Social Media and Learning

The most innovative aspect about IEOR 190G is that all the assignments are completed through social media platforms. These weekly blogposts and YouTube videos have definitely shaped a quite unconventional learning experience for me, as I am used to submitting work on paper to the professor alone and not publicizing my learning to rest of the world. With that said, I am very glad that I got to be apart of this unique experience because I was able to gain a lot from writing blogs, making videos and commenting on other student's works.

First of all, I think writing blogs is a great way to consolidate personal learning because it promotes reflection and story telling in one's own words. Doing the weekly blogs required that I do outside research to find articles that connected with what we learned in class. This was an excellent way for me to not only stay on top current events in technology but also apply what I have learned in a classroom setting to analyze real life situations. Though it was difficult at times trying to understand some articles that were heavy in engineering and legal jargons before I could proceed to do a blogpost on it. But overall, I think blogging is a great way to make sense of the material we discussed in class and hone our skills in analyzing new information and forming our own personal opinion on it.

Now, moving onto the YouTube clips, I must admit that I was struggling a little bit with making these videos in the beginning because I always have a hard time not stuttering or losing my train of thought when I talk in front of a camera. But with more practice, I have gotten much more comfortable with organizing my thoughts into several short speaking points that are easy to understand and presenting my blogpost verbally. I think making these videos is a great way in not only improving my speaking skills, but also educating others. Having been an avid user of social media learning sites such as Khan Academy, I know how much I personally enjoy learning about the gist of a complex topic through watching a to-the-point video rather than reading a long paper - it not only saves time but also is a much more interactive experience. With my collection of YouTube videos published online, I can probably also help someone else out there who are trying to better understand topics related to patents.

Regarding the comments, I think reading other people's blogs and watching their videos were a great way for me to expand my knowledge and improve my own work. I have definitely read some highly informative and well written blogs from my fellow classmates, and I have to say those were very productive and enjoyable learning moments for me. At the same time, when I came across writing or speaking styles that stood out to me, I would also adopt them to use in my own work and I think that is also one thing Professor Lavian wanted us to take away, as he always stressed that he wanted us to copy others. Reading other people's work was definitely a good way to form a learning community and diversify my understanding of the material covered in class.

IEOR 190G - Wrap up

As IEOR 190G comes to a close, I would like to use this post to reflect on my major take-aways from this class. First of all, I would like to point out that this is the first IEOR/technology-related course I have ever taken at Cal, and I have to say that it gave me a good glimpse into the technology space by enabling me to have a better understanding of the realms of patents and intellectual property as a whole.

The course does a thorough job going over what a patent is, different filing methods, specific terminologies used in patent applications, patentability determination along with a number of case studies. Since the first step any inventor will take on when he/she wants to patent an invention is filing an application, I found the lectures on breaking down a patent application and paraphrasing each of the claims down to the elements to be most helpful and practical. This class included a clear run down of the various components to a patent application. It also emphasized on the importance of using the proper and accurate wording describe the invention, as a misdescription can greatly hinder the value of an invention. Though I find it quite ironic how all claims are written in a very convoluted fashion that most people have a hard time understanding. The last part of the course discusses the factors that go into determining the patentability of an invention, and these eligibility-determination procedures are very important for potential inventors to keep in mind. Last but not least, the case studies and guest lectures we had were also excellent learning experiences that brought in new perspectives.

One remark Professor Lavian made that surprised me was the fact that most engineers file on average 0 patent in their life time - in fact, 99% of all patents filed within most big tech companies come from merely 1% of inventors. This is very shocking to me since patents are highly valuable assets to companies, as seen in the hefty price tags linked to the Google and Motorola transactions, and I would assume that most inventors would have developed the habit to file them in a timely manner, not only to benefit their companies but also increase their self-worth in the workplace. Yet from these patent-filing statistics, it is clear that the majority of inventors are not aware of the importance of filing a patent, and this could simply be due to the fact that they have never been informed of how to file a patent or even what makes an invention patentable. This is why I think this class is very useful because it allows us to understand the importance of protecting intellectual property and provides us with highly pragmatic and applicable knowledge. Patents are extremely important to companies, so are the patent filers. With this class, we are now equipped with essential patent knowledge and a responsive mindset that allow us to take action when patent-filing opportunities arise. I definitely recommend this class to students from all disciplines who are interested in technology or just IP in general because the knowledge you take away from this course can allow you to set yourself apart from your fellow colleagues in your career and be highly beneficial in the long run.

Silly Patents - Flying Bike

Claim 1:
1. The method of travel using a lifting airfoil inflated with buoyancy gas, a wheeled vehicle to be propelled by pedaling, and a propeller, that includes the steps
i) pedaling to wheel drive the vehicle to gain speed,
ii) then pedaling to propeller drive the vehicle to gain further speed,
iii) then operating the airfoil to lift the vehicle, while continuing pedaling to propeller drive the lifted air-borne vehicle, in a travel direction,
vi) said airfoil provided with tethering of an aft portion of the airfoil to an aft portion of the vehicle,
etc...

Yup, what we have been waiting for is finally here - the flying bike, aka the most ideal mode of transportation as traffic just keeps getting worse nowadays. This invention has two parts to it - first is a bicycle that seems to have a children's car seat and a fan mounted to the rear, then it is being pulled into midair by a giant inflatable "wing" that is comprised of two parallel tubes connected by a long rectangular piece. That is not even the best part, the inventor suggests mounting a rocket on the machine for when you get tired of pedaling. Well, time to buckle up. It is going to be a wild ride.

Prior Art? Nothing even comes close to how elaborate this design is. As far as I know, I don't think there exists any prior art similar to this invention.
Novel? Definitely. Flying bicycles? Who would have guessed.
Useful? An investment for those who are tired of getting stuck in traffic for hours. With this flying device, your experience on the road (in the sky) is about to be transformed and go to a whole another level. So yes, lifesaver for those who are tired of wasting years of their life being stuck in traffic.
Obvious? In my opinion, the concept is not anything too complex to come up with - it is pretty much just attaching a giant hot air balloon to a bicycle to lift it off the ground. But it is not very obvious to come up with the specifications of the design, as nothing quite like this has existed before.

Source:http://www.google.com/patents/US6688553

Silly Patent - Animal Ear Protectors

Claim 1:
A device for protecting animal ears comprising:
a pair of generally tubular protectors each of which is formed of a sheet of self-biasing material which in their free state tend to form themselves into said generally tubular protectors;
each of said protectors being longitudinally openable to allow easy insertion of one of said animal ears; and positioning means for flexibly joining one end of one protector in spaced apart relationship with one end of the other protector and for securing said device to the head of said animal such that the longitudinal axis of each protector and a portion of each ear of said animal, are held generally horizontally and approximately perpendicularly to the head of said animal whereby the ends of said animal ears are separated by a distance greater than the width of the head of said animal.

Essentially, this is a hair tie for dogs.. it is a pair of protectors made out of highly morphable material that is designed for dogs' ears so that when dogs put their heads into their eating bowls, the protectors are able to pull the hair back and their ears can stay nice and free of food. This product is especially recommended for owners of long-haired breeds such as poodles, for which the feeding process can get slightly messy and sticky. But ouch, it looks quite painful to have them on..

Prior art? Perhaps hair ties for humans? Though it is a little bit of a stretch since the material and shape used in normal hair ties are pretty different from this one.
Novel? Sure. Don't think I have ever come across such a thing for pets.
Useful? Could come in hand for pet owners who find dogs getting their ears dirty from eating a problem - it does seem like it can do a good job of keeping the ears immaculate after a meal. Otherwise, it is quite useless.
Obvious? I would say it is not that obvious to think of an invention like this, except maybe for dog owners who have actually experienced this problem. I guess for those who have dealt with this problem before, it shouldn't be too difficult to think of this solution, though it is rather strange to use a concept originally designed for humans on pets.

Source: http://www.google.com/patents/US4233942

Silly Patents - Santa Claus Detector (Extra Credit)

Claim 1:
A children's novelty device for detecting when an entity enters a dwelling comprising:
a decorative Christmas stocking having a top portion, a heel portion and a toe portion, said toe portion including an enclosure therein;
an electrical control circuit;
a light source operatively coupled to said control circuit;
a power source operatively coupled to said control circuit for providing power to said light source, said power source being disposed in said toe portion enclosure;
switch means operatively coupled to said control circuit for controlling the power provided by said power source to said light source; and
a flexible pull cord, said pull cord being connected to said switch means for actuating said switch means when a force is exerted on said pull cord,
whereby, when said pull cord is tugged, said light source is turned on.

If you are like me, who still refuses to believe that Santa isn't real, well, I think I have found something that could work in our defense. This invention right here is a stocking with a built-in light source that shoots out a light beam whenever Santa fills it up with presents/the hoop attached to the toe is pulled (shown in picture). Essentially, it is able to prove Santa's existence and great for establishing a healthy and interactive relationship between Santa and his believers. So next time someone tells you they don't believe in Santa, you know what to get them for Christmas.

Prior Art? Most likely nothing similar. Maybe a stocking with a built-in power source that lights up in the dark when being pulled/touched, if there is such a thing?
Novel? I have not really seen anything like this so will have to give the inventor credits for coming up with this.
Useful? Great for proving that Santa is real on top of all the gifts he brings, and personally, I would buy this for my kids.
Obvious? Well, the concept of using a light source to indicate the arrival of someone/someone when a detector is set off (pulling the hoop in this case) is nothing new. Many things respond to external triggers by lighting up, such as sound reactive lights or touch-sensitive lamps. But using a light source on a stocking for the sole purpose of detecting Santa is rather quite non-obvious in my opinion.

Source: http://www.delphion.com/details?pn=US05523741__

Silly Patents - Toe Puppet (Extra Credit)

Claim 1:
A puppet adapted to be mounted on a human digit for providing animated motion of a figurine responsive to movement of the human digit, the puppet comprising: a hollow, elastic cap having an interior wall defining an axially-extending cavity for snugly receiving said human digit; and a resilient neck having a proximal end connected to said cap and a distal end secured to said figurine, said neck extending along an axis transverse to the cavity axis wherein the neck is tapered so as to decrease in transverse dimension in a direction from said proximal end toward said distal end, and wherein said figurine is mounted to the distal end of said neck and is spaced from said cap, said neck and said figurine being oscillatable to and fro in response to movement of said human digit.

So...if you ever think your toes are looking boring and feel the need to accessorize them a bit, be sure to get your hands on these toe puppets! What can I say, puppets make great accessories for anywhere on the body. This patent essentially allows you to wear a puppet figure on your toe so you can maneuver it in whichever way and whatever motion you may desire. It is almost like playing with puppets on your fingers, a great way to channel your creativity and inner child regardless.

Prior Art? Possibly puppets made for hands or fingers.
Novel? Sure, so far I haven't seen anything like this being sold in store or online, tho I wouldn't say this combination of a puppet toy and a body part is anything new.
Useful? It would be good for entertainment purposes, maybe even appropriate for talent shows. It is also a good way to exercise your toes I assume.
Obvious? I could argue that it can be rather obvious to switch something originally made for hands/fingers to another body part such as one's toes.

Source: http://www.delphion.com/cgi-bin/viewpat.cmd/US05830035__?OUT_FORMAT=pdf&MODE=fstv

Obvious to Try - Appropriate vs Misuse

In my previous post, I went over the criteria an invention needs to meet in order to apply the obvious to use doctrine as well as how to properly apply the method to determine an invention's obviousness. In this post, I will discuss one correct use of the obvious to try argument and one misuse.

Appropriate use:
The case of Perfect Web Technologies vs InfoUSA provides an example in which the Federal Circuit held that a claimed method for managing bulk e-mail distribution was obvious on the basis of an obvious to try argument. Perfect Web sued InfoUSA for infringing on its patent for managing bulk email distribution. The patent consisted of steps (A) through (D) that described the sequence of the email distribution process, of which steps (A) through (C) came from prior art. The obvious to try doctrine thus becomes valid in this case since the prior art does not clearly indicate the possibility of the invention and the addition of step (D) can be further analyzed with the doctrine.

The Federal Circuit Court ruled that the patent was invalid because step (D) was considered obvious to try after experts identified a total of 3 potential solutions to the problem the patent was intended to solve. Hence, step (D) was considered obvious to try given the invention was created among a finite number of identified and predictable solutions, each with likelihood of success. Overall, the court appropriately applied the obvious to try doctrine to this case by first recognizing its applicability through the prior art and identifying the finite number of solutions to determine its obviousness.

Misuse:
An example of a misuse of the obvious to try doctrine was the Supreme Court decision in KSR vs Teleflex. The doctrine was irrelevant in KSR because there was no uncertainty regarding whether attachment of a sensor to a support member of a pedal would remain in a fixed position.

Ultimately, the holding of obviousness in KSR was based on a traditional § 103 analysis, i.e., motivation to solve a problem in combination with the presence of “a finite number of identified, predictable solutions that are within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill”. Therefore, "mention of the obvious to try doctrine in KSR constituted nothing more than a harmless distraction".

Sources:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2143.html
http://www.hoffmanbaron.com/releases/HB%20Article%20Reprint_fnl.pdf

Obvious to Try - How it Works

The obvious to try doctrine can be used to determine to the obviousness of an invention, i.e. if the attempt to create the invention is obvious, then the invention is unpatentable. However, using this method is a two step process. First, we need to determine whether the doctrine is applicable to the invention. When is it appropriate to apply it? When can we not apply it? Once we figure out that the doctrine is relevant to the invention, how do we go about determining obviousness from there?

When is the doctrine applicable?
The nature of the prior art for an invention dictates the relevance of the obvious to try doctrine. When the prior art suggests that a claimed invention is possible, but expresses at least some uncertainty regarding whether the invention can be made or will function as expected, then the obvious to try doctrine is relevant to that particular case.

Essentially, this criterion sets up the framework for using obvious to try. If the prior art does not clearly state how the invention could be created/used, then the invention could be looked into further with the obvious to try doctrine to determine its obviousness.

When is the doctrine irrelevant?
If the prior art leaves little or no doubt that the claimed invention can be made and will operate to achieve its stated purpose, then the obvious to try doctrine is not relevant. Under such circumstances, one should analyze the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention in the traditional sense under §103.

Simply put, if the prior art mentions that the claimed invention is 100% possible to create and has a clear purpose, then to determine to obviousness of the invention, one should not use the obvious to try doctrine but instead analyze it with §103. And that makes sense -- if a prior art fully describes the claimed invention, then the attempt to create the invention is longer an issue of obviousness, as the invention is a given fact. Instead, it is more important to look at how the claimed invention differs from the prior art through §103.

When the doctrine is relevant, how do we determine if the invention that was obvious to try is still nevertheless non-obvious?
As we discussed in class, if there exists a need or market pressure to solve the problem with only a finite number of foreseeable solutions to a person of ordinary skills in the art, then the invention designed for targeting the problem is also obvious. On top of that, the degree to which success is unexpected and unpredictable for the invention also plays into its obviousness. Is there is a reasonable expectation of success? If yes, then the invention is obvious. If not, the invention is non-obvious.

When and how to use obvious to try in determining obviousness can be tricky, therefore I will go over some good and bad applications of this doctrine in several example court cases in the next post to hopefully establish a better sense of how it works.

Sources:
http://www.hoffmanbaron.com/releases/HB%20Article%20Reprint_fnl.pdf

Computerized business methods -- Patentable? Part 2

In part 1 of this week's topic, I examined the highly discussed Alice Corp vs CLS Bank case in which a computerized business method involving managing transaction risks is being debated for patent eligibility. So should computer-implemented inventions such as software be eligible for patent protection? Many companies and organizations have responded to the case with their takes on the topic.

• Microsoft, Adobe Systems and Hewlett-Packard are arguing that performing "an otherwise unpatentable idea on a general-purpose computer' does not make the idea patentable" because it does not actually involve a true computer-implemented invention but rather it is a business method posing as one.

• Linkedin and Netflix are saying that "software patents do not serve the Constitutional purpose of the patent system: to promote the progress of science and the useful arts ... innovation happens despite software patents, not because of them". 

• Software Freedom Law Center is even stating that "innovation in software, like innovation in mathematics, is encouraged by scientific processes of free sharing and open publication, not by granting state-issued monopolies on ideas."

These are all very interesting stances posed by different groups in the tech realm. I definitely agree with Microsoft in that an old idea does not automatically become patentable simply for being done through a computer -- though it is a novel way of doing things, it is an act that becomes quite obvious with the advancement of technology in my opinion. I can't say I agree with Linkedin and the Software Freedom Law Center completely. I think software definitely brings value to the progression of innovation for it is at the heart of the development of technology and should deserve the right to be patentable to a certain extent to say the least. Though the nature of software makes it hard to maintain its exclusivity since it is easily replicable, I think other measures should be taken to ensure that software developers are still being rewarded for their work.

Source: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/28/supreme-court-to-decide-when-ideas-become-too-abstract-to-patent/

Computerized business methods -- Patentable? Part 1

A patent infringement case that has been gaining tremendous attention recently goes to Alice Corp. vs CLS Bank International. Why? Because it involves the issue of abstract ideas such as software can be patentable.

The invention in this particular case is a computer-implemented method of mitigating risk in foreign currency transactions so that one party won't default after another party has completed his half of the bargain. The patents involved came from an Australian named Ian Shepherd, who in 1993 filed the first of a series of patent applications that in very generic terms described a process of using a general computer to effectuate transactions between a third-party intermediary and the related parties. The concept of using an escrow agent (the third-party intermediary) is an old idea and unpatentable, but the incorporation of a computer is new in this case. After these patents were granted, Shepherd assigned them to a non-practicing entity he set up named Alice Corp.

CLS Bank International facilitates $5 trillion worth of transactions involving 17 different currencies each day and is considered "systematically important financial market utility" by the U.S. Treasury. Alice Corp sued CLS Bank for patent infringement regarding the bank's risk-mitigation system in the currency exchange market. CLS is challenging the invalidity of Alice's patents on the grounds that Alice is trying to patent a nonpatentable "abstract idea". The patents fall under the non-patentable category due to its abstractness, which is discussed in Section 101. Specifically, CLS contends that Alice has tried to patent "the basic economic concept of intermediated settlement or escrow."

Many professionals and scholars in the patent field are suggesting that in the hearing on Monday, the supreme court should move away from its reliance on Section 101 and start considering other factors such as whether the patent is too "obvious" (Section 103) or "indefinite" (Section 116) to determine its validity.

It is a highly anticipated case to say the least. On one hand we have another non-practicing entity (patent-troll) going against a prominent financial institution, while on the other we are dealing with the matter of abstractness. Whatever the decision of the Supreme Court might be, it will certainly have an impact on the patent system in both the reform against non-practicing entities as well as the determination of patent eligibility. I am definitely looking forward to the outcome of the trial.

Source: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/03/28/supreme-court-to-decide-when-ideas-become-too-abstract-to-patent

Simultaneous Inventions - Obviousness?

In my previous post, I briefly delved into the concept of second considerations and how they could shed light into the determination of a patent’s obviousness. Among the list of second considerations, the simultaneous invention is a factor that is rarely applied by the Federal Circuit in comparison to others. The Federal Circuit has stated that the fact that another person has simultaneously and independently created the same invention could indicate that the invention was obvious. From an accused infringer’s standpoint, this often-overlooked secondary consideration could work in one’s favor. This factor could be particularly effective in a situation “where the simultaneous inventions occurred shortly after an enabling technology was introduced.”

Take for example, the following sequence of events:

• June 1, 1912, Company A introduces the world’s first radio with an antenna for receiving reception
• August 1, 1912, Inventor B develops a radio antenna that improves the reception of Company A’s radio
• September 1, 1912, Inventor C, independently of Inventor B, develops an antenna that improves the reception of Company A’s radio. Inventor B’s patent reads on the antenna of Inventor C.

With the simultaneous invention factor, Inventor C, if sued by Inventor B for patent infringement, could argue that the fact that Inventor B and Inventor C each independently created a radio antenna shortly after the enabling of a technology, the radio in this case, shows that the invention is obvious. In other words, the antenna would have been invented sooner if the radio was created sooner. From a litigation strategy standpoint, the accused infringer under a similar circumstance would do whatever he or she could to find technology that preceded the invention and argue that the invention only occurred once the technology existed, and therefore the invention is obvious.

Source: http://www.ipo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SecondaryConsiderations.pdf

Meaning of Obviousness and Secondary Considerations

In 2007, Teleflex Inc, a diversified global company providing manufacturing for devices in medical, aerospace and commercial spaces sued KSR Intl., a manufacturing company specializing in pedal systems, for infringing upon its patent of connecting a sensor to a pedal to control the throttle in a car. Little did they know that this case would change the landscape of patent eligibility forever.

In response to Teleflex’s litigation, KSR argued that Teleflex’s patent was not patentable because it was obvious. KSR initially won in district courts, but Telefelx was able to win in appeal courts by relying on the TSM test. The TSM test was one of the most widely used tests to determine obviousness prior to KSR. It states that in order for a patent to be obvious, there must be a Teaching, Suggestion or Motivation in the prior art to combine elements in the prior art.

In the end, the supreme court ruled in favor of KSR and stated that the federal courts made the mistake for applying the TSM test in a rigid and formalistic way that lacked common sense. Obviousness should suggest that a person having ordinary skills in the art would have easily thought of the invention given the plurality of prior art. The outcome of the KSR case essentially removed the TSM from the standard for determining obviousness and as a result, the scope of what is obvious is broadened and it becomes much easier to invalidate a patent based on obviousness.

Now that providing obviousness no longer requires establishing TSM, secondary considerations have taken on greater significance in obvious determinations. Secondary considerations, or objective evidence, can often be used to overcome an obviousness objection. Some examples include the invention’s commercial success, long felt but unresolved needs, the failures of others and etc. Essentially, by establishing that the patent fulfills one of the secondary considerations, the inventor could argue that the patent is not obvious. For example, if there is a need for an invention, one can infer that many others have tried to develop the product but failed, and therefore the invention is not obvious.

I think now that secondary considerations also fall into the determination of obviousness, it will be interesting to see the new arguments and challenges that will emerge. But we know one thing for sure, and that is the KSR case revolutionized the meaning of obviousness and the TSM is not a good indicator of obviousness if applied rigidly.

Apple: 1 vs. European Paten Troll: 0

This is a follow-up for a previous post on a patent infringement litigation involving a non-practicing entity and Apple - the case has been dismissed as the patents-in-suit are declared invalid.

A German non-practicing entity named IPCom filed a lawsuit last month against Apple accusing Apple of infringing upon its patent involving the emergency-dialing feature on mobile devices and demanded $2.2 billion in monetary compensation. However, after undergoing two panels of judges in the Mannheim Regional Court, the case has been dismissed with a total of three rulings announcing that Apple did not infringe a certain IPCom patent family by implementing the 3G/UMTS standard. A related lawsuit filed by IPCom against HTC concerning the same patent was also dismissed by court. It is believed that IPCom will most likely appeal, but Apple and HTC have no intention to settle and will continue to challenge the validity of related patents. 

I am personally relieved to learn of the outcome of this trial, for patent-licensing firms like IPCom are infamous for being active in litigating against tech companies on deceitful and invalid grounds. The court's rejection of IPCom's claim this time around can hopefully set the precedent for future rulings on lawsuits involving bad faith assertions of patent infringements from non-practicing entities. 

Furthermore, major tech firms such as Apple, Samsung and Google have also filed another petition to the EU asking to limit the power of European patent holding companies like IPCom in future infringement cases. Coupled with the effort made by the Senate of Kentucky in combating patent trolls (discussed in previous post), there has been considerable progress being made in reforming the patent system. As a strong supporter of patent reform, I look forward to seeing more comprehensive changes to be made and how the patent industry will react and adjust in response. 

Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/ipcoms-22-billion-lawsuit-against-apple.html

Kentucky Takes Action Against Patent Trolls

In the midst of the talk about patent reforms, the state of Kentucky has become one of the first to step up and take measure specifically against unreasonable demand letters filed by non-practicing entities (NPE).

On Feb 13th, 2014, the Judiciary Committee of the Kentucky Senate voted unanimously in favor of a bill (SB116) that attempts "to establish a bad-faith assertion of patent infringement as a violation of Kentucky's consumer protection chapter and authorize the utilization of the remedies available for those violations in addition to private remedies established in the bill".

This bill aims to establish a distinction between good-faith and bad-faith assertions. Some characteristics of bad-faith litigations include:

1. Failure to state the patent number, the name and address of the patent owner(s)/assignee(s), or specific factual allegations relating to the infringement claim 
2. The claim or assertion is "deceptive" (not defined)
3. The patent holder is a non-practicing entity

As we can conclude from the points made above, many of these demand letters at the moment do not even contain the most basic information such as the patent number, yet they are still deemed legitimate and firms are subject to their ill-natured demands. This in turn goes to show the lack of regulation in place concerning the reckless practices of patent trolls and the defenseless positions firms often find themselves in.

Overall, I think this bill demonstrates a thorough effort in laying out factors weighing for and against allegations of bad-faith patent assertions. Though many terms in the bill have not yet been defined, considerable work is still done in targeting patent trolls ( point #3 above) and curtailing abusive patent litigations. As we discussed in class, an infringement lawsuit filed by a NPE against Blackberry ultimately led to the firm's demise even though the patent involved was later on determined to be invalid. These infringement claims made by NPE's in most cases are formed on unlawful grounds and have the ability dictate the fate of companies in destructive ways that could directly hinder the overall economic performance of the country. Hence, it is about time that the government start to make gradual and considerable progress in tackling the insidious nature of patent trolls.

Source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/kentucky-senate-committee-approves.html

Google bought Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion, sold it for $2.9 billion, and it was definitely worth it

In 2012, Google completed its biggest purchase in history with a $12.5 billion Motorola Mobility acquisition. Just 2 years later, Google kept the patents and sold Motorola for $2.9 billion to Lenovo. Did Google do the math right? Is this really a wise decision?

Let's take a look at the run down of the numbers done by ZDNet, who has analyzed the case quite thoroughly.

Upon purchasing Motorola for $12.5 billion, Google received $2.9 billion in cash from Motorola. Soon afterwards, Google offloaded Motorola Home, Motorola's set-top box division, along with some patents to Arris Group for $2.35 billion. Motorola's patent portfolio (mind you, there are well over 24,000 patents) is valued at a rather conservative price of $5.5 billion. After doing some subtracting and taking the $2.9 billion Lenovo paid Google into account, Google has actually made roughly $1.1 billion as a result of this seemingly irrational selling price. This also means Google paid less than $4 billion for Motorola’s entire patent portfolio after the sale. In fact, Google's gains from Motorola are much grater than this monetary value.

First off, by keeping the vast majority of Motorola's patents, Google is forever equipped with a shield of protection against future lawsuits. In the increasingly competitive and patent-war driven smart phone market, having a reservoir of patents to retaliate against litigations when needed is highly useful. Secondly, Google has chose the right timing to execute the sale. Given that the company reported fourth quarter earnings couple weeks back before the sale took place, it dodged the responsibility to mention hardware profit margins and whether the smartphone unit was profitable.

Despite selling Motorola at 1/4 of the price it was purchased, Google still managed to make a billion dollar return off of it. Well played once again, Google.

Google's acquisition of Motorola Mobility

On August 15, 2011, Google bought Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion -- this deal marked the biggest acquisition for Google in its history. Dennis Woodside, the newly appointed CEO of Motorola Mobility by Google, claimed that the aim of the purchase was "to focus Motorola Mobility's remarkable talent on fewer, bigger bets, and create wonderful devices that are used by people around the world." Sure, that was nice of Google to say, but what exactly was Google's true motive behind this purchase?

Let's first take a look at the market conditions around the time. In the year 2011, Google was heavily involved in a series of patent infringement attacks from its major competitors such as Apple and Microsoft. As a means of self-defense, Google decided to take in Motorola Mobility specifically for its robust patent portfolio. At the time, Motorola Mobility was a spin-off of Motorola and held over 24,000 patents and pending patent applications worldwide. With these newly acquired patents, Google immediately was equipped with a surge of "weapons" to not only protect it self but also start its counterattack and retaliate against its previous litigations.

Some industry experts even believed that Google was targeting much more than just a patent mine. As a result of the acquisition, Google was moving into Apple territory. Buying Motorola Mobility granted Google the ability to control both hardware and software and enabled them to manufacture its own integrated smartphones and other devices. "With this acquisition Google can also come up with equivalent of Apple TV, Roku, and tablets," says Sandeep Aggarwal, an analyst at Digital Route.

Though it came at a hefty price, this acquisition is quite a strategic move for Google move in terms of warding off patent attacks and fostering long term growth. Well done, Google.

Read more here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/08/googles-purchase-of-motorola-mobility.html

Apple Trolled by German Patent-Holding Firm

On top of its on-going patent war with Samsung, Apple is hit with another $2.1 billion patent lawsuit -- this time from Germany.

German patent licensing firm IPCom has accused Apple of infringing upon its patented technology that enables iPhone's emergency phone-dialing feature. The firm claims that it is the only rightful owner of the IP used in the chip that makes emergency calls such as 911 possible and is demanding $2.1 billion in damages from Apple. However, this piece of technology is used by nearly every mobile phone and almost always required by law. Interestingly enough, IPCom has previously filed the same lawsuit against mobile companies such as Nokia, HTC and Ericsson for the same reason, but unfortunately none of these firms has been successful in getting the European Patent Office to declare the patent invalid for being a standard requirement. As the victim this time around, Apple has agreed to attend the hearing taking place on the 11th of February at the Mannheim Regional Court in Germany.

As if the patent wars among mobile giants aren't chaotic enough already, patent assertion firms like IPCom are looking to join in on the fun and most importantly profit. As discussed in class, patent lawsuits can be a highly profitable practice for some as huge sums of money are involved. Companies like IPCom (what critics refer to as patent trolls) do not actually create patents -- they simply buy patents and make a profit by claiming royalties on them and suing other firms. Since IPCom was founded in 2007, it has built up a portfolio of almost 1,200 patents in mobile communications. Luckily, companies like Google and Apple are beginning to fight back as they push forward a legislation that would put a stop to patent trolls through the U.S. Senate. 2014 will sure be a big year for patent law reform.

Samsung vs Apple - March Edition

This never-ending patent war between Samsung and Apple is sure about to get even longer as the companies prepare for their March trial in San Jose, CA.

So what are they suing each other for this time around?

With some research, I have broken down the case and provided very limited explanations for the technology behind some of the patents involved to the best of my ability. But some of the concepts are hard for me to grasp as they pertain to more advanced engineering practices, so if you want to understand them better, I suggest you do research on your own! 

This time, Apple is suing Samsung for its technologies in user interface, specifically for infringing upon the following patents:
1) data tapping - the feature that allows an iPhone to retrieve relevant data in response to user searches, bring it to the surface and let the user perform further action with the data found. For example, if you are looking for a phone number, the iPhone will be able to find the relevant data, bring it to your screen and allow you to make a phone call and such with it.
2) Siri-style unified search
3) asynchronous data synchronization 
4) auto-complete functions 

Samsung on the other hand is suing Apple for violating some of its underlying technology. Several main complaints include:  

1) nonscheduled transmission over enhanced uplink data channel 

2) signaling control information of uplink packet data service

3) recording and reproducing digital image/speech 

4) remote video transmission systems 

Both Samsung and Apple are suing each other over older product lines, many of which are no longer available. Apple is targeting devices such as the Galaxy Admire; the Galaxy Nexus, the Galaxy Note & Note II and etc while Samsung is directing its attacking older and more recent Apple products such as the iPhone 4, 4S and 5; the iPad 2, 3, and 4 and etc. Though many of the products involved are on the older side, the outcome could affect current and future products such as the iPhone 5s and the Galaxy S5. For products still in stores, the result could affect their availability. 

Source: http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-business/apple-samsung-patent-battle-round-2/d/d-id/1113722

Why IEOR 190G

I am taking this class because I believe the material itself is highly practical and applicable to a wide range of career fields. I think understanding how a patent works is highly important in today's world. With the fast growing technology industry, people are becoming more dependent and attracted to technological advances. Specifically, I think wireless mobile devices have especially become an indispensable part of our lives - people are constantly on their phones and tablets are becoming increasingly more popular. Phones have also replaced the functions of many other gadgets such as GPS and cameras. With all these new mobile features popping up with such frequency, I am curious about the role that patents take on in bringing about these innovations. Why are patents so important in fostering innovation? What actually can count as a patent? How do you apply for one? I look forward to getting my questions answered through a rewarding and fun semester with IEOR 190G.

Introduction

Hello! My name is Jane Li and I am currently a second year intended to study Statistics and Business Administration. I was born in Beijing, China and moved to the states at the age of ten and have lived in the bay area ever since. I have lived in quite a number of different cities around the bay such as San Francisco, San Mateo and Palo Alto and absolutely love everything about the bay area - its diversity, entrepreneurial culture and of course the amazing weather. In my free time, I love to cook, read and hike. I enjoy spending my afternoons in a cafe reading a book with a cup of coffee. I also love nature and doing anything under the Cali sun. If you ever want someone to talk to, feel free to hit me up! Always down to chat. :)