Posts Tagged: "non-patent literature"

So what is going on with these research Studies that seek only U.S. patents? It would seem that based on the specific details of some of these research assignments there are a growing number of entities using the AOP network to search for patents that might be able to be acquired for some strategic purpose. If that is what is going on it would be a creative way to use the AOP network of researchers to identify patents and/or patent portfolios. It also means that if you are a patent searcher and you are not frequently perusing ongoing AOP Studies you are missing an opportunity.

On May 22, 2012, STEC IP brought separate patent infringement lawsuits against Apple, Amazon and Oracle. Little information about STEC IP seems available. In the complaints filed they explain only that they are a Delaware limited liability company having a principle place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina. Under Delaware law Members of the LLC (i.e., owners) may remain anonymous, therefore, those who are behind STEC IP may remain a mystery. Of course, it is known that STEC IP is being represented by Richard Kirk of Bayard and Mark Hogge of SNR Denton, both of whom are listed as attorneys for STEC IP in the respective filings. Each of the patents asserted by STEC IP are now undergoing review by the Article One Partner’s research community.

Article One Partners has just reached the $3 million milestone, having given out over $3 million to its cadre of researchers. Currently the total sum awarded by Article One is at $3,049,000 and counting, with some $64,000 being awarded to the winners of closed Studies on August 24, 2012. Some current Studies now carry a $10,000 Reward compared with the more usual $5,000 Reward.

Article One Partners always has interesting patent studies going on at any particular time, but one of their studies recently caught my eye in particular. There is an ongoing patent study relating U.S. Patent No. 7,076,445, titled “System and methods for obtaining advantages and transacting the same in a computer gaming environment.” A system for obtaining an advantage in a computer game? Sounds like just the type of competitive advantage that I ought to know about so I can beat my son. Now don’t get me wrong. I can kick his butt on Madden 2012 (or any other version of Madden), but Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is a completely different story! I guess I should just be thankful that he plays Call of Duty non-stop during the summer and isn’t practicing up on Madden!

Article One Partners, or AOP for short, is the world’s largest patent research community. Yesterday the company announced a partnership with Sony Corporation. AOP is supporting Sony’s defense against the rising trend in patent disputes with non-practicing entities (NPEs). “We have chosen to expand our prior art research capabilities with Article One Partners and their global community of researchers,” said Fumihiko Moriya, VP, Sr. General Manager, IP Alliance & Licensing Dept., IP Division, Sony Corporation. “Our partnership with Article One enables Sony to identify highly relevant prior art to help defend against an increasing number of low-quality patent assertions.”

Yes, it was I. The former Borat applying patent examiner turned law student. See Prior Borat: Non-traditional Prior Art Rejections! If nothing other than offering comic relief, the now infamous Borat patent rejection has hopefully illustrated at least one fundamental truth to the inventor and patent practitioner alike – don’t forget to do a thorough search of non-patent literature. I won’t bore you with citations from the MPEP. We all know what the Manual says. Instead I will attempt to provide some general insights into the examination process.

The question may arise – what if the result of crowdsourcing is less than the proverbial “smoking gun,” can it place the App Developers at a disadvantage in court? Case law indicates that the answer is no. Last year, in a patent litigation brought by Personal Audio LLC, the plaintiff attempted to argue that their patent was valid based on crowdsourced research and to seek discovery on this basis. Personal Audio lost on both counts, with federal Judge Miriam Cedarbaum concluding, “eliminating a negative doesn’t show validity” and commenting on the patent owner’s approach with the statement “that’s what I call desperation.” Transcript of Oral Argument and Decision at 12-13 and 14, Personal Audio LLC v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. et al, No. M8-85 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2010).