Posts Tagged: "patent"

Most patent owners and users cannot bear the costs or risks associated with enforcing and licensing their patents. The potential cost of this waste to the American economy has been estimated to be as large as $1 trillion annually, representing a five percent reduction in potential GDP… using conservative assumptions of the impact on the economy of increased innovation, could generate social benefits ranging between $100 and $200 billion per year. This estimated range easily could be surpassed if the U.S. can achieve enhanced licensing of existing patents, and if any market solutions also enable the dissemination of more knowledge that could increase the numbers of patented innovations themselves.

This theme reemerged later when we talked generally about computer implemented innovations. Judge Linn explained that wrestling with patent eligibility as it applies to innovations that require machine intervention “is a very complex issue,” which is made more complicated when you try and rationalize opinions from the Supreme Court. “I have great difficulty rationalizing the Supreme Court’s opinions in Flook and Diehr, and in many regards I think those decisions are irreconcilably in conflict,” Judge Linn said… “I don’t look at it as a low point. I look at it as an indication of the complexity of the issues,” Linn said. He went on to explain that the Court was “trying to resolve this complex issue in a way that made sense but reflected the precedent we had before us from the Supreme Court. In the end we just couldn’t agree. We got to the point where we recognized that the Supreme Court would have to give us the answer.”

The unfortunate reality is the United States is no longer the most favorable jurisdiction for innovators. There has been a full assault on patent rights that started at least as early as 2005. Ever since we have seen proposed legislative change after proposed legislative change, as well as a never ending stream of cases at the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit that continue to weaken patent rights. Innovators are under attack from ever expanding judicial exceptions that render more and more subject matter patent ineligible, and from an ever expanding view of what it means to be obvious. This coupled with fresh new ways to challenge issued patents and concern about a patent litigation explosion that doesn’t exist is leading to extraordinary mischief in the Courts, on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

At the very beginning of the program Siegel, during his opening remarks, said: “At Acacia we are not in the litigation business, we are in the licensing business.” I know that many will shrug or laugh at the comment, but from what I know about Acacia if you care to dig underneath the surface and listen past the sound byte it is true. Siegel explained that there are real costs and real risks associated with litigation, so doing business together and licensing is always a preferable strategy. Of course, Siegel pointed out that there is still a reluctance by many entities to pay for intellectual property. Siegel is exactly correct. There are many companies, large companies who themselves are owners of very large patent portfolios, who are reluctant to pay for intellectual property rights even though they infringe. Somewhere along the way it seems that the narrative got away from the innovator and has been turned on its head.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will be conducting a roundtable on December 2, 2014 to solicit public opinions concerning the USPTO’s use of crowdsourcing to identify relevant prior art. The roundtable will be held in the Moot Court Room, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 55 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10003. It will begin at 1 pm Eastern Standard Time (EST) and end at 5 pm EST. The meeting will also be accessible via webcast.

The settlement with MPHJ is the first time the FTC has taken action using its consumer protection authority against a patent assertion entity (PAE). PAEs are companies that obtain patent rights and try to generate revenue by licensing to or litigating against those who are or may be using patented technology. “Patents can promote innovation, but a patent is not a license to engage in deception,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Small businesses and other consumers have the right to expect truthful communications from those who market patent rights.”

DuPont is a company responsible for many impressive industrial and commercial innovations, and our latest survey of patent applications published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bears this fact out. We explored a couple of patent applications that discuss novel methods of creating fuel from biomass materials, especially those materials that don’t draw from the food supply. Transparent conductive materials, ink-jet inks with better pigment stability and a whipping agent for frozen sorbet are other technological advances which are discussed below. This corporation benefits from a strong patent portfolio and we’ve chronicled the addition of several important patents to DuPont’s intellectual property portfolio today. More food production innovations are reflected here, including a patent protect a better method for obtaining betaine from sugar beets for the production of molasses. Plastics production, including dielectric films for capacitors, are explored in more detail below. We also profile inventions involving relief printing methods for corrugated cardboard as well as another innovation for producing ethanol from biomass.

Siegel: “I think this effort to destroy the value of intellectual property is a bigger wet towel on innovation. When startup companies, after they get their angel investing, go out to try and raise funds on round Bs and round Cs, one of the things that investors look at is whether or not that company has an innovation that is different and protectable so that the investors know that number one there is something in there that’s protectable so that they can protect their investment. And when companies, small companies that make the investment into intellectual property portfolio development it sends a signal, two signals. It sends a signal that, number one, they’re progressive enough and smart enough to think about protecting their innovation. And, number two, it provides collateral for the investments that the investors are making into the company. So if the company were to not be successful in its business, they would have this asset of an IP portfolio sitting there that could still be sold or otherwise monetized to help the investors recoup their investments.”

There are few more interesting tragedies in the history of American business than the demise of Kodak, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2012. and few that are more frustrating given the fact that the key to the company’s renewed success lay within its grasp for years. Digital photography, the technology that decimated Kodak in the 1990s and 2000s, was originally a Kodak innovation. The company’s stubborn refusal to support the development that rivalled its core product, film, should be a cautionary tale to any major corporation and a sign to innovative start-ups that even the most monolithic corporations can become vulnerable.

In the patent applications filed by this company, we found an interesting trio of printing technologies, including one filing which would protect an improved system for printing and binding booklets. Medical innovations, including an endoscopic tool which can be selectively made transparent and visible depending on endoscopic operation needs, are discussed below. We also noted an innovation for reducing erroneous operations in an electronic device with multiple touchscreen panels. There have been many recent additions to Canon’s already globally renowned patent portfolio that we profile today. We discuss a few patents issued to protect improvements to robotics technologies for manufacturing facilities. A couple of patents show Canon’s interest in improving nanofabrication techniques for creating semiconductors. We also explore inventions related to printing copy-forgery-inhibited patterns and high precision scanning technologies.