Today's Date: July 22, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Posts Tagged ‘ patents ’

Intel Patent Review: Wide Ranging Multimedia Innovation

Posted: Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Steve Brachmann | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in: Companies We Follow, Guest Contributors, Intel, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Multimedia, Patents, Steve Brachmann, Technology & Innovation

The Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) of Santa Clara, CA, is one of the world’s most successful companies in the field of semiconductor, integrated circuit and computer processor components. Recently, Intel was announced as a partner in the Open Interconnect Consortium (OIC), a collection of companies including Samsung, Dell and Broadcom intending to develop standards for the Internet of Things, an industry which experts predict will be valued at $7.1 trillion by 2020. Intel also lately announced a partnership with Panasonic, a member of OIC’s rival AllSeen Alliance, to develop chipsets for Panasonic’s audiovisual systems. An increase in demand for personal computers as well as Intel’s growth into the Internet of Things and tablet markets may likely provide positive impacts to the corporation’s revenue growth in the coming fiscal quarters.



Ray Niro on Patent Trolls, Obama Administration and SCOTUS

Posted: Sunday, Jul 20, 2014 @ 9:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 9 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Guest Contributors, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Litigation, Patents, Raymond Niro

Ray Niro

In this final segment of my conversation with Ray Niro we discuss the politics of patents, starting with the reality that the Obama Administration has for some time adopted the view of Google and other similarly situated tech companies that seem comfortable with an ever weakening patent system. We also discuss the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice v. CLS Bank, as well as the continuing and alarming trend toward expanding the definition of patent ineligible subject matter.

To begin reading the interview from the start please see A Conversation with Patent Defense Litigator Ray Niro.

QUINN: Given that the Obama Administration is already out in front anti-NPE, anti-patent troll, and seems to be taking the Google philosophy which is who their advisors are, it seems to me foolish to think the Patent Office is going to moderate that decision and limit it narrowly.

NIRO: Right. The Administration has become a shill for Google — you even have a Google person running the Patent Office. So you have a situation where any number of patents, tens of thousands of patents, are going to be affected by Alice and also by the Limelight decision on split infringement.



What is Intellectual Property?

Posted: Saturday, Jul 19, 2014 @ 11:56 am | Written by Gene Quinn | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Educational Information for Inventors, Gene Quinn, Inventors Information, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles

Generally speaking, “intellectual property” is probably best thought of (at least form a conceptual standpoint) as creations of the mind that are given the legal rights often associated with real or personal property. The rights that are obtained by the creator are a function of statutory law (i.e., law created by the legislature). These statutes may be federal or state laws, or in some instance both federal and state law govern various aspect of a single type of intellectual property.

The term intellectual property itself is now commonly used to refer to the bundle of rights conferred by each of the following fields of law: (1) patent law; (2) copyright law; (3) trade secret law; (4) the right of publicity; and (5) trademark and unfair competition law. Some people confuse these areas of intellectual property law, and although there may be some similarities among these kinds of intellectual property protection, they are different and serve different purposes.



Ray Niro Discusses Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation

Posted: Friday, Jul 18, 2014 @ 10:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 2 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Guest Contributors, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Litigation, Patent Reform, Patents, Raymond Niro

Ray Niro

Recently I interviewed Ray Niro. Our wide ranging discussion touched on all things patent, we first discussed the announcement that Niro, Haller & Niro is now doing patent infringement defense on a flat fee basis. We wrap up our discussion of this new defense business model for the patent litigation industry below. We then transition into a discussion about fee shifting in patent litigation, first discussing the recently failed patent reform and then moving into a discussion of the Supreme Court fee shifting cases from the October 2013 term.

To begin reading the interview from the start please see A Conversation with Patent Defense Litigator Ray Niro.

QUINN: How many lawyers do you have at your firm currently?

NIRO: 28. Between 28 and 31 most of the time. We are in the process of adding a few, so we’re I think 28 now; we’ll probably be 31 in the fall.

QUINN: Okay. And the reason that I ask that is because I suspect that as this word gets out that you’re doing this that you’re probably going to see a lot of interest. And how do you envision things developing? Are you going to be able to grow? Are you going to try and choose cases, which cases you can get involved with? What’s the mechanical process?



AT&T Seeks Patent for Creating and Implementing a Mobile Privacy Zone

Posted: Thursday, Jul 17, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Steve Brachmann | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: AT&T, Companies We Follow, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Mobile Devices, Patents, Steve Brachmann, Technology & Innovation, Wireless Technology

AT&T Incorporated (NYSE: T), headquartered in Dallas, TX, is a major corporation with a storied history in the field of telecommunications. Recently, executives from both AT&T and DirecTV made arguments in favor of the merger of these two corporations, a business move which has been valued at $48.5 billion, in front of antitrust committees at the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. In a move likely conceived to win regulatory approval for the merger, AT&T has recently sold off its 8.3 percent stake in America Movil, a competitor of DirecTV in Latin American countries. Although currently only a rumor, there are some talks that AT&T will be the exclusive carrier for the Amazon Fire smartphone, which has yet to be released.

We always make sure to pay good attention to the major developers of consumer technologies here in the Companies We Follow series, and IPWatchdog is back with an in-depth look at the innovations recently stemming from AT&T. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has published many patent applications and has also issued plenty of patents assigned to this corporation in recent weeks. Our most recent search of AT&T patent filings showed us a great deal of intriguing improvements to wireless communication products and services.

We begin today by sharing our featured patent application with our readers, a technology designed to create a privacy zone to disable unauthorized functions in mobile devices which are within the zone. This would enable a meeting administrator to ensure that smartphone device owners cannot produce a recording of a meeting from within the privacy zone, for example. Other patent applications we explore discusses systems for transmitting calls and messages to the proper destination device for more effective communication between those who own multiple devices, as well as a system for better providing local advertisements to device owners who are on the go.



Conversation with Jay Walker and Jon Ellenthal, Part 3

Posted: Thursday, Jul 17, 2014 @ 8:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 1 Comment »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Licensing, Patent Business & Deals, Patents

Jay Walker

This is the final segment of my interview with Jay Walker and Jon Ellenthal. To start reading from the beginning please see A Conversation with Priceline.com Founder Jay Walker.

WALKER: Let me give you an example, Gene, that would be simple.  I would like to be the nonexclusive agent for your blog in South America.  All right?  I think I can get people in South America to pay to read your blog.  Because how it works in South America they pay to read blogs.  I don’t know how much I’m gonna generate for you, Gene, but you can revoke it at any time.  I won’t license to any of the major television networks, publishers, et cetera, I’ll only license to small people.  And 85% of any money I collect in South America for the blog licenses that I generate for you I’m going to give you.  Would you be willing to list your blog with me to try to generate revenue for you in South America?

QUINN: Yeah, I mean that’s a no brainer.

WALKER: There you go. It’s no different.   Exactly the same.  It’s a no brainer.  Listing with us is a no brainer.  The only reason you wouldn’t list with us if you didn’t want to have a nonexclusive agent.  If you only wanted to license on an exclusive basis.



A Conversation with Patent Defense Litigator Ray Niro

Posted: Wednesday, Jul 16, 2014 @ 10:00 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 2 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, Guest Contributors, Interviews & Conversations, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patent Litigation, Patents, Raymond Niro

Ray NIro

Ray Niro is one of the most well know patent litigators in the country. In some circles he may be referred to as “infamous,” and in other circles he may be simply referred to as famous. It all depends upon whether he is your attorney or whether he is the attorney on the other side. Regardless, he is well respected within the industry and has made a name for himself as a winner. But not only any kind of winner, but a champion for inventors who have patents infringed by some of the largest, most well funded companies in the world.

Over the past few years I have gotten to know Ray, he has written several op-ed articles for us, and about once a year we catch up with him in an on the record interview. What prompted this interview was seeing an announcement that he and his firm are now offering flat fee defense representation in patent litigation matters. Ray Niro defending a patent infringement case? I have to admit I didn’t realize he did defense work, so I wanted to talk to him about this new business model. He agreed.

In order to discussing his defense activities, we also discussed the failure of patent reform, the inevitable future patent reform efforts that are now a permanent feature of political activity in Washington, DC, and the recent Supreme Court patent decisions from the October 2013 term.



Sloppy, Misleading Yale Paper Challenges University Patenting

Posted: Tuesday, Jul 15, 2014 @ 10:00 am | Written by Bob Zeidman | 7 comments
| Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Bob Zeidman, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, Universities

Professor Brian Love

Last March I attended a conference at the Stanford Law School entitled “Patent Trolls and Patent Reform.” From the title, the agenda of the conference was evident, so it was no surprise that the majority of professors who presented papers found that patents were bad. They cost society money, they stop the free flow of information, they make undeserving people wealthy, and they suck resources from legitimate businesses. Research done by these professors from elite universities around the country explained why patents, and those who license or litigate them, had made the United States such a plodding, backward nation that is desperately trying to catch up with progressive countries like China, Russia, and Europe. Fortunately, a few professors actually did support the U.S. patent system, and their research did too.

However, by far the worst paper at the conference was one entitled “Do University Patents Pay Off? Evidence from a Survey of University Inventors in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering” by Professor Brian Love at the Santa Clara University School of Law. I have just learned that this paper is soon to be published in the prestigious Yale Journal of Law & Technology. The paper supposedly made the case that “university patent programs earn a negative 3.5% rate of return on high-tech patents.” Professor Love explained that filing and licensing patents was a losing proposition for universities despite the recent $184 million jury verdict for Cornell against Hewlett-Packard and the $1.5 billion judgment for Carnegie Mellon University against Marvell Semiconductors.

There are three main reasons that the paper is a ridiculous example of how our universities are putting out “research” that is terribly shoddy, detached from the real world, and simply reinforces generally faulty assumptions about how the world works.