WHAT I LEARNED IN THE CLASS | WEEK #13

Hey Patent Pals!

For my final blog post, I am going to be talking about what I learned in the class. It is very sad that the course is coming to an end, and I think that I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that we are very appreciative of the time that Professor Lavian put into the course. I cannot emphasize how fun and informative this class was, and I hope that students in the future choose to take the course as well!

With regards to what I learned in the course, there is so much to talk about. From how to file a patent to how to analyze a patent, this course provided a very comprehensive overview of patents, especially with regards to wireless and mobile devices. As someone who worked at Apple last summer, technology, especially with regards to intellectual property, has always interested me very much, and I am proud to say that I am much more knowledgable about them after having been a student in this course. That being said, because there is so much to discuss, I am going to narrow what I learned to three main points:

1. What Makes an Invalid Patent
2. The Rise of Patent Trolls
3. The Role of Intellectual Property as a Business Asset

What Makes an Invalid Patent?

In class, we learned that in order for a patent to be approved, it must satisfy three main criteria - it must be useful, novel, and non-obvious!

1. Usefulness - In order for a patent to be useful, it must meet a need or solve a problem. In addition, the patent must fill a current or anticipated need. As an example, a useful patent can be "reduced to practice", operated, or enabled (i.e. it can be built and function). Furthermore, a useful patent can be an improvement on an already existing patent
   
   
2. Novelty - Anticipation occurs when a single piece of prior art practices all of the elements of a single claim. That being said, a novel patent has not been published or implemented before. Ways around justifying a seemingly un-novel patent include answering one of the following questions. If the structure is known, are the elements used in a new way? If the function is known, is there a new problem to solve?
   
   
3. Non-obviousness - Perhaps most importantly, a patent can be rejected if it is obvious, meaning that a Person having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) defines it to be that way. The patent must not be trivial or insignificant - it must serve a specific function. The example we discussed in class was the bottle cap color example.

The Rise of Patent Trolls

In class, I also learned about the rise of patent trolls. A patent troll can be loosely defined as any entity that earns or plans to earn the majority of its revenue from the licensing or enforcement of its patents. Other factors to consider include the fact that a patent troll is an entity that holds a patent for a product or process but has no intentions of developing or manufacturing it. Furthermore, a patent troll could be a party that purchases a patent from one firm, and then sues another firm for infringing on the patent. At the end of the day, the definition of “patent troll” is highly amorphous, and the types of business models, patent enforcement, and licensing practices that are considered to constitute “trolling,” as opposed to more socially acceptable forms of monetizing patent rights, vary widely in public opinion.

The Role of Intellectual Property as a Strategic Business Asset

Finally, we also learned about how intellectual property could be used as a strategic business asset. Today, intangible assets comprise 80% of the S&P 500's market value, and intellectual property is playing an increasingly larger role within a variety of industries. The mobile patent wars serve as an example of the ever-increasing size of the IP marketplace. Currently, 250,000 patents are going into smartphones, and that number continues to grow. Over the course of the last few years, server multi-billion dollar deals have taken place for IP acquisition (i.e. Google purchases Motorola Mobility. In order for IP to be a strategic business asset, companies must seek to grow them. Strategies for growth include internal use, licensing, selling, joint venture/spin-off, and/or enforcement.

The Future!

I am extremely grateful for everything that I have learned in this course. Like I mentioned, there was too much to cover, so I only discussed my top 3 biggest takeaways from the course. I speak on behalf of everyone in the class when I say that we are excited for how we can apply this knowledge in the future! I hope to one day start my own technology start-up, and knowing how to file a patent (and what makes a patent invalid) is extremely helpful. Furthermore, I now know what to do in order to fight back against a patent troll if I ever have to deal with one. Finally, I understand that a patent can be a strategic business asset, and the key is to find an effective way to monetize it in order to truly be successful.

COLLABORATIVE SOCIAL MEDIA LEARNING | WEEK #13

Hi guys!

As the class approaches its end, I just want to take the time to thank Professor Lavian and everyone in the class for a great semester. This has truly been the most fun class I have ever taken at UC Berkeley, and I hope that future students have just as rewarding of an experience.

Part of the reason that this class was so rewarding was the collaborative social media aspect of the course. Professor Lavian did a great job of incorporating social media throughout the assignments, which ultimately had three major tangible results in terms maximizing our learning experience:

1. Creative Discretion - by allowing us to post many of our assignments on Twitter, Blogger and YouTube, we are given creative discretion to make our assignments as entertaining as possible. This allows us as students to be incredibly invested into our assignments and to take pride in what we post for the public to see. We feel obligated to put forth the best quality work, and we are able to do so through a unique and creative medium that brings it to life. This ultimately makes the work more rewarding and the content we present more informative.
2. Crowdsourced Perspectives - I am very grateful for the time and effort that Professor Lavian put into this course, but his job is mostly to equip us with a foundational base of knowledge with regards to patents. From there, social collaboration allows us as students to creatively discuss patents in an academic environment in order to share ideas and perspectives with each other that we would not have shared before. This ultimately makes the course far more useful and fun, as there is always something new to be learned from your peers outside the classroom.
3. Content Interactivity - the collaborative aspect of the course also allowed for increased interactivity with the content, thus making it richer and easier to understand. It is generally easier for students to learn subject matter when they are able to interact with it. Social collaboration allows us as students to, in a sense, teach the subject material to our peers, which is an excellent method of learning. This increased interaction ultimately allows us to absorb knowledge and information much more quickly than just sitting in a lecture. 

What is Social Collaboration?

Social collaboration can be defined as the processes that help multiple people interact and share information to achieve any common goal. Such processes typically take place on the internet, where collaboration and conglomeration of information is made easier by current innovations.

Sharing concepts on a digital collaboration environment often facilitates a "brainstorming" process, where new concepts may emerge due to the contributions of individuals, professional or otherwise. A crucial concept behind social collaboration is that ideas are everywhere. Individuals are able to share their ideas, as it is not limited to professionals, but rather the general public who wishes to become involved.

Creativity in the Course

I am personally grateful for the opportunity we were given to be so creative with our assignments. I personally feel as though that this helped us to be more personally invested in the quality of our work and to make the assignments much more fun to complete. It also enticed us to look at each others' videos and blog posts, which ultimately enhanced our individual learning experiences as well. This creativity component has made IEOR 190G the most fun class I have taken at Cal. I enjoyed planning out the videos and bringing energy and enthusiasm to the course! It was a truly rewarding experience to use Twitter as well. I never realized how useful of a tool Twitter was. Beyond just the social aspect, Twitter is also an excellent provider of real time, up to date news. This also proved to be a very valuable aspect of the course.

Social Collaboration and Crowdsourcing

Social collaboration is similar to crowdsourcing as it involves individuals working together toward a common goal. Crowdsourcing information allows for the dissemination of different perspectives that allows for a richer and more complex learning experience. For example, while Professor Lavian knows much about the patent industry, his job is mostly to lay the foundation of knowledge and facilitate creative discussion. By ensuring that we are all well-equipped to share thoughts and ideas with each other, we can help to bolster each others' learning experiences through collaboration via the internet. Such collaboration ultimately helps to shed light on the variety of perspectives on the subject material that students in the class have. When we are able to share our thoughts and opinions with each other, we do so much more than just memorize facts - we are ultimately able to truly understand the content of the course and enjoy it that much more.

--

Social collaboration ultimately proved to be an extremely valuable aspect of the course, and I am very happy that we were able to interact with the subject material, be creative in our assignments, and share our perspectives with each other. I truly recommend this class to anyone who wishes to take it in the future!

MANAGING IP AS A SET OF BUSINESS ASSETS | WEEK #12

Hey guys!

This blog post is a second installation of Assignment #12. I went online and found some relevant research about IP in terms of using it as a business asset. I will be basing my analysis off of this article from the World Intellectual Property Organization's (WIPO) website:

http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2008/01/article_0008.html

By themselves, business assets have no significant value. This is a fundamental property of intangibles, such as IP - they become valuable only in the context of the business. More specifically, IP and other intangible assets become valuable when their roles in supporting the corporate business strategy are made explicit.

There are 3 main steps to effectively use IP as a strategic business asset:

1. Define what your company expects to gain from the management of its IP;
2. Determine the specific roles IP can play in support of your company’s business;
3. Select and pursue a basic IP strategy to meet these objectives.

DEFINE EXPECTATIONS OF IP MANAGEMENT

When analyzing what a company expects to gain from IP management, there are typically 5 functions that IP as a strategic business asset can serve:

1. Defensibility - Using IP for defensive purposes and to protect your own innovations only
2. Cost Control - Still have a defensive approach, but looking to for protection while also trying to minimize the costs of maintaining the IP
3. Profitability - Companies reach this level when they either license their IP or use it to support a business activity
4. Integration - IP is integrated across all levels of a company's business activities and is used for a wide range of business roles
5. Visionary - Management takes a long term view of the IP's role in the companies business activities and in the industry as a whole

DETERMINE WHAT BUSINESS ROLES CAN IP PLAY?

In order to determine what business roles IP can play, first, review the company’s strategic vision and its corporate strategic plan. Then, ask yourself what IP might do to support the company’s business strategy and hasten its journey toward the long-term vision. Thirdly, look at the table and select the IP business roles that seem most applicable to your company.

Objective	Patents	Trademarks	Know-how	Relationships
Conflict avoidance/ resolution	• Protection (exclude others) • Design freedom • Cross-licensing (defensive) • Litigation bargaining power	• Protection (exclude others)	• Protection (trade secret)	n/a
Revenue generation	• Patents: sales, licenses, infringement policing • Increased bargaining power • Market penetration • Increased speed to market	• TM: sales, licenses, co-branding, infringement policing	• Sales, licenses, joint ventures, strategic alliances, integration, increased speed to market
Cost reduction	• Tax donation • Litigation avoidance • Access to technology of others • Improved knowledge transfer	• Litigation avoidance • Access to technology of others	• Litigation avoidance • Improved knowledge transfer	• Reduced marketing costs
Strategic position	• Reputation / image • Competitive blocking • Barrier to competition • Consumer/ supplier control • Optimization of core technology	• Name recognition • Consumer loyalty • Barrier to competition • Joint venture • Strategic alliance	• Reputation / image • Barrier to entry	• Reputation / image • Consumer loyalty • Barrier to entry

EXTRACTING VALUE FROM IP

There are several ways to extract value from IP once you have finished conducting basic IP growth strategies. There are four basic strategies for IP value maximization and growth, and they should be tailored to the needs of your company:

1. To minimize risk, focus on process compliance, processing product clearances and protecting innovations in the marketplace. A key activity for those pursuing this strategy is portfolio building and cross-licensing to avoid litigation.
2. To reduce costs, screen the portfolio to eliminate unnecessary patents, tightening the criteria for protecting innovations with patents, creating a standard country-filing list, minimizing exceptions, tightening internal review processes, and aligning the trademarks and brands with products.
3. To maximize business and legal value, seek to profit from direct use of the IP itself, rather than only through the products and services protected by the IP.
4. To maximize strategic value, focus on utilizing IP to change the nature or direction of competition, relying on strategic patenting, refocusing R&D and rethinking partnerships with customers, suppliers, or any other relevant parties.

Once you have maximized the value of an IP, there are only 6 ways to convert it directly into cash:

1. Sell it
2. License it out
3. Use it as the basis for a joint venture (to provide access to needed physical assets)
4. Use it as the basis for a strategic alliance (to gain access to markets you may otherwise be denied)
5. Use it to protect products and services in order to extract premium prices for them
6. Create and spin-out a new company based on the IP

THE ROLE OF IP AS A BUSINESS ASSET | WEEK #12

Hey guys,

So this week I will be discussing a presentation we viewed in class about the role of intellectual property as a strategic business asset. Thank you to Efrat Kasznik, Founder & President of the Foresight Valuation Group, for giving this presentation!

--

IP MARKETPLACE OVERVIEW

• Today, intangible assets comprise 80% of the S&P 500's market value, and intellectual property is playing an increasingly larger role within a variety of industries:
• Consumer Products vs. Digital Products
• Consumer products today are very easily patentable if they meet the criteria we discussed early on in the course
• However, Supreme Court decisions consistently rule that you cannot patent software or digital products
• The idea is that you cannot patent software because it is based on algorithms that already exist, so there is nothing proprietary about software
• A look at the comparison of IP rights shows that there are for types of IPs:
• Copyrights
• Original works of authorship
• Automatic protection for the author's life + 70 years
• Trademarks
• Word, name, or symbol used to distinguish goods
• No expiration as long as it is used commercially
• Trade Secrets
• Business information that has economic value and is kept confidential
• Indefinite lifetime value
• Patents
• A right to exclude others from producing, using, or selling a product covered by invention in a defined territory
• Lifetime of 20 years from the filing date
• The mobile patent wars serve as an example of the ever-increasing size of the IP marketplace
• Currently, 250,000 patents are going into smartphones, and that number continues to grow
• Over the course of the last few years, server multi-billion dollar deals have taken place for IP acquisition (i.e. Google purchases Motorola Mobility)
• The IP marketplace is currently being impacted by 4 key external forces:
• IP litigation is at an all-time high
• Patent transaction markets are currently very active
• Global competition is changing the IP playing field
• And the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is both overloaded and underfunded
• This is largely due to the America Invests Act (AIA), which moved patents from a first to invent to a first to file system 
• The IP market place features more than just patent holders and patent users - there now exists an intermediary known as a non-practicing entity (NPE), which we discussed in previous blog posts

--

IP STRATEGY FOR GROWTH

• Sources of intellectual property include:
• Internal research and development
• Manufacturing
• Marketing
• There are 5 main types of IP transactions:
• Use internally
• License
• Sale
• Joint venture/spin off
• Enforcement
• The idea is to eventually grow an IP over the course of its life cycle into a strategic business asset
• Develop an IP position
• Innovators and technology enthusiasts adopt IP
• Early adopters and visionaries do so as well
• Portfolio commercialization and monetization
• Early majority pragmatists
• Late majority conservatives
• Portfolio liquidation
• Laggards and skeptics
• Goals to consider when growing an IP portfolio to maximize valuation
• Freedom to operate
• Block competitors
• Support future products
• Hedge against litigation
• Attract buyers and investors
• Monetization
• Liquidation value

--

IP CASE STUDIES

Xerox: Xerox's failure to patent the Graphical User Interface (GUI) led to a loss in a half billion dollars in royalties from Mac and PC sales

Kodak: Infringed on 7 out of 12 of Polaroids patents instead of creating innovative new technology led to a loss of $3 billion

PATENT TED TALKS | LESSONS FROM FASHION'S FREE CULTURE | WEEK #11

Hey guys!

Below is the second installation of my favorite Ted Talk videos about patents. Similarly to the last video I analyzed, this video also discusses the benefits of shared intellectual property to the progress of useful art. Enjoy!

--

Johanna Blakley: Lessons from Fashion's Free Culture:

THE SITUATION

Blakley begins by telling a story about Italian fashion designer Miuccia Prada. Prada, finds a jacket while shopping with her friend in Paris and begins to analyze the seams and the design. She says she will buy the jacket, but she's also going to copy it. Is this stealing? Or is the fact that she can find the one jacket through the archives of fashion history that will become relevant again indicative of her genius?

--

COPYRIGHT LAWS IN THE FASHION INDUSTRY

Is illegal for Prada to copy another person's work/design? In the fashion industry, its not! There is actually very little intellectual property protection in the fashion industry other than trademark protection. This means that anybody can copy any garment on anyone in the world and sell it on their own design. This is because the courts decided long ago that apparel is too utilitarian for copyright protection.

--

INCENTIVE TO INNOVATE

But without ownership, is there really any incentive to innovate? Blakley argues that because there is no copyright protection in the fashion industry, there is a very open and creative ecology of creativity in the industry. This allows them to sample from their peers' designs and have the broadest pallet imaginable of any industry. This "culture of copying" allows for the establishment of trends, allowing for both a top-down and bottom-up type of industry.

--

HOW DO THE GIANTS STAY IN BUSINESS?

If there is no copyright protection on designs, and smaller companies can make knockoff designs for a cheaper price, how do giant luxury brands continue to dominate the market? Blakley states that this phenomenon occurs because their customers are not counterfeit customers.

--

THE VIRTUES OF COPYING

• Democratization of fashion
• Faster establishment of global trends
• Induced obsolescence
• Acceleration in creative innovation

This culture of copying at the end of the day has forced many fashion designers to be more innovative in order to stay competitive. When you are forced to make designs to difficult to copy, you are spurring top-notch innovation. Self-copying is also becoming a common trend.

--

COPYING CULTURE IS REVOLUTIONARY

At the end of the day, industries with low copyright protection, such as food, automobiles, and fashion, have much higher gross sales than industries with high copy right protection, such as movies and books.

PATENT TED TALKS | EMBRACE THE REMIX | WEEK #11

Hey Patent Pals!

Thanks to Abigail for teaching the class last week! I think the Ted Talk videos we watched were extremely interesting and helped put a lot of the work we have been doing in class into some real-world context. For this week's assignment, we are responsible for discussing two of the videos and providing our opinions as well as an analysis of the position of the speaker. Below is the post for my first favorite video - stay tuned for a blog post on my second favorite!

Kirby Ferguson: Embracing the Remix

THE SITUATION

Imagine we are in 1964 and Bob Dylan has reached the climax of his career - he is producing sensational hits at a rapid pace and has been regarded as the "voice of a generation". There is a small group of dissenters, however, who believe that Dylan is stealing his music from old songs.

Now we are back in 2004, and Danger Mouse has taken The Beatles' The White Album and combined it with Jay-Z's The Black Album to produce The Grey Album. The Beatles company sends out countless cease and desist letters for "unfair competition and dilution of [their] valuable property".

--

REMIX: COPY, TRANSFORM, AND COMBINE

Remixes take place when you copy the components of multiple songs, alter them, and combine them to make something more unique. However, Ferguson argues that these are not just the basic building blocks for remixes, but for all of creativity in general.

Everything is a remix.

--

EXAMPLES IN THE REAL WORLD

He believes that this is a better way to conceive of creativity. Current patent laws run counter to this fact by using the idea of "property" as an analogy.

Ford: But even Henry Ford once said that he "invented nothing new" - he acknowledges that he assembled the inventions of other men that were created centuries before his idea had ever been conceived.

Apple: With the invention of the iPhone, the world saw the implementation of "multi-touch" technology in a commercially accessible product, even though it had been around for decades prior to the launch of the iPhone.

--

CONTRADICTION OF PATENT LAW

Ferguson then argues that patent is inherently contradicting its true intent - to promote the progress of useful art. Picasso always had a saying - "good artists copy, great artists steal." And as exemplified by Apple CEO Steve Jobs, this is a very easy mantra to abide by until your idea is being stolen. This is why the contradiction in patent law exists. Though "everything is a remix" seems inherently obvious, in actuality, people are very skeptical about giving up their valuable intellectual property for the betterment of society and the progress of useful art. This is called "loss aversion" - we have a strong predisposition to protect what we believe is ours.

SILLY PATENTS | SNAKE WALKER | WEEK #10

Hey everybody!

For the second installation of this week's silly patents discussion, I have included the Snake Walker below:

Claim: A collar for collaring a snake has an elongated collar section forming a physical collar when wrapped around the body portion of the snake. The collar further has a support section for supporting an attachment mechanism for accepting attachment of a tether and a connector system comprising at least two components affixed to strategic portions of the collar section for securing the collar in place around the body portion of the snake. The length of the collar section is such that a portion thereof overlaps itself when fitted around the snake providing an adjustable interface containing separate components of the connector system whereby mating the connector components together. secures the collar in place on the snake. In one embodiment the collar apparatus further includes a concertina movement-neutralization device for reducing concertina movement through the collar.

Analysis: The Snake Walker effectively serves as a leash for a pet snake. With regards to prior art infringement, this apparatus clearly infringes on the same leashes that allow us to walk dogs. The only difference is the length of the leash and the circumference of the collar, but both of these factors seem obvious, in that a POSITA would know to adjust the size of the leash to the size of the animal. This patent should never have been approved!

SILLY PATENTS | LEAF CHAPS | WEEK #10

Hey guys!

I think this week's assignment should be a lot of fun for most of us! The assignment was basically to find 2 silly patents, and discuss the claims along with how the patent relates to obviousness, anticipation, or prior art infringment. My first patent is a pretty funny one - it is a patent for an invention called "Leaf Chaps".

Claim: A leaf gathering trouser comprised of a pair of flexible leg stalls and a flexible net, said net attached at opposing side edges to cooperating portions of the leg stalls and substantially occupying a space between the leg stalls in order to make contact with loose leaves located upon a ground surface and to accumulate said leaves into a pile for disposal while a user is wearing the leg stalls and walking in a normal manner. The net, comprised of a web section and a solid section, can be permanently attached to the leg stalls or releasably attached thereto by means of cooperating rows of zippers and zipper heads.


Analysis: Though nets and pants are both obvious, I do not think that the invention of Leaf Chaps is obvious, nor have I found any prior art that may infringe on the patent. The reasoning for this is simple, however - the idea provides limited functional benefits, in addition to health and safety concerns. Who knows what crawls beneath and between the leaves in your backyard - do you really want that making its way up your pants as well?

I hope you all enjoyed this patent! Stay tuned for another silly patent on my blog this week!

PATENT LITIGATION BY NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES | BEATING A PATENT TROLL | WEEK #9

Hey guys!

I hope that you all have enjoyed your spring breaks! For this post, I am going to discuss an article about how Chris Hulls, the chief executive of the family networking and communication service, Life360, beat a patent troll:

http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/23/i-beat-a-patent-troll-and-you-can-too/

Hulls discusses how most people view patent trolls as a problem, but they rarely fight back because it is cheaper to settle and pay them licensing fees than it is to go to court. Last May, his company Life360, a family networking app, was attacked by a troll the same week they raised $50 million in financing. In this case, they were being sued by Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc. for patent infringement.

Hulls chose not to settle and the jury delivered a verdict of non-infringement. He claims that he used three non-traditional methods to win his case:

Go Nuclear

• Patent trolls expect that you will listen to your lawyers, stay quiet, and pay them to go away
• Hulls repeatedly publicized the case and the individuals involved in order to frame them as patent trolls in the eyes of the media
• Patent trolls hate to be publicly scrutinized for their actions

Share Information and Resources

• Hulls open-sourced all of the prior art collected with the tech community and even announced free legal support for other startups with less than $25 million in funding facing AGIS
• This drew attention to the case and the meritless claims being brought against Life360
• This also sent a strong signal that if you sue Life360, it would make it harder to sue others as well

Go With Your Gut and Commit To It

• Many legal advisors may prefer to settle in order to avoid the large financial burden and distraction of going to court
• This is a short-term view, as you are less likely to become a future patent troll target if you have a track record of combatting patent trolls

Life360 received two other demand letters since the AGIS suit was filed, and when they saw the extreme defense they mounted against AGIS, they went away.

PATENT LITIGATION BY NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES | EXAMPLE #1 | WEEK #8

Greetings again Patent Pals,

As a continuation of my last blog post, as promised, I will be discussing one example of patent litigation by NPEs in the real world. The following link discusses a lawsuit between Motorola and the infamous patent troll firm Intellectual Ventures (IV):

http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/26/motorola-intellectual-ventures/

Intellectual Ventures Background

• IV is a patent holding firm that is known for licensing out its portfolio to companies such as HTC and Samsung, but it has also built up a reputation as a patent troll, or a non-practicing entity
• In addition to a recently scored $17 million win against Symantec, IV has been involved with multiple lawsuits with Motorola over the course of the last few years
• IV does not view their actions as patent trolling, but rather as defending investor rights and protecting the interests of their investors and customers
• IV is one of the largest intellectual property owners in the world, having more than 70,000 patents and patent applications to its name

Intellectual Ventures vs. Motorola

• After a 2011 lawsuit ended in a mistrial, IV recently won a case against Motorola that pertained to multimedia messaging (MMS) technology (damages TBD)
• The two companies are going to start another lawsuit pertaining to a removable computing device patent this week

What is next for patent trolls?

• Intellectual Ventures and other companies like it have been accused by some in the technology industry of burdening innovation by using the patents they buy to pursue lawsuits instead of building products
• Such companies are a central focus of renewed Congressional efforts at patent reform, aimed at curbing litigation
• The America Invents Act which President Obama signed into law back in 2011 has ushered in a "first-to-file" patent system that has effectively combatted some of the loopholes employed by patent trolls
• Last year, the Supreme Court struck down an abstract software patent, which set a precedent against weak patents that merely captured the idea behind a piece of software.

PATENT LITIGATION BY NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES | OVERVIEW | WEEK #8

Hey guys!

This week's blog is going to cover patent litigation by non-practicing entities (a.k.a. NPEs or "Patent Trolls"). The aim of this particular post is to provide an overview of NPEs, which will serve as a bridge to the examples I will be covering in my next two blog posts. I feel that this is the best way to really thoroughly analyze NPEs, which have become an increasingly contentious topic.

What is an NPE?

• An NPE can be loosely defined as any entity that earns or plans to earn the majority of its revenue from the licensing or enforcement of its patents.
• Other factors to consider include:
• An NPE is an entity that holds a patent for a product or process but has no intentions of developing or manufacturing it.
  
• An NPE could be a party that purchases a patent from one firm, and then sues another firm for infringing on the patent.
• At the end of the day, the definition of “patent troll” is highly amorphous, and the types of business models, patent enforcement, and licensing practices that are considered to constitute “trolling,” as opposed to more socially acceptable forms of monetizing patent rights, vary widely in public opinion.

Legal Implications of NPEs

• Because they do not sell products or services (other than the licensing of their patents), NPEs typically do not infringe on the patent rights contained in others’ patent portfolios.
• As a result, they are essentially invulnerable to the threat of counter-assertion, which is otherwise one of the most important defensive – and stabilizing – measures in patent disputes.
• The patent troll's business model revolves around two main criteria:
• A lengthy and expensive litigation process that deters the defendant from pursuing counter-actions, and
• A broad or vague patent that can be used to snare many defendants for licensing rights.

Different Types of NPEs

• Some inventors choose not to pursue the development, manufacturing, and sales of their inventions. 
• They may lack the resources to do so, or the interest, passion, and commitment that such an effort requires. 
• Instead, they may seek to license their inventions to others who can use them to deliver better products and services.
• Some companies invest in research, development and commercialization for a number of years, but fail to achieve adequate sales to sustain their business. 
• Facing this, they begin to seek a return on their investment through the licensing of their intellectual property.
• Some entities buy patents with the express purpose of licensing them aggressively.

Regardless, it is widely argued that so-called “patent trolls” are corrupting the U.S. patent system and endangering technology innovation and commercialization at large. Case in point, an influential study estimated the “direct costs” of patent troll litigation in the U.S. in 2011 at $29 billion.

I think the image below is a very entertaining and illustrative synopsis of my analysis!

Sources: https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/background/, https://www.law.northwestern.edu/research-faculty/searlecenter/workingpapers/documents/Mazzeo_NPE_study_mhz_012112.pdf, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/what-the-courts-did-to-curb-patent-trollingfor-now/383138/

OBVIOUSNESS: VIDEO | WEEK #7

Hey guys!

This post is going to be a brief summary of a video I found online about Obviousness and the Unified Patents Court! I have included the video I uploaded to my YouTube account below and the link from the actual website of Simmons & Simmons Elexica, a European law firm.

http://www.elexica.com/en/resources/podcast/episode-0272-obviousness-and-the-unified-patents-court

"Problem-Solution Approach"

Although the video is specific to Europe, much of the details they discuss with regards to obviousness are universally applicable. One of the lawyers specifically mentions the "Problem-Solution Approach" to dealing with potentially obvious patents:

1. Start with the closest piece of prior art
• Search for all previous patents that are similar to the patent in question
• The closest piece is easy to find because it is the patent that you have to make the fewest changes to
2. Identify the differences between the new patent and the prior art
• Locate the differences between the patent in question and the closest piece of prior art
• Ask yourself - "What difference does this difference actually make?"
3. Formulate a technical problem
• If the differences between the prior art and the patent in question DOES make some kind of difference, then you need to formulate it as a problem that needs to be solved
4. Determine if the solution is obvious
• The last steps requires the determination of the obviousness of the solution - is the solution an obvious solution to a technical problem?

Haberman vs. Jackel International Example

Also known as the "Anywayup Cup" case - the invention was a baby's drinker cup fitted with a known kind of valve to prevent it leaking. Babies drinker cups had been known for years. Parents all over the world had put up with the fact that if they were dropped they leaked. Nobody had thought to solve the problem. So when the patentee had the technically trivial idea of putting in a valve, there was an immediate success.

Was this patent obvious?

The court found the patent non-obvious, and according to the video, the key was the final step in the Problem-Solution Approach. Objectively, one might think that something so technically trivial would be obvious. However, nobody had ever thought to place a valve in the drinker cups, and the leakage from the cups was a serious problem, which suggests that a POSITA was unable to come up with the invention on their own, thus making the patent non-obvious.

I hope you all found this case as interesting as I did!

OBVIOUSNESS | WEEK #7

Hey guys!

This weeks post aims to discuss obviousness. As we learned in class, non-obviousness is a requirement for a patent to be approved. I will discuss the definition of obviousness that we established in class, and then I will analyze some of the research I found on my own online. I will then provide a concrete example of obviousness in order to make it clear what is expected of an approvable patent.

Class Definition:

• In class, we learned that:
• A patent is obvious if it is defined to be that way by a POSITA
• A POSITA is defined as a Person having Ordinary Skill In The Art

External Research:

• Through my own external research outside of class, I learned an invention can be obvious if it satisfies one of the following 6 criteria:

1. If the invention is created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results the invention is obvious.
2. If the invention is achieved by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way the invention is obvious.
3. If the invention is created by applying a known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results the invention is obvious.
4. If the invention is achieved from choosing a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable expectation to succeed the invention is obvious.
5. If known work in one filed of endeavor prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the variations are predictable to one of skill in the art the invention is obvious.
6. If the invention a product of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results the invention is obvious.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/01/when-is-an-invention-obvious/id=47709/

Illustrative Example of Obviousness:

• In class we discussed an example of obviousness with regards to bottle caps:
• Assume that one bottle cap has a blue cap, and an somebody else files a patent for a bottle cap that is red
• The patent would be likely rejected because it is obvious 
• A red bottle cap provides no functional benefits
• A red bottle cap fails to solve a new problem

PERSONAL VIEW RELATED TO ANTICIPATION AND OBVIOUSNESS | WEEK #5

Hi everybody!

This blog post will cover my personal views related to anticipation and obviousness. We learned a great deal about this in class, and I found the topic to be particularly interesting. In class, we learned that there are three main requirements for a patent to be approved:

1. Usefulness
• In order for a patent to be useful, it must meet a need or solve a problem
• The patent must fill a current or anticipated need
• A useful patent can be "reduced to practice", operated, or enabled (i.e. it can be built and function)
• A useful patent can be an improvement on an already existing patent
2. Novelty (Relates to anticipation)
• Anticipation occurs when a single piece of prior art practices all of the elements of a single claim
• A novel patent has not been published or implemented before
• Ways around justifying a seemingly un-novel patent
• If the structure is known, are the elements used in a new way?
• If the function is known, is there a new problem to solve?
3. Non-obviousness (Relates to obviousness)
• A patent can be rejected if it is obvious, meaning that a Person having Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) defines it to be that way
• The patent must not be trivial or insignificant - it must serve a specific function
• The example we discussed in class was the bottle cap color example

I have included a video below created by an actual patent attorney that talks about anticipation and obviousness:

http://beemlaw.cmi-demo.com/video-gallery/three-common-rejections-of-patents

Thus, a patent can be rejected if it does not satisfy one of the aforementioned criteria (i.e. it is obvious or anticipated).

In the beverage sleeve examples I analyzed in my previous post, it was clear that many of these patents were similar but were able to functionally differentiate their claims, which is why they all were approved. Thus, although many of the patents attempted to solve the same problem, the technologies through which they did so varied widely. For example, while some patents described reusable sleeves while others described disposable ones. Some sleeves were customizable while others were not. Some sleeves gave beverage temperature readings, while others were composed of better material for insulation. At the end, none of the patents were obvious because every change served a functional purpose. None of the patents were un-novel because they did not infringe on the claims of others. Finally, all of the patents were useful because they met a need and solved a problem, even if it was by adding an improvement to an already existing patent.

INSULATED SLEEVE PATENTS AND PATENT APPLICATIONS | WEEK #5

Hey guys,

For this week's blog post, I will be discussing the backgrounds, priority dates, technologies, specifications, diagrams, and claims of the following patents:

1. US 6343735 B1: Insulating sleeve
2. US 2661889 A:  Thermal coffee cup
3. US 8,251,277 B1: Thermal sleeve, method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve, and combination cup and thermal sleeve
4. US 7,922,031 B1: Insulator sleeve for a beverage container
5. US 8118189 B1: Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container
6. US 6152363: Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation
7. US 20080078824 A1: Beverage cup sleeving system and method
8. US 20100019023 A1: Protective sleeve
9. US 20140151385 A1: Hot and cold cup sleeve

This will be a longer post, so for the sake of time, I am just going to dive right into it!

Patent #1:

• US 6343735 B1: Insulating sleeve
• Priority Date: May 4th, 2000
• Background: Hot beverages used to be served in foam plastic containers because of their strong insulation, but foam plastic has raised environmental concerns over the course of the last decade.
• Technology: Provides the user with a gripping surface that remains at a comfortable temperature despite the temperature of the liquid.
• Specifications: Ridges that run from top to bottom and from top to middle and two side cardboard folded sections with air gaps in order to reduce heat transfer.
• Claim Analysis: The invention is a sleeve with a top and bottom opening that wraps snugly around a cup containing liquids with high temperatures. It has two cardboard side flaps that offer an area of separation between the cup and the user's hand, allowing the beverage to cool down.

Patent #2:

• US 2661889 A:  Thermal coffee cup
• Priority Date: July 20th, 1948
• Background: This was the first invention that provided insulation from hot beverages that raised the temperature of the surface of the cups they filled.
• Technology: A coffee cup that insulates hot beverages without the use of any third-party objects or sleeves.
• Specifications: An outer frusto-conical shaped sleeve and an inner corrugated lining.
• Claim Analysis: The invention is a cup that contains an inner layer and an outer surface that provide an area of separation between the user's hand and the hot beverage. It has a bottom surface like all cups, but also has the functionality of being able to screw on a lid on the top for further heat retention or emission.

Patent #3:

• US 8,251,277 B1: Thermal sleeve, method for manufacturing a thermal sleeve, and combination cup and thermal sleeve
• Priority Date: April 15th, 2005
• Background: Prior to the creation of the thermal sleeve, multiple cups were often used to provide a layer of thermal insulation.
• Technology: The thermal sleeve provides insulation to protect a user's hand when holding an article that is hot or cold. The thermal sleeve can be referred to as a cup sleeve when it is used to wrap a cup.
• Specifications: Includes a layer of creped paper in order to provide thermal insulation.
• Claim Analysis: The invention includes claims on a cup sleeve, a cup sleeve in the form of a laminate, a thermal sleeve, a combination cup and cup sleeve, and a method for manufacturing a cup sleeve.

Patent #4:

• US 7,922,031 B1: Insulator sleeve for a beverage container
• Priority Date: March 1, 2006
• Background: With the increase of disposable paperboard coffee cups, various types of disposable coffee cup sleeves have been devised to eliminate the previous practice of “double cupping,” wherein an additional paperboard coffee cup was used to insulate the heat of the coffee from the consumer's hand. 
• Technology: A reusable insulation sleeve that provides a transparent area to allow for increased customizability.
• Specifications: Includes an opaque frusto-conical inner sleeve and a frusto-conical outer sleeve which may be made from vinyl, silicon rubber, or any other material with strong insulation properties.
• Claim Analysis: The invention includes claims on a reusable insulating sleeve with two frusto-conical layers that provide a layer of separation between the user's hand and hot surface of the disposable coffee cup.

Patent #5:

• US 8118189 B1: Temperature-indicating sleeve and related container
• Priority Date: December 15th 2006
• Background: When hot beverages are purchased for immediate consumption, they are most often sold in a disposable, insulated cup. Because the cup is at least partially insulated, it is very difficult for the consumer to know if the beverage is too hot for consumption, unless they feel the contents.
• Technology: A temperature-indicating sleeve capable of being placed on or around and in contact with an outer surface of a container. 
• Specifications: The sleeve comprises a top opening, a bottom opening, at least one sleeve wall having an outer surface; and a visually observable temperature indicator on or in the sleeve wall. The temperature indicator is calibrated according to the known insulating property of the container and/or the sleeve and is capable of determining a temperature of contents of the container to an accuracy of within about 4 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Claim Analysis: The claim provides for the temperature indicating sleeve itself, a container in combination with the sleeve, a sleeve for a container that insulates a hot or cold container from the user's hand, and the method for making it.

Patent #6:

• US 6152363: Sleeve construction for improved paperboard cup insulation
• Priority Date: May 3rd, 1999
• Background: This invention relates to the construction of sleeves for use with paperboard cups. Such structures of this type, generally, employ a paperboard sleeve backed with hot-melt glue dots which are used to improve the insulating characteristics of a paperboard cup to the same level of common polystyrene cups.
• Technology:  The invention offers a sleeve construction for providing insulation for a container.
• Specifications: Comprises a substantially smooth paperboard sleeve having a predetermined length and height and first and second sides, a plurality of air-gap means rigidly attached to the first side of the sleeve such that the air-gap means are individually spaced along the length, height, and first side of the sleeve in columns and rows, and a layer of printed graphics located substantially on the second side of the sleeve.
• Claim Analysis: The claim provides for a container sleeve that is made of a smooth paperboard material and has thermal air gaps to allow for quick and easy cooling and a section containing graphics for differentiation.

Patent #7:

• US 20080078824 A1: Beverage cup sleeving system and method
• Priority Date: April 23rd, 2006
• Background: When paper-based cups are filled with a hot liquid, soup, coffee, and tea they are difficult to handle. In addition they can be uncomfortable to handle when cold and become slippery due to condensation.
• Technology:  The invention offers an elastomer sleeve construction for providing insulation for a container and is resistant to water damage.
• Specifications: Comprises a layer of elastomer formed into a homogeneous seamless conical sleeve, the conical sleeve having an exterior surface, an interior surface an upper opening and a lower opening, wherein the upper opening is configured for receiving a beverage cup, and the inner surface of the conical sleeve is configured to contact an outer surface of the beverage cup. Another embodiment comprises a thermal cup protector comprising an elastomeric and fabric composite sleeve, a conical configuration and with opposed open top end and open bottom end, an exterior surface and an interior surface, the interior surface configured for receiving a beverage container with a frusto-conical shape.
• Claim Analysis: The claim provides for an elastomer formed into a homogenous conical sleeve with an exterior surface, an interior surface, and upper and lower boundaries.

Patent #8:

• US 20100019023 A1: Protective sleeve
• Priority Date: July 25th, 2008
• Background: Hot and cold beverages and food (e.g., coffee, tea, soft drinks, soup, ice cream, and the like) may present a handling problem to consumers when dispensed into containers such as drinking cups.
• Technology:  The invention offers a sleeve with a unique arch shape. Sleeves are sometimes used to supplement the thermal insulating properties of containers by, for example, reducing the rate of heat transfer between a container and a hand gripping the container.
• Specifications: The sleeve, when unassembled and laid flat, is a blank with top and bottom edges. The top and bottom edges have an arch-like formation created by peaks and troughs.
• Claim Analysis: The claim provides for a sleeve is disclosed having a unique arch-like shape that facilitates manufacturing material efficiency and therefore reduces material costs and environmental waste. A blank for a sleeve and a method of making a sleeve are also disclosed.

Patent #9:

• US 20140151385 A1: Hot and cold cup sleeve
• Priority Date: February 6th, 2014
• Background: Hot cup sleeves do not work well for cold drinks A cold drink gathers moisture on the outer surface of the cup. The moisture drips down onto the tabletop. The condensation makes a cardboard cup sleeve soggy when wet. Another difficulty is that moisture has a tendency to undo the glue that fastens the two ends of the cup sleeve together.
• Technology:  The invention offers a sleeve for use with hot or cold beverage cups. The sleeve is extremely lightweight, thin, inexpensive, and disposable. It is also a highly effective insulator for hot drinks.
• Specifications: The inner layer or lining is water-absorbent. This prevents condensation from dripping onto the table. The outer layer is made of a non-woven synthetic fabric for purposes of keeping the hand dry. The inner and outer layers are adhered together with a polyethylene film, which is not visible after fabrication. The two ends of the sleeve may be glued or hot-melted together.
• Claim Analysis: The claim provides for a disposable sleeve for beverage cups, comprising a water-absorbent lining, a water-repellent outer layer, and a polyethylene coating laminate film layer as an adhesive to bind said lining to said outer layer, wherein the material for said lining is selected from the group consisting of resin and pulp the material for said outer layer is selected from the group consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, polyethylene terephthalate, viscous rayon, acrylic, aramid, and nylon.