Posts Tagged: "samsung"

The Evolution of Digital Cameras – A Patent History

Just about 40 years ago, a young electrical engineer working at the offices of Eastman Kodak in Rochester, NY, developed a product that would upend the entire world of photography. Since that time, the technology has exploded into consumer markets and has proliferated into our daily lives, from camera components included in smartphones to high-quality megapixel systems which provide professional-grade images. All of this came to be thanks to the development of light-sensitive semiconductor devices capable of storing and transmitting light exposure information to create a digital image.

Samsung Patents: Mobile Anti-Virus, NFC and Wearable Gadgets

The patent portfolio held by Samsung represents one of the largest holdings of intellectual properties in the world, and recent weeks brought another constant stream of U.S. patent grants assigned by the USPTO. Mobile technologies were again a common thread among the technologies recently patented by Samsung Electronics and other subsidiaries. One patent protects a system of providing anti-virus protections to smartphone devices through a remote server. Another patent we explored discusses methods of improving data transmissions between devices through near field communication networks. We also noticed an intriguing technology involving a wearable glasses apparatus that accommodates better selection among multiple field of views.

Samsung Invents: Robots, Computers & Kitchen Appliances Too

The Samsung Group is one of the most active patent-seeking organizations in the world, and it has added hundreds of patents to its intellectual property portfolio in the past few weeks alone. A couple of patents we discuss today focus on the corporation’s home appliance offerings, including one for a removable cutlery basket within a dishwasher which allows for easier removal of knives, forks and more. Another patent protects a method for allowing a user to easily select the proper format for 3D image display corresponding to their stereoscopic glasses. We were also intrigued by a recently issued patent that improves upon Samsung’s previous activities in the field of robotics, which relates to a method of generating human-like motion in a humanoid robot.

Samsung Patents Walking Improvements for Bipedal Robot

Samsung has received dozens of patents for truly unique technologies, such as one patent protecting better walking and balancing controls for two-legged humanoid robots. Other patents recently issued to Samsung protect methods of identifying the likely presence of unknown viruses in e-mails, better systems of personal data and content broadcasting from mobile devices and a solar cell energy collection technology for use with handheld electronic devices… describes a system of linking applications on a single electronic device. By linking applications, a user can more easily switch between programs without using a multi-window view, which limits usable space on a touchscreen. Better methods of providing flash storage memory for smartphone devices and reader methods for adding multimedia effects of their choosing to an eBook are reflected in other patent applications we discovered.

Design Patent Infringement: How to decide if you should sue

First, look at the merits of the infringement claim. They may be stronger than you think, and you can thank a 2008 ruling for that. That year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled en banc in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. that a design patent is infringed if an ordinary observer would think that the accused design is substantially the same as the patented design when the two designs are compared in the context of the prior art. The court removed the “point of novelty” and “non-trivial advance” standards that previously seemed to constitute a second set of criteria to prove design patent infringement. That ruling has made life much easier for plaintiff attorneys and it helped Apple in its lawsuit against Samsung.

Spherix Acquires 100 Rockstar Patents

This is likely a signal of more patent infringement lawsuits yet to come in the growing patent battle by proxy between Google (NASDAQ: GOOG), Samsung, HTC (TPE: 2498) and the companies behind Rockstar, which is a group created by Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), BlackBerry Ltd.(NASDAQ: BBRY), Ericsson AB and Sony Corp. (NYSE: SNE) to acquire patents from Nortel Networks Corp. in 2011.

Samsung Seeks Patent on Voice Activated Search and Control

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.

Samsung Patents Simultaneous Translation, Seeks Patent on Robot Cleaner

What we find is an eclectic mix of computer systems, display devices and even an automated vacuum cleaner. Improved display devices are featured in a number of USPTO patent applications that we discuss in today’s column, and are an important focus for Samsung. One particular application would protect a display that is capable of providing a cleaner three-dimensional image, while another application would protect an LCD screen that can display a wider viewing angle for users. Other patents and applications we explore show the wide scope of Samsung’s development activities. One patent application describes a motorized robotic floor cleaner that can better clean under furniture. Another patent application has been filed for a system of providing personal health records to medical professionals in a way that better benefits patients. Finally, we look at a recently issued patent that gives Samsung protections over a system of simultaneously translating a voice message into a different language.

Apple, Samsung Get to Keep Financial Documents Confidential

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in the latest appeal in the Apple/Samsung epic patent battle. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (Fed. Cir., August 23, 2013). In this situation the parties really were not fighting against each other; instead finding themselves arguing on the same side against the decision of the district court to allow sensitive information to be publicly available. On August 9, 2012, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision that denied in part the parties’ motion to seal certain filings. In general, Judge Koh sealed information about the parties’ production and supply capacities, confidential source code, third-party market research reports, and the pricing terms of licensing agreements. However, Judge Koh ordered unsealed documents disclosing the parties’ product-specific profits, profit margins, unit sales, revenues, and costs, as well as Apple’s own proprietary market research reports and customer surveys and the non-price terms of licensing agreements. The Federal Circuit, per Judge Prost with Judges Bryson and O’Malley joining, determined that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to seal the confidential information at issue in the appeals, ultimately reversing and remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Will President Obama Come to Apple’s Rescue?

If the President disapproves of the ruling for policy reasons he has the authority to nullify the determination. The statute specifically explains that upon disapproval of the President an ITC determination “shall have no force or effect.” The problem that President Obama faces is very real and offers no easy way out. He will no doubt be pushed to used his authority under Section 1337(j) to disapprove of the ITC determination in order to assist Apple and AT&T, both important US companies. The trouble is that Apple is a non-practicing entity and could (and probably should) be properly characterized as a patent troll. So will President Obama use his authority under Section 1337 to help a patent troll?

Samsung Seeks to Patent Surgical Robot, Announces 5G Network

Over the past few years, electronic devices have become a staple for Samsung’s main subsidiary, Samsung Electronics. That subsidiary is a major standard bearer for the mobile device industry, and even recently announced plans to release consumer electronics on the 5G network as early as 2020, according to Forbes. Patent applications published by the USPTO recently and assigned to Samsung show the wide scope of the electronic developer’s operations. Different applications protect more space-efficient surgical robotic arms, a component device for video playback of broadcasts from different global regions and more precise systems of infrared 3D location sensing.

Samsung Awarded System of Location Tracking Designed for Parents

Patent applications published recently by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office show Samsung’s goals of developing stronger systems of software protection and user interfaces for gesture-based gaming systems. Another patent application assigned to Samsung Electronics could protect an important advance in cancer treatments. One of the recent patents awarded to Samsung from the USPTO protects a more efficient system of location tracking designed for parents.

Apple vs. Samsung: Decision Costs Apple $450 Million

On Friday March 1, 2013 Judge Lucy Koh handed down her decision regarding various motions that were filed on behalf of Apple Inc. (“Apple”) and Samsung Electronics Co. (“Samsung”) over the past few months post-trial. Specifically, Apple requested additur, supplemental damages, and prejudgment interest, while Samsung moved for a new trial on damages or remittitur. Judge Koh determined that the “Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while effectuating the intent of the jury.” The total amount stricken from the jury’s award was $450,514,650 –pending a new trial on damages. The jury awards stands for the remaining 14 products for a total of $598,908,892 in favor of Apple.

DOJ: Patent Licenses Should Discharge in Bankruptcy

The dispute at issue here regarding Qimonda arose when the company went bankrupt and seven licensees invoked the protection of § 365(n) to retain patent rights. This became an issue because there is no similar provision on German law, thus there is an attempt to nullify the patent licenses. This would force the seven licensees to open fresh negotiations or face expensive patent infringement litigation which they could not hope to prevail in since they are almost certainly infringing.

No Permanent Injunction for Apple in Samsung Patent Battle

Yesterday, the Judge Koh of the United States District Court for the Federal Circuit denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction in their ongoing patent war over smartphones with Samsung. The denial of the injunction will allow Samsung to continue to sell phones found to infringe Apple’s patents. How can that make sense to anyone? The patentee, who has already won, must establish entitlement to an order to exclude ongoing and future infringement under a four-factor test that balances equities? What good is a patent? Why did the Patent Office even bother reviewing the patent in the first place then? Why do we pretend that there is an exclusive right in the first place? And the most ignorant elements of the anti-patent community have the audacity to refer to a patent as a monopoly? Give me a break!