Week 9 - Post 2: Apple Seeking Wraparound Display

        For my next post, I read another article this week about Apple and its patents.  Currently, Apple is seeking a patent on a wraparound display for their iPhone.  The picture below is a preliminary look at what the new iPhone may look like.  The display itself would expand the viewing area of the phone, and all physical buttons would finally be done away with, according to the specs of this patent.  Also, there will be no frame or bezel surrounding the frame of the iPhone, thus further increasing the surface area of the new iPhone.  Unfortunately for Apple, Samsung recently showed off a prototype phone in January with a display that is bent around the edges, in a manner similar to Apple's iPhone filing, however their technology was not wraparound.

        Like my previous post about a patent that Apple just received on a "smart pen", it will be interesting whether Apple actually takes advantage of this patent or not, although it still remains to be seen if Apple will even be granted the "wraparound" patent.  However unlike the smart pen, the idea of a wraparound screen on an iPhone seems like consumers may actually find the product relevant and useful.  Is this the sort of innovation that Apple needs to revive itself and again find its way to the top of the technology industry?  Recently Apple has been sluggish, and its stock price dropped severely over the past several months.  Apple has not recently demonstrated any strikingly new and innovative technologies to the public recently, and many investors are questioning whether Apple is finally slowing down.  It remains to be seen whether Apple will be able to compete in the future with companies like Google, which is actively pursuing the development of both its "Google glasses" and its self-driving car.  However at least within the smartphone space, a wraparound screen seems like it could give Apple the boost it needs out of its current slump.

Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505124_162-57577078/apple-aims-to-patent-iphone-with-wraparound-display/

Week 9 - Post 1: Apple Patents the Smart Pen

        Today I read an interesting article that Apple just received a patent on a "smart pen" device.  The device will supposedly resemble a standard pen, except that it will have the capabilities of a computer embedded within it.  It will have a small LCD screen for sending and receiving both e-mails and text messages directly from the pen itself.  The pen would include a microphone, speaker, and rechargeable battery, in addition to cellular or GPS technology to allow the pen to communicate wirelessly.  However the most interesting feature about this pen seems to be its potential to write without a surface.  Apple's smart pen would be able to write in air, and due to the pen's accelerometer and handwriting recognition technology, the pen would be able to record what was written.

Apple's "smart pen".

        Apple's smart pen seems like an interesting concept, and now that they have the patent on the technology to create such a pen, it will be interesting to see if they actually launch such a device.  In a world of touchscreen smartphones and tablets, is there truly a need for an electronic pen nowadays?  Regardless, I can say that it would personally be very nice to have a pen that allows me to write anywhere, however I wonder how Apple would solve the problem of erasing any writing.  Moreover, how would one be able to see what they had written and then erase it?  It seems like Apple would have several problems to thresh out with this product; is Apple grasping for straws at this point in an attempt to stay ahead within the technology sector?  I would be interested in hearing if anyone thinks this technology has any potential, because such a device seems questionable at this point.

Link: http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/apple-smart-pen-patent-130328.htm

Week 8 - Post 2: Microsoft Did Not Violate Google Patent

        The second article that I read today was about how Google's Motorola Mobility had asserted five patents against Microsoft Corp. in 2010 for their popular Xbox gaming console over several wireless and video coding patents.  Although Motorola had dropped two of those five patents earlier this year in January, they still carried forward with the remaining three infringement claims.  Yet Microsoft has claimed that the last three of these patent claims are all Standard Essential Patents, and as such, that Motorola's patent must be available to be licensed to them on a FRAND basis.  At this point, only one of Motorola's original claims still stands - one regarding a patent that allows devices to communicate wirelessly over short distances.  However today it was announced in a preliminary decision that Microsoft had not infringed upon Motorola's patent, although a final ruling is due in July.
Also, in April 2012 an ITC judge said that Microsoft had violated four of the original five claims that Motorola made, although the ITC sent the case back to the judge for reconsideration.
        I find it very interesting that only a year ago a judge ruled that Microsoft had violated four of the five claims, but that by now three of those original claims have been dropped for various reasons.  Specifically, two of the patents were dropped because they were deemed SEP's; how did this original judge not come to the same conclusion in the first place?  The nature of the patent system is very flawed, because if today there still remains such subjectivity in determining how to interpret patent law, how is it fair to continue allowing companies to sue each other when there is no one who can always be "correct"?  The excessive patent wars need to be slowed down somehow, or at the very least the patent system must be revised, because if there still remain such huge discrepancies in today's world (SEP vs. non-SEP), it is obvious that major miscommunication is taking place.

Link:  http://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-did-not-violate-google-patent-trade-commission-212342719--sector.html

Week 8 - Post 1: Android to Infringe on Nokia Patent

          Today I read an article about how Android's tethering feature, which allows mobile phones to share their Internet connections with other compatible phones and even computers, likely infringes on a key Nokia patent.  This, coupled with the fact that Nokia recently won a legal battle against Google and HTC with respect to the proper legal interpretation of U.S. Patent 5,884,190, makes it appear likely that it will be difficult for Google and HTC to deny patent infringement at their upcoming trial.  If Nokia wins, HTC could very likely face a U.S. import ban on their Android phones.  Interestingly enough, this patent is only one of 40 that Nokia has asserted against HTC, and it seems likely that with their revised interpretation of the '190 patent solidified, Nokia will be able better leverage its claims against its competitors.  Many mobile device makers use this technology, and Nokia has the potential to assert claims against all of them, including Samsung.  

(One picture from Nokia's patent)

        At this point the main issue in court for Nokia and HTC will involve claim construction, where "...a judge determines how the patent claims will be interpreted and defines the scope of protection conferred by a patent." At this point HTC must either find a way to invalidate Nokia's claim, or they must prove that they have not infringed upon at least one of the specific elements that make up Nokia's "device tethering" claim.  So far there have been many mobile device bans that have seemed possible but not likely, however according to the article I read, there is a good chance that HTC could face a ban on its phones in the very near future.

Link:  http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/android-likely-infringes-nokia-patent.html

Week 7 - Post 2: Nokia Patent Dismissed

        The other article that I read for this week was about a patent claim by Nokia against HTC that was effectively thrown out.  Essentially, Nokia had a patent claim filed against HTC on the grounds that they had violated a patent on a "'communication network terminal supporting a plurality of applications" (basically, a patent on a way to route data to apps)"'.   An ITC judge threw out the case on the basis that the patent claim was regarding a standard essential patent, and thus that the case had to be referred to the Commission, the six-member governing body at the top of the U.S. Trade Agency.  Nokia asked the Commission to review the judge's decision to throw out the patent claim, however the Commission denied Nokia's request, without citing a specific reason.
        Thus Nokia has effectively seen this patent of theirs thrown out by the ITC judge, with no hope of resolution from the Commission.  This patent infringement claim was one of five that Nokia already has failed to win against HTC, and so far it appears as if HTC is standing strong.  However a court is expected to soon announce another decision on a Nokia HTC case, a case which is expected to go in favor of Nokia, which has asserted 40 different patents against HTC so far.  Regardless, it seems that HTC is doing very well in defending itself so far, and Nokia may not see many substantial returns in the coming months, as HTC has countersued Nokia as well.  Thus what interests me most about Nokia's decision to continue pursuing patent assertions against HTC is what Nokia intends to get out of all their litigation.  It seems Nokia is receiving minimal returns on their litigation efforts, and for an already struggling company that once dominated the mobile phone industry, Nokia may find their resources better spent on further developing their own products to better compete with more popular smartphones such as the Samsung Galaxy and the iPhone 5.  I wonder what everyone else thinks; should Nokia stop picking fights unnecessarily regarding patents and turn inwards instead?


Link: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/itc-affirms-dismissal-of-one-of-nine.html

Week 7 - Post 1: Google Quotes Jobs to Win iPhone Ban

        I read a very interesting article today about an ongoing battle between Google, and their Motorola Mobility subsidiary, against Apple in an attempt to win a United States import ban on the iPhone.  Google is claiming that Apple has infringed on its U.S. Patent No. 6,246,862, for a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device", which basically refers to the idea that the phone can ignore extraneous inputs which would cause it to perform an action.  For example, if the phone is held close to the head, the patent refers to a technology to prevent accidental actions such as the inadvertent termination (or initiation) of a phone call.  

        Essentially, there had been two earlier hearings on the case, both of which were shot down by the presiding judge, Judge Pender.  In his first ruling, Pender deemed the claim invalid for its "indefiniteness", but the Commission, a six-member decision-making body at the head of the U.S. trade agency, remanded the case.  Regardless Pender again ruled against Google, on the basis of lack of novelty for their patent, to which the Commission responded with another remand of the case.  Thus Apple is currently awaiting what seems to be a final battle with Google to determine the ability of its iPhone to remain being sold in the United States.  Google must now prove that their claim is valid, and they must narrow their infringement claim construction in such a way that they can prove Apple infringed on their patent.
        One of the most interesting ways that Google is going about tackling the case is trying to prove the non-obviousness of the patent, which Apple could use to have the claim thrown out.  Interestingly, a prior court case stated that "[a]ppreciation by contemporaries skilled in the field of the invention is a useful indicator of whether the invention would have been obvious to such persons at the time it was made".  Thus Google has gone to a quote from Steve Jobs in order to prove that their invention was not obvious, a quote in which Jobs refers to the idea of a "sensor that figured out when you put the phone to your ear" as a "breakthrough".  However the hot point of dispute on this subject will be that Motorola's patent is not on a way to detect the proximity Steve Jobs was describing.  THus it will be up to Google to prove Apple has infringed, and a decision is expected by April 22, 2013.

        There are many interesting things that stand out to me about this case, but one of the most significant was how close Google is actually coming to banning the iPhone from the United States.  The iPhone has now become such a ubiquitous part of many people's lives, it is hard to believe that it could ever be banned.  Moreover, banning the import of iPhones would obviously harm both Apple and the US economy in the several billion dollar smartphone industry.  Regardless, it was also interesting to see how the concepts of "novelty" and "obviousness" of a patent, as we discussed in class, were brought up and debated in order to determine the validity of Google's claim.  The courts have several interesting systems to determine what constitutes either of these very subjective conditions, and it is interesting how one judge can be granted so much power as Judge Pender has been granted in this case. 


Link: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/google-quotes-steve-jobs-biography-in.html        
 

Week 6 - Post 2: Samsung's Loss

        

        So far Samsung has only succeeded in prevailing on three of its standard-essential patent assertions throughout the world, with two of these being in Korea, and one of these in the Netherlands.  In the United Kingdom, Samsung is rapidly losing ground to Apple purely due to the sheer number of cases that they have been losing.  Recently, Justice Floyd of the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales ruled on three Samsung SEP assertions against Apple and declared all three patents invalid.  Samsung has nowhere in the world yet where their patents are being upheld against Apple, and they recently failed in receiving an injunction on their 22nd standard essential patent assertion, meaning that Samsung is likely losing relative ground to Apple at this point.

        Clearly we have already examined the patent war between Apple and Samsung several times, most every time citing that certain instances must be dealt with in certain ways that are not always universally applicable.  Perhaps Apple has a legitimate claim, or perhaps it is simply heckling Samsung with needless litigation; regardless it seems that since Apple now has the upper hand against Samsung that Apple may eventually itself cause harm to Samsung as a company.  As Samsung has already spent billions on litigation on Apple, in addition to receiving bad press for constantly losing cases to Apple, it seems that Samsung may eventually find it in their interests to end the patent war with Apple, to avoid any counterclaims that Apple may make, which could further worsen Samsung's position.  I believe Apple has a substantial enough of a lead within the number of patent claim assertions successfully filed, in addition to to Apple's continued domination of Samsung within the courtroom.  At what point, if any, will Samsung decide to cut its losses and begin to license its technology from Apple I wonder?

Week 6 - Post 1: Nokia Joins Apple to Fight Samsung

       

        I read a very interesting article today about how Nokia has actually been supporting Apple in their case against Samsung, all for a variety of reasons.  First of all, Nokia supports Apple's stance in court that U.S. patent holders should all have injunctive relief against a defendant even if the defendant argues that their products infringe on vast numbers of patents, as opposed to just one.  Apple has also appealed a denial of a permanent injunction against Samsung in the United States, which Nokia is backing up thoroughly.  Nokia was intending to assist Apple in their appeal by issuing an amiscus brief, or a petition to file a brief on behalf of a certain party in court to suggest a rationale consistent with its own beliefs.  However Apple moved two weeks ahead of its expected deadline to begin filing its opening brief with the United States Court, throwing off Nokia, which had planned to submit their amiscus brief sometime right before the deadline.  However Nokia filed for and received permission to file its own brief anyways.
         What was most interesting about this article, besides the fact that Nokia wanted to help Apple in the first place, was how far Nokia is going to help Apple to defeat Samsung.  In 2011, Apple and Nokia settled a patent dispute, which would make it seem that both companies should not necessarily be getting along with each other, although they have become much closer recently.  In the long run the article says that Nokia may have to file several patents against Apple once again, but that currently Nokia has several patent assertions against the makers of the Droid powered phones by HTC and Viewsonic.  Thus we see how Nokia currently has motive to work with Apple against a common enemy, however there seems to be somewhat more to Nokia's strategy in the long run.  Perhaps Nokia has realized that it is rapidly losing its share in the mobile phone industry, and they are trying to avoid future complications with Apple?  What other motives could Nokia have for supporting Apple?

Link: http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/nokia-files-amicus-brief-supporting.html

Week 5 - Post 2: Apple Scores Against Samsung

        The other article I read this week was about how Samsung lost a case against Apple in Japan in which Samsung claimed Apple had infringed on several of Samsung's patents.  The Toky District Court rejected Samsung's request to have all relevant Apple devices banned, claiming that Samsung had not "sincerely negotiated" with Apple over the patents in question.  The only problem I had with this article was the wording "sincerely negotiated", because that term is very vague.  Sincere negotiations would be very hard to define, and even harder to evaluate in a court setting, so I wonder how the Tokyo court will be able to uphold this decision without being challenged, as their ruling seems debatable.
       In addition, at the end of the article it is mentioned that Samsung and Apple are due for a large patent infringement showdown in the United States in 2014, but that the judge who will preside over the case already notified both companies to reduce the number of claims that they were suing over.  I find it very interesting that judges have now started to request and actively deny certain patent claims.  Clearly more and more people are becoming aware of the existence of patent trolls, as well as companies such as Apple that file patents to sue and slow down all of their competitors.  The U.S. patent system is a mess, and hopefully the judicial arm of the government can help address the patent nightmare.

Link:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57571794-37/apple-scores-patent-win-against-samsung-in-japan/

Week 5 - Post 1: Innovation Nation at War

Today I looked at an article in the New York Times about Richard Posner, a 7th circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals.  He has taken it upon himself recently to begin seeing cases regarding any patent litigation, his logic being that he can throw out any lawsuits without a solid claim.  He believes that only for companies with products that are easily reproducible and highly differentiable should patents be allowed, such as drugs in the pharmaceutical industry.  However in the technology industry where new patents are flowing in every day, Posner believes patents are unnecessary and detrimental.  I do not know if I would go so far as to say all the patents are unnecessary  because not allowing patents in this sector would likely discourage some innovation.
        Posner also recently began stating in court that a patent claim case cannot go on unless the plaintiff can calculate precisely how much the infringing component is driving demand for the product.  Since many companies cannot precisely calculate this amount, such as Apple, many of the cases Posner has seen have been dropped.  While I agree this is a good tactic to prevent needless litigation, I wonder how Posner would create a universal precedent that would prevent patent trolling without causing harm to the companies with legitimate claims.  The line between legitimate and troll could become very blurry depending on the context.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/opinion/nocera-innovation-nation-at-war.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&ref=patentandtrademarkoffice&adxnnlx=1362132161-7FJtYERw2XjJ/EX08FxcMQ