Posts Tagged: "HTC Corp."

In its decision, the Federal Circuit upheld a lower court’s ruling that Advanced Video did not have standing to sue for patent infringement after it was determined that the co-owner of the patent did not assign ownership to the patent under the terms of an employment agreement… Although Hsiun never signed an assignment declaration, she also never objected to the USPTO procedures leading up to the grant of the ‘788 patent. Newman’s dissent focused mainly on the terms of Hsiun’s employment agreement, which demonstrated that Ms. Hsiun’s inventions were the property of the employer.

Dutch tech conglomerate Koninklijke Philips NV is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,522,695. The Philips patent is challenged by Microsoft on behalf of several other tech giants… At the center of the proceedings is a challenge to the validity of a patent covering a technology that enables more information to be stored on an optical or magnetic recording medium… The official petition filed by Microsoft is the result of a series of seven lawsuits filed by Philips in December 2015 in which it attempted to assert the ‘695 against a series of tech developers. According to Microsoft’s IPR, the American tech firm has intervened in five of these cases, including suits against Acer and ASUSTEK, by filing as a counterclaim-defendant.

Patent system savvy corporations are ganging up on a smaller developer within the nascent automotive software industry who had the temerity to assert a patent covering a technology it developed in-house… The IPR challenges the validity of a patent owned by InfoGation Corporation, Inc., of San Diego, CA, a designer and developer of navigation software for the automotive industry, which was founded in 1996… The filing of the Google IPR is a direct consequence of Infogation filing suit against HTC, ZTE and Huawei last July, each of which alleged infringement of the ‘743 patent.

In large part, the CAFC was concerned with the possible disruption of overturning long-standing PTO practice and the reliance placed on it by practitioners, and this respect and concern for practice is to the court’s credit. And to its credit, the CAFC said as much: the “Supreme Court has long recognized that a ‘longstanding administrative construction,’ at least one on which reliance has been placed, ‘provides a powerful reason for interpreting a statute to support the construc­tion…[h]ere, HTC’s position would disturb over 50 years of public and agency reliance on the permissibility of same-day continuations. We see no basis for denying the existence of a facially large disruptive effect were we now to repudiate the same-day-continuation policy.”