Posts Tagged: "patent"

2013 turned out to be a very big year for IP, and especially patents, and the year took a course that few would have predicted this time last year. At that time, the senior team at the PTO was primarily focused on the imminent departure of our then-boss, David Kappos, and the end of what had clearly been an extraordinarily active and successful tenure. The AIA had been almost entirely implemented, the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board was up and running, and most of us expected 2013 to be focused on implementation and execution of the AIA and the other initiatives that had been set in motion under Director Kappos.

As the end of 2013 approaches and I look back on what has transpired I am saddened to see that through the year patent rights have continued to erode. Make no mistake about it, at every turn patent rights are eroding. You might think that there has been some collective, open-air discussion about whether this is a good idea. Nope! It seems government you get is the government you can afford, and those who have the ear of decision-makers on Capitol Hill are the extraordinarily well funding big tech companies that want to weaken patent rights or do away with them altogether. Indeed, there has been scant consideration paid to the effect of weakening patent rights. The erosion of patent rights is exceptionally alarming given the fact that the Founding Fathers thought it was self evident that a strong patent system was essential for America. The Founders believed the importance of patent rights to be so self evident that little debate was had on the topic. How the pendulum has swung!

These three proceedings, like every other reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, demonstrate the overwhelming importance of obtaining the best resolution possible when the State ethics authorities come knocking. Because there is a presumption that reciprocal discipline is appropriate, to prevail at the USPTO you would need to demonstrate that there was a lack of due process, complete lack of evidence or that there is some manifest injustice that would occur if discipline were to be handed out by the USPTO. Whether we like it or not, you are going to be disciplined by the USPTO to the same extent you were disciplined by the State ethics panel, or a Federal Court. However, this sometimes seems to lead to unequal treatment of practitioners who are similarly situated but for the State in which they are admitted. Eventually someone will raise an equal protection argument, but you don’t want that to be you. It would have a significant uphill battle no doubt like all such arguments, but it would be very nice for OED to take a step back and consider whether it is fair to simply defer its own disciplinary authority to the States.

The featured patent application today focuses on a developed system of interacting with a mobile device that has been pursued by many device manufacturers recently. This system is capable of receiving vocal inputs from a user and converting that speech into a digital command that can be processed by the device. Other patent applications that we’ve noticed include a couple of improvements to image applications available for mobile devices, including a method of creating a 3D representation of a photo gallery. We’ve also included a group of recently issued patents that protect some other interesting mobile device technology developments. Today, we’ve picked three patents that involve improvements to mobile device connectivity, including one patent protecting a method for wi-fi providers to block unauthorized users who are within range. Also, we turned up a patent that describes a novel system of paying for public transit fare through a mobile device.

A computer is, at a fundamental level, simply a clump of electrical switches each of which are in either an on or an off position. Whether and when a given switch is on or off is the result of the code that configures the switche(s) to be on/off and the subsequent result of passing small amounts of electrical charge through these switches (gates) and observing the output…. Software (and a power supply) is what makes a computer what we have, by now, come to know as a “computer”, i.e., our smart phone, laptop, or tablet. A computer, as a bundle of configurable switches; it is the “clay” a programmer uses to “sculpt” possibilities of outcomes based on a predigested set of inputs. The more the clay, the more the possibilities and the more “capable” a computer can become. Hence, each new chip with more switches, provides more possibilities, i.e., more and faster clay. The computer is the sculpted clay we hold in final form as determined by the program. The programmer, then, is the “artist” that creates the form, i.e, the utility. A program cannot manifest except on a computing device and the program running on a that computer is what defines that device (i.e., Windows, Mac, etc.). Will it ever think? Not in the same way you or I think, but maybe that is not a bad thing. We self program based on morality and context that we learn through a variety of inputs and adopt or reject as we roll through life. The circumstances that led to one decision when we were 18 lead, thankfully, to a different decision now!

Today’s featured patent application describes a system of collecting movement data from mobile devices so as to better compile real-time traffic data for mobile users. This data collection would not interfere with normal use and provides a vast improvement on current methods of providing traffic data. We’ve also noticed a few other patent applications detailing mapping application improvements as well as a method for setting quiet hours on a device to prevent notification sounds at inopportune moments. We also take a close look at some issued patents that lay out some intriguing software and hardware improvements for Apple’s mobile devices. One patent protects a method of detecting hand gestures for interacting with a touchscreen device. Another issued patent describes a system of automatically updating profile images on a user’s device for various contacts. Finally, we noticed a patent to protect a piece of wearable hardware that lets a user view digital content privately through goggles.

Nearly 44% of all patents on which petitions were filed against are patents being held by large entities. While this is a significant increase from the earliest days of IPR where nearly 90% of all patent challenges were waged against patent owned by small entities, small entities are still carrying a massively disproportionate load of the challenges particularly when one takes into account that at any time they comprise only 20% of all the patents in force… the increase in IPR’s against patents held by large entities appears to be almost entirely due to large entities challenging other large entities, with little increased participation by small entities in the IPR process being noted.

The clearly erroneous Wall Street Journal article in question was published on December 15, 2013, under the title Jimmy Carter’s Costly Patent Mistake. The article, written by Gordon Crovitz, seems to take the position that patents stifle innovation, although Crovitz thesis is not explicitly stated. As ridiculous as it is to suggest that patents stifle innovation, this ill-defined Crovitz thesis isn’t the major issue with the fiction published by the Wall Street Journal. Crovitz erroneously states that software was not patentable until the Federal Circuit changed the rules of patent eligibility. That is simply false. There can be no dispute or argument to the contrary. Crovitz is wrong.

A recurring theme that can be traced through the patent reforms of the AIA to the current debate over patent litigation abuse is the issue of patent quality. A key component of the reported abuses is the assertion of allegedly invalid or overbroad patents, the very abuse for which AIA post-grant procedures were created, in order to improve patent quality. These matters of patent quality are being addressed by the changes made to the law by the Judiciary and by Congress in the AIA, which are only now beginning to be felt. It may well be premature to conclude that they are not doing the job. Take one major example, as a former Director of the USPTO in particular, I would support, as former Director Kappos did, giving the post-grant processes in the USPTO a chance to work.

At this time of year we often see many prognostications of what the future holds. From the prospective of the small entity patentee we see big changes in store particularly as some in Congress seem hell-bent on amending the patent statutes once more. These changes are being pushed through without any real consideration for the impact of the changes on patents held by universities, research institutes, small and medium sized companies, emerging companies, independent inventors and new entrepreneurs.

Last Friday we took a look at some Microsoft Xbox patents. This week’s holiday version of IPWatchdog’s Companies We Follow series continues by taking a look at some gaming related patents from the other major player in the Winter 2013 gaming market. The featured patent application today discusses a system of associating handheld controllers with users when engaging in game play through a video game console. Although this is already done manually by players, the automatic system of identifying players through camera images takes a lot of the cumbersome nature out of loading player profiles and switching out players during game play. Other patent applications have been filed to protect a new style of video game controller as well as a few other patent applications for Sony’s virtual reality and augmented reality gaming systems.

Time and time again in reciprocal discipline proceedings we see the USPTO handing down identical discipline to what was handed out at the State level. This is no doubt because State discipline creates a presumption that the imposition of reciprocal discipline is proper. See Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 (1917). Thus, seeking the identical penalty as already handed out at the State level is relatively easy and straight forward, and puts the responding practitioner at a significant disadvantage, requiring the Respondent to demonstrate lack of due process, severe lack of proof in the State proceeding or that a grave injustice would occur as the result of imposition of reciprocal discipline.