maintain it rise, a patent owner would be convinced not to keep a patent that is both expensive to maintain and possibly outdated. Perhaps this is a way to reduce the less worthy content in the patent systems.
| Graph from PatentlyO |
As the graph illustrates, the fees climb at every interval. The interesting part here is that in the past, the fees grew somewhat proportionately at every interval. With the new fees in place, however, there is real curve ball at the 11.5 year mark, at over a 50% increase from the previous interval.
I actually think the fee hike is somewhat of a disincentive both to file and to keep a patent. Given that as the patent ages, the fees to maintain it rise, a patent owner would be convinced not to keep a patent that is both expensive to maintain and possibly outdated. Perhaps this is a way to reduce the less worthy content in the patent systems.
#23 - Google called out for flawed 'search methodology' by Apple?
An update on a case between Apple and Samsung comes to light regarding the search operations to identifying the relevant documents. This particularly interesting given the fact that an external factor such as the validity of documents is inherently a problem within the patent litigation system as well. (See the full source on Foss Patents here).
The first piece of search results, as I understand a large company would do, is to run automated searches over all company documents. The tricky part in this is that in order to identify the relevant documents, you need to use the appropriate search terms.
In this case, Apple is even proposing that they work with Google in this process to procure more relevant documents at a faster speed. This entails that Google provide a list of the search terms they planned to use. And part of Apple's suspicion here is that Google might be intentionally using search terms that aren't optimal. Foss Patents gave an example of this as being what Apple might call 'slick to unlock,' whereas on Google's side, they would have used a different term internally. All the while, Google says it is an unnecessary burden to be required to have full disclosure of its search terms. Google is actually a third party in this case but it is possible that the search is used in favor of its position with Samsung given the entire case dispute.
This article just brought some thoughts full circle to realizing that the patent litigation cases we see in the news all the time are indeed substantiated by the right data, the right documents, and are supplemented by the research tools of each company. As a result, the different companies to get involved in litigation cases with boast varying levels of research and technology capabilities, which might also have an impact in the duration and outcome of the case. If, for instance, a suing company cannot procure the necessary documentation, then their litigation efforts will be futile.
The first piece of search results, as I understand a large company would do, is to run automated searches over all company documents. The tricky part in this is that in order to identify the relevant documents, you need to use the appropriate search terms.
In this case, Apple is even proposing that they work with Google in this process to procure more relevant documents at a faster speed. This entails that Google provide a list of the search terms they planned to use. And part of Apple's suspicion here is that Google might be intentionally using search terms that aren't optimal. Foss Patents gave an example of this as being what Apple might call 'slick to unlock,' whereas on Google's side, they would have used a different term internally. All the while, Google says it is an unnecessary burden to be required to have full disclosure of its search terms. Google is actually a third party in this case but it is possible that the search is used in favor of its position with Samsung given the entire case dispute.
This article just brought some thoughts full circle to realizing that the patent litigation cases we see in the news all the time are indeed substantiated by the right data, the right documents, and are supplemented by the research tools of each company. As a result, the different companies to get involved in litigation cases with boast varying levels of research and technology capabilities, which might also have an impact in the duration and outcome of the case. If, for instance, a suing company cannot procure the necessary documentation, then their litigation efforts will be futile.
Friday, April 12, 2013
#21-22 - Design patents and Joint patent ownership
#21 Video - Design patents
#22 Video - Joint patent ownership
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
#22 - Joint patent collaboration and infringement
A post on PatentlyO (full article can be seen here) brought some interesting facts to mind--as well as their repercussions. In the blog post, Dennis Crouch brings up some of the conditions for joint inventorship. This specifically states that joint inventorship is: "when an invention is made by two or more persons jointly," but it does not require that the two parties need to "physically work together or at the same time," "make the same type or amount of contribution" or contribute to "every claim of the patent."
I actually personally find this a bit difficult to understand, given that there is still the requirement that these be undertaken "jointly." Does it mean, then, that anyone who had even a minute role in contributing to the idea and claim, are "joint inventors?" That would certainly make sense, but I can imagine how this can be a gray area for both the inventors themselves, and then subsequently in court if it is brought into a case. In the case that the PatentlyO poster observed, the case was dismissed as joint infringement given that there was no evidence of collaboration.
This really brought to mind some of the issues that joint inventorship will bring up in the space of mobile. Given that Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc., often own patents together in different relationships, it really creates a series of problems particularly around litigation. For example, who is responsible for the fees? And who puts the patents on their balance sheets? Then who amortizes these patents and recognizes the amortization expense on the profit and loss statements?
I actually personally find this a bit difficult to understand, given that there is still the requirement that these be undertaken "jointly." Does it mean, then, that anyone who had even a minute role in contributing to the idea and claim, are "joint inventors?" That would certainly make sense, but I can imagine how this can be a gray area for both the inventors themselves, and then subsequently in court if it is brought into a case. In the case that the PatentlyO poster observed, the case was dismissed as joint infringement given that there was no evidence of collaboration.
This really brought to mind some of the issues that joint inventorship will bring up in the space of mobile. Given that Google, Microsoft, Samsung, Qualcomm, etc., often own patents together in different relationships, it really creates a series of problems particularly around litigation. For example, who is responsible for the fees? And who puts the patents on their balance sheets? Then who amortizes these patents and recognizes the amortization expense on the profit and loss statements?
An example of this is Apple and Google going in together to buy Kodak's patents. While it prevented Kodak from starting a bidding war between the two companies, it also created this grey area for patent ownership and possible tensions between the two owning companies in the future. Joint ownership certainly can be useful, but it presents the grey areas as well.
#21 - Design patent applications: divided to conquer
The number of design patent applications has increased in the past few years, and it doesn't necessarily have to do with the fact that the number of new ideas has grown. A good percentage of this growth can be attributed to the fact that the filing parties are filing a group of design patent applications that claim a small piece of the overall design. (See the full story here on PatentlyO)
This is actually quite easily done, because in each patent filing only a small portion of the submitted designs and drawings have to vary from patent to patent. For example, in these patent application drawings, the solid lines can represent what is claimed, and everything that isn't being filed for can be illustrated in dotted lines. This means that, for each application, the only thing that needs to be changed from patent to patent is that you make parts of the drawing dotted and other parts undotted for whichever claim you represent.
Thinking about this, it's actually very strategic, because by dividing a design patent like this, competitors will find it difficult to even copy a small portion of the design. Furthermore, if a company is looking to make additional changes later on in the future, they can make changes and the patent can still hold to protect their design.
Translating this into what it means for mobile wireless design patents, we already know that design is such a contended space. The big case that everyone knows about is Samsung vs. Apple in the case of rounded corners. If any device maker goes to lengths to create a separate filing for each piece of the design, then competitors will find it difficult to even use a similar idea without infringing on the claim. Though at the same time, I think this would be somewhat anti-competitive given that competitors rely on the same basis of design. But it will then be a race to who can come up with the novel designs the fastest, then to patent each piece of the design, and conquer competitors.
This is actually quite easily done, because in each patent filing only a small portion of the submitted designs and drawings have to vary from patent to patent. For example, in these patent application drawings, the solid lines can represent what is claimed, and everything that isn't being filed for can be illustrated in dotted lines. This means that, for each application, the only thing that needs to be changed from patent to patent is that you make parts of the drawing dotted and other parts undotted for whichever claim you represent.
Thinking about this, it's actually very strategic, because by dividing a design patent like this, competitors will find it difficult to even copy a small portion of the design. Furthermore, if a company is looking to make additional changes later on in the future, they can make changes and the patent can still hold to protect their design.
Translating this into what it means for mobile wireless design patents, we already know that design is such a contended space. The big case that everyone knows about is Samsung vs. Apple in the case of rounded corners. If any device maker goes to lengths to create a separate filing for each piece of the design, then competitors will find it difficult to even use a similar idea without infringing on the claim. Though at the same time, I think this would be somewhat anti-competitive given that competitors rely on the same basis of design. But it will then be a race to who can come up with the novel designs the fastest, then to patent each piece of the design, and conquer competitors.
Friday, April 5, 2013
#19-20 Videos - Apple loses 'slide-to-unlock' in Germany & Android infringes text selection mechanism belonging to Apple
#19: Apple loses 'slide-to-unlock' feature in German courts
#20: Android devices found to infringe on text selection mechanism of Apple
#20 - Android's text selection infringe's Apple's patent
This is a case of demonstrating the benefits of first mover advantage. Surely Apple cannot have been the only one to think of a method for providing translucent images on a computer display, but ultimately Android phones have used a similar method for their text selection and therefore Apple is taking this chance to assert its patent claims in this ongoing investigation. (See the full story here on Foss Patents.)
Surely this idea cannot belong solely to Apple? Regardless, the results of the investigation show that Samsung's Android devices have infringed upon the claims in the patents under fire. Particularly, this refers to the text selection feature on the browser application, and also the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery.
This brings to mind what it means to infringe upon a claim. Claims really are detailed, and yet they are broad enough to compass the potential workaround that competitors are using. Samsung's method of text selection is certainly not the same as that of Apple products, and yet it is similar enough that it appears to be the company's way of working around the great idea by using it but striving to be different enough that it doesn't infringe. Investigations unfortunately find it to actually infringe on the claims. So we'll see what the next clever workaround or new idea is. This is where patents come in to foster innovation, I think. Once a great idea has been played, it is up to the other competitors to come up with even better ideas.
 |
| An example of text selection on an iPhone. |
 |
| An example of text selection on an Android device. |
Surely this idea cannot belong solely to Apple? Regardless, the results of the investigation show that Samsung's Android devices have infringed upon the claims in the patents under fire. Particularly, this refers to the text selection feature on the browser application, and also the translucent buttons of the Android photo gallery.
This brings to mind what it means to infringe upon a claim. Claims really are detailed, and yet they are broad enough to compass the potential workaround that competitors are using. Samsung's method of text selection is certainly not the same as that of Apple products, and yet it is similar enough that it appears to be the company's way of working around the great idea by using it but striving to be different enough that it doesn't infringe. Investigations unfortunately find it to actually infringe on the claims. So we'll see what the next clever workaround or new idea is. This is where patents come in to foster innovation, I think. Once a great idea has been played, it is up to the other competitors to come up with even better ideas.
#19 - Apple loses 'slide-to-unlock' patent in Germany?
It looks like Apple's infamous "slide-to-unlock" has been invalidated in German courts. This is a win for the top contenders including Samsung and Google in this space, given that this very basic yet crucial functionality might be removed from Apple's repertoire. (See the full story on Foss Patents here)
Apple has tried to salvage their patent by editing it fourteen times after the case was brought to light, but to no avail. These claims surrounding 'unlocking' a device by performing gestures on an unlock image such as the swipe left-to-right button on iPhone screens have been deemed to be invalid. This was the ruling of a panel of multiple judges, of whom many also had engineering backgrounds). An appeal is still up for grabs by
Apple, but they've already tried to amend the claims and it hasn't seemed to cause the panelists to flinch in any way.
It turns out that this case might be specific to Europe, given that European patent laws requires any software patents to solve technical problems with technical means. In this case, the slide-to-unlock doesn't fulfill that requirement with its basic visual representation, and it really doesn't fall in the category of technical innovation.
Despite Apple's hold on this patent in the past in Germany and elsewhere, competitors have found workarounds that embrace a similar idea of not allowing phones to be randomly unlocked in the pockets. You might even argue that this has allowed other phone makers to be more innovative. HTC, for example, has an unlock screen that requires you to swipe simply across nine dots in a pattern that you set in advance. This is relatively easy to do, and it also doubles as a 'password' mechanism, so you won't have to unlock AND type in a password after that.
I'm sure Apple is rushing to find a way to get their patent protected again in Germany, but I believe that other companies have developed even better mechanisms to unlock phones. In fact, it might even be the case that Apple is bogged down in this and haven't taken the time to come up with even better ways to get this done. I personally like HTC's way to unlocking and I think other cellphones offer similarly great ways to unlock with the typical 'slide-to-unlock' that Apple is so famous for.
Apple has tried to salvage their patent by editing it fourteen times after the case was brought to light, but to no avail. These claims surrounding 'unlocking' a device by performing gestures on an unlock image such as the swipe left-to-right button on iPhone screens have been deemed to be invalid. This was the ruling of a panel of multiple judges, of whom many also had engineering backgrounds). An appeal is still up for grabs by
Apple, but they've already tried to amend the claims and it hasn't seemed to cause the panelists to flinch in any way.
 |
| Apple's infamous 'slide-to-unlock' |
It turns out that this case might be specific to Europe, given that European patent laws requires any software patents to solve technical problems with technical means. In this case, the slide-to-unlock doesn't fulfill that requirement with its basic visual representation, and it really doesn't fall in the category of technical innovation.
Despite Apple's hold on this patent in the past in Germany and elsewhere, competitors have found workarounds that embrace a similar idea of not allowing phones to be randomly unlocked in the pockets. You might even argue that this has allowed other phone makers to be more innovative. HTC, for example, has an unlock screen that requires you to swipe simply across nine dots in a pattern that you set in advance. This is relatively easy to do, and it also doubles as a 'password' mechanism, so you won't have to unlock AND type in a password after that.
| HTC's unlock screen that doubles unlocking with password entry. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)