LG’s Recent Infringement Fight Against TCL Could Take Some Tips from DivX’s Approach

On April 21, 2022, LG Electronics Inc. filed suit against Chinese television manufacturer, TCL, through several of its affiliates and related entities, in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement. See LG Electronics, Inc. v. TCL Electronics Holding Ltd. et al, Case: 2:22-cv-00122 (EDTX). The patents relate to display hardware, wireless transmission technology, and user interface controls. Several of TCL’s 4-Series, 5-Series, and 6-Series TVs are accused of infringement. The patents asserted by LG are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,982,803, 9,080,740, 9,788,346, 10,334,311 and 10,499,431. LG requests a jury trial, seeks a permanent injunction, and a finding that the infringement is willful (for enhancement purposes) and exceptional (for the awarding of attorneys’ fees).

This Week in Washington IP: Biden’s Budget Request for Clean Energy RD&D, Building the EV Industry’s Workforce, and a Conversation on Crypto with Senator Lummis

This week in Washington IP news, several subcommittees in the House of Representatives take a closer look at President Joe Biden’s budgetary request for the 2023 fiscal year, which was released in late March. On Friday, the House Research and Technology Subcommittee explores ways that the federal government can support the workforce needs of the growing electric vehicle industry. Elsewhere, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation discusses the findings of its most recent annual report on federal funding for clean energy RD&D, while the American Enterprise Institute hosts a conversation with Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) on the prospects of the U.S. federal government adopting a centralized cryptocurrency despite the recent crypto crash.

Opinion: Growing Misuse of Patent Protections Threatens U.S. Competitiveness and Security

The chaotic state of the world today makes it increasingly difficult for American companies to compete. Russian hostility has the democratic world on edge, U.S. inflation is at a 40-year high and hitting consumers hard, and China continues its aggressive push for economic and technological dominance.  To stay on top, the United States must out-innovate our competitors. America needs to lead the world in cutting-edge products and new technologies, and those are made possible by policies that support the innovation economy. The Ukraine crisis makes it clear that energy and cyber policy is crucial. Recently, the U.S. Trade Representative told Congress that supporting and protecting the full range of our innovators from China’s distortive practices is critical to our nation’s future.

A Tale of Two Googles: Patent System Champion or Crux of the Problem?

On April 28, Google published a blog by their general counsel, Halimah DeLaine Prado, about the crisis condition of the U.S. patent system. Prado portrays Google as a strong supporter of the patent system, citing their history in initiatives to spur new inventions and technologies. For example, Google was a key player in 2013 in starting the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge (to not sue on open-source software). Google was also instrumental in the beginnings of the License On Transfer network (which helps members who have been sued by “patent trolls”). Google has provided technical support for the Prior Art Archive. Prado notes that Google has 42,000 patents, which she says they license at “fair value,” and sell to grow the portfolios of other companies, all in the interest of small businesses.

What is AI and How is it Treated by the USPTO, EPO and CNIPA?

Generally, artificial intelligence (AI) is an automation of a thing that a human being can do, or the simulation of intelligent human behavior by a machine. In other words, AI performs what a human can but with vastly more data and processing of incoming information. Unfortunately, claiming AI in adherence to its typical definition is akin to asking for a Section 101 subject matter eligibility rejection in the United States. Europe and China have already updated their patent examination procedures for AI. If the United States sustains its current examination procedure of machine intelligence in accordance with the abstract idea doctrine under the Alice and Mayo framework established by the Supreme Court, will we be leaving this industry behind?

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, May 13: Solicitor General Tells SCOTUS Not to Grant Appeal on Markman Issue, Director Vidal Announces Patent Examiner Training Program and Hawley Introduces Bill to Limit Copyright Term to 56 Years

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Senator Josh Hawley introduces a bill that would retroactively limit copyright terms to a single 28-year term with the possibility of one 28-year extension; the Federal Circuit reverses a Northern California summary judgment ruling of noninfringement after finding that the district court improperly defined the claim term “buffer”; SoftBank’s Vision Fund posts a $20 billion loss for the 2021 fiscal year; Senators Thom Tillis and Patrick Leahy introduce a bill to create music-related cultural exchange programs to improve international relations; USPTO Director Kathi Vidal announces developments on a patent examiner training program and plans to issue a request for comments for the Director review process under Arthrex;

CAFC Clarifies Infringement Analysis and Vacates a Finding of Noninfringement for Hulu

On May 11, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the claim construction and decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California to exclude evidence relating to damages but vacated its infringement determination and remanded a case alleging that Hulu, Inc. infringed Sound View Innovations, Inc.’s patent for data streaming technology. Sound View is the owner of expired U.S. Patent No. 6,708,213 (the ‘213 patent), which discloses “methods which improve the caching and streaming of multimedia data (e.g., audio and video data) from a content provider over a network to a client’s computer.” In June 2017, Sound View sued Hulu, alleging that its “Hulu Streaming Video on Demand products” infringed six Sound View patents, though only claim 16 of the ‘213 patent remained at issue on appeal.

Varsity Sponsors

Junior Varsity Sponsors

Intramural Sponsors

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates

Subscribe

First

Last

Interests *