Patent Info: 2012

Monday, 10 December 2012

Goan gets patent for mechanical device invention

In a development that should bring some cheer to the Goan engineering community, a Goan has been granted a patent from the Indian patent office.

Siolim resident Raghuvir Chary, a lecturer at government polytechnic at Altinho, has received a patent for an invention entitled 'An angle measuring device for measuring angles, 0 through 360, between any two surfaces, lines or objects'.

Forty five-year-old Chary, who said he obtained an M.Tech degree from IIT-Bombay in 2000, has labelled his invention as 'Chary's Anglometer- the angle measuring device'.

'The methods and equipment of the invention are adapted to the precise measurement of an angle in any plane, with a resolution of 0.1 arcsecond, by mechanical means', states the patent description of his device.

He applied for the patent on October 3, 2007, and was granted the same on December 3, 2012.

Chary claimed the application underwent examination and re-examination as part of a lengthy process before it was granted. The patent is valid for 20 years,he said.

He claimed his invention provides direct reading of angles on one and said it was economical compared to other alternatives available. Chary said the invention had cost him around 1 lakh including cost for obtaining the patent. He said he had developed two versions of his invention- a quadrant type for general purpose applications and a theodolite type for navigational and other precise applications.

Chary said he had entered his invention for some competitions and was also looking out for manufacturers to commercially manufacture his invention.

Apple and Google Teaming Up to Buy Kodak Patents

Apple and Google, cooperating in a way unimaginable under Steve Jobs' rule, are chipping in to buy Kodak's imaging patents.

Apple and Google have a rivalry that's about as intense and cutthroat as tech rivalries go. But the leaders of each also know when to shake hands. The device makers have teamed up to offer Kodak more than $500 million for a portfolio of about 1,100 imaging patents, according to a report from Bloomberg that cited people who wish to remain unidentified.
The companies, separately, had earlier offered Kodak less money.
"The Apple-led group pursuing Kodak’s patents included Microsoft and Intellectual Ventures Management LLC as of July, the people said, while Google’s partners included patent- aggregation company RPX Corp. and Asian makers of Google’s Android phones," said the Dec. 8 report. "The two groups had separately offered less than $500 million for Kodak’s portfolio. They now teamed up to offer more together, said two of the people."
That Google and Apple could team up suggests a healing of old wounds, a desire to stay out of court later—should one or the other win the portfolio—or simply the attractiveness of the patents. In 2011, Apple rounded up a posse that collectively outbid Google for 6,000 Nortel Networks patents related to 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE), wireless, networking and social software.

Nortel had described the patents as covering "nearly every aspect of telecommunications and additional markets as well, including Internet search and social networking."
After Google received Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approval to bid for the patents, it offered Nortel $900 million. Nortel turned down the offer, instead accepting a bid of $4.5 billion from a consortium, including Apple, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony, EMC and Ericsson.
George Riedel, Nortel's chief strategy officer and president of business units at the time, called the dollar amount, and the interest in the patents, "unprecedented."
But so, too, is the number of patent disputes currently being fought among industry players—even companies, such as Ericsson and Samsung, that have had agreements in place for years. Samsung and Apple have also remained in headlines for patent-infringement cases around the world. While a U.K. court ruled in favor of Samsung this summer, a U.S. court in August ruled in favor of Apple and a more than $1 billion fee against Samsung—which the company is currently contesting.
The Google-Apple rivalry, it's been suggested, was also more intense when Steve Jobs, who passed away last year, was in charge of Apple. While Google CEO Larry Page once suggested that Jobs' ire toward Google was more for show than out of anything heartfelt, Jobs told his biographer, Walter Isaacson, otherwise.
"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong," Jobs said, according to Isaacson. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product."
Jobs' successor as Apple CEO, Tim Cook, doesn't share Jobs' passion for "laying all foes to waste," Bloomberg reported earlier this year. "Cook appears to view litigation as a necessary evil, not a vehicle of cosmic revenge."
It seems he also knows when to set a rivalry aside.

Friday, 7 December 2012

Under FTC Settlement, Bosch Agrees to Make Certain Patents Available to Competitors

The Federal Trade Commission will require Robert Bosch GmbH to sell a business that makes equipment used to recharge vehicle air conditioning systems as part of an agreement resolving charges that Bosch’s acquisition of SPX Service Solutions U.S. LLC would have been anticompetitive. Under the agreement, Bosch also will grant manufacturers licenses to key patents that they need in order to compete in the market for this equipment. The proposed settlement order also requires Bosch to end agreements that restrict third parties from advertising, servicing, distributing, or selling competitive products in the United States.
Under the proposed settlement with the FTC, Bosch has agreed to sell its automotive air conditioner repair equipment business, including RTI Technologies, Inc., to automotive equipment manufacturer, Mahle Clevite, Inc.
Bosch also has agreed to resolve allegations that, before its acquisition by Bosch, SPX harmed competition in the market for this equipment by reneging on a commitment to license key, standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. The FTC alleged that SPX reneged on its obligation to license on FRAND terms by seeking injunctions against willing licensees of those patents. Bosch has agreed to abandon these claims for injunctive relief.
“Patent holders that seek injunctive relief against willing licensees of their FRAND-encumbered SEPs should understand that in appropriate cases the Commission can and will challenge this conduct as an unfair method of competition under Section 5 of the FTC Act,” the Commission majority said in a separate statement.
The FTC charged that, as originally proposed, Bosch’s acquisition of SPX Service Solutions would have given it a virtual monopoly in the market for air conditioning recycling, recovery, and recharge (ACRRR) devices. ACRRR devices are stand-alone pieces of equipment used by automotive technicians to remove refrigerant from a vehicle’s air conditioning system, store the refrigerant while the air conditioning system is being serviced, recycle the refrigerant back into the system, and recharge the air conditioning system. ACRRRs prevent refrigerant gas from leaking into the atmosphere during the repair process.
Bosch, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, has U.S. operations based in Broadview, Illinois. It is a global supplier of automotive and industrial technology, consumer goods, and building technology. It acquired RTI in 2010 and sells ACRRR equipment under both the Bosch and RTI brands, accounting for about 10 percent of the U.S. ACRRR market.
SPX, headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, is a diversified global supplier of highly engineered products for industries including power and energy, food and beverage, vehicle and transit, and infrastructure and industrial processes. Its Service Solutions business, based in Warren, Michigan, supplies automotive tools, equipment, and services for both original equipment manufacturers and aftermarket repair shops and technicians. SPX’s Robinair brand is the leading supplier of ACRRR equipment in the United States, with over 80 percent of sales in this market. On January 23, 2012, Bosch entered into an agreement to acquire SPX’s Service Solutions business.
The FTC’s Complaint
According to the FTC’s complaint, Bosch’s acquisition of SPX’s Service Solutions business would give Bosch monopoly power in the U.S. market for ACRRR devices. Following the transaction as proposed, Bosch would control an overwhelming share of the market. Four other firms are in the market, each with a very small share. The acquisition also would eliminate the current direct competition between Bosch’s RTI and Bosch brands and SPX’s Robinair brand, and would allow the combined firm to raise prices by unilaterally exercising its newly gained market power, in violation of the FTC Act, the FTC alleged.
The FTC complaint also alleges that SPX has been pursuing a strategy of suing to enjoin competitors from using patents that may be necessary to meet the standards for manufacturing ACRRR devices.
According to the complaint, SPX holds patents that other companies may need in order to make ACRRR devices that comply with standards set by an industry standard-setting group called SAE International. Standard setting is a cornerstone for many high-tech and manufacturing markets, and encourages innovation and investment in new products, according to the FTC. By agreeing to standards, companies can ensure that the numerous components can work together seamlessly, often called “interoperability.”
Setting a standard, however, can confer market power to the owner of a patent that is deemed essential to the standard, according to the agency. The holder of a SEP – even if it is relevant only to a small component of a much larger and more complex device – can use the threat of an injunction to “hold up” a licensee for an excessive royalty or prevent a competitor from complying with the standard, thereby effectively keeping it out of the market entirely. To avoid this problem, technology companies involved in setting a standard often commit to license SEPs on “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” terms – known as FRAND terms.
The FTC alleged that, as a member of SAE International, SPX agreed to abide by SAE rules that require companies to license their SEPs on FRAND terms. However, SPX allegedly reneged on these commitments and pursued injunctions blocking competitors from using the standardized technologies, even though the competitors were willing to license the technology on FRAND terms. The FTC charged that this practice had the tendency of harming competition and undermining the standard setting process.
The Proposed Settlement
The proposed consent order resolves the FTC’s competitive concerns by requiring Bosch to sell its ACRRR business to Mahle Clevite, Inc., before December 31, 2012. The FTC has determined that Mahle, headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, has the resources, industry experience, and financial viability to become an effective competitor in the U.S. ACRRR market. It sells other products with a similar customer base as Bosch, and its global presence will allow it to quickly replace the competition lost through the proposed acquisition.
Under the proposed order, Bosch will provide Mahle with all of the assets needed to operate Bosch’s current U.S. ACRRR business, including RTI’s operations in York, Pennsylvania. To ensure the sale is successful, Bosch also will provide Mahle with relevant intellectual property and access to key employees of RTI’s ACRRR operations. In addition, Bosch has agreed to discontinue SPX’s restrictive “exclusive dealing” arrangements with wholesale distributors and independent service technicians, and will be barred from entering into such agreements for 10 years.
To address the FTC’s concerns about SPX’s conduct relating to its existing portfolio of SEPs, the proposed order requires Bosch not to pursue any actions for injunctive relief on these patents and to make them available on a royalty free basis to implementers of the relevant SAE standards in the ACRRR market. Information about the licensing requirements can be found in the Analysis to Aid Public Comment on this matter.
In addition, Bosch will deliver to SAE a letter of assurance that going forward it will license any additional SEPs it may acquire or develop for the two relevant industry standards on FRAND terms to any third party that wants to use the technologies covered by the patents to make ACRRR devices in the United States. Bosch also has agreed not to seek an injunction against such third parties, unless the third party refuses in writing to license the patent consistent with the letter of assurance, or the third party refuses to abide by FRAND terms as determined by a court or other process agreed to by the parties.
The Commission’s vote approving the complaint and proposed settlement order was 3-2, with Commissioners Rosch and Ohlhausen voting no. Commissioner Ohlhausen issued a separate statement, dissenting from those portions of the consent that relate to alleged conduct by the respondent involving standard-essential patents, or SEPs. “Simply seeking injunctive relief on a patent subject to a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, or FRAND, license, without more, even if seeking such relief could be construed as a breach of a licensing commitment, should not be deemed either an unfair method of competition or an unfair act or practice under Section 5.” The vote to issue the Statement of the Commission was 3-2.
The order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, until December 26, 2012, after which the Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should be sent to: FTC, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Comments can be submitted electronically.

ObjectVideo Enters into Global, Portfolio-Wide Patent License Agreement with Bosch

ObjectVideo, Inc., announced today that it has reached an amicable settlement with Bosch Security Systems, Inc., of Fairport, New York, which includes, among other mutual obligations, a global, portfolio-wide patent license agreement with Bosch. The agreement settles patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. ObjectVideo and Bosch have also asked the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) to terminate its proceedings related to the matter.
“We are pleased to have entered into a global, portfolio-wide license agreement with Bosch, a leader in the video security market,” said Raul Fernandez, chairman of ObjectVideo.
“The agreement amicably settles the matter and allows us to focus our full attention on our customers,” said Christopher Gerace, president, Bosch Security Systems, Inc.
Bosch is the seventh licensee to join ObjectVideo’s patent licensing program; other licensees include Sony Corporation, Pelco by Schneider Electric, Tyco Security Products’ American Dynamics business unit and VIVOTEK. The company holds 47 U.S. and international patents and has 45 U.S. and international patents pending.

ObjectVideo Enters into Global, Portfolio-Wide Patent License Agreement with Bosch

ObjectVideo ends legal action against Bosch

Just two days after announcing a patent licensing agreement with Pelco, video analytics developer ObjectVideo said on Thursday that it has also come to terms with Bosch and asked that the U.S. International Trade Commission terminate its proceedings related to the case. The licensing agreement between the two companies ends a litany of legal action that ObjectVideo has brought against several surveillance equipment manufacturers over the last year and a half.
"We are pleased to have entered into a global, portfolio-wide license agreement with Bosch, a leader in the video security market," said Raul Fernandez, chairman of ObjectVideo in a statement.
"The agreement amicably settles the matter and allows us to focus our full attention on our customers," said Christopher Gerace, president, Bosch Security Systems.
ObjectVideo initially brought lawsuits against Bosch, Sony and Samsung for alleged infringement of the company’s video content analytics patents in April 2011. The video analytics firm brought a subsequent legal action against Pelco earlier this summer. Each company, with the exception of Samsung, has subsequently entered into a patent licensing agreement with ObjectVideo.
American Dynamics, a business unit of Tyco Security Products, as well as Vivotek have also entered into patent licensing agreements with ObjectVideo.
A spokesman for ObjectVideo said that the company had no comment about its recent agreements with Pelco and Bosch.

Sunday, 25 November 2012

USPTO and EPO Publish Advance Version of Cooperative Patent Classification System

The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) announced publication of a classification system meant to speed the patent granting process for applicants to both Offices.
The Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system and finalized CPC definitions are now available in advance of the January 1, 2013, official launch. The CPC is a joint USPTO-EPO project aimed at developing a common classification system for technical documents in particular patent publications, which will be used by both offices in the patent granting process.
The CPC system, which includes approximately 250,000 classification symbols based on the International Patent Classification (IPC) system, will enable users to conduct efficient prior art searches and incorporate the best classification practices of both the U.S. and European systems. It will also enhance efficiency through work-sharing initiatives designed to reduce unnecessary duplication of work.
Why CPC?
The EPO and USPTO both have highly developed patent classification systems. CPC is an ambitious harmonization effort to bring the best practices from each Office together. In fact, most U.S. patent documents are already classified in ECLA. The conversion from ECLA to CPC at the EPO will ensure IPC compliance and eliminate the need for the EPO to classify U.S. patent documents. At the USPTO, the conversion will provide an up-to date classification system that is internationally compatible.
What is CPC?
The Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) effort is a joint partnership between the USPTO and the EPO where the Offices have agreed to harmonize their existing classification systems (ECLA and USPC, respectively) and migrate towards a common classification scheme. This is a strategic decision by both offices and is seen as an important step towards advancing harmonization efforts currently being undertaken through the IP5’s Common Hybrid Classification (CHC) project.
The migration to CPC will be developed based in large part on the existing European Classification System (ECLA) and will be modified to ensure compliance with the International Patent Classification system (IPC) standards administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
Since October 2010, the USPTO and EPO have worked jointly to develop the CPC. The results of their work are now being made available through a CPC launch package that includes the complete CPC system, any finalized CPC definitions and a CPC-to-IPC concordance.
The CPC definitions will be available for every CPC subclass and contain a description of the technical subject matter covered in the subclass. Eventually, each CPC subclass will have a corresponding CPC definition that will be continuously maintained. The CPC-to-IPC concordance will help users find the relevant IPC area on which the CPC is based.
For more detailed information about the new classification system, including downloadable sections, CPC definitions and concordances, please visit the official CPC website.

6 Free IP Databases on the French Patent Office (INPI) Website

Most intellectual property offices have their own websites, and these sites can host an incredibly broad variety of information, ranging from national news on patents, trademark, designs, and copyright to instructions on how to register all types of intellectual property. These websites also often host databases that allow users to search for patents, designs, or trademarks issued by the offices. We’ve spotlighted a few excellent IP office websites in past posts, such as the PRV website of the Swedish Patent and Registration Office, which hosts a user-friendly layout and multiple IP databases for users to search. The website for the French Patent Office (Institut national de la propriété industrielle – INPI) also hosts the usual news and instructional information on registering patents, trademarks, and designs in France, but the INPI is a stand-out example of an office website which hosts a wide range of intellectual property databases. The INPI website hosts six separate portals which allow users to access French trademarks, designs, patent published since 1978, 19th century patents, patent legal statuses and file history documents, and IP case law information.
Continue reading for a closer look at six free databases accessible through the French INPI website!

The INPI website only appears to be available in French, although one database (legal status) includes an English-language version of the portal. Searchers can utilize a machine translation tool (like Google Translate) to translate the site into their language of choice. From the INPI homepage (viewed in the screenshot below through Google Translate from French to English), users can select the “Databases” links in the right side menu to access a list of all free databases available through the website. Users can also select each individual link in the side menu to access each database directly.

Databases available on the INPI website.

The six databases accessible through the INPI website include:

Brands Database – Search through bibliographic and legal information on over 3 million trademarks. This database is updated weekly. Search by brand name, classification, registration number, or through an advanced fielded search form. This database only appears to be available in French.

Search French trademarks.

Patents Database – FR_Espacenet gives you access to about 5 million French, European, and international applications (and granted patents) published since 1978. You can view the originals of all applications and patents issued since 1989 and French translations for French EP patents since 2004. A new version of the service, online since February 21, 2012, is presented similarly to the EPO Worldwide Espacenet. The interface only seems to be available in French, although users can choose from a drop-down menu of other country-specific Espacenet portals in various languages.

Search French patent documents in an Espacenet interface.

Patent Status Database – View legal information on FR and EP applications (designating France) from 1989. View information about payment of the last renewal fee in France and documents related to the the issuing process for French applications filed since 2001. Finally, view legal information on supplementary protection certificate (SPC) applications filed at the INPI from 1993. This portal is accessible in both English and French.

Search for the legal status and related documents for French patents and applications.

19th Century Patents – Search French patents issued from 1791 to 1902. Search by name of applicant or agent or use an advanced fielded search form. Users can view bibliographic data on these documents or a fully scanned version of the document. This portal is only available in French.

View the fully scanned images of 19th century French patents.

Designs Database – Search and view bibliographic and legal information on about 700,000 French designs and 350,000 international designs. French design coverage includes those published since 1910, with images from 1996 (source INPI). International designs includes those published since 1979, with images from 1985 (Source WIPO). The database is updated every 15 days for French designs and monthly for international designs. The database does not include unregistered designs whose publication has been a request for adjournment or those deposited in simplified form. Search by class or use an advanced fielded search form. This portal only appears to be available in French.

Search French designs.

Caselaw Database - Search national court decisions involving intellectual property, as well as decisions of the INPI regarding opposition brands. This portal only seems to be available in French. You can consult judgments and decisions relating to:
- patents since 1823 (full text from 1997)
- brands since 1904 (full text from 1997)
- designs since 1994 (full text from 1994)
- oppositions brand since 2004 in full text.

Search for French IP case law.

Additionally, users may also download official bulletins from the INPI (Bulletin officiel de la propriété industrielle – BOPI), including BOPI Patents from January 2005 onwards and BOPI Trademarks and Designs from January 2006 onwards.
Conclusion
The French INPI website offers a wide variety of intellectual property databases accessible freely through its website. These databases include the standard patent, patent legal status, trademark, and design search options, but the case law database and 19th century patent database both contain unique information that isn’t usually available on an intellectual property office website. It would be useful if the INPI search portals had more multilingual search interfaces to facilitate easy searching in languages other than French, but a machine translation tool like Google Translate can alleviate this problem relatively easily. Professional patent searchers with native-language skills are still the best option for international prior art searches, but users can initially scope a a wide range of French IP data through the INPI utilizing the website’s six databases.

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Samsung wins another patent battle in Europe But continues to lose ground in the US

The thermonuclear war between Samsung and Apple is being won by the South Korean outfit in the EU even while it loses in the US.
Samsung's hold on the European justice system seems remarkably strong after winning a key case in Holland yesterday.
A Dutch Court has confirmed that Samsung Electronics does not infringe an Apple patent by using certain multi-touch techniques on some of the Samsung Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers.
The Apple friendly press has tried to claim that Cupertino has won the patent war after an extremely dubious victory in the US, where the phone maker was awarded $1.05 billion in damages.
However, that case is likely to be appealed on the basis that the jury foreman, who had reason to hate a Samsung supplier for suing him under patent law, admitted that he had ignored most of the law and swung the jury to see his way of thinking.
But Apple's US hold was strengthened after an ITC judge confirmed that Samsung infringed Apple patents in making its Captivate, Transform and Fascinate smartphones, as well as the Galaxy tablet.
Judge Thomas Pender said that Samsung infringed four Apple patents but did not violate two others listed in the complaint. There had been seven listed initially, but one was dropped during litigation.
The International Trade Commission will decide in February whether to uphold or reject the judge's decision.
Pender said that Samsung infringed an Apple patent that helps the touchscreen interpret if a user wants to scroll up and down or switch between applications. It was also found to have infringed a patent that allows the device to show an image on a screen with a second, translucent image over it.
But things have not been going so well in the EU. Apple argued in September in the Hague court that Samsung infringed its patent on multi-touch functions, which lets users use two fingers at one time on a touch screen. Apple has taken Samsung to task over the "pinch to zoom" function popular on smartphones and tablets.
Not only did it lose a preliminary injunction on this patent in the Dutch courts last year it also lost its battle in the courts in Britain against HTC, and in Germany against Samsung and Motorola Mobility, which is owned by Google.
The Dutch court said its multi-touch patent ruling was similar to those in Britain and Germany.
While this is a mess, it does not seem to actually mean anything. Samsung can, and has, simply released new hardware in the US which does not break Apple's patents. So far not a single top of the range smartphone or tablet has been taken off the shelves in a way which would commercially give any ground to either side. Products which are banned are usually long gone after the appeals process is exhausted.
In other words the only side that is really winning in this battle are the lawyers.

Sunday, 7 October 2012

IP Office of Singapore Provides Free Patent, Trademark, and Design Searching through eSearch

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) has had a busy year: last October the Surf-IP search system was shut down, and IPOS recently streamlined the layout of its website to make it much more intuitive and user-friendly. The IPOS website still provides access to online IP search services through the eSearch system, which allows users to search through patent, trademark, and design applications filed with IPOS. The eSearch services don’t provide the same breadth of patent coverage that Surf-IP previously provided, since the eSearch platform only covers patent applications or patents published in Singapore. Surf-IP searched the patent data from a number of authorities, including US, EP, WO, JP, CN, CA, TH, GB, KR, and TW patent data (in addition to SG patent documents). The eSearch platform covers a broader variety of intellectual property types than Surf-IP, since eSearch provides trademark and design search options, while Surf-IP only covered patent data. Now that Surf-IP is no longer available, the eSearch services on the IPOS website provide a useful free avenue for searching SG patent data (as well as trademark and design data).
Read on to learn how to access and use the eSearch services from the IPOS website!

Accessing the eSearch Services
From the IPOS website homepage, the eSearch portal can be accessed through two paths. From the top drop-down menu, select the “Services” option. From the Services menu, choose “Filing and Registration,” and from that submenu, select “Getting Started with eServices.” Finally, from the submenu that appears beside “Getting Started with eServices, ” choose the eSearch option to go to the portal page. The path through the main menu and submenus would therefore be Services>Filing and Registration>Getting Started with eServices>eSearch.
A much quicker option is simply selecting the eServices link under the Quick Links section in the bottom right corner of the homepage. On the “Getting Started with eServices” page, choose the eSearch link from the Services sidemenu. The eSearch portal page provides links to the three eSearch tools: ePatents Search, eTrademarks Search, and eDesigns Search. It should be noted that these search tools are best viewed using Internet Explorer 6.0.
ePatents Search
The ePatent Search provides access to any patent application or patent that has been published in Singapore (where available). According to the IPOS website, specifications, bibliographic and register information are available for SG patent documents from 1937 onwards. Access of information and downloads of patent registers and specifications are available free-of-charge. Search forms include:

Simple form – This fielded search form allows users to search by name, application or patent number, a keyword search within the title or abstract fields, or receipt number.
Advanced form – In this fielded search form, select the field criteria, enter the query (or date range, in the first field), and choose the connecting Boolean operator between query terms (AND/OR/NOT). The search form notes that patent abstract data is only “available only for direct national filing cases and PCT cases up to 1995.”
Specification form – Enter a keyword query to search in the specification of SG patent documents, and select a date range.

The Advanced patent search form.

From all three search forms, users may also choose the number of results per page (5 or 10), as well as which fields to display in the results (filing date, inventor, applicant, and IPC fields are optional). From the simple and advanced forms, users can also choose sort order for the results (oldest first or last), and specification results appear to be ranked by relevancy. From specification search result sets, users can also refine a search by adding additional query terms connected to the original query by a chosen Boolean operator. Search results can be paged through 5 or 10 records at a time, but the user cannot choose to jump to a specific record number or page of results. Results display the publication number, title, and application number, plus any optional selected fields. Each result in the hit list also includes links to the basic full record (bibliographic data), register information, specification, and abstract. If one of these full record views isn’t available, no link is displayed above the result in the hit list. The specifications are downloaded in TIFF format, according to the help information.

Patent search results.

eTrademarks Search
Conduct a similar mark search, online trademark search, or search through the Classification of Goods and Services. The Similar Marks Search allows users to enter text search terms (in Latin characters or Chinese), enter a class from the Nice Classification (mandatory field), select a trademark category, and choose to display mark images only or both mark images and details in the results. From the Online Trade Marks search form, user must select a trademark type from a drop-down menu and enter any additional information (trademark number, date range, Nice Class, and individual or company name). Finally, users may choose to search through the Nice Classification of Goods and Services (by either selecting a class number or entering a text query).
The result set displays search criteria at the top of the page, and users can select to skip to various pages of results. Only the first 1,200 records are displayed. Users may also select individual results to print (mark image only, basic details, or full details). Select a mark from the result list to view all available details for the mark.

Trademark search results.

eDesigns Search
Search through a fielded search form by criteria like design number, applicant name, filing date, class or subclass code (Locarno), article, or UK Design number. The result set displays 25 results per page, and a thumbnail image and design number is shown for each record. Only the first 1,200 records are displayed. Select a thumbnail to view the full design record image, or select the record number to view all details for the design. It’s unusual that the design details and design image are displayed on separate pages.

Design search results.

Conclusion
From the copyright dates displayed at the bottom of the eSearch forms, it appears that these search services have been available since 2007 (for patent search) and 2008 (for design and trademark search). The eSearch services were most likely available while Surf-IP was also accessible on the IPOS website, so it seems that IPOS has streamlined its available search services by discontinuing Surf-IP and maintaining the central eSearch platforms that only access SG patents, trademarks, and designs. When Surf-IP was first discontinued, the announcement noted that “other free IP search portals have been launched,” so it seems that IPOS felt that other free global IP portals (like Espacenet) provided adequate search resources that made Surf-IP redundant. The streamlined IPOS website, shutdown of Surf-IP, and the continued maintenance of eSearch are all excellent examples of the flexibility and forward-thinking nature of the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore, which has chosen to focus time and money on maintaining and improving core information resources (while weeding out redundant resources).

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Apple vs Samsung patent war explained on 8 infographics

The easy to use Apple vs Samsung guide

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/1729.html
T-Mobile “Sides” With Samsung In Apple/Samsung Patent War

http://www.tmonews.com/2011/09/t-mobile-sides-with-samsung-in-apple...
Apple vs. Samsung: The Patent Wars, Explained

http://mashable.com/2011/11/23/apple-samsung-patent-wars/
Apple Vs. Samsung Patent War

http://www.teluglobe.com/tg-roundup/apple-vs-samsung-patent-war
Apple vs Samsung Trial Patent Case: Apple Wins, $1Billion Awarded To Apple

http://icydiablog.com/web/apple-vs-samsung-trial-patent-case-apple-...
Apple's patent war: some recent cases

http://www.iphoneincanada.ca/iphone-news/apples-patent-war-some-rec...
Apple’s Patent Claims

http://blog.thomsonreuters.com/index.php/apples-patent-claims-graph...
Getting Your Head Around the Patent Wars

http://www.applegazette.com/news/getting-your-head-around-the-patent-wars/

Where To Find Books About Intellectual Property

Where can one find the best recommendations for recent books on intellectual property? I’m on the constant lookout for the answer to this question. I get some of my recommendations directly from the left sidebar of this blog, such as the must-read book Patent Searching: Tools & Techniques, edited by David Hunt, Long Nguyen, and Matt Rodgers. I find other useful book reviews and notices through a number of popular IP blogs, such as IPKat and PatentlyO. I also use other common resources, such as Amazon, GoodReads, and WorldCat, to locate lists of recent intellectual property books (and find out where I can borrow or buy them).
Continue reading to learn some of the techniques I use to find interesting new books about intellectual property topics, and share your suggestions on where I can locate the best IP books!
IP Books on Blogs
Blogs are excellent resources for locating recently released IP books and getting in-depth reviews by patent and IP law experts. Here are just a few of the intellectual blogs that regularly publish book reviews:

PatentlyO – This popular patent law blog occasionally publishes detailed reviews on books dealing with various intellectual property and patent law issues. The last post under the Book Review tag was published in October 2011, but continue to keep an eye on this blog for the occasional book review.
IPKat – The IPKat blog posts book notices on a fairly regular basis, usually every few months, and these posts often recommend two or three books revolving around a single intellectual property topic, such as trade secrets.
Patent Baristas – The Patent Baristas sometimes add to their ongoing series of Book Review Mondays, when they post a lengthy review on a recently published book in the intellectual property field. The books suggested in these reviews often provide broad overviews on general IP topics, and these recommendations will be useful for readers new to the IP field.

Also check out of side bar of this blog for book recommendations on the topic of patent searching and patent law.
IP Bookshelf on GoodReads
Goodreads is more suited to locating fiction books for casual reading, but the site does offer an Intellectual Property bookshelf of about 150 books that cover an eclectic range of topics, including many books on copyright and trademark issues. Select a book from the list to for a full-record view that includes bibliographic data and a summary of the book, where the book can be bought through various online stores (as well as a link to WorldCat), and multiple user reviews and ratings.
IP Books on Amazon
Amazon.com offers a detailed hierarchy of book subjects which users can browse, and the user can drill down to the subject of Intellectual Property (under the Law category). The Intellectual Property section of Amazon.com allows users to sort through over 10,000 books by format (paperback, hardcover, Kindle, or audio edition), and users also have access to a sidebar with additional filtering options, such as release date, author, book series, language, or customer rating. Amazon also offers a page that lists best sellers in Intellectual Property Law.

Intellectual property books listed on Amazon.com.

Searching WorldCat for IP Books
WorldCat is a search system provided by OCLC Libraries that can search content from over 10,000 libraries and includes 1.5 billion items, so you can use this resource to locate books on the subject of IP law in libraries around the world. Select the Books search option and enter the query “su:Intellectual property” to search for books under the subject of intellectual property. You can then use the sidebar on the results page to filter by publication year, language, additional topics, etc. Select a result to view the full record for the book, including a list of libraries where the book is available.

Intellectual property books on WorldCat.

The Latest Updates from Knovel: New Database, Engineering Subject Area, and Excel Tool

As an online subscription portal created to provide technical information for scientists and engineers, Knovel can also be harnessed by prior art searchers looking for reference information on engineering and technology topics. Knovel, originally launched in April 2001 and maintained by the Knovel Corporation, is a subscription-based online platform that provides access to more than 4,000 reference works and databases from over 90 international publishers and professional societies. Knovel focuses on engineering content, and and it currently covers 30 subject areas. According to its website, the Knovel interface also provides access to “interactive tables and graphs to help engineers use and export relevant data.” Through the Major Recent Updates section of the Knovel System Report on Intellogist, you can read about the latest changes to Knovel’s content coverage and interface. The Knovel system has seen a number of updates during the month of September, including a new Titanium Alloy Database, a new subject area covering Fire Protection Engineering and Emergency Response, and an Excel Add-In which users can download to integrate the Knovel search and unit converter tools into their Excel worksheet.
After the jump, learn more about these September updates to Knovel!

The following updates were announced on the Knovel website and K-Exchange Blog in September 2012:
Titanium Alloy Database – A Knovel press release describes the new Titanium Alloy Database added to its Critical Content line:

The Titanium Alloy Database, developed by J. Gilbert Kaufman, includes physical and mechanical property data for more than 80 alloys, with summarized descriptions of condition and processing history. Compelling features of this new database include:

High temperature properties information such as strength and fracture data at high temperatures;

An extensive list of often used properties of titanium alloys including the alpha, alpha-beta and beta type alloys;

Typical applications and available product forms for numerous alloys.

Fire Protection Engineering Subject Area – A press release on the Knovel website describes the newest subject area, Fire Protection Engineering and Emergency Response, released on the platform:

Knovel’s Fire Protection Engineering and Emergency Response Subject Area provides over 70 titles covering a wide range of information, including:

Fire Protection Analysis

Fire Protection Management

Fire Science & Human Behavior

Fire Protection Systems

Passive Building Systems

Key publishers in the new subject area include John Wiley & Sons, PennWell, ASHRAE, ICHemE, Elsevier, AWWA, Steel Construction Institute/FABIG, US CDC, American Society of Plumbing Engineers and Smithers-Rapra.

Excel Add-In -According to the K-Exchange Blog, Knovel now has a new Excel Add-In which “installs a tab to your Excel desktop that provides one-click access to Knovel’s search and unit conversion tools. When you login at www.knovel.com you’ll find the Excel Add-In under the tools menu.” The add-in installs a Knovel tab into Excel worksheets, and users have direct access to:

Knovel’s search
Data search
Unit conversion

The Knovel Excel Add-In (screenshot from K-Exchange blog post).

Conclusion
The Knovel System Report on Intellogist comments thatKnovel is a useful resource for scientists and engineers looking for access to detailed technical reference material. Knovel is also helpful for prior art searchers looking to understand basic concepts in engineering and technology, but its helpfulness as a prior art source is debatable. Searchers looking for a broad swath of the most up-to-date publications and journal articles in a particular technical area will probably not find Knovel useful. However, for its intended purpose, Knovel can be useful to gain background knowledge on the theory behind technology areas that a prior art searcher must be familiar with. The subject areas covered by Knovel are expanded on a regular basis, as illustrated in the Major Recent Updates section of the System Report, and Knovel also seems to be growing its Critical Content line of databases every few months. Knovel is a growing online resource for engineers and scientists that can also serve prior art searchers for educational and reference purposes, so check out the Knovel System Report to learn more about the platform!

Tuesday, 11 September 2012

Free Chinese Patent Search System Comparison

Over two years ago, the Intellogist Blog discussed Chinese patent searching on a budget. The free search options for Chinese patent documents included in that post were SIPO, CNIPR/C-Pat, CNPAT, Surf IP and IPEXL. We later published a post on the free Chinese patent search options on Zhihuiya.com. Over the past two years, these websites have all undergone many changes, and some of the search systems are no longer freely available. Surf IP and C-Pat are no longer available online, and Zhihuiya.com is now redirected to CN.Patsnap.com, which only appears to be available for subscribed users. Continue reading to learn about the free Chinese patent search options currently available through the remaining search systems: SIPO, CNIPR, CNPAT, and IPEXL (which draws on SIPO data). If you need a global prior art search conducted by a professional searcher fluent in Chinese, you can always contact patent search professionals who have access to both free and subscription patent databases with broad Chinese patent coverage.
After the jump, learn about the free Chinese patent search options available through SIPO, CNIPR, CNPAT, and IPEXL!
SIPO
The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) offers a free English patent search interface for invention and utility models.
The search will be conducted on English-language titles and abstracts in the collection. Users can also produce a full text machine translation of individual documents. The machine translation technology, called the China Patent Machine Translation system (CPMT), was researched and developed by China Patent Information Center.
Users can access the patent search system through the SIPO English-language homepage by selecting the “Patent Search” link in the menu bar on the right side of the page. Users can select to search within the Invention or Utility Model databases (or within both). Users enter queries within multiple fields by utilizing the top half of the site to search by Publication Number, Publication Date, Application Number, Application Date, Title, Abstract, IPC, Applicant, Inventor, Patent Agent, Patent Agency Code, Priority, and Province/Country Code. Users can also enter queries in the Combination Search at the bottom of the page, where they can search within multiple fields, use parentheses, and join search terms by Boolean operators. A guide for correctly formatting search terms and allowable operators is found under “Help.”
Users can choose to sort their results by any field listed in the “Sort By” drop-down menu at the top of the search page, in ascending or descending order.
When users select a result from the record list to view, they will first be taken to a bibliographic record of the patent document. Users can view a machine translation of the full document by selecting “Machine Translation” at the bottom of the page. Upon first selecting the “Machine Translation” button for a particular record, an English-language translation of the claims will be displayed. To see the rest of the specification, users should scroll to the bottom of the page and select the “Description” button.
The EPO website provides guidance on how to utilize other free search tools provided by SIPO:

Search the SIPO database in Chinese (PDF).
Legal status information (PDF) through SIPO (Chinese).
Fee payment information (PDF) through SIPO (Chinese).
Re-examination and invalidation decisions (PDF) through SIPO (Chinese).
China Patent Inquiry System (file history information).
Retrieving a machine translation through SIPO’S PSS System (PDF).

The English-language bibliographic data for a Chinese patent record on the SIPO website.

CNIPR
China Intellectual Property Net (CNIPR) is a platform for Chinese patent searching, monitoring, document translation, document delivery, and Chinese Pharmaceutical patent searches, maintained by the Intellectual Property Publishing House (IPPH). The free Chinese patent search platform C-Pat is no longer available through CNIPR, but users can subscribe to an English-language version of CNIPR.See this page on the English version of the CNIPR website for pricing information.
Users can still search for Chinese patent documents on the Chinese-language version of the CNIPR website for free. The EPO provides a step-by-step guide on retrieving Chinese documents from IPPH/SIPO’s CNIPR database. A fielded search form (in Chinese) allows users to search for Chinese patents, utility models, designs, granted patents, TW patents, and HK patents (as of September 2012, additional authority coverage appears to be available). The full record displays bibliographic data, abstract, main claim, legal status, citations, patent family, and automated abstract/keywords. The EPO guide indicates that users can download the document in TIFF format, when available.

A Chinese-language record on CNIPR.

CNPAT
China Patent Database (CNPAT) is a free online search platform for Chinese patents, patent applications, utility models, and designs, created by the China Patent Information Center. A majority of the interface only is available in Chinese, although users can view the fields for the advanced and expert search forms in English. The site includes a quick keyword search form (Chinese only), a fielded search form (field labels available in English), and a command line interface (field labels available in English). Users can choose to included thumbnail images in the search results (which are only viewable in Chinese). The full record may include bibliographic data (including the first claim, when available), drawings, the full-text PDF, full claims, and legal status. It appears that a translation service is available for title, abstract, and first claim for “VIP Users Only.”

A Chinese-language record on CNPAT.

IPEXL
Users can create a free account to log in to IPEXL (maintained by the Intellectual Property Exchange) and search through the following collections for free: US, US applications, China (native), and Singapore. The CN patent collection includes Chinese-language patent data only, available through SIPO. A fielded form allows users to search through a variety of fields (abstract, title, inventor, attorney, agency, applicant/assignee, IPC, etc.), and users can also limit the search by document number, publication data, application date, and patent type. The list of search results and full document records include basic bibliographic information in Chinese (title, inventor, applicant, attorney, abstract, IPC, document number, publication date. application date, etc.). Users can view the original source of the data on the SIPO website, create a permanent link to share the record, or create a graph of citation relationships for the record.

A Chinese-language record on IPEXL.

Conclusion
All Chinese patent search data originates from SIPO, although each website’s search interface provides a different user experience. While English translation options on CNIPR and CNPAT are only available for subscribed users, both SIPO and IPEXL offer a free English search interface (although users on IPEXL must use Chinese-language queries). English-language users will probably have the easiest time utilizing the SIPO English-language search interface, since the user can enter queries in English and create full English-language machine translations for patent records. The SIPO website also provides additional free services (in Chinese), such as legal status search and file history information.
Although English-language patent searchers may be able to conduct a basic initial search of a portion of SIPO’s Chinese patent collection using the machine translation services on the SIPO website, there is no substitute for a native-language searcher when conducting a comprehensive prior art search. Always contact a patent search professional who is fluent in Chinese and has access to global patent and non-patent literature search systems if you need a patent search for business or legal purposes.
Do you know of other free Chinese patent search options?

A Patent Analysis Tool For Merging Assignee Names in TotalPatent Charts

The semantic search option on TotalPatent is a unique tool for patent searchers. so today I’d like to call attention to a new TotalPatent feature created specifically for patent analysis purposes: the Merge tool. TotalPatent includes an Analytics tab where users can create charts using saved datasets from search results, folders, or document retrieval results. Users can now normalize the fields displayed in the charts by manually combining specific data points using the Merge tool. This tool will be useful to patent professionals performing initial analysis of a patent dataset because users can merge equivalent assignee or inventor names and therefore generate a more accurate visualization of the dataset. The visualization and data cleaning tools on TotalPatent are very simple and are no substitute for detailed patent landscape studies. The charts created under the TotalPatent Analytics tab shouldn’t be used to make important business or legal decisions, but they will provide an initial overview on certain aspects of the dataset through a simple visualization.
Continue reading for a closer look at how to use the Merge tool on TotalPatent can be used to combine equivalent assignee names!
Using the Merge Tool
The analysis functions on TotalPatent may be performed on either a search result set of up to 3,000 or a Work Folder set of up to 20,000 patent records. The analysis features are initiated by choosing the Analyze option above the results list or the Work Folder list. Users can also access the analysis section directly by choosing the Analytics tab in the top horizontal menu. Select the Visualize option in the submenu below the Analytics tab to view the interface for generating charts from patent data sets. Users can choose from a wide range of fields to include in the chart (authority, kind code, inventor name, assignee name, normalized assignee, publication date, filing date, etc.), and possible chart selections include simple line, bar, stacked bar, column, pie and bubble charts. Once the analysis charts have been created, they are interactive: a user may select a particular data point of interest, which will begin to flash. A list of all individual patent documents contained within that data point will then appear below the chart, where they can be viewed in more detail.

As of March 2012, a new Merge tool was added to the Analysis platform on TotalPatent, and users can select the “Combine Items” link at the top of the chart to manually normalize data fields such as Assignee Name, Inventor Names, Classes, etc. After selecting the “Combine Items” link, users will be presented with a window where they can select from all available data points for each field.

The user can select multiple data points representing the same item, such as multiple assignee names representing the same company. The user then must enter a new name for the combined items (such as “Agilent” to represent the three merged assignee names in the screenshot below), and the user can also specify whether this combination should be applied automatically to all analysis charts for this data set from this point forward.

After you select OK, the Merge window will close, and the combination will automatically be applied to the analysis chart. The user can choose to undo the last combination or edit the combination settings. When a user mouses over a section of the chart that represents a set of merged data points, the label that appears will display the newly assigned name for all merged data points, with the individual data point names listed below.

Mouse over a merged section of the chart to view all combined data points.

How Useful is the Merge Tool?
The visualization options in TotalPatent are greatly improved by the Merge tool, since users can create more accurate representations of the data by merging equivalent data points within a field. For example, equivalent assignee names that weren’t merged initially through the normalized assignee field can be combined manually using the Merge tool. The Merge tool is a step towards a more accurate and advanced analysis module on TotalPatent, but this merge option is still very basic when compared with the advanced data cleaning functions on data analysis platforms like VantagePoint. The limited data cleaning and chart options on the TotalPatent analysis module will at most be useful as a first step during in-depth patent analysis projects. The chart tool can still be used for initial overview purposes, though, to visualize trends in smaller patent data sets.

Thursday, 6 September 2012

Reverb Networks Awarded Patent for SON-based Interference Detection

Advanced Techniques Used in Automated SON Solutions

Sterling, VA (PRWEB) September 06, 2012

Reverb Networks, a leading developer of intelligent Self-Optimizing Network solutions designed to provide mobile network operators with improved operational and spectral efficiencies, announced today that it has received a patent award from the US Patent and Trademark Office for automated interference detection techniques using measurements from mobile devices, a key component of SON-based network optimization for UMTS and LTE wireless networks.

Reverb’s interference detection patent, USPTO number 8,229,363, follows the Minimization of Drive Test (MDT) principle identified in emerging 3GPP technical specifications. Interference sources are typically identified in mobile networks by using test mobiles and receivers in an orchestrated drive test setting, a process that is both time consuming and labor intensive. Motivated by the MDT principles of automating data collection from OSS and standard device-based measurements, Reverb’s intellectual property outlines a method of identifying and ranking interference sources. These techniques are incorporated in the Interference Reduction feature of Reverb’s InteliSON®, a fully automated, closed-loop SON solution.

“The interference detection patent award bolsters Reverb’s IPR portfolio in SON technology,” said Magnus Friberg, CEO. “This award, combined with our other issued and pending patents, demonstrates Reverb’s unique technology for automating network optimization with our InteliSON platform. We will continue to drive innovation in SON technology as we further deploy our leading edge solutions in 3G and 4G networks worldwide.”

About Reverb Networks

Reverb Networks is a pioneering provider of automated, continuous and antenna-based Self-Optimizing Networks (SON) solutions. Reverb’s InteliSON enhances networks of Mobile Network Operators through frequent and proactive self-optimization that improves network coverage and capacity and increases spectral efficiencies. In partnership with Reverb Networks, operators can maximize the performance of their wireless network automatically and efficiently, resulting in lower OpEx and CapEx. Reverb’s SON applications include for Load Balancing, Interference Reduction and Self-Healing for both UMTS and LTE network technologies.

Headquartered in the United States, Reverb Networks has presence in the Americas, Europe, Middle East, and Asia, and offers support across the globe

Thursday, 30 August 2012

Apple-Samsung patent fight

The average smartphone may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents. A jury award of $1.05 billion vastly overstates the real worth of each patent.

Late last week, a San Jose jury awarded Apple Inc. $1.05 billion in damages for patent infringement, a huge win for Apple in its worldwide patent fight with smartphone manufacturers that, like Samsung, sell devices equipped with Google's Android operating system.
The award, the third largest in the history of U.S. patent litigation, will likely cruise into first place next month when U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh decides what additional amount Apple should receive from Samsung based on the jury's finding that much of the infringement was "willful."
But even without that enhancement, which could add another $2 billion to Samsung's tab, the jury's $1 billion-plus verdict breaks down to just under $48 for each of the roughly 22 million infringing phones sold by Samsung. To the jury, 50 bucks per phone must have sounded like a reasonable figure, and it may well to you too.
But it's not — it's way too high — and here's why: The average smartphone may arguably infringe as many as 250,000 patents, not to mention myriad copyrights and other design-related intellectual property. (Companies don't sift through every patent coming out of Washington before engineering and releasing a product; they create devices and battle claims as necessary.)
If you were to divide the average retail price of a smartphone — about $400 — by those 250,000 potentially applicable patents, you'd find that each one would account for just $0.0016 of the phone's value. And, in reality, even that's too much, once you factor in the costs of raw materials, labor, transportation and marketing, which also contribute to a phone's value.
Yet for infringing just a handful of Apple's patents, Samsung faces a minimum payment of $48 per phone, a shocking 30,000 times the average per patent value. Put another way, if the owners of all the 250,000 inventions that might be present in Samsung smartphones were awarded damages at the same level as Apple, Samsung would have to charge a ludicrous $2 million per phone just to break even.
But wait, you say, the San Jose jury no doubt included some level of punishment in its award, in order to "send a message." But, by law, patent damages are meant to compensate not punish, as the jury was expressly instructed.
Or maybe Apple's patents are worth far more than average intellectual property and are therefore deserving of a higher rate? Perhaps so. But thousands of times more valuable?
For that matter, why shouldn't we also entertain the possibility that Apple's patents are actually worth less than the average? It may sound blasphemous to question the value of intellectual property owned by the world's most valuable company, but consider this: When purchasing a phone are you willing to pay more for rounded corners and stylish icons or for the device's ability to transmit data to a cell tower? In the smartphone wars, Apple is primarily enforcing patents on the former, Samsung and Motorola on the latter.
Surprisingly, Apple is well aware of arguments about the real worth of each patent per phone: "In a world where a device can be made up of thousands of patented components, patent infringement damages should be proportionate to the value of the component in question rather than the entire product." That's a 2008 quote from the Coalition for Patent Fairness, an advocacy group formed by Apple and other tech companies frequently sued for patent infringement.
Indeed, Apple makes this same point in some form or fashion dozens of times a year when playing defense against patent suits filed by other, much smaller patent owners. Over the last five years, no company has been sued more times for infringement than Apple. When the shoe was on the other foot, however, it was content to check its patent law principles at the courtroom door: It actually asked for far more than it received, about $2.5 billion total in "compensatory" damages.
So, Apple, congratulations on your large award. Next time you're accused of patent infringement by a start-up, an individual inventor or a dreaded "patent troll," I'm sure you'll be flattered when the patent owner uses your own damages calculations against you. Actually, on second thought, here's betting you won't like it much at all.
Brian J. Love is an assistant professor of law at Santa Clara University School of Law, where he teaches courses in patent law and remedies.

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Apple granted patent for ad-skipper

LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) - Another front has opened in the attack on commercials.

Apple received a patent Tuesday for technology that would allow users to switch seamlessly to their own audio or video files once ads started playing on their TV or radio.

Unlike Dish Network's Auto Hop feature that allows users to bypass ads, with the Apple device, a user's iTunes library would kick in and play music, video or a podcast.

As for Apple's plan, according to the patent approved by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: "When an electronic device determines that an upcoming media item in a media broadcast is not of interest to a user, the electronic device can switch playback from the media stream to a media item from the electronic device local library," the patent said.

The networks are not likely to be happy. CBS, Fox and NBC already have filed lawsuits against Dish, saying Auto Hop is illegal and reduces the advertising revenue the networks depend on to purchase programming.

The feds granted the tech titan the new patent just a week after clearing the way for Apple to create a TiVo-like box that would allow the recording or pausing of live television.

The new patent seems to increase the speculation surrounding a revamped, broadcast-integrated Apple TV.

It also could impair talks Apple is currently having with top network executives to negotiate a deal that could bring live television to Apple TV, limited at first to streaming services like Netflix, Hulu or iTunes rentals.

AppleInsider was the first to report on the patent.

Latest Filings and Granted Patents Of Major Industries

Latest Filings and Granted Patents Of Major Industries

The above link will lead you to the latest filing and granted patents of some major Industries at a glance look............

Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Google’s “Prior Art Finder”

Google’s “Prior Art Finder”

Google announced a major update to their Google Patents search tool yesterday. These changes include two main offerings:
1. The inclusion of EP documents
2. The introduction of the “Prior Art Finder” tool
As of the writing of this blog post, it appears that while EP documents are available within the Google Patents search system (such as this document), they do not come up normally in results lists for search queries. This is the case even when using verbatim title searching or document number searching, and the advanced search form does not include any options for searching EP documents, either. However, this seems like a glitch or gradual roll-out that Google is well known for and not a permanent issue. The inclusion of EP documents is a major boon to those who prefer Google Patents over Espacenet (in the free search tool domain). EP data is but the first step towards making Google Patents a more viable search tool for more than a quick starting point or “silver-bullet” type search.
As for the Prior Art Finder tool: I’ve got a lot to say about how that feature works, what it can do for the professional searcher, and what it means for the future of prior art search after the jump.

Google’s Prior Art Finder tool is accessible from any individual patent document within Google Patents’ system.
Prior Art Finder pros
1. Query generation is automatic – Starting a query with the Prior Art Finder couldn’t be easier. Users need only to click the blue “Find prior art” button at the top of any individual patent document within Google Patents. From there, search terms are automatically mined and generated from the full available text of the document. Accompanying the term generation is an automatic end date for search results that coincides with the extracted filing date from the patent document (putting the “prior” in prior art).

2. Federated search through various Google entities is helpful – Users accustomed to running separate strings in Google Scholar and Google Books will be assisted by the fact that both of these valuable search tools will be queried simultaneously through the Prior Art Finder. Switching between results sets is accomplished by selecting the category at the top of the results page, and the pre-loaded entries load instantaneously and conveniently.
3. Post search modification is user-friendly – Automatically generated search terms are clearly displayed (no black-box here!). Along with supplementary generated terms, can be toggled on-and-off with ease and search results will be instantly updated. Additionally, the custom date range fields can similarly be modified.

Prior Art Finder cons
1. Results are limited to Google search engines – Prior Art Finder merely searches Google Scholar, Google Patents, Google Books, Google People, and Google Web. It will not search valuable prior art databases that Google does not have the access to index, ruling out a vast majority of the available “non-patent” prior art available to expert searchers. As a result, those seeking a complete professional prior art search will find that Prior Art Finder is merely a first drop in the bucket.

2. Queries must be generated from a document present in Google Patents’ database – This means if it’s not a US or EP document in Google’s database, you’re out of luck for automatic query generation. There is no currently available easy way to create your own query, but a work-around can be accomplished by using any patent document in the Google system as a starting point, erasing the automatically generated terms, and entering your own. At this point, however, users may be better suited to generate their own queries in each separate Google search product. At the same time, it would be nice to have the interface of Prior Art Finder and the functionality of the federated nature of the tool available for brand new queries.

3. Automatic query generation and results are hit-and-miss – Testing on a patent for a “Thread-measuring feeding device” came up with results for yarn properties, blood regulation, human motion analysis, fly fishing, and computer threading (and this was just in the “Top 10″). At this stage, Prior Art Finder is far from a panacea for those looking for the next evolution in automated prior art search. It just goes to show that the “neck-top computer” still can’t be beat when it comes to complex and semantic heavy problems such as patent and prior art searching.

One further note: the Google Research blog post about this update leads me to believe that many further updates may be coming to Google Patents. One can only hope that the sleeping giant in the search field has been awakened to the possibilities and growing necessity of providing patent search tools!