Patent News and Blog
This invention was rejected by Dragon’s Den – but now it’s worth £65million
It was branded ‘hair-brained’ by the so-called professionals on Dragon’s Den famed for their ruthless ability to sort the bad investments from the good.
But this is the product that eluded the hard-faced gang and went on to make a whopping fortune without them. At the time, Duncan Bannatyne claimed that the Tangle Teezer hairbrush left him wanting to pull his hair out – well, we bet he feels even more like that now that he realises what he’s missed out on.
The product, which is designed to work through wet and knotted hair, detangling it without any pain or trouble, is a hit worldwide and is now estimated to be worth an eye-watering £65million.
Entrepeneur Shaun Polfrey offered the Dragons a 15% stake in his company for an £80,000 investment and he was unanimously rejected and mocked by the panel.
James Caan blasted the product as a ‘waste of time’ while Peter Jones quipped that it was ‘hair-brained’.
Who’s laughing now though, guys?
Sold in over 70 countries, Tangle Teezer is also a hit with many high profile celebs with Victoria Beckham, Emma Watson and Cara Delevingne allegedly among showbiz fans of the product.
YouTube is awash with positive product reviews on it, including this slightly excitable one from Bargain Princess:
In order to raise the cash he needed that was not provided by the Dragons, Polfrey re-mortgaged his home and his risk paid off.
Speaking about the experience, he humbly told MailOnline: ‘Entrepreneurs do things differently. Businessmen are less likely to take risks and I think you can see that with the Dragons. Looking back on it there really isn’t a lot that I would change.
‘At the end of the day, for me, I gained a lot of expertise from it and it has helped bring together the great team I have now. Fast forward to now and we’ve just turned over £23.4million, the forecast for this year is that we’re going to hit £34million.’
A hair raising amount indeed.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/11/this-invention-was-rejected-by-dragons-den-but-now-its-worth-65million-5290549/#ixzz3fgxFAdpj
It was branded ‘hair-brained’ by the so-called professionals on Dragon’s Den famed for their ruthless ability to sort the bad investments from the good.
But this is the product that eluded the hard-faced gang and went on to make a whopping fortune without them. At the time, Duncan Bannatyne claimed that the Tangle Teezer hairbrush left him wanting to pull his hair out – well, we bet he feels even more like that now that he realises what he’s missed out on.
The product, which is designed to work through wet and knotted hair, detangling it without any pain or trouble, is a hit worldwide and is now estimated to be worth an eye-watering £65million.
Entrepeneur Shaun Polfrey offered the Dragons a 15% stake in his company for an £80,000 investment and he was unanimously rejected and mocked by the panel.
James Caan blasted the product as a ‘waste of time’ while Peter Jones quipped that it was ‘hair-brained’.
Who’s laughing now though, guys?
Sold in over 70 countries, Tangle Teezer is also a hit with many high profile celebs with Victoria Beckham, Emma Watson and Cara Delevingne allegedly among showbiz fans of the product.
YouTube is awash with positive product reviews on it, including this slightly excitable one from Bargain Princess:
In order to raise the cash he needed that was not provided by the Dragons, Polfrey re-mortgaged his home and his risk paid off.
Speaking about the experience, he humbly told MailOnline: ‘Entrepreneurs do things differently. Businessmen are less likely to take risks and I think you can see that with the Dragons. Looking back on it there really isn’t a lot that I would change.
‘At the end of the day, for me, I gained a lot of expertise from it and it has helped bring together the great team I have now. Fast forward to now and we’ve just turned over £23.4million, the forecast for this year is that we’re going to hit £34million.’
A hair raising amount indeed.
Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2015/07/11/this-invention-was-rejected-by-dragons-den-but-now-its-worth-65million-5290549/#ixzz3fgxFAdpj
North American collaboration on the Patent Prosecution Highway
As of July 1, 2015, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) implemented a year-long pilot program within the context of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). The pilot program strives to apply a uniform set of requirements and procedures for making a PPH request on applications at any of the three offices.
The existing two-year PPH agreement between CIPO and IMPI, which started on January 6, 2014, has been extended to June 30, 2016 to align with the pilot program end date. The requirements and procedures for making a PPH request at CIPO under the CIPO-IMPI PPH agreement remain unchanged. Similarly, the requirements and procedures for making a PPH request to CIPO under the Global PPH remains unchanged when the USPTO is the office of earlier examination.
As a result of the pilot program, the existing PPH agreement between the IMPI and the USPTO will now include the PPH Mottainai and PCT-PPH principles.
This collaborative pilot program between the three offices may be extended or terminated by mutual consent.
If you have any questions or comments about the PPH, please contact the PPH project manager at ATDB-PPH@ic.gc.ca or contact us.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr03951.html?open&wt_src=mailinglist
As of July 1, 2015, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) and the United States Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) implemented a year-long pilot program within the context of the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH). The pilot program strives to apply a uniform set of requirements and procedures for making a PPH request on applications at any of the three offices.
The existing two-year PPH agreement between CIPO and IMPI, which started on January 6, 2014, has been extended to June 30, 2016 to align with the pilot program end date. The requirements and procedures for making a PPH request at CIPO under the CIPO-IMPI PPH agreement remain unchanged. Similarly, the requirements and procedures for making a PPH request to CIPO under the Global PPH remains unchanged when the USPTO is the office of earlier examination.
As a result of the pilot program, the existing PPH agreement between the IMPI and the USPTO will now include the PPH Mottainai and PCT-PPH principles.
This collaborative pilot program between the three offices may be extended or terminated by mutual consent.
If you have any questions or comments about the PPH, please contact the PPH project manager at ATDB-PPH@ic.gc.ca or contact us.
http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/wr03951.html?open&wt_src=mailinglist
IPO Releases List of Top 300 Patent Holders for 2014
Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) announced the list of the top 300 organizations receiving U.S. patents . 300,678 patents were issued in 2014, which was an increase from the 277,835 patents that issued in 2013.
https://www.ipo.org/index.php/publications/top-300-patent-owners/
Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) announced the list of the top 300 organizations receiving U.S. patents . 300,678 patents were issued in 2014, which was an increase from the 277,835 patents that issued in 2013.
https://www.ipo.org/index.php/publications/top-300-patent-owners/
Driverless car: Google awarded US patent for technology
A US patent for self-driving cars has been awarded to Google (for a method to switch a vehicle from a human-controlled mode into the state where a computer takes charge of the wheel).
United States Patent 8,078,349
Prada Gomez , et al. December 13, 2011
Transitioning a mixed-mode vehicle to autonomous mode
Abstract - Disclosed are methods and devices for transitioning a mixed-mode autonomous vehicle from a human driven mode to an autonomously driven mode. Transitioning may include stopping a vehicle on a predefined landing strip and detecting a reference indicator. Based on the reference indicator, the vehicle may be able to know its exact position. Additionally, the vehicle may use the reference indictor to obtain an autonomous vehicle instruction via a URL. After the vehicle knows its precise location and has an autonomous vehicle instruction, it can operate in autonomous mode.
A US patent for self-driving cars has been awarded to Google (for a method to switch a vehicle from a human-controlled mode into the state where a computer takes charge of the wheel).
United States Patent 8,078,349
Prada Gomez , et al. December 13, 2011
Transitioning a mixed-mode vehicle to autonomous mode
Abstract - Disclosed are methods and devices for transitioning a mixed-mode autonomous vehicle from a human driven mode to an autonomously driven mode. Transitioning may include stopping a vehicle on a predefined landing strip and detecting a reference indicator. Based on the reference indicator, the vehicle may be able to know its exact position. Additionally, the vehicle may use the reference indictor to obtain an autonomous vehicle instruction via a URL. After the vehicle knows its precise location and has an autonomous vehicle instruction, it can operate in autonomous mode.
Patent Agent Privilege
25 June 2015
Bill C-59 received royal assent yesterday which includes changes to the Patent Act, Trade-marks Act, Copyright Act and the Industrial Design Act. The changes include patent agent privilege, provisions for force majeure and term extension. The provisions on privilege will come into force next year at this time.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=7959017
25 June 2015
Bill C-59 received royal assent yesterday which includes changes to the Patent Act, Trade-marks Act, Copyright Act and the Industrial Design Act. The changes include patent agent privilege, provisions for force majeure and term extension. The provisions on privilege will come into force next year at this time.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=7959017
Supreme Court rejects Google request in Street View patent case
23 June 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by Google to hear a patent case involving Google’s Street View service. Google now faces defending allegation of infringement claims in lower courts.
Google requested the court rule against four geographic imaging and navigation system patents held by a company called Vederi. In September 2012, a district court ruled against Vederi, saying its patents cover “vertical flat” images, not the curved images used in Google Street View.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the district court had interpreted the Vederi patents too narrowly. Google had asked the Supreme Court to rule that Vederi’s patents, amended by the company after an earlier rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, be interpreted narrowly (thereby avoiding infringement of patents).
The U.S. Department of Justice had asked the Supreme Court to reject Google’s request, saying the Federal Circuit had interpreted the patents correctly.
Google had no comment on the court’s decision.
23 June 2015
The U.S. Supreme Court declined a request by Google to hear a patent case involving Google’s Street View service. Google now faces defending allegation of infringement claims in lower courts.
Google requested the court rule against four geographic imaging and navigation system patents held by a company called Vederi. In September 2012, a district court ruled against Vederi, saying its patents cover “vertical flat” images, not the curved images used in Google Street View.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the district court had interpreted the Vederi patents too narrowly. Google had asked the Supreme Court to rule that Vederi’s patents, amended by the company after an earlier rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, be interpreted narrowly (thereby avoiding infringement of patents).
The U.S. Department of Justice had asked the Supreme Court to reject Google’s request, saying the Federal Circuit had interpreted the patents correctly.
Google had no comment on the court’s decision.
Sunday, June 21, 2015
JAMAICAN scientist Dr. Henry Lowe and his research team have been granted a fourth patent by the United States Patent Office in their continuing anti-cancer research.
"The patent is based on a method of treating prostate cancer using compounds from the crude extract of the indigenous Jamaican plant, Ball Moss, commonly known as Old Man's Beard, a news release from Dr Lowe's Bio-Tech R&D Institute said on Friday. The treatment, the company said, holds tremendous promise as a chemopreventive agent.
"These compounds inhibit the response and growth of new blood vessels in prostate cancer tumours. The refinement of the method and compounds isolation were inspired by the isolation of chemical compounds from the Ball Moss plant, which have been actively pursued by Dr. Lowe and his research team over the past 10 years," the news release added.
The patent number, 9040100, is titled 'Methods for Inhibiting Prostate Cancer by Kinases & Angiogenesis Inhibitory Mechanisms of Ball Moss Extract'.
According to the European Union, there are 1.5 million new cases of prostate cancer annually, making it the fourth most common cancer worldwide, and the second most prevalent cancer in men globally.
Bio-Tech said that a number of peer-reviewed papers have already been published related to the methods now protected by this patent.
On December 9, 2014, the Lowe-led biomedical research team, which includes Dr. Joseph Bryant who is based at Maryland School of Medicine in the US, was formally granted its third patent. That patent -- Number 8907117 -- is titled 'Anti-tumour and Anti-Inflammatory Dicinnamoyl-Glycerol Esters and their Analogues'.
The team, which focuses on cancer research as well as diabetes and HIV/AIDS, has an additional five patents undergoing different stages of evaluation.
The granting of the patent in 2014 was regarded as a major scientific stride for biotechnology in Jamaica as it relates to the making of a new group of chemical compounds called Dicinnamoyl-Glycerol Esters, which have major anti-cancer activities.
JAMAICAN scientist Dr. Henry Lowe and his research team have been granted a fourth patent by the United States Patent Office in their continuing anti-cancer research.
"The patent is based on a method of treating prostate cancer using compounds from the crude extract of the indigenous Jamaican plant, Ball Moss, commonly known as Old Man's Beard, a news release from Dr Lowe's Bio-Tech R&D Institute said on Friday. The treatment, the company said, holds tremendous promise as a chemopreventive agent.
"These compounds inhibit the response and growth of new blood vessels in prostate cancer tumours. The refinement of the method and compounds isolation were inspired by the isolation of chemical compounds from the Ball Moss plant, which have been actively pursued by Dr. Lowe and his research team over the past 10 years," the news release added.
The patent number, 9040100, is titled 'Methods for Inhibiting Prostate Cancer by Kinases & Angiogenesis Inhibitory Mechanisms of Ball Moss Extract'.
According to the European Union, there are 1.5 million new cases of prostate cancer annually, making it the fourth most common cancer worldwide, and the second most prevalent cancer in men globally.
Bio-Tech said that a number of peer-reviewed papers have already been published related to the methods now protected by this patent.
On December 9, 2014, the Lowe-led biomedical research team, which includes Dr. Joseph Bryant who is based at Maryland School of Medicine in the US, was formally granted its third patent. That patent -- Number 8907117 -- is titled 'Anti-tumour and Anti-Inflammatory Dicinnamoyl-Glycerol Esters and their Analogues'.
The team, which focuses on cancer research as well as diabetes and HIV/AIDS, has an additional five patents undergoing different stages of evaluation.
The granting of the patent in 2014 was regarded as a major scientific stride for biotechnology in Jamaica as it relates to the making of a new group of chemical compounds called Dicinnamoyl-Glycerol Esters, which have major anti-cancer activities.
IPLAC Seminar on § 101 Post-Alice
Lecture and Expert Panel Discussion will be presented entitled "101 Post Alice: How USPTO & Practitioners Are Reacting" on June 26, 2015 from 2:00 to 3:30 pm (Central) at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
https://iplac.memberclicks.net/index.php?option=com_mc&view=mc&mcid=72&eventId=483001&orgId=iplac
Webinar on Patent Prosecution Strategies - ABA
The American Bar Association (ABA) will be offering a live webinar entitled "Practical Patent Prosecution Strategies and Considerations" on June 23, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (ET). The seminar will provide practice pointers for everyone from the beginner level lawyer to the most experienced patent prosecutors, and take attorneys and patent agents through patent application prosecution from the first Office Action through Allowance.
http://shop.americanbar.org/ebus/ABAEventsCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?productId=188448949
IPO Webinar on International Patent Filing
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "International Patent Filing: Best Practices" on June 25, 2015 from 2:00 to 3:15 pm (ET). Guidance is provided on where and how to file foreign patent applications:
http://www.ipo.org/index.php/events/ip-chat-channel/
Lecture and Expert Panel Discussion will be presented entitled "101 Post Alice: How USPTO & Practitioners Are Reacting" on June 26, 2015 from 2:00 to 3:30 pm (Central) at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
https://iplac.memberclicks.net/index.php?option=com_mc&view=mc&mcid=72&eventId=483001&orgId=iplac
Webinar on Patent Prosecution Strategies - ABA
The American Bar Association (ABA) will be offering a live webinar entitled "Practical Patent Prosecution Strategies and Considerations" on June 23, 2015 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (ET). The seminar will provide practice pointers for everyone from the beginner level lawyer to the most experienced patent prosecutors, and take attorneys and patent agents through patent application prosecution from the first Office Action through Allowance.
http://shop.americanbar.org/ebus/ABAEventsCalendar/EventDetails.aspx?productId=188448949
IPO Webinar on International Patent Filing
The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "International Patent Filing: Best Practices" on June 25, 2015 from 2:00 to 3:15 pm (ET). Guidance is provided on where and how to file foreign patent applications:
http://www.ipo.org/index.php/events/ip-chat-channel/
How I Grew My Company From $100 to $400 Million
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246690?et_cid=198906&et_rid=64738216
Here is an article worth reading:
Before launching my current startup, I started a company called Trace3 with $100 and grew it to over $400 million in revenue. Certainly, Trace3 has been successful as a technology consultancy and reseller, but I didn’t start the company to get rich quick.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/246690?et_cid=198906&et_rid=64738216
Here is an article worth reading:
Before launching my current startup, I started a company called Trace3 with $100 and grew it to over $400 million in revenue. Certainly, Trace3 has been successful as a technology consultancy and reseller, but I didn’t start the company to get rich quick.
Secrets of the Trade: Protecting Trade Secrets in a World Where Data is King
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
1:00 PM to 2:30 PM ET
http://www.bna.com/secrets-trade-protecting-m17179926508/
DESCRIPTION
Every company has trade secrets. Every company wants to protect them. Protecting trade secrets has always been a challenge. Today, this challenge has grown exponentially. In our interconnected world, there are more threats to trade secrets than ever before. Rogue employees, negligent employees, nation-state actors, disgruntled former employees, unethical competitors, unprepared venders . . . the threats are endless. In this world, companies must know the specific threats to their trade secrets and how to act proactively to protect them. Companies also must know what steps they should take when they suspect trade secret theft, and that their options are for stopping the theft and recovering damages for their losses. In this sense, protecting trade secrets now is a combination of legal and technical know-how. Companies need to know – (1) what laws protect trade secrets and how they work; (2) what technical issues are involved in proactive protection of trade secrets and the prosecution of trade secret litigation; and (3) the keys to winning lawsuits about trade secrets, whether you are the one who lost the trade secrets or the one who is accused of using them.
Educational Objectives:
• What is the threat landscape for trade secrets? What are the sources of threats to your trade secrets? How are nation-states stealing our trade secrets and committing, what one Air Force General described as, the greatest theft in the history of mankind?
• What are the best ways to act proactively to protect your trade secrets?
• How do new technologies, like data analytics, impact the protection of trade secrets?
• How does the law protect trade secrets? What is a trade secret? What laws protect trade secrets? How do they work?
• What are the technological keys and strategies for winning trade secret cases?
• What are the keys to providing and defending damages in trade secret cases?
Who would benefit most from attending this program?
Litigators; in-house counsel; human resources professionals; intellectual property lawyers; corporate lawyers that act as outside general counsel for their clients.
Tuesday, June 30, 2015
1:00 PM to 2:30 PM ET
http://www.bna.com/secrets-trade-protecting-m17179926508/
DESCRIPTION
Every company has trade secrets. Every company wants to protect them. Protecting trade secrets has always been a challenge. Today, this challenge has grown exponentially. In our interconnected world, there are more threats to trade secrets than ever before. Rogue employees, negligent employees, nation-state actors, disgruntled former employees, unethical competitors, unprepared venders . . . the threats are endless. In this world, companies must know the specific threats to their trade secrets and how to act proactively to protect them. Companies also must know what steps they should take when they suspect trade secret theft, and that their options are for stopping the theft and recovering damages for their losses. In this sense, protecting trade secrets now is a combination of legal and technical know-how. Companies need to know – (1) what laws protect trade secrets and how they work; (2) what technical issues are involved in proactive protection of trade secrets and the prosecution of trade secret litigation; and (3) the keys to winning lawsuits about trade secrets, whether you are the one who lost the trade secrets or the one who is accused of using them.
Educational Objectives:
• What is the threat landscape for trade secrets? What are the sources of threats to your trade secrets? How are nation-states stealing our trade secrets and committing, what one Air Force General described as, the greatest theft in the history of mankind?
• What are the best ways to act proactively to protect your trade secrets?
• How do new technologies, like data analytics, impact the protection of trade secrets?
• How does the law protect trade secrets? What is a trade secret? What laws protect trade secrets? How do they work?
• What are the technological keys and strategies for winning trade secret cases?
• What are the keys to providing and defending damages in trade secret cases?
Who would benefit most from attending this program?
Litigators; in-house counsel; human resources professionals; intellectual property lawyers; corporate lawyers that act as outside general counsel for their clients.
Google patent for fleet of ambulance drones
12 JUNE 2015
A fleet of ambulance drones are described to operate by reaching people during an medical emergency. The patent describes a drone dispatched to provide medical support. A drones could bring an emergency supply of water (medical supplies, first aid kits, medical equipment). See United States Patent 9,051,043 (Peeters, et al., June 9, 2015)
12 JUNE 2015
A fleet of ambulance drones are described to operate by reaching people during an medical emergency. The patent describes a drone dispatched to provide medical support. A drones could bring an emergency supply of water (medical supplies, first aid kits, medical equipment). See United States Patent 9,051,043 (Peeters, et al., June 9, 2015)
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board could devastate innovation-intensive industries in the USA
11 JUNE 2015
In the USA, Ultratec, a manufacturer of closed-captioned phones for the deaf, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit (a rival had created a knockoff using its patented technology). A Wisconsin federal jury ruled for Ultratec in October, ordering rival Sorenson Communications to pay $44 million in damages.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated Ultratec’s patents, on grounds that the designs were too obvious to be patentable.
The PTAB, created by the 2011 America Invents Act, was intended to strengthen the patent system. Lawmakers hoped to avoid the need for patent lawsuits by giving patent holders and challengers a quick and inexpensive way to resolve disputes as an alternative to the courts.
In court, a patent is valid until a challenger provides "clear and convincing" evidence to the contrary.
The PTAB uses looser standards than the federal court to evaluate a patent’s legitimacy. The PTAB requires only that challengers show that it’s more likely than not that a patent is too broad (i.e., a "preponderance of the evidence").
The PTAB has invalidated at least 80% of the patents it has ruled on, according to a study in the University of Chicago Law Review.
Many of these challenges at the PTAB (such as the one against Combigan, an eye-drop medicine that prevents blindness in patients with glaucoma) seek to overturn patents that district courts have already upheld.
11 JUNE 2015
In the USA, Ultratec, a manufacturer of closed-captioned phones for the deaf, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit (a rival had created a knockoff using its patented technology). A Wisconsin federal jury ruled for Ultratec in October, ordering rival Sorenson Communications to pay $44 million in damages.
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated Ultratec’s patents, on grounds that the designs were too obvious to be patentable.
The PTAB, created by the 2011 America Invents Act, was intended to strengthen the patent system. Lawmakers hoped to avoid the need for patent lawsuits by giving patent holders and challengers a quick and inexpensive way to resolve disputes as an alternative to the courts.
In court, a patent is valid until a challenger provides "clear and convincing" evidence to the contrary.
The PTAB uses looser standards than the federal court to evaluate a patent’s legitimacy. The PTAB requires only that challengers show that it’s more likely than not that a patent is too broad (i.e., a "preponderance of the evidence").
The PTAB has invalidated at least 80% of the patents it has ruled on, according to a study in the University of Chicago Law Review.
Many of these challenges at the PTAB (such as the one against Combigan, an eye-drop medicine that prevents blindness in patients with glaucoma) seek to overturn patents that district courts have already upheld.
Intel Capital will invest $125M in startups run by women and minorities
11 JUNE 2015
Intel Capital venture will invest $125 million over the next 5 years in technology startups run by women and underrepresented minorities. Intel is putting its money where its mouth is today with an investment of $16.7 million in four companies: Brit + Co, CareCloud, Mark One, and Venafi.
11 JUNE 2015
Intel Capital venture will invest $125 million over the next 5 years in technology startups run by women and underrepresented minorities. Intel is putting its money where its mouth is today with an investment of $16.7 million in four companies: Brit + Co, CareCloud, Mark One, and Venafi.
IBM is the leader in patents in the US (so far in 2015).
5 JUNE 2015
So far in 2015, IBM has been awarded 152 patents per week (21 per day). IBM accounted for 2% of all patents awarded in 2014 (in the USPTO).
In comparison, Google has received 64 per week. It is projected that Google may receive over 3,100 patents in 2015.
5 JUNE 2015
So far in 2015, IBM has been awarded 152 patents per week (21 per day). IBM accounted for 2% of all patents awarded in 2014 (in the USPTO).
In comparison, Google has received 64 per week. It is projected that Google may receive over 3,100 patents in 2015.
PATENT-ELIGIBILITY OF COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED SUBJECT MATTER
The Canadian Patent Appeal Board (PAB) has provided guidance to patent applicants on whether a patent on a particular computer-implemented invention may be allowable in Canada.
Navigation Technologies Corp. Patent Application Number 2,195,252
Decision Number: 1332
Decision Date: October 29, 2012
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1332/summary.html?query=1332+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a system and method for updating navigation systems installed in vehicles constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated the following: the elements comprise technical features and physical steps sequenced to achieve the practical result of providing updated data to in-vehicle navigation systems. The computer limitations of the elements are essential, i.e., they cannot be omitted, or substituted for mental means, without having a material effect on the operation of the invention.
Pitney Bowes Inc. Application Number 2,306,540, 2013
Decision No: 1334
Decision Date: January 14, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1334/summary.html?query=1334+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a mail monitoring system constitute statutory subject matter.
The PAB construed the claims to include the essential element of a data center, which receives unique information scanned from mailpieces, cross-references to the corresponding information sent to the data center directly, and generates a report of errors.
The PAB stated the following: Applicant has leveraged these technological features and capabilities to provide an improvement upon the conventional postage meter system.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. Application Number 2,344,781
Decision No: 1336
Decision Date: February 22, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1336/summary.html?query=1336+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a system and method for determining and communicating a cost of insurance constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB construed the claims as requiring a vehicle with an onboard computer in communication with a remote computer used by an insurer for making insurance calculations.
The PAB stated the following: the feature of monitoring the operating characteristics comprises technical features and physical steps sequenced to achieve the practical result of updating an insurance premium.
Pitney Bowes Inc. Patent Application Number 2,285,834
Decision No: 1337
Decision Date: March 6, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1337/summary.html?query=1337+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for selectively replenishing a postage meter constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated that the method steps utilize technology, and are sequenced to achieve the practical result of selectively interacting with, and replenishing, postage meters from a central computer.
Deroyal Business Systems, LLC Application Number 2,304,195
Decision No: 1338
Decision Dated: March 14, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1338/summary.html?query=1338+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method for the analysis and standardization of bills of resources were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that the use of a computer system to perform the method, as opposed to the steps being performed by a human, is not an essential limitation of the claimed invention, and that the same claimed method steps, whether performed by a computer or a human being, lead to the same result, at least one standardized bill of resources.
Fair Isaac Corp. Application Number 2,144,068
Decision No: 1339
Decision Date: March 28, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1339/summary.html?query=1339+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a process for identifying and determining fraudulent transaction data were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that the only inventive aspect defined by the independent claims is an algorithm or mathematical formula, which is the whole invention. The claims are not saved by the fact they contemplate the use of a computer to give the mathematical formula a practical application.
RPX Corp. Application Number 2,222,229
Decision No: 1341
Decision Date: March 28, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1341/summary.html?query=1341+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method, server and system for processing electronic transactions between a purchaser and subscribing merchant over a network constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated that the claims are not abstract since at the very least, having servers in communication over a network is essential to the invention.
Weyerhaeuser Patent Application Number 2,333,184
Decision No: 1345
Decision Date: May 22, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1345/summary.html?query=1345+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method for classifying plant embryos according to their germination potential constitute statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that computer-implemented data analyses are not the sole focus of the claimed invention. There also exist steps – which include digital scanning, physical data acquisition and separation of embryos – performed in combination with computerized analyses, that have physical existence.
IGT Patent Application Number 2,237,438
Decision No: 1346
Decision Date: June 20, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1346/summary.html?query=1346+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a process for operating an electronic video poker machine having a video display device were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB noted that on a purposive construction, references to machines and manufactures appear in the claims in order to provide the operating environment of one practical manner of carrying out the invention. However, they do not materially effect the working of the invention.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. Patent Application Number 2,235,566
Decision No. 1349
Decision Dated: July 11, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1349/summary.html?query=1349
Claims for a system, method and apparatus for determining a cost of insurance constitute patentable subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated that monitoring the vehicle operating characteristics and communicating the data to the central facility are essential features which are material to the working of the invention. They achieve the practical result of updating an insurance premium based on actual vehicle operating characteristics and driver behaviour.
CFPH LLC; Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, Patent Application Number 2,493,971
Decision No: 1355
Decision Dated: November 29, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1355/summary.html?query=1355+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method for trading a volume of an item between participants were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that the computer components are part of the context in which the solution operates, and by which the auction processes for a second look state is put into operation in the claimed embodiments. These features are not part of the solution to the practical problem, and thus are not essential elements of the actual invention.
Financial Engines, Inc Patent Application No 2,312,726
Decision No: 1373
Decision Date: October 10, 2014
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1373/summary.html?query=1373+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a system and method for optimizing an investment portfolio were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that while the processors, servers, memory devices or computer implemented steps provide a convenient supporting architecture (technical environment) to efficiently calculate, communicate and disseminate the financial advisory data and information, the computer components themselves do not have a material effect on the financial concepts involving certain mathematical calculations for optimizing an investment portfolio.
The Canadian Patent Appeal Board (PAB) has provided guidance to patent applicants on whether a patent on a particular computer-implemented invention may be allowable in Canada.
Navigation Technologies Corp. Patent Application Number 2,195,252
Decision Number: 1332
Decision Date: October 29, 2012
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1332/summary.html?query=1332+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a system and method for updating navigation systems installed in vehicles constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated the following: the elements comprise technical features and physical steps sequenced to achieve the practical result of providing updated data to in-vehicle navigation systems. The computer limitations of the elements are essential, i.e., they cannot be omitted, or substituted for mental means, without having a material effect on the operation of the invention.
Pitney Bowes Inc. Application Number 2,306,540, 2013
Decision No: 1334
Decision Date: January 14, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1334/summary.html?query=1334+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a mail monitoring system constitute statutory subject matter.
The PAB construed the claims to include the essential element of a data center, which receives unique information scanned from mailpieces, cross-references to the corresponding information sent to the data center directly, and generates a report of errors.
The PAB stated the following: Applicant has leveraged these technological features and capabilities to provide an improvement upon the conventional postage meter system.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. Application Number 2,344,781
Decision No: 1336
Decision Date: February 22, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1336/summary.html?query=1336+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a system and method for determining and communicating a cost of insurance constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB construed the claims as requiring a vehicle with an onboard computer in communication with a remote computer used by an insurer for making insurance calculations.
The PAB stated the following: the feature of monitoring the operating characteristics comprises technical features and physical steps sequenced to achieve the practical result of updating an insurance premium.
Pitney Bowes Inc. Patent Application Number 2,285,834
Decision No: 1337
Decision Date: March 6, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1337/summary.html?query=1337+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for selectively replenishing a postage meter constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated that the method steps utilize technology, and are sequenced to achieve the practical result of selectively interacting with, and replenishing, postage meters from a central computer.
Deroyal Business Systems, LLC Application Number 2,304,195
Decision No: 1338
Decision Dated: March 14, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1338/summary.html?query=1338+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method for the analysis and standardization of bills of resources were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that the use of a computer system to perform the method, as opposed to the steps being performed by a human, is not an essential limitation of the claimed invention, and that the same claimed method steps, whether performed by a computer or a human being, lead to the same result, at least one standardized bill of resources.
Fair Isaac Corp. Application Number 2,144,068
Decision No: 1339
Decision Date: March 28, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1339/summary.html?query=1339+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a process for identifying and determining fraudulent transaction data were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that the only inventive aspect defined by the independent claims is an algorithm or mathematical formula, which is the whole invention. The claims are not saved by the fact they contemplate the use of a computer to give the mathematical formula a practical application.
RPX Corp. Application Number 2,222,229
Decision No: 1341
Decision Date: March 28, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1341/summary.html?query=1341+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method, server and system for processing electronic transactions between a purchaser and subscribing merchant over a network constitute statutory subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated that the claims are not abstract since at the very least, having servers in communication over a network is essential to the invention.
Weyerhaeuser Patent Application Number 2,333,184
Decision No: 1345
Decision Date: May 22, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1345/summary.html?query=1345+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method for classifying plant embryos according to their germination potential constitute statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that computer-implemented data analyses are not the sole focus of the claimed invention. There also exist steps – which include digital scanning, physical data acquisition and separation of embryos – performed in combination with computerized analyses, that have physical existence.
IGT Patent Application Number 2,237,438
Decision No: 1346
Decision Date: June 20, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1346/summary.html?query=1346+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a process for operating an electronic video poker machine having a video display device were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB noted that on a purposive construction, references to machines and manufactures appear in the claims in order to provide the operating environment of one practical manner of carrying out the invention. However, they do not materially effect the working of the invention.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. Patent Application Number 2,235,566
Decision No. 1349
Decision Dated: July 11, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1349/summary.html?query=1349
Claims for a system, method and apparatus for determining a cost of insurance constitute patentable subject matter.
Application was refused for obviousness.
The PAB stated that monitoring the vehicle operating characteristics and communicating the data to the central facility are essential features which are material to the working of the invention. They achieve the practical result of updating an insurance premium based on actual vehicle operating characteristics and driver behaviour.
CFPH LLC; Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, Patent Application Number 2,493,971
Decision No: 1355
Decision Dated: November 29, 2013
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1355/summary.html?query=1355+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a method for trading a volume of an item between participants were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that the computer components are part of the context in which the solution operates, and by which the auction processes for a second look state is put into operation in the claimed embodiments. These features are not part of the solution to the practical problem, and thus are not essential elements of the actual invention.
Financial Engines, Inc Patent Application No 2,312,726
Decision No: 1373
Decision Date: October 10, 2014
http://brevets-patents.ic.gc.ca/opic-cipo/comdec/eng/decision/1373/summary.html?query=1373+%3Cin%3E+comdecnumber&&num=10
Claims for a system and method for optimizing an investment portfolio were directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The PAB stated that while the processors, servers, memory devices or computer implemented steps provide a convenient supporting architecture (technical environment) to efficiently calculate, communicate and disseminate the financial advisory data and information, the computer components themselves do not have a material effect on the financial concepts involving certain mathematical calculations for optimizing an investment portfolio.
Google patents contact lens that collects your iris fingerprint
3 JUNE 2015
Google has patented a contact lens having an identification device including a light sensor (embedded in the surface of the contact lens) that is configured to collect reflected light from the iris.
The sensor compares an image of the iris contained in computer memory. If the images match, a door might be unlocked for the wearer, or a file containing privileged information might become accessible, etc.
3 JUNE 2015
Google has patented a contact lens having an identification device including a light sensor (embedded in the surface of the contact lens) that is configured to collect reflected light from the iris.
The sensor compares an image of the iris contained in computer memory. If the images match, a door might be unlocked for the wearer, or a file containing privileged information might become accessible, etc.
Idea Checklist Evaluation Tool For Inventors
1 JUNE 2015
An idea checklist evaluation tool can help inventors determine the feasibility of their idea. If the total cumulative score is less than 20, the idea should not be reevaluated. A score between 20 to 35 indicates caution, and a score of 35 or higher indicates proceeding with further steps. The variables are rated from 1 to 10 points.
1. The functionality of a prototype: research and development is a costly endeavor, and potential licensors will expect that you have performed some level of due diligence on your product’s viability.
2. Strength of the patent (determined by a patentability assessment): strength of a patent provides a competitive position in the marketplace, and is a primary focus for potential product licensing deals. File a provisional application if justified at this point.
3. The size of the market: validate buyer interest. Obtain feedback from buyers (under a non-disclosure agreement). Buyers deal with many thousands of products daily, and can provide insight to market interest.
4. The price: if the price of the concept does not provide perceived value, buyers won't purchase it.
5. The funding options: identify the upfront expenses needed to secure a patent licensing deal or commercialization activity.
1 JUNE 2015
An idea checklist evaluation tool can help inventors determine the feasibility of their idea. If the total cumulative score is less than 20, the idea should not be reevaluated. A score between 20 to 35 indicates caution, and a score of 35 or higher indicates proceeding with further steps. The variables are rated from 1 to 10 points.
1. The functionality of a prototype: research and development is a costly endeavor, and potential licensors will expect that you have performed some level of due diligence on your product’s viability.
2. Strength of the patent (determined by a patentability assessment): strength of a patent provides a competitive position in the marketplace, and is a primary focus for potential product licensing deals. File a provisional application if justified at this point.
3. The size of the market: validate buyer interest. Obtain feedback from buyers (under a non-disclosure agreement). Buyers deal with many thousands of products daily, and can provide insight to market interest.
4. The price: if the price of the concept does not provide perceived value, buyers won't purchase it.
5. The funding options: identify the upfront expenses needed to secure a patent licensing deal or commercialization activity.
Safeguarding Trade Secrets
30 MAY 2015
Take proactive steps to protect proprietary information. It is cheaper and safer to avoid making mistakes.
Have agreements drafted can protect you from the risk of unwanted disclosures. Consult a qualified lawyer.
Anyone with access to proprietary information should sign a nondisclosure agreement, a non-solicit agreement and/or a non-compete agreement. The fees associated with preparing the agreements pales in comparison to the costs of lost proprietary information and/or litigation.
Use an employee-intake procedure and have designated staff members responsible for ensuring that the required paperwork and contracts are signed, dated and filed.
Third parties, such as vendors and consultants, need access to this information, and should also sign these agreements.
Label documents with this information as confidential. Implement a confidential-documents policy that dictates precisely how such documents are managed.
Do not make an exception for someone you consider a friend or who you could never see using proprietary information against you.
30 MAY 2015
Take proactive steps to protect proprietary information. It is cheaper and safer to avoid making mistakes.
Have agreements drafted can protect you from the risk of unwanted disclosures. Consult a qualified lawyer.
Anyone with access to proprietary information should sign a nondisclosure agreement, a non-solicit agreement and/or a non-compete agreement. The fees associated with preparing the agreements pales in comparison to the costs of lost proprietary information and/or litigation.
Use an employee-intake procedure and have designated staff members responsible for ensuring that the required paperwork and contracts are signed, dated and filed.
Third parties, such as vendors and consultants, need access to this information, and should also sign these agreements.
Label documents with this information as confidential. Implement a confidential-documents policy that dictates precisely how such documents are managed.
Do not make an exception for someone you consider a friend or who you could never see using proprietary information against you.
How to Conduct a Patent Search and Check Whether Your Invention Doesn't Already Exist
29 May 2015
You have an idea for an invention. You consider whether to protect your invention with a patent and fast. But what if someone’s already hatched a similar product or process and patented it? How can you be sure a patent for your invention isn’t already taken? You could hire a patent agent to conduct a patent search for you. You could conduct a patent search yourself. If you want to conduct your own patent search, there are plenty of resources available online to help you navigate the many and often tricky steps involved.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides resources to help you conduct a search. Check this:
www.uspto.gov/products/library/ptdl/services/7_Step_US_Patent_Search_Strategy_Guide_2014.pdf
29 May 2015
You have an idea for an invention. You consider whether to protect your invention with a patent and fast. But what if someone’s already hatched a similar product or process and patented it? How can you be sure a patent for your invention isn’t already taken? You could hire a patent agent to conduct a patent search for you. You could conduct a patent search yourself. If you want to conduct your own patent search, there are plenty of resources available online to help you navigate the many and often tricky steps involved.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) provides resources to help you conduct a search. Check this:
www.uspto.gov/products/library/ptdl/services/7_Step_US_Patent_Search_Strategy_Guide_2014.pdf
Theft of trade secrets
28 MAY 2015
Employees present a threat to your company's proprietary information and trade secrets. They have gained skills and knowledge about your industry. As a result, they are marketable to other companies in your industry, including competitors. When the time comes for an employee to leave your company, they may take documents and information from your company.
There are ways to prepare for this:
Use a non-compete agreement and follow up with a cease-and-desist letter.
Implement a formal trade-secrets policy that governs exactly how employees are required to handle the company's sensitive information and documents.
Remind departing employees about their legal obligations. When anyone subject to a non-compete or similar agreement leaves your company, have this person acknowledge in writing that he or she is bound by the document.
Consult with a lawyer with experience in handling these issues.
28 MAY 2015
Employees present a threat to your company's proprietary information and trade secrets. They have gained skills and knowledge about your industry. As a result, they are marketable to other companies in your industry, including competitors. When the time comes for an employee to leave your company, they may take documents and information from your company.
There are ways to prepare for this:
Use a non-compete agreement and follow up with a cease-and-desist letter.
Implement a formal trade-secrets policy that governs exactly how employees are required to handle the company's sensitive information and documents.
Remind departing employees about their legal obligations. When anyone subject to a non-compete or similar agreement leaves your company, have this person acknowledge in writing that he or she is bound by the document.
Consult with a lawyer with experience in handling these issues.
Uber sued for stealing Ridesharing concept
27 May 2015
California Man Sues Uber for stealing Ridesharing concept
The case is Kevin Halpern & Celluride Wireless Inc v. Uber Technologies Inc et al, No. 15-545825, in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco.
A California man has sued Uber Technologies Inc. claiming they stole his idea for a cellphone-based car hailing service.
The man sued Uber accusing them of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract.
The complaint claims he suffered damages in excess of $1 billion.
27 May 2015
California Man Sues Uber for stealing Ridesharing concept
The case is Kevin Halpern & Celluride Wireless Inc v. Uber Technologies Inc et al, No. 15-545825, in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco.
A California man has sued Uber Technologies Inc. claiming they stole his idea for a cellphone-based car hailing service.
The man sued Uber accusing them of misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract.
The complaint claims he suffered damages in excess of $1 billion.
Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2015)
26 May 2015
Allvoice sued Microsoft, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 5799273. The District Court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment finding that Microsoft did not infringe the asserted claims, and that patent claims 60-68 were invalid (35 U.S.C. § 101). Allvoice appealed, and the Federal Circuit panel heard arguments and affirmed the District Court.
Allvoice asserted that software in a machine readable physical state exists, and therefore is patent-eligible. However, the Court observed that software instructions, data, or information alone, absent a tangible medium is not a manufacture (without any tangible memory medium).
26 May 2015
Allvoice sued Microsoft, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent 5799273. The District Court granted Microsoft's motion for summary judgment finding that Microsoft did not infringe the asserted claims, and that patent claims 60-68 were invalid (35 U.S.C. § 101). Allvoice appealed, and the Federal Circuit panel heard arguments and affirmed the District Court.
Allvoice asserted that software in a machine readable physical state exists, and therefore is patent-eligible. However, the Court observed that software instructions, data, or information alone, absent a tangible medium is not a manufacture (without any tangible memory medium).
PricewaterhouseCoopers says patent suit filings reduced
25 May 2015
PricewaterhouseCoopers announced that patent suit filings in 2014 had reduced by 13% from the prior year, and concluded that this situation is driven by a recent patent litigation case (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank). This case raised the bar for patentability and enforcement of software patents. (google "2015 Patent Litigation Study: A change in patentee fortunes").
25 May 2015
PricewaterhouseCoopers announced that patent suit filings in 2014 had reduced by 13% from the prior year, and concluded that this situation is driven by a recent patent litigation case (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank). This case raised the bar for patentability and enforcement of software patents. (google "2015 Patent Litigation Study: A change in patentee fortunes").
IBM Breaks U.S. Patent Record in 2014
24 May 2015
IBM is the first company to exceed 7,000 Patents in a year. IBM received a record 7,534 patents in 2014, marking the 22nd consecutive year that the company topped the annual list of U.S. patent recipients.
24 May 2015
IBM is the first company to exceed 7,000 Patents in a year. IBM received a record 7,534 patents in 2014, marking the 22nd consecutive year that the company topped the annual list of U.S. patent recipients.
Google files patent for a toy (anthropomorphic device)
23 MAY 2015
Google filed a patent for a toy that can control other Wi-Fi-connected devices. Once the toy senses you're looking at it, the toy will rotate its head and look back at you. Once it receives and recognizes a voice command prompt, you can then tell it to control media devices in your home (e.g. turn on your music or TV).
US 20150138333
An anthropomorphic device for detecting a social cue, wherein the anthropomorphic device includes a camera and a microphone, and wherein detecting the social cue comprises the camera detecting a gaze directed toward the anthropomorphic device. The anthropomorphic device is for aiming the camera and the microphone based on the direction of the gaze; while the gaze is directed toward the anthropomorphic device. The anthropomorphic device receives an audio signal via the microphone. Based on receiving the audio signal while the gaze is directed toward the anthropomorphic device, the anthropomorphic device (i) transmits a media device command to a media playback device, wherein the media playback device is separate from the anthropomorphic device, and (ii) provides an acknowledgement of the audio signal, wherein the media device command is based on the audio signal and instructs the media playback device to play out selected content.
23 MAY 2015
Google filed a patent for a toy that can control other Wi-Fi-connected devices. Once the toy senses you're looking at it, the toy will rotate its head and look back at you. Once it receives and recognizes a voice command prompt, you can then tell it to control media devices in your home (e.g. turn on your music or TV).
US 20150138333
An anthropomorphic device for detecting a social cue, wherein the anthropomorphic device includes a camera and a microphone, and wherein detecting the social cue comprises the camera detecting a gaze directed toward the anthropomorphic device. The anthropomorphic device is for aiming the camera and the microphone based on the direction of the gaze; while the gaze is directed toward the anthropomorphic device. The anthropomorphic device receives an audio signal via the microphone. Based on receiving the audio signal while the gaze is directed toward the anthropomorphic device, the anthropomorphic device (i) transmits a media device command to a media playback device, wherein the media playback device is separate from the anthropomorphic device, and (ii) provides an acknowledgement of the audio signal, wherein the media device command is based on the audio signal and instructs the media playback device to play out selected content.
Patent Ownership
22 MAY 2015
A trial was held to determine the ownership of technology.
The employment agreement provided that any intellectual property would be owned by the defendant company for "consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration". The Court held that the employment contract was not rescinded even if the full consideration was not paid. The Court concluded that the tools were invented by the Plaintiff while he was employed, and that that all tools, technology and related patents were owned by the defendant.
Read the decision here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb314/2015abqb314.html
22 MAY 2015
A trial was held to determine the ownership of technology.
The employment agreement provided that any intellectual property would be owned by the defendant company for "consideration of One Dollar and other good and valuable consideration". The Court held that the employment contract was not rescinded even if the full consideration was not paid. The Court concluded that the tools were invented by the Plaintiff while he was employed, and that that all tools, technology and related patents were owned by the defendant.
Read the decision here: http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2015/2015abqb314/2015abqb314.html
Trade Secrets
21 MAY 2015
New York Times on Tuesday has an article on how the FBI just arrested one Chinese professor (and is seeking to arrest five more) for theft of software and microelectronic designs from U.S. companies.
Article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/6-chinese-men-indicted-in-theft-of-code-from-us-tech-companies.html.
The spies stole technology from cellphone chip companies, Avago Technologies and Skyworks Solution, and they created a joint venture company with the university to sell chips to military and commercial customers.
According to the indictment, two of the professors began to apply for patents on some of the technology in the United States, beginning in 2010.
21 MAY 2015
New York Times on Tuesday has an article on how the FBI just arrested one Chinese professor (and is seeking to arrest five more) for theft of software and microelectronic designs from U.S. companies.
Article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/20/technology/6-chinese-men-indicted-in-theft-of-code-from-us-tech-companies.html.
The spies stole technology from cellphone chip companies, Avago Technologies and Skyworks Solution, and they created a joint venture company with the university to sell chips to military and commercial customers.
According to the indictment, two of the professors began to apply for patents on some of the technology in the United States, beginning in 2010.
The Patent Act of the US.
20 MAY 2015
On April 29, the Judiciary Committee Members Introduce Bipartisan PATENT Act in the US.
The bill implements a pleading standard for patent infringement claims that requires identification of the asserted patent, the asserted patent claim, and the accused product, together with an explanation of how the accused products infringe the elements of the asserted claims.
The PATENT Act requires the accuser to identify each entity with a financial interest in the patent, patentee, and any ultimate parent entity of the patentee.
The Act mandates that attorney fees be awarded against a non-prevailing party if the position or conduct of the party was not objectively reasonable.
The Act allows an accused infringer to file a statement of good faith belief that the primary business of the accuser is the enforcement or licensing of patents. In response, the accuser must certify that it will have sufficient funds to satisfy a fee award, demonstrate that its primary business is not the enforcement or licensing of patents, identify interested parties who will be responsible for paying any fee award, or state that it has no such interested parties.
The PATENT Act requires the demand letter to include the identification of the patent allegedly infringed, an allegedly infringed claim of that patent, the accused product, a detailed description of the grounds for the infringement allegation, identification of each entity with a right to enforce the asserted patent, and an explanation of how any demanded compensation was calculated or determined.
The PATENT Act has a number of provisions that assist the efficient and just adjudication of patent infringement disputes.
20 MAY 2015
On April 29, the Judiciary Committee Members Introduce Bipartisan PATENT Act in the US.
The bill implements a pleading standard for patent infringement claims that requires identification of the asserted patent, the asserted patent claim, and the accused product, together with an explanation of how the accused products infringe the elements of the asserted claims.
The PATENT Act requires the accuser to identify each entity with a financial interest in the patent, patentee, and any ultimate parent entity of the patentee.
The Act mandates that attorney fees be awarded against a non-prevailing party if the position or conduct of the party was not objectively reasonable.
The Act allows an accused infringer to file a statement of good faith belief that the primary business of the accuser is the enforcement or licensing of patents. In response, the accuser must certify that it will have sufficient funds to satisfy a fee award, demonstrate that its primary business is not the enforcement or licensing of patents, identify interested parties who will be responsible for paying any fee award, or state that it has no such interested parties.
The PATENT Act requires the demand letter to include the identification of the patent allegedly infringed, an allegedly infringed claim of that patent, the accused product, a detailed description of the grounds for the infringement allegation, identification of each entity with a right to enforce the asserted patent, and an explanation of how any demanded compensation was calculated or determined.
The PATENT Act has a number of provisions that assist the efficient and just adjudication of patent infringement disputes.
Apple v. Samsung
19 MAY 2015
Apple prevailed at the district court on design and utility patents, with an award of almost a billion dollars. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed on the design and utility patents.
Design Patents: A portion of Apple’s verdict was based on the infringement of its design patents. The Federal Circuit rejected all of Samsung’s arguments in favour of Apple.
Utility Patents: Samsung raised an indefiniteness argument based on the claim term “substantially centered;” unsurprisingly, the Federal Circuit rejected it.
19 MAY 2015
Apple prevailed at the district court on design and utility patents, with an award of almost a billion dollars. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed on the design and utility patents.
Design Patents: A portion of Apple’s verdict was based on the infringement of its design patents. The Federal Circuit rejected all of Samsung’s arguments in favour of Apple.
Utility Patents: Samsung raised an indefiniteness argument based on the claim term “substantially centered;” unsurprisingly, the Federal Circuit rejected it.
