Patent Reform 2014: Via Executive Action - Patently-O

Here are some of the proposed executive actions from 2013 which I thought were interesting.

1) Making "real party in interest the new default," which would mitigate the problem of having shell corporations and legal maneuvering hide those who truly stand to gain by winning the case, will increase transparency in patent litigation and make trolls think twice before attempting a lawsuit.

2) Empowering downstream users, which means that "Main Street" and ordinary people won't be blamed or targeted in patent lawsuits, is a measure that will significantly reduce the effect that trolls have on regular people who use their products as instructed.

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/reform-executive-action.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XscWuM4cYkA

Syndicated Patent Acquisitions Corp. (SynPat)

SynPat is unique for an IP law firm, in that it's a combination of social consciousness and profit-oriented business. The business model is unique, as there's always an alignment of interest between participating groups, and only willful infringers of patents are attacked. The basics are outlined below.

1) SynPat recognizes a portfolio of dangerous patents and acquires them, say, from a university. Dangerous patents are those that trolls are likely to use to corner businesses.

2) In order to fund the purchase, SynPat gets a group of corporations together to front the costs.

3) Now that SynPat owns the patents, licenses are given to the participating corporations.

4) Then, SynPat sells licenses to other parties for an increased price.

5) Finally, willful infringers are sued, while SynPat provides a legitimate marketplace for licensing of dangerous patents.

The key here is that early participation is highly encouraged, and more importantly, participation guarantees a portion of SynPat's profits. For example, the university would get 1/3, the participating companies would get 1/3, and SynPat would get 1/3. In this way, a win-win-win situation is created. 

I think the perfect business model is one that contributes to society, preserves the business's integrity, and generates large profits. In SynPat, it seems like this exists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sngs3-Mmj4w

ITC Institutes Investigation (337-TA-905) Regarding Certain Wireless Devices, Including Mobile Phones And Tablets II - ITC Blog

Based on a claim filed by Pragmatus, Inc, the US International Trade Commission is instituting an investigation into mobile devices such as cell phones and tablets. Those currently being investigated are listed:

• Nokia Corp. (Nokia Oyj) of Finland
• Nokia, Inc. of Sunnyvale, California
• Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of South Korea
• Samsung Electronics America, Inc. of Ridgefield Park, New Jersey
• Samsung Telecommunications America, L.L.C. of Richardson, Texas
• Sony Corp. of Japan
• Sony Mobile Communications AB of Sweden
• Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc. of Atlanta, Georgia
• ZTE Corp. of China
• ZTE (USA) Inc. of Richardson, Texas

This is yet another patent litigation in the ongoing patent war, which demonstrates a powerful concept. In patent law, having a patent is a weapon against literally everyone; if I have a patent, I also have the right to exclude anyone else from using my idea. Pragmatus, Inc filed for damages for infringement of IP, and their claim was applicable to 10 different groups by default.

ITC Blog

http://www.itcblog.com/20140123/itc-institutes-investigation-337-ta-905-regarding-certain-wireless-devices-including-mobile-phones-and-tablets-ii/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vn_8Wyh93wM

PATENTLYO: Micro Entity Status: Who is Filing for Micro Entity Status?

Micro entity status is a concept designed to help less powerful parties stand a fair chance against bigger companies when acquiring patents. Skeptics might suspect that this rule somehow causes bigger companies to exploit the system; for example, a big company could create many small companies with micro entity status. However, this not the case. 82% of those filing micro entity status are ordinary individuals and groups. 1% are businesses and 17% are universities. So far, the regulations on micro entity status seem to be working well.

PATENTLYO

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/entity-status-filing.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbDpkEPLH-E

Are patents the next big commodity?

This post is a response to an article by FOSS Patents, "Samsung, Google lawyers to represent patent licensing firm in tomorrow's $2 billion Apple trial." IPCOM filed for $2 billion in damages in Germany, in litigation involving parties such as Nokia, HTC, Apple, Eriksson and PCom. Combined, they employ a multitude of high profile law firms.

The fact is, besides the situational differences in many IP cases, they share common attributes. One of those attributes is the fact that ideas seem to be the next big commodity; just like we chased gold, silk, and oil in the past, we're now chasing intellectual property. It's incredible that patents, mere pieces of paper, can cause so much legal and financial strife.

Having read a lot of content on patent litigation and the enormous ramifications that sometimes happen, I wanted to focus on what might be an underlying problem; we might be overestimating the worth of patents and enabling practices that seek to hinder progress rather than cause it.

FOSS Patents:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/samsung-google-lawyers-to-represent.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EozQSMpeWno

Medtronic v Mirowski - 2014

This post is a response to Patently-o's article below.

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/01/reverses-patentees-infringement.html

In a unanimous vote, the Supreme Court reversed a Federal judgment on IP litigation between Medtronic and Mirowski. The district court sided with Medtronic because Mirowski couldn't prove infringement. However, the Supreme Court disagreed on the following grounds:

"(1) the Patentee ordinarily bears the burden of proving infringement; (2) the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural; and (3) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of the claim."

I think that the concept of proof is powerful in IP litigation because it's what eventually decides who walks away with some sort of intellectual monopoly. Since the Supreme Court's vote was unanimous, it seems like the situation was handled in the right way at the right time. However, it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court only ever takes a small percentage of cases that they are requested, due to time constraints. For every case like this, there are many more that slip through the cracks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngHDaJiWjeQ

Why Google Bought Motorola in the First Place

The bullets below indicate Google's official statement of why they bought Motorola. 

• Google and Motorola Mobility together will accelerate innovation and choice in mobile computing. Consumers will get better phones at lower prices.
• Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio will help protect the Android ecosystem. Android, which is open-source software, is vital to competition in the mobile device space, ensuring hardware manufacturers, mobile phone carriers, applications developers and consumers all have choice.

The third and unstated point, however, is that Motorola Mobility's patents will not only protect the Android ecosystem but also be used to attack the iPhone. It seems like Google wants to stockpile as many patents as possible, so that its own technologies are defensible while competitors' technologies are open to litigation. For almost a decade, the patent war has become more and more hostile. 

Companies employ a no-holds-barred method to their IP litigation, even when their actions are morally questionable. An outstanding example is the frequency of IP litigation in The Eastern District of Texas. It's obvious that plaintiffs want easy judicial processes and an uneducated jury. Although this kind of strategy is morally questionable, prominent companies want to do everything possible to protect themselves and slow competition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVI4EO4SVM

Why Sell Motorola?

Recently, Google seemed to have made a huge mistake; they sold Motorola, which they bought for $12.5 billion, to Lenovo for $2.91 billion. What looks like a $9.5 billion negative, however, is a brilliant move by Google. Google sold Motorola without its patents, so they still own the IP value within Motorola. In essence, Google owns the brains while Lenovo controls production. 

The implications for the smartphone industry are enormous. In an age when IP is worth billions of dollars, Google retains a large body of patents with which to promote the Android system. For a competitor like Apple, Google's deal with Lenovo is an inconvenience; it's negligible that Motorola was sold, as long as Google maintains control of legislative ammunition in the form of patents. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iLKXnXb60

Smart Watches: The New Frontier of Patent Wars

When smartphones first came out, most of us didn't imagine the kind of impact it would have on our daily lives. In humanity's search for more portability and convenience, it seems like companies such as Apple and Samsung are looking towards wrist devices.

Sony has released the Smartwatch 2, Apple is rumored to have an iWatch, and Samsung has presented the Galaxy Gear. If consumers adopt these devices like they've adopted the smartphone, we could be experiencing a whole new front in the patent war. As powerful companies scramble for dominance in the world of mobile devices, patent litigation is inevitable.

The article below is from The Guardian, which addresses the issue of smart watches.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/16/samsung-apple-smartwatch-galaxy-gear-release

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7iLKXnXb60

Obama vs Patent Trolls

Just 7 years since the first iPhone and Android devices were released, it seems like we have a patent war that not only causes many judicial problems, but also warrants intervention by the President himself. Below is an article in The Guardian that discusses how President Obama is taking measures against those who collect patents just to use them as legal weapons.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jun/05/obama-patent-trolls

As intellectual property becomes more and more valuable, companies end up fighting over small details. For example, Apple took legal action against Samsung for using a rounded rectangular shape for smartphones. Although many design and technology elements may look trivial on the surface, they can be grounds for intense litigation.

Obama's propositions seek to encourage patent litigation only when the cause is really worth fighting for.  Among other points,  he calls for full disclosure of those who stand to gain from litigation and awarding of legal costs to the winners.

As we move towards a more modern society, in which intellectual property is worth millions and billions of dollars, I think it's necessary to take measures to prevent patent trolling. Those who use patents as weapons of litigation are not only harming legitimate companies, but stalling the progress of science and technology in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKVI4EO4SVM