Free Features of Patent Buddy, Part 2: Create a Patent Portfolio and View Top Patent Attorneys

Link----Last time, we looked at the patent search and analysis options of the online community Patent Buddy.  Patent Buddy is a free patent search and analysis website originally created by a group of patent attorneys in 2007.  The site offers free search of US patent records after 1980, as well as search sections for patent owners, inventors, IPC classes, patent attorneys, and patent firms.  The site also includes some data visualization features, such as a breakdown of patent owners within a specific IPC class.
Registered users of Patent Buddy get the added benefit of access to the Dashboard, My Portfolio and Following sections of the website, where the user can select to receive updates related to chosen patent records, owners, inventors, and technology classes.  Patent Buddy also includes a community for registered users, who can view a directory of other members (and add their profile to the directory), join groups, and post or view job offers.  Finally, Patent Buddy has created its own lists of top-rated patent prosecutors, firms, owners, and inventors.
Continue reading to learn about these portfolio, alert, and community features of Patent Buddy!

As mentioned in the last post, users will see a horizontal menu of tabs at the top of the page after logging in to the Patent Buddy website.

The main menu on Patent Buddy.

The menu includes the following sections:

• Dashboard - View your personal account details, with options to edit preferences or add new patents to your portfolio. View groups that you are following, status updates for any patents, patent owners, inventors, or technology classes you are following, and any updates on group activity.

The Dashboard section on Patent Buddy.

• My Portfolio - Users can select the “Manage Portfolio” link to view a list of all patent records currently in their portfolio. These records can be deleted from the list, and users can also access links to add patents to the list, add all patents from a single owner, add all patents from an inventor, or remove all patents from the portfolio. The site does not list the maximum number of patents that can be added to the portfolio, but attempts to add 10,000 records at one time (by a single patent owner) resulted in an error message. Under the main Portfolio tab, the section will list the following information and statistics about the patent records currently in the portfolio:
  • Number of total patents issued
  • Number of total patents filed
  • Recent publication date
  • Details – number of issued patents, number issued in last 3 years, number published in last 3 years, total citation count, and earliest filing date
  • Technologies – Main IPC classes (with the option to view subclasses and top owners within a class)
  • Top patents by citation
  • Recent publications
  • Top inventors in portfolio
  • Forward cites

Statistics and analysis of a portfolio created on Patent Buddy.

• Search and Analytics - See the previous blog post for all search and analysis options available on Patent Buddy.
• Following - View the latest status updates on patents/applications, owners, inventors, or technology classes that you selected to follow. The section notes that patents listed in “My Portfolio” are followed automatically. The Technology Class update section allows the user to view records added to the IPC class within the past 7 days. Through this tab, you can also edit the lists of followed patents, owners, inventors, and technology classes.
• Jobs - View job listings or post a job. Select a job listing to view additional details, a job description, requirements, and how to apply.
• Directory - Search users of the site by last name, or browse an alphabetical list. The full record for each member includes current and past work history, education, experience, the member’s patent portfolio, groups joined by the member, and any additional information. Information in the member profile is based off of information provided by the user and therefore may be incomplete.
• Groups - View the list of groups you belong to, a list of suggested groups, and select to add a new group.
• Top Rated - View lists of top prosecutors, firms, owner, and inventors, as selected by Patent Buddy.
  • Top Prosecutors - Refine the list by technology, last name, region, or state. The full profile for a top prosecutor includes the name, contact information, technology areas, registration information, a picture and biography (when available), and a map of the prosecutor’s office location.
  • Top Firms - Refine the top firm list by year (2008-2010) or state. Select a firm from the list to view the full firm record.
  • Top Owners - View a list of the “top 500 patent owners receiving patents in 2010.”

The list of Top Prosecutors on Patent Buddy.

Registered users can define their preferences for their profile, including their country location, whether they want their information included in the Patent Buddy directory, and the option to receive daily, weekly, or monthly updates on employment opportunities and follow results. Users may also change their email address and password from the preferences page.
Conclusion
The portfolio option on Patent Buddy will allow users to view broad trends for a small selected dataset of US patent records.  However, for a detailed and customized analysis of large patent datasets for both US and non-US documents, users should utilize professional patent analysis services.  The “follow” options on Patent Buddy will allow users to receive updates on new US patent records for specific IPC classes, inventors, or owners, but for alerts on non-US documents, users will need a subscription patent search system with broader coverage.  In general, the customization and alert options offered by Patent Buddy are excellent for a free service, but the US-only coverage of the site limits the usefulness of the features.
Patent Buddy also offers some online community features that are geared towards networking and professional development between patent attorneys and agents.  There are many social media and networking options for patent professionals (including Intellogist), so Patent Buddy may be another platform on which you want to post your profile.
Although Patent Buddy has some drawbacks, such as limited coverage and basic search features, the site also offers a variety of analysis, alert, portfolio, and community-building tools that may help patent professionals with both patent searching and networking.
Do you know of any sites similar to Patent Buddy that provide both patent search and networking opportunities?  Tell us about them in the comments section!

Free Features of Patent Buddy, Part 1: Patent Search and Analysis

Link--Patent analysts require sophisticated tools to create detailed and customized patent landscapes for clients who need to  gain insight into a particular technology field or group of competitors.  Analysts can take their pick from a number of subscription-based patent analysis and visualization tools, but free patent analysis and visualization products are few and far between.  Even when a patent search site offers free visualization tools, the product is usually very basic.  Patexia, for example, allows users to create simple graphs based on searches of US patent documents dating back to 1974.  This tool doesn’t even reach the complexity or coverage of the patent analysis features offered in conjunction with subscription patent search systems like Thomson Innovation or TotalPatent, but the free tool is a fast and easy way to quickly visualize trends relating to a particular IPC code, country, assignee, agent, or inventor over a period of time (for US patent records). In short, free patent analysis tools may provide a useful informal overview of trends for smaller US patent datasets, but results should ultimately be taken with a grain of salt.
Bearing that in mind, I recently visited a free patent community called Patent Buddy, which offers a host of free patent search and analysis features covering US patent records after 1980.  The site also allows users to search through patent owners, inventors, agents, and technology classes, and some visualization options offer helpful insights into patent ownership trends within specific IPC classes.
After the jump, learn about all the search and analysis features available on Patent Buddy for US patent documents, patent owners, inventors, agents, and IPC classes!

Introduction to Patent Buddy
According to the About Us section of Patent Buddy, the site “was organized in 2007 by a group of senior patent lawyers.”  Patent Buddy appears to cover US patent documents dating back to 1980.  The site is free to search, but registered users gain access to more advanced functions like the option to save patent records to a portfolio (which we’ll discuss later in an upcoming blog post).  Users can also download Patent Buddy applications for iPhone or Android, and the homepage states that Patent Buddy offers a premium plan (which doesn’t appear to be described in detail anywhere else on the website).
After logging in to Patent Buddy, users will see a main horizontal menu of tabs at the top of the page that is present on every page of the website.  Today, we’ll focus on the options available under the “Search and Analytics” tab.

The “Search and Analytics” tab on Patent Buddy.

Options Under the Search and Analytics Tab
Under the “Search and Analytics” section of the website, users can search by:

• Patents - The advanced form includes publication date range, patent owner, and abstract keyword search. Results are listed in descending chronological order by publication date, 20 results to a page, and the results list includes the patent number, title, owner, and publication date. The results list is not sortable, and users can only refine the list by publication date range. Users can select the document number in order to view the full document record, which includes bibliographic data/abstract/representative image, the options to follow the document or add it to the portfolio, the options to view the document at the USPTO website or on Google Patents, a link to download the document in PDF format, patent citation ranking information, patent owner(s), international classifications (and a graphic breakdown of patent owners within that IPC class), inventors, cited art and forward cites, and the first claim. The record will also sometimes list other patents belonging to the same owner.

View a breakdown of patent owners within an IPC class assigned to a patent document.

• Patent Owners - The advanced form includes the option to search by city name or state. Results are listed in alphabetical order 20 to a page and include the owner name, address (city/state), numbers of patents and published applications owned, and a link to view the owned patents. The results list isn’t sortable and can be refined by US state or city name. Select the owner name to view the full record on the owner, which includes an option to follow the owner, details on their patent portfolio (number of issued patents, total citation count, etc), top technology (IPC) classes for their patent portfolio, top patents (by citation), recent publications and patents, and top inventors for that owner.

• Inventors - The advanced form includes the option to search by patent owner, patent number, publication number, publication date range, city name, state, IPC class, and various options for grouping results (by name, name and patent owner, name and city, name and state, or no grouping). Results are listed in alphabetical order 20 to a page and include (based on the selected grouping) the inventor name, company/address, and number of patents filed. The results list isn’t sortable and can be refined by publication date range, first name, last name, patent owner, patent number, IPC class, US state or city name. Select the inventor name to view the full record on the inventor, which includes an option to follow the inventor, details on their patents filed/issued (number of filed/issued patents, total citation count, etc), work history, addresses, technology profile, and a list of patents/publications. A disclaimer at the top of the record states “This is official USPTO record data.”

• Technologies - Use a keyword search form to search by technology class/keyword/patent number, or browse through the IPC classes by section. Select a class to view the full record for that technology class, including the option to follow the class, total patents/applications/owners/inventors listed in the class, the class description, recent patents and publications in the class, and top owners in the class.

The main record relating to a specific IPC class.

• US Patent Attorneys - The advanced search form allows users to search by first/middle name, registration number, country, state, city, and organization name. Users can also browse through a full alphabetical list of US patent attorneys. Search results are listed 20 per page alphabetically and include the attorney name, firm, type/registration number, and a bar showing years of experience. Results can’t be sorted but can be refined by first/middle name, registration number, or organization name. Select an attorney name to view the full record, which includes the organization, years of practice, professional information, contact information, work history, and former coworkers. A disclaimer at the top of the record states “This is official USPTO record data.”

The main record for a patent attorney profile.

• Patent Firms/Depts - The advanced search form allows users to search by city/state and to limit results to all firms, only Patent Buddy Top 100 Firms, only or Top 300 Firms. Search results are listed about 20 per page and include the firm/department name, location/address, size of the firm, and a bar showing years of experience. Results can’t be sorted but can be refined by city, state, or zip code. Select a firm name to view the full record, which includes an overview of the firm (number of attorneys, professional information, and location), a list of attorneys and agents currently involved at the firm, a list of firm alumni, and a dashboard of statistics about the firm (firm growth, overall experience, and current experience). A disclaimer at the top of the record overview states “This is official USPTO record data.”

Statistics related to the growth and overall experience of a patent firm.

• Special Reports - This page currently states “if you were a user of our Research Reports, please contact support at support@patentbuddy.com for information on how to access these reports in the new Patent Buddy site.” This may be a feature included only in the premium version of Patent Buddy.

Next Time…
The coverage of Patent Buddy seems to only include data available through the USPTO website, and the search features of the site are very basic, with only limited fielded searching options, few filtering options for results, and no sorting features at all.  If you get a very large result set and want to view earlier records in the set, it’s nearly impossible to page through all 20,000 results to the earliest published records, since the records are listed in reverse chronological order.  You’d need to repeatedly filter the set by date range to view relevant sections of records, which can be aggravatingly time consuming.
Despite these coverage and interface drawbacks, Patent Buddy offers some useful visualization features that may provide insights into overall trends within specific technology sectors, such as which companies own the most US patents within a specific IPC class.  Patent Buddy additionally offers directories of patent attorneys and firms (based on USPTO data), and the statistics on the experience and growth of these attorneys and firms may be useful for potential clients or job seekers.
Next time, we’ll look at how Patent Buddy can help you create a portfolio that follows the status of selected patent records, inventors, and owners!
Have you used Patent Buddy?  What do you thinks of its search and analysis features? Let us know in the comments!

Apple-Samsung Patent Battle Shifts to Trial

Patent trials are part bombast, part boredom. Lurid accusations of corporate skulduggery and deceit quickly give way to a mind-numbing slog through the technical details and vague language of patent claims.

A jury will be asked to sort through all that to settle a dispute between Apple and Samsung Electronics beginning Monday in a federal court in San Jose, Calif.

The jury trial is the latest phase in a global campaign of smartphone patent litigation that began more than two years ago. The legal clashes mainly pit Apple against rival smartphone makers whose handsets are powered by Google’s Android software, notably Samsung, HTC and Motorola Mobility, which Google bought last year. Dozens of lawsuits and countersuits have been filed in courtrooms around the world.

Yet the escalating patent battle is more than just legal maneuvering. Patents can be powerful tools for determining the rules of engagement for major companies in a fast-growing industry like smartphones.

Patents are declarations of invention that are often easily obtained from government patent examiners, but their real value — their validity and strength — is determined in court.

A few significant rulings in favor of one side or the other, industry and patent experts say, could shape the competitive landscape in smartphones and a sister industry, tablet computers. Court decisions, they say, can provide the basis for negotiating the terms and cost of licensing and cross-licensing of patents — or for keeping certain patented features exclusive to one company.

“Once you determine who is the genuine innovator, and in what technologies on the product, you reset the playing field,” said Kevin G. Rivette, a Silicon Valley patent consultant and former vice president for intellectual property strategy for I.B.M.

But to bring a real shift in the marketplace, Mr. Rivette added, one side must have “strong patents, not incremental ones.”

That issue is much debated, and litigated, in the smartphone arena.

Apple scored some points in June. Judge Lucy H. Koh, who will also preside over the jury trial that begins this week, issued a preliminary injunction against Samsung, ordering it to stop selling its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the United States.

Judge Koh found that Samsung had infringed on an Apple patent for a “universal interface,” which broadly describes crucial ingredients found in Siri, Apple’s question-answering application (though the patent itself was filed by Apple before it acquired Siri in 2010).

But the power of smartphone patents in general suffered a blow in another federal court in June.

Richard A. Posner, a prominent federal appeals court judge in Chicago, dismissed a case involving Apple and Google’s Motorola Mobility subsidiary. In his “pox on both of your houses” ruling, Judge Posner ridiculed Apple’s broad claims for its user-experience patents and Motorola’s claim that Apple should pay it a rich royalty on its basic communications patents. Both companies are appealing that ruling.

Fierce patent battles in new industries have been the rule for more than a century, from the steam engine to semiconductors. The lessons of history are decidedly mixed.

Sometimes, patent warriors can hold off rivals for years, as the Wright brothers did in the airplane business — though the cost in time, money and innovative energy diverted was daunting even then. In 1912, Wilbur Wright wrote, “When we think what we might have accomplished if we had been able to devote this time to experiments, we are very sad.”

In smartphones, some analysts say, the sheer number of patents and the speed of innovation in product development undermine the power of patents. Because a smartphone combines many communications and computing technologies, as many as 250,000 patents may touch the device, according to estimates by RPX, a patent licensing company.

“You necessarily litigate individual patents, but there are thousands of patents behind the ones in court,” said Mark A. Lemley, a patent expert at the Stanford Law School. “That complexity and the speed of innovation may well make it easier to invent around the patent system in smartphones.”

Indeed, for its new Galaxy models, Samsung developed an alternative to one of the Apple-patented features cited in this week’s trial.

One of Apple’s many patents on user-experience programming covers its “rubberbanding” or “bounce” feature — when a user pulls a finger from the top of the touch screen to the bottom, the digital page bounces. On the new Samsung phone, the same finger stroke brings a blue glow at the bottom of the screen, not a bounce.

“There is no single killer patent in this lawsuit,” said Florian Mueller, a patent analyst and blogger. “Apple cannot deal a knockout blow to Samsung.”

Trial briefs filed last week lay out the narrative and some of the details that Apple and Samsung plan to present in court.

Apple asserts that Samsung made “a deliberate decision to copy” the iPhone and iPad, in both product design and software that creates the user experience. The unredacted version of Apple’s filing quotes internal Samsung documents saying that its smartphone design “looked like it copied the iPhone too much” and that “innovation is needed.” Another analysis done for Samsung concluded that the icons on its phone were “too iPhone-like” and were “strongly associated with the iPhone UI,” or user interface.

In its brief, Samsung contends Apple is using patents to try to “stifle legitimate competition and limit consumer choice to maintain its historically exorbitant profits.”

Samsung cites internal Apple documents and deposition testimony to conclude that Apple borrowed its ideas from others, especially Sony. Apple, according to Samsung, was clearly innovative in refining the ideas of others, but it was not the original inventor.

Samsung, quoting its own documents, said it had touch-screen phones in development before the iPhone was introduced in January 2007, pointing to the Samsung F700 model. (The F700 had a touch screen, but also a pullout keyboard underneath.)

According to Samsung, the corporate documents Apple quotes in its brief come from “benchmarking” sessions conducted by Samsung, a standard industry practice.

“Apple,” the Samsung brief observed, citing deposition testimony, “also assembled an ‘Android war room,’ where its employees can study Android products.” Link

Apple v. Samsung Patent Showdown Explained

Did Apple rip off Samsung’s intellectual property to create the iPhone, or did Samsung pilfer Apple’s patents when it took on the iPad and iPhone with a slew of mobile devices and tablets?
Those are the burning questions at issue in the biggest trial so far in the ongoing worldwide mobile-phone patent war that’s broken out between Apple, Google, Microsoft, Oracle, Samsung, HTC, Motorola and others.
Apple and Samsung, both competitors and business partners, have been jousting over the issue for more than a year, in what’s really a proxy war between Apple and Google. But after 1,400 court docket entries, on Monday, in a San Jose, California, federal court, a nine-member jury is expected to be chosen to resolve the dispute in a highly anticipated patent and antitrust trial.
At stake is billions of dollars in penalties, possible bans on imports of flagship consumer gadgets, and even whether Samsung will remain the world’s foremost electronics producer of smartphones. Apple intends to push for more injunctions blocking the U.S. sale of the South Korean-based company’s phones and tablets that are powered by Google’s Android operating system.
U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh has already blocked the Galaxy Nexus, the flagship Google phone, from being sold in the United States, but the decision has been stayed on appeal. Apple claims the Galaxy Nexus infringes its patents via “the core voice and search functionality within Android.” Koh also blocked the U.S. sale of Samsung’s initial iPad rivals, the Galaxy Tab 10.1 — as has Germany, on the grounds it resembles the iPad too closely. (However, a British judge disagreed, saying the Tab was “not as cool” as the iPad.)
The two technology powerhouses, armed with an army of lawyers charging an average of more than $500 an hour, might reach a deal before or even after jury selection begins.
But for the moment, it’s a war of words between Samsung and the Cupertino-based Apple, each accusing the other of outright theft of intellectual property ranging from Apple’s designs and scrolling technology to Samsung’s 3G transmission functionality. The litigation theater is playing itself out on stages in at least eight countries, including Britain, Germany and Australia.
Apple, in seeking as much as $2.5 billion in damages, said Samsung “chose to compete by copying Apple.” Samsung countered that without Samsung’s patented technology, Apple “could not have become a successful participant in the mobile telecommunications industry.” Samsung says that Apple’s innovations come from its uncanny ability to commercialize technology, not from revolutionary engineering or design. Samsung, which has been making mobile phones for more than two decades, also says it has phone-design documents for a slab-like touchscreen phone that predates the iPhone.
Some legal experts suggest the legal flap might involve intellectual property that should never have been patented.
“Regardless of the outcome of the trial, we might want to step back and consider whether society should be granting such powerful rights so easily. Are the features at issue here really deserving of so much protection?” asked Robin Feldman, a legal scholar at UC Hastings College of the Law and author of Rethinking Patent Law. “On the whole, the trial is one more indication of a patent system that has lost its bearings, with litigation rather than innovation leading the way.”
Samsung is likely to have a tough time securing injunctions against Apple products. The main claims Samsung asserts against Apple involve patents related to 3G data connections that use the GSM standard under the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS). There’s disagreement whether infringing on Samsung’s so-called “essential” patents can be the subject of an injunction under a legal theory called FRAND, knowns as “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.” The idea is that any patent that’s key to a standard must be licensed to all-comers at a reasonable price.
The jury verdict form, which lays out the questions to be answered in the trial, has not been finalized. But a recent version (.pdf) asks jurors whether Samsung “failed to timely disclose its intellectual property rights during the creation of the UMTS standard or by failing to license its declared essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminary terms.” That verdict form also asks jurors to decide whether Samsung breached antitrust rules “by monopolizing one or more technology markets related to the UMTS standard.”
In all, Apple claims breaches of seven patents and other so-called trade-dress violations, which are about visual appearances. Samsung alleges Apple’s iPhones and iPads breach five patents. Each side, over the course of 17 months of pre-trial litigation, has dramatically reduced the number of alleged infringements in a bid to simplify the dispute for jurors.
Both claim the other’s patents were either wrongly granted and should be voided or, in the alternative, the patents are not being infringed.
Some experts believe the issue is still too complex for jurors — but all patent trials inevitably are. Earlier this year, a federal jury in Texas was asked to decide whether the fundamentals of the web, such as displaying dynamic media in a webpage, had been patented by a medical researcher. A favorable verdict could have led to multimillion-dollar judgments against every large internet company. Jurors didn’t bite, however, and found that claims to owning technology key to the interactive web were invalid.
Richard Posner, one of the country’s most respected U.S. federal appeals court judges, said earlier this month that patent trials shouldn’t even be heard in federal court and instead should be resolved in the Patent and Trademark Office without a jury.
That’s because patent issues are too nuanced, and the stakes too high, said Brian Love, a Santa Clara University School of Law scholar.
“A lot of the evidence that’s presented will be over the head of the jury pool. They’ll tend to make more of a decision based on emotion and storytelling,” Love said in a telephone interview. “Both sides will try to tell a story where they are in the right and the other side is in the wrong. Frequently, jury trials boil down to who tells the better story.”http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/07/apple-v-samsung-explained/?pid=3601&viewall=true

Samsung destroyed evidence in Apple patent case, says judge

Samsung is being reprimanded yet again in its ongoing patent spat with Apple.
California Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal sanctioned the South Korean tech company for destroying evidence, or, more accurately, failing to not destroy evidence.
Samsung's email system deletes messages automatically after two weeks, and the company took no measures to preserve relevant emails even after the patent case had been filed, said Grewal.
The judge granted Apple's request for an "adverse jury instruction," informing the jury of Samsung's transgression.

Samsung left the shredder on

"In effect, Samsung kept the shredder on long after it should have known about this litigation," Grewal wrote in the filing.
He noted that Samsung may not have purposely destroyed any evidence, but that the company should have disabled the system that automatically deletes emails as soon as it was clear they'd be heading to court.
Now the jury must decide whether Samsung's actions will affect their verdict.

Troubles for Samsung

This news comes a mere day after Samsung was reprimanded by Northern California District Judge Lucy Koh for requesting to make their patent war with Apple even longer and more complicated.
Samsung wanted to double the time and more than triple the number of exhibits each side will be allowed to present when the case begins on Monday, but Judge Koh denied the request, admitting that she's "frustrated" with Samsung.
Apple and Samsung are currently duking it out over 30 cases in 10 different countries, with each side winning various tenuous victories but neither yet coming out clearly on top.
In response to TechRadar's inquiries, a Samsung spokesperson pointed out that an International Trade Commission judge squashed similar accusations earlier this year.
"He concluded that Samsung took 'reasonable and appropriate steps to preserve evidence' and that Samsung's document retention policy complied with federal law," the spokesperson wrote in an email.
"We intend to appeal Judge Grewal's decision to the trial judge, and if necessary, to the Court of Appeals. Samsung remains committed to complying with all information requests from the court."

New Patent Application Brings Apple One Step Closer to a Gaming Console

A recent patent application published by the US Patent & Trademark Office today shows Apple taking another step toward a potential gaming console. In fact, one need look no further than Figure 44 of the patent application, which clearly shows a generic game controller interacting with an iOS device.
Several of the diagrams depict screens and instructions that may be present on an iPhone after syncing or using the controller (which currently resembles a PlayStation 3 Dual Shock). Other images in the patent application detail a wide range of interaction between an Apple TV, game system, iPhone, and even an HDTV or DVR.
Though the late Steve Jobs consistently shied away from Apple being recognized as a gaming entity, he is quoted as saying he wanted to “crack the TV nut” in a manner that reaches well beyond Apple TV. When we put all the puzzle pieces together, however, a dedicated Apple gaming console — or at the very least a traditional controller for their enormous library of games — makes sense.
It’s long been rumored that Apple is quietly working on their own smart HD television that incorporates Apple TV, iOS, touch and motion control, and other elements that would warrant a description of it being the mythical “all-in-one” entertainment box (at least for the Apple ecosystem).
Other players in the video game industry are aggressively developing controller solutions for the Android market. PowerA‘s MOGA controller, for example, will allow anyone with an Android smartphone to control their games traditionally, with an elegant solution on the design side of things. PowerA already has Google‘s seal of approval, and developers like SEGA have stated that porting games like Virtua Tennis Challenge from touch controls to a standard controller takes mere days. Peripheral maker Nyko is also prepping a solution to bring console-level controls to Android devices, allowing users to map the touch controls to the controller itself. Make no mistake that Apple wants to be a leader in that space as well.
Also of note: In February 2012, Apple hired Robin Burrows, a man who spent seven years heading up the marketing efforts for Microsoft‘s Xbox Live.

So is Apple slowly assembling a next-generation game console? Probably not. But with a branded controller and a rumored HDTV in the works — not to mention the millions of iPhones and iPads already in user’s hands — they don’t need to.PatentlyApple.com has an in-depth breakdown of the entire patent application, but the room for doubt that Apple is prepping a major push into the living room is rapidly shrinking.

STATEMENT FROM JANET GONGOLA, PATENT REFORM COORDINATOR: USPTO Publishes Proposed Rules and Proposed Examination Guidelines for the First-Inventor-to-File Provision

On Thursday, July 26, 2012, the USPTO announces publication in the Federal Register of proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines for the first-inventor-to-file provision.   The proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines implement the conversion from a "first-to-invent" to a "first-inventor-to-file" system.  The proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines also address the Office's interpretation of the prior art available under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103.  Here are the links to access both proposals:

• First-Inventor-to-File Proposed Rules (77 Fed. Reg. 43742, July 26, 2012)
• First-Inventor-to-File Proposed Examination Guidelines (77 Fed. Reg. 43759, July 26, 2012)

Publication in the Federal Register of the first-inventor-to-file proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines opens a public comment period running until October 5, 2012.  I encourage you to submit your feedback to the agency about both proposals.  The agency values your input in helping to  properly implement the first-inventor-to-file provision and build a 21st century patent system.
The USPTO will discuss its first-inventor-to-file proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines at a series of upcoming cross-country roadshows to be held in September 2012.   The USPTO will visit Alexandria, Va.; Atlanta; Denver; Detroit; Houston; Los Angeles; Minneapolis; and New York City.  I invite you to attend a roadshow and have the opportunity to give direct feedback to agency officials about the first-inventor-to-file proposals.  More information about those roadshows, such as specific dates, venues, and program agenda, is available here:

Titan Medical Issued Patent For Snaking Robotic Arm

Orange County - As a company focused on design and development of robotic surgical technology, Titan Medical has established itself as a leader in the field of robotic medical devices. Toward that goal, Titan Medical announced this week that it has been issued a patent for a snaking robotic arm with moveable shapers.
Patent number 8,224,485 applies to technology that is designed to assist medical professionals with surgical procedures requiring complex, prolonged or sophisticated operations. Titan Medical created its newest technology to assist medical professionals with surgical procedures that might not be possible without the assistance of robotic devices or and those procedures that have a high degree of risk. According to the USPTO, the newly patented technology is a method and apparatus comprising one or more robotic members which are curvaceous or snake-like. The robotic members have movable shapers with articulable columns having successive joints formed of alternating ball and socket members. The shapers can be directed up and down the articulable column to create a radius of curvature in multiple directions.
The robotic member may also contain small mechanical shapers with embedded controllers. Once inserted into the work site, the articulating columns can be compressed, causing them to become rigid. Thus the device, with computerized remote control, can negotiate a path to access the site of a given operation as prescribed by a doctor through a specific computer program. The device would then retreat along the same path, without injury to the patent.
A representative for Titan indicated that its newest patent is an important addition to Titan's patent portfolio and it is proud of its contributions to the medical community. Additionally, its newest patent establishes Titan's place in surgical robotic techniques development for the future. Titan Medical has a number of other patents currently undergoing the registration process with the USPTO. However, it is clear that the devices created from the newly patented technology will do nothing but improve the quality of robotic surgical procedures. And as robotic procedures are expected to increase exponentially in the future, Titan Medical is primed and ready to step to the forefront of creative new robotic technology.

Apple Granted Patent Dubbed "The Mother of All Smartphone Patents"

Apple had a busy week recently with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in which it was issued a whopping 25 patents for various new inventions. Within the last several months, Apple has been on somewhat of a patent spree with filings for everything from hardware, to software, to accessories.
Some would argue that the most important of these newly granted patents is one that applies to a "portable electronic device, method and graphical user interface for displaying electronic lists and documents". In particular, patent number 8,223,134 covers the graphical interface that Apple designed for use with telephones, email, cameras, video players, calendars and numerous other multi-touch applications. Filed in March 2012, experts are calling the patent extremely important and have dubbed it "the mother of all smartphone software patents". Additionally, Apple's newest smartphone patent is expected to provide significant competition for its main adversary Google Android.
In the years since the smartphone burst into the cell phone market, mobile phone technology has increased at such a rapid rate that consumers can hardly keep up. But savvy smartphone users have likely noticed a variety of similarities between the top products.
Before iPhone hit the market, smartphones used actual physical buttons and keys that had to be pushed to direct actions. However, the iPhone ushered in a period of new technology that advanced multi-touch graphical user interfaces that are a trademark of the iPhone today. Smartphone manufacturers have not hesitated to copy that design to the extent possible with new products in the marketplace today. Historically, Apple has taken drastic steps to protect its intellectual property, including extensive patent applications and numerous patent infringement lawsuits. Undoubtedly, the newest patent granted to Apple will play a part in ongoing litigation with companies such as Samsung, Motorola and HTC, who have chosen to battle it out in court with Apple over patent infringement.

EU Ban Granted To Apple in Patent Case Against Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7

After a protracted legal battle, Apple announced this week that it has secured an injunction in a German Court against Samsung to prevent further distribution of its Galaxy Tab 7.7. Much to the delight of Apple, the result of the injunction is a ban on all sales of its competitor's tablet in the European Union. The German Court rejected Samsung's argument that the ban should only be applicable to German markets, and not the entire European Union. In anticipation of the wide reach of the ban, products have already been pulled from stores in Germany.

According to reports, the German court determined that Apple's South Korean competitor copied its 2004 product designs. However, regardless of the final outcome of the EU patent infringement action, all is not lost for Samsung. German courts neglected to direct a full ban on sales of the redesigned Galaxy Tab 10 and allowed it to continue being sold in Germany. A redesigned tablet case likely saved the latest version of the product from also being banned.
Despite this recent ruling, Samsung continues to insist that its product, the Galaxy 10, does not infringe on Apple's patents or violate laws of unfair competition. Apple's most significant competitor argues that innovation and progress in the industry will be severely restricted if Apple is continually allowed to win legal claims based what it considers generic design patents. It is also important to note that Samsung recently won a similar case in the United Kingdom. Unlike the courts in Germany, the UK courts ruled that the Galaxy Tab 7.7 did not infringe on Apple's patents. To the surprise of many who were watching the case, the judge stated in his decision that Samsung could not have copied the Apple patents because the Samsung products were "not as cool" as the iPad. In the ruling, Apple was also ordered to publicly state on its website that Samsung was not guilty of infringing on its patents.
Meanwhile, back in the United States, Samsung and Apple continue to battle over intellectual property. Preliminary injunctions against the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and Galaxy Nexus are currently pending. Both parties eagerly await the outcome of upcoming rulings, as they will likely dictate the degree of success each will have in the very hot tablet marketplace in the upcoming months.

US doublespeak on patent waiver bared

NEW DELHI: The United States, which is crying foul over a patent waiver for a cancer drug in India, has itself resorted to similar steps to "reduce disruptions" in supply of two medicines - and that too through an executive order. In addition, the order's mandate may not be limited to these drugs alone but could extend to several others.
While the government has decided to take up the issue with the US through diplomatic channels, officials said India - which has for the first time invoked the compulsory licensing provisions by allowing Natco Pharma to sell a generic version of Bayer's cancer treatment drug Nexavar - has followed a judicial process that is open to further review.
According to documents accessed by TOI, following US president's Barack Obama's executive order, the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has allowed temporary import of Lipodox, a chemotherapeutic drug as a replacement for ovarian cancer medicine Doxil.
"Temporary importation of unapproved foreign drugs is considered in rare cases when there is a shortage of an approved drug that is critical to patients and the shortage cannot be resolved in a timely fashion with FDA-approved drugs," the FDA said in a statement, while allowing a limited arrangement with Sun Pharma Global.
Similarly, in case of methotrexate, used in the treatment of many forms of cancer, the US agency said it is working with several firms, including Mylan and Sandoz Pharma. In his executive order on "reducing prescription drug shortages", Obama said that in 2010 and 2011, steps initiated by FDA had prevented 137 drug shortages.
"This is a compulsory licence. But the difference is that our system is justiciable and there is a process. In case of the US, even the patent right-holder will wake up one morning and discover that the patent had been revoked," said D G Shah, secretary general of Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance.
Indian officials, who are upset with the recent US criticism of India's move on the compulsory licence, agree with Shah. They pointed out that the local law requires Indian companies to first negotiate with the patent-holder. If these talks fail, they can approach the patent controller for revoking the patent rights. The controller can only decide on the issue after hearing both parties and even this decision can be challenged first in an appellate tribunal before it goes to the Supreme Court.
In case of Nexavar, Bayer has challenged the decision in the tribunal, which this week issued notices to the government, the patent controller and Natco, which has been permitted to sell 120 tablets of the liver and kidney cancer medicine for Rs 8,880 against Rs 2.84 lakh charged by Bayer.
The licence is valid till the patent's expiry in 2021.
Recently, in her deposition to a US House Committee, US Patent and Trademark Office Deputy Director Teresa Stanek Rea had said that she was "dismayed and surprised" when India decided to grant compulsory licences for a reason that "didn't meet international standards and was not due to national crises".
"We have someone on the ground in the embassy in Delhi who constantly engages with all of the respective officers in India to discuss with them the importance of not granting CL in a situation where it is not wanted. Unfortunately, our education efforts on that issue have not yet been successful. The CL was granted by commissioner (P H) Kurian on the very last day of his leaving (the Indian patent) office," she added.

Apple patent puts iPhone at centre of house control

A new patent filed by Apple puts the iPhone at the centre of a user’s household, with the ability to control other types of electronics including sprinklers and garage doors.
The patent application, discovered by the Patently Apple blog, showcases how the iPhone would be able to control other gadgets using NFC capabilities.
The service would see the iPhone be able to “control standalone cameras, projectors, in-home security systems, lawn sprinkler systems, your thermostat, garage door and more”.
The patent also contains information about the Apple TV, and how the iPhone could control cable or satellite television programming.

Kodak, Apple patent fight to remain in bankruptcy court

NEW YORK: Apple Inc lost on Thursday a bid to transfer its patent dispute with Eastman Kodak Co out of bankruptcy court, a move that could have complicated the photography company's plan to sell the technology.

US District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan quashed Apple's bid to have him take up the patent dispute instead of the bankruptcy judge to whom the lawsuit was assigned.

In a lawsuit last month in US bankruptcy court in Manhattan, Kodak said Apple, the largest US company by market value, wrongly claimed to own 10 patents arising from work that the companies did together in the early 1990s.

Privately held FlashPoint Technology Inc also claimed ownership through an assignment from Apple, which spun it off in 1996, and is also a defendant, Kodak said.

The patents include technology that helps camera owners preview photographs on LCD screens.

They are part of Kodak's digital-capture portfolio, which the company said includes more than 700 patents for devices such as digital cameras, smartphones and tablets, and has generated more than $3 billion in revenues since 2001.

In the case before bankruptcy judge Allan Gropper, Kodak has argued that Apple's claims to the patents are time-barred and are designed to cloud an expected auction of the patents in early August. Gropper has yet to rule on the matter.

"These issues are teed up before judge Gropper," Kodak lawyer Brian Glueckstein said at Thursday's hearing. "The claims were barred years ago."

District Judge George Daniels, at the end of Thursday's day-long hearing, said he agreed with Kodak that the dispute should remain in bankruptcy court, at least until the judge there rules on some of the key issues.

Gropper should have "an opportunity to render a decision on the motion and to have an opportunity to control and move forward the process," Daniels ruled.

Apple lawyer Gregory Arovas argued that the dispute involves substantive patent law, which would be best addressed by a federal district judge and required "mandatory withdrawal to district court."

Kodak owns about 10,700 patents overall and has hired Lazard to help market the digital-capture portfolio and a digital-imaging portfolio, which includes more than 400 patents. It said more than 20 possible buyers have signed confidentiality agreements.

Patent sales are needed under terms of a $950 million loan that Kodak obtained to keep operating while in bankruptcy.

Rochester, New York-based Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on Jan. 19.

Apple is based in Cupertino, California, and FlashPoint is headquartered in Peterborough, New Hampshire.

The cases are Eastman Kodak Co v. Apple Inc et al, US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-ap-01720 and Eastman Kodak Co v. Apple Inc et al, US District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 12-cv-4881.

WIPO Still On Course For Instruments On Copyright Exceptions, Broadcasting

The World Intellectual Property Organization late last night reached agreement on a timeline for completing treaties – or instruments – on a range of copyright exceptions, including the possibility of a high-level negotiation for visually impaired and blind readers in 2013.
“We consider this as a very important moment in the history of WIPO,” the Brazilian delegate said in closing remarks, referring particularly to the action on visually impaired. “The organisation is moving in the right way to create an enabling environment … and providing equality of rights.”
Chile, which initiated the discussions on limitations and exceptions at WIPO several years ago, echoed this view.
The 24th WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) met from 16-25 July.
The meeting addressed emerging instruments on broadcasters’ rights, and exceptions for visually impaired persons, libraries and archives, and educational and research institutions.
The conclusions document from the meeting shows the timelines of the different topics over the next biennium. The conclusions document is available here [pdf].
On the visually impaired, it was agreed to hold an inter-sessional meeting after the 1-9 October annual WIPO General Assembly and before the next SCCR, which will be held from 19-23 November.
In December, an extraordinary General Assembly will be held to decide whether the visually impaired issue is ready to move to a diplomatic conference (a high-level negotiation) in 2013.
It was not agreed whether the outcome of the visually impaired negotiations is intended to be a treaty or something softer, like recommendations or a declaration.
On broadcasting, work will now proceed on a single text with the aim of deciding on a diplomatic conference in 2014.
An agenda item was added to the SCCR to assess implementation of the Development Agenda.
Progress was also made in the other areas of limitations and exceptions.
India called the outcome a “great achievement” in the “spirit of Beijing,” referring to last month’s agreement on the Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances.
“We have preserved equal treatment” of the different subjects, a member of the African Group said afterward. The agreement “recognises the levels of maturity” of the instruments. Africa has consistently sought to advance all exceptions and limitations
Developed countries did not offer closing remarks in plenary, and declined to speak to reporters afterward.
The meeting chair, noting the late hour, said in closing, “It was hard work to reach some convergence.”

Motorola Seeks New Licensing Deal With Microsoft

An executive at Google Inc.'s GOOG +0.07% Motorola Mobility unit said it is trying to propose new patent licensing terms for Microsoft Corp., MSFT -1.10% as the cellphone maker remains locked in legal battles with both the software giant and Silicon Valley gadget maker Apple Inc. AAPL -4.51%
While more than 50 companies have worked out licensing agreements with the firm over its intellectual property, Motorola Vice President of Intellectual Property Kirk Dailey said Microsoft and Apple "are outliers, in that they don't want to pay" for licenses.
Both "need to show that they're willing to be reasonable," Mr. Dailey said, adding, "Motorola spent tens of billions of dollars inventing these technologies, and effectively invented the cellphone industry."
Motorola, which was recently acquired by Mountain View, Calif., Internet search giant Google, has been waging legal battles with Apple and Microsoft over Motorola's so-called standards-essential patents, which are important for the broader wireless industry and are generally offered by Motorola at a 2.25% royalty rate.
Mr. Dailey said Motorola has sought to tailor a more palatable royalty rate for Microsoft, by offering the software giant a rate of 50 cents per product built on Microsoft's Windows operating system software, and 33 cents per smartphone using Microsoft's ActiveSync technology.
But Microsoft deputy general counsel for intellectual property Horacio Gutierrez said in a statement that the new proposed licensing rates are still exorbitant.
"While we welcome any good faith settlement effort, it's hard to apply that label to a demand that Microsoft pay royalties to Google far in excess of market rates, that refuses to license all the Microsoft patents infringed by Motorola, and that is promptly leaked to the press," he said.
Mr. Gutierrez added that Motorola's efforts come at a time when regulators including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission are starting to pay close attention to antitrust issues associated with the licensing of standards-essential patents, and appear "to be little more than an effort to change the subject."
A spokeswoman for Apple, of Cupertino, Calif., declined to comment.
While Microsoft, Redmond, Wash., and Apple have long respective histories in the personal computer industry, they are each seeking out more territory in the wireless business as computers and mobile devices merge.
Apple CEO Tim Cook recently said during a recent appearance at a technology conference that efforts by companies to win injunctions using their standards-essential patents in lawsuits amount to an abuse of intellectual property, and are "fundamentally wrong."
Mr. Dailey said injunctions are "an extreme remedy," but sometimes necessary to pursue when licensing negotiations bog down.

Apple and Samsung Patent Suit Puts Judge Posner's Worldview on Trial

While technology companies continue to fight over smartphone patents, one judge has fought his way into the ring.
He is 73-year-old Richard Posner, among the most potent forces on the federal bench and an outspoken critic of the patent system.
Presiding over a lawsuit between Apple Inc. AAPL -4.51% and Google Inc.'s GOOG +0.07% Motorola Mobility in June, he dropped a bombshell, scrapping the entire case and preventing the companies from refiling their claims. The ruling startled the litigants in the case and fueled a national discussion about whether the patent system is broken.
Now, Judge Posner's sharply worded views are getting a fresh test. Judge Lucy H. Koh, who is overseeing Apple's suit against Samsung Electronics Co., SSNHY 0.00% went the other direction ina recent ruling. She granted Apple a preliminary injunction that stopped U.S. sales of some Samsung products.
Her trial will be closely watched to see if Judge Posner's skeptical view of patent suits further takes hold.
The California trial, like that overseen by Judge Posner's, involves claims from each company that the other was infringing patents for mobile phone technology, some of it very arcane.
But Judge Posner boiled it down to a straightforward conclusion. In his opinion, he said the companies failed to marshal plausible experts and theories to calculate damages for alleged infringement, and in any event, companies shouldn't be able to win injunctions on patents involving technologies that have become part of an industry standard.
His harshest words perhaps were for Apple's claims that Motorola should pay it significant sums or should be banned from selling certain smartphones. "The notion that…minor-seeming infringements have cost Apple market share and consumer good will is implausible [and] has virtually no support in the record," he wrote.
Judge Posner's role in the patent wars came via a seemingly innocuous scheduling maneuver in November. The judge, who normally sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, decided to take a stint in a lower court so he could preside over the Apple-Google lawsuit.
Judge Posner is one of the founders of a school of thought that says that legal problems are often best understood when seen through the lens of economics. In this case, he questioned whether using the federal court and its resources to handle these types of disputes was economically efficient. That notion is woven throughout the opinion.
"He's the grandfather of the law and economics movement, and people pay close attention to what he says," said Brian J. Love, a patent expert and law professor at Santa Clara University.
In the June ruling, explaining why he wouldn't ban Motorola products from the shelves, Judge Posner said: "An injunction that imposes greater costs on the defendant than it confers benefits on the plaintiff reduces net social welfare."
Judge Posner, who declined to be interviewed for this article, has continued to press the issue.
This month, he wrote an essay in the Atlantic headlined, "Why There Are Too Many Patents In America." He said "most industries could get along fine without patent protection" and that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has done a woeful job, calling it "understaffed," and "many patent examinations…perfunctory."
He saved ammunition for juries and fellow jurists. "Judges have difficulty understanding modern technology and jurors have even greater difficulty," he wrote. He suggested several reforms to the patent system, including shortening the patent term for inventors in some industries and expanding the authority of the Patent and Trademark Office to try patents cases.
"Empowering software innovators with IP rights fuels exports and creates U.S. jobs," said David Kappos, undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office. Mr. Kappos said his office has already taken steps to better measure patent quality, strengthen examiner guidelines, and allow more time for application examinations.
In regard to his taking over the case of Apple and Google, another judge might not have gotten away with such a brazen maneuver, but Judge Posner, a prolific writer and blogger, who also teaches at the University of Chicago Law School, commands a respect and influence surpassed on the federal judiciary only by the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. He normally sits on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, but he took a shift in Chicago's federal trial court so he could handle the case.
Judge Posner's intellectual curiosity is well-known and "people assume he has no political ax to grind because he's not trying to advance the fortunes of any particular segment of the economy," said Arthur D. Hellman, a law professor at University of Pittsburgh who studies the judiciary.
Yet his ruling poses a difficult question for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the specialized one that handles intellectual property cases, about whether infringement matters without damages.
Peter Menell, a law professor at UC Berkeley, likened it to the old thought experiment that begins "If a tree falls in the woods." He said: "If there are no damages, do you need to have a trial?"
Juge Posner also rejected Google's bid to block the sale of iPhones that allegedly infringed a so-called "standards-essential patent" owned by Google. Standards-essential patents protect innovations used in technologies that industries collectively agree to use, like Wi-Fi or 3G. A company that holds one of these patents stands to profit enormously, because its competitors have to pay it for licenses to use the technology.
But Judge Posner ruled that holders of such patents aren't entitled to injunctions. Michael Carrier, a law professor at Rutgers University, Camden, said the opinion on standards-essential patents came amid a groundswell of opposition to injunctions for such patents and could put an end to the practice among U.S. federal judges.

Kodak Loses Patent Case Against Apple, RIM

Eastman Kodak has lost an appeal of a patent dispute over digital image preview technology with Apple and Research In Motion, which could set back the onetime photography giant's efforts to raise money in bankruptcy by selling patents. The US International Trade Commission on Friday upheld a May 21 ruling by Judge Thomas Pender of that agency that neither Apple nor RIM had violated Kodak's rights in the so-called '218 patent, which covers how digital cameras preview images.

"The investigation is thus terminated," the agency said.
Kodak has been hoping to recover $1 billion, and said on Sunday it plans an appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC.
"The validity of the '218 patent has been upheld in previous litigation at the ITC and was affirmed by the US Patent and Trade Office in the face of two separate challenges," it said. "We are confident that its validity will ultimately be upheld."
Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection from creditors on January 19. Patent litigation has in recent years been a major part of the Rochester, New York-based company's strategy to generate revenue.
Apple's products include the iPhone, while RIM makes the BlackBerry.
Last month, Kodak won bankruptcy court permission to sell more than 1,100 digital imaging patents, roughly one-tenth of its patent portfolio, to help repay creditors as it shifts its business focus toward printing.
These patents are part of Kodak's digital-capture portfolio for devices such as digital cameras, smartphones and tablets. That portfolio has generated more than $3 billion in revenue since 2001.
Kodak has said it expects to hold the auction early next month.
Shares of Kodak closed Friday at 26 cents on the Pink Sheets.
The ITC case is In re: Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Digital Cameras, and Components Thereof, US International Trade Commission, No. 337-TA-703. The bankruptcy case is In re: Eastman Kodak et al, US Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-10202.

USPTO Chooses Locations of Future Satellite Offices

Final Satellite Locations Selected

Yesterday, the USPTO announced the final locations of the satellite offices it is required to open by September 14, 2014. In addition to the Detroit office opening this month (July 13, 2012), the USPTO will maintain three regional offices in Denver, Dallas and Silicon Valley.
In yesterday’s announcement (here) the USPTO noted that:

The USPTO is working to develop concept of operations for the three newly-announced locations based on the Elijah J. McCoy Detroit Office and will develop best practices based on this model over the coming months and years. The Detroit office will employ approximately 120 individuals in its first year of operations. The USPTO also seeks to identify and maximize the unique regional strengths of all four offices to further reduce the backlog of patent applications and appeals.

One would expect the Detroit office to focus on automotive technologies and Silicon Valley on computer related technologies. Dallas and Denver appear to have been selected based upon geographical and/or economic considerations. It remains to be seen exactly how the regional offices will serve the Agency and be integrated with the existing infrastructure.

USPTO Issues Final Rules on Pre-Grant Information Submissions by Third Parties

USPTO Issues Final Rules on Pre-Issuance Submissions

Yesterday the USPTO issued the Final Rules for implementing the new pre-issuance submission component of the America Invents Act, entitled: Changes To Implement the Preissuance Submissions by Third Parties Provision of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (here). The new pre-issuance provisions will take effect on September 16, 2012 and apply to all applications filed before, on, or after that date.
Minor changes were made to the formal requirements for these submissions as originally proposed, however, the substance of the proposed provisions was not altered in any significant regard with the exception of the applicability to reissue applications. Pre-issuance submissions will not apply to reissue applications as the USPTO has taken the position that patent reissue is a post-issuance proceeding (the same holds true for patent reexamination). Instead, the Protest provisions (37 C.F.R. § 1.291) will provide a similar mechanism for patent reissue.
The timing of the submission must comply with the following conditions:
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(e), preissuance submissions of patents, published patent applications, or other printed publications must be made in patent applications before the earlier of: (a) The date a notice of allowance under 35 U.S.C. 151 is given or mailed in the application; or (b) the later of (i) six months after the date on which the application is first published under 35 U.S.C. 122 by the Office, or (ii) the date of the first rejection under 35 U.S.C. 132 of any claim by the examiner during the examination of the application.
In order to file a submission, a third party may submit either a paper filing, or employ a new interface of the EFS-web system, but must:

A

preissuance submission must be timely

filed, in writing, and contain: (1) A list

identifying the items being submitted;

(2) a concise description of the

relevance of each item listed; (3) a

legible copy of each non-U.S. patent

document listed; (4) an English language

translation of any non-English language

item listed; (5) a statement by the party

making the submission that the

submission complies with the statute

and the rule; and (6) the required fee.

Timely file in writing:

(1) A list identifying the items being submitted;

(2) a concise description of the relevance of each item listed;

(3) a legible copy of each non-U.S. patent document listed;

(4) an English language translation of any non-English language item listed;

(5) a statement by the party making the submission that the submission complies with the statute and the rule; and

(6) the required fee.

(note a different mechanism applies to PCT filings (here)) While a more robust option than previously available, it remains to be seen whether or not pre-issuance submissions will be embraced by the public. Simply stated, information is likely to be given inconsistent treatment across art units and individual examiners. For important matters, this practice will likely be disfavored along the same lines as ex parte patent reexamination. That is to say, procedures which do not permit further third party commentary generally do not produce acceptable results for patent (or in this case, application) challengers

Facebook Founder Receives Patent on His First Application

One week ago Mark Zuckerberg, the famed founder of Facebook.com, received U.S. Patent No. 8,225,376 titled “Dynamically generating a privacy summary.”  The patent relates to a system and method that automatically generates a privacy summary.  In the method according to one particular implementation of the invention, a profile for a user is generated, one or more privacy setting selections are received from the user, and the profile associated with the user is updated to incorporate the privacy setting selections. A privacy summary is then generated for the profile based on the privacy setting selections.
Although this is not the first patent awarded to Zuckerberg, who now has 10 issued U.S. patents, this patent is noteworthy because it relates to the the first patent application filed by Zuckerberg, which was filed almost six years ago, on July 25, 2006.  According to the Issue Notification, the patent is entitled to Patent Term Adjustment of 1258 days.

ALJ Bullock Grants Motion To Declare Waiver Of Privilege By Non-Party In Certain Wiper Blades (337-TA-816)

On July 24, 2012, Chief ALJ Charles E. Bullock issued the public version of Order No. 32 (dated July 12, 2012) in Certain Wiper Blades (Inv. No. 337-TA-816).  In the Order, ALJ Bullock granted Complainant Robert Bosch LLC’s (“Bosch”) motion to declare that non-party Trico Products, Inc. (“Trico”) had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection with respect to certain documents that Trico had produced in the investigation.
According to the Order, Bosch sought a declaration that Trico had waived attorney-client privilege and work-product protection with respect to eight documents.  Bosch noted that Trico had produced these documents on February 15, 2012, and had also produced the documents in two district court cases.  Bosch further stated that it was not until the deposition of Trico’s corporate designee on March 13, 2012 that Trico’s counsel recalled two of the documents.  Bosch further stated that Trico had then waited until May 11, 2012 to send a letter in which it attempted to recall, inter alia, the remaining documents at issue.  Bosch therefore argued that (1) Trico had demonstrated a lack of care that was inconsistent with the type of inadvertence that the Commission has excused in the past; (2) Trico had not taken reasonable steps to prevent its error because it had produced the documents on three separate occasions and had not submitted a privilege log; and (3) Trico had failed to promptly rectify the error because it had waited a significant period of time before notifying the parties of its intention to claw back any documents.
Trico opposed the motion, arguing that its production of the documents had been inadvertent in part because its production was “subsequent to a review of the pre-production set.”  Trico further argued that it had made reasonable efforts to prevent the disclosure of the privileged documents.  Additionally, Trico argued that it had taken reasonable steps to rectify its error by recalling two documents during the deposition of its corporate designee, re-reviewing the documents it had produced, and circulating a letter to counsel detailing a complete list of the documents it intended to recall.
The Commission Investigative Staff (“OUII”) supported Bosch’s motion.  OUII argued that Trico had not sufficiently explained the precautions it took to prevent disclosure or whether it had promptly taken reasonable steps to rectify its error.  Accordingly, OUII concluded that under the framework of Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b) or general equitable considerations, Trico had not demonstrated that it was entitled to claim privilege as to the documents at issue.
After considering the arguments, ALJ Bullock determined to grant Bosch’s motion.  The ALJ noted that while the Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding at the ITC, it was proper to look to those rules for guidance on evidentiary issues.  He then found that under the standard articulated in Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b), Trico had failed to establish that it had taken reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.  In particular, ALJ Bullock found that “[a] vague reference to reviewing documents for privilege, without an explanation of the methodology for review and production, is insufficient to satisfy a party’s burden of establishing that it took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure.”  Accordingly, the ALJ found that Trico had waived attorney-client privilege and/or work-product protection with respect to the eight documents at issue, and granted Bosch’s motion.

ALJ Essex Grants Motion To Terminate Investigation In Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices (337-TA-804)

On July 10, 2012, ALJ Theodore R. Essex issued Order No. 29 in Certain LED Photographic Lighting Devices and Components Thereof (Inv. No. 337-TA-804).
In the Order, ALJ Essex granted a joint motion filed by Complainants Litepanels, Inc. and Litepanels, Ltd. and Respondents Fuzhou F&V Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. (“F&V”) and Shantou Nanguang Photographic Equipment Co., Ltd. (“Nanguang”) to terminate the investigation based on entry of a consent order stipulation, finding that the consent order stipulation complies with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3), and that there is no evidence of record that terminating the investigation as to F&V and Nanguang would be contrary to the public interest.

Samsung disables Galaxy S3's Google 'local search function' following patent dispute with Apple

LONDON: South Korean mobile maker Samsung has disabled an advanced search function in its flagship Galaxy S3 smartphone, following a patent dispute with Apple.The software once installed in the phones disables them from searching contacts, apps and other on-device materials, using the software developed by Google.
According to The BBC, users were not informed that the update would disable the service, and this was reported in the Unites States also.
Apple claimed that the innovation infringes on its patent to a single search interface, which it uses in its iPhone's Siri app to collate results from a range of sources.

The firm has also managed to enforce a brief sales ban on another Samsung handset, the Galaxy Nexus, in the U.S. because of the patent, a dispute that will be considered in a Washington-based court on 20 August.

"Samsung may be doing this as a precautionary measure to prevent it having to pay damages on devices sold outside the US in case Apple prevails in the States and then pursues a similar suit elsewhere," Simon Clark, head of intellectual property at law firm Berwin Leighton Paisner was reported, as saying.

According to the report, in the law suit filed by Apple, the firm is seeking 2.5 billion dollars in lost profits and royalty fees but is offering a fraction of that amount, half a cent in damages for each handset it has sold that uses its rival's technologies, to settle Samsung's counter-suit.

However, Samsung responded with its own filing, alleging that Apple was trying "to stifle legitimate competition and limit consumer choice to maintain its historically exorbitant profits".

The case will be heard in a US court on Monday where a jury would settle the patent infringement suits filed by both companies against the other.

Patent Issued for O2Micro's Flyback DC/DC Converter Invention

GEORGE TOWN, Grand Cayman - O2Micro® International Limited, a global leader in the design, development and marketing of high-performance integrated circuits and solutions, today announced in a press release that it was issued 24 claims under United States patent number 8,213,193 for its circuits and methods for Flyback DC/DC Converter with Feedback Control invention.

The patented flyback converter includes a controller and transformer. It uses a Constant-Ripple-Current® control method and a patented feedback loop with no optical-coupled devices.
"This converter greatly reduces complexity and cost, while providing improved performance and efficiency,” remarked Dr. Alex Hartular, vice president, O2Micro.

Founded in April 1995, O2Micro develops and markets innovative power management and e-commerce components for the Computer, Consumer, Industrial, and Communications markets. Products include Intelligent Lighting, Battery Management, and Power Management.

Nokia completes acquisition of developers, technologies and intellectual property for imaging from Scalado

Acquisition aims to bring outstanding imaging experiences to Nokia Lumia smartphones

Espoo, Finland and Lund, Sweden: Nokia announced today that it has completed the acquisition of all technologies and intellectual property from Scalado AB, originally announced on June 14, 2012. As part of the transaction, approximately 50 world-class imaging specialists transferred to Nokia.

"We believe that this acquisition will strengthen Nokia's leading position in mobile imaging and provide us with a great opportunity to create even better imaging products and applications," said Jo Harlow, executive vice president, Smart Devices at Nokia. "We welcome the skilled and passionate professionals from Scalado to Nokia and are excited to have them work with the rest of our talented and dedicated imaging experts to bring world-class imaging solutions to our Nokia Lumia smartphones. The Nokia team is already responsible for many leading innovations in mobile imaging and, together with the experts from Scalado, we aim at astonishing the world with new, outstanding imaging experiences."

Lund has now become a key site for Nokia's imaging software for smartphones, in addition to Nokia's existing locations in Espoo and Tampere, Finland.

"We're excited to join Nokia at such an important time in its smartphone story," said Sami Niemi, co-founder of Scalado and now head of Capture & Relive, Smart Devices at Nokia. "The technologies and competences we've developed should help move from taking photos to capturing memories and emotions."

More information can be found on the Nokia Conversations blog.

About Nokia
Nokia is a global leader in mobile communications whose products have become an integral part of the lives of people around the world. Every day, more than 1.3 billion people use their Nokia to capture and share experiences, access information, find their way or simply to speak to one another. Nokia's technological and design innovations have made its brand one of the most recognized in the world. For more information, visit http://www.nokia.com/about-nokia