I also wanted to discuss another silly patent that I happened to read about besides the metal pieces that Aereo passed off as antenna. There was a patent that happened to be approved back in the 1960s for a firearm with whiskey attachment. I do find that this patent seems to be definitely not novel even if it is for a plastic gun. While I do agree that every person has a right to bear arms, I do not think it is such a good idea to do that after having some alcohol.
The firearm or plastic gun seems to be having this movable arm where the whiskey glass is supposed to be held. The schematics also seem to be confusing since it is also possible that the glass can be flipped when operating the gun. In terms of obviousness, the invention does seem unique in that no everyday person would dream of coming up with this contraption. Also, the device does not seem really novel since it is fairly easy to just attach a mount on a gun.
Also, the invention does not seem useful since it ends up encouraging the behavior of drinking with operating guns. As statistics have shown that people that text and drive do not perform well, the operation of a gun while having access to whiskey can only lead to unintended consequences potentially. In light of recent events, this invention would probably meet a lot of social opposition as well.
Some people may argue that the invention is intended for plastic guns which are harmless. However, plastic guns are often considered to be toys which kids often use so I am sure such a device would not be popular to have kids with alcohol. Overall, the invention may have been more useful if it was a scope or helped focus the aim or even a safety lock.
There was a recent article discussing the patent dispute between Medtronic and the Edwards Life Science company. This debate is interesting in looking at whether certain patents should be upheld if it affects the well-being of people in society.
I believe the article also brings up an interesting point of whether the needs of many outweigh the interests of the company. In this case, the Edwards company is capable of making a large profit if Medtronics is banned from selling their aortic valve replacement. Is it better to keep the business interests satisfied over those of the patients? The patients would be the ones adopting the use of the new device. It is also important to realize that this case is related to many life and death situations. The aortic valve device is capable of saving lives and if providing a Medtronic device can save more lives that may be beneficial.
Another point is the expired patent has already been proven to be infringed by Medtronics. It may be important to have Edwards Life Science company look past the patent and perhaps allow a competitor coexist in the marketplace. However, it is understandable that Edwards is trying to remain dominant in the aortic valve replacement market.
It may be also important to realize that the ones with the patent may not be the ones to stay in the market. In the case of Johnson & Johnson, this company was dominant in the stent market until it started charging ridiculous prices for the device. As a result, they made a market exit even with the patents but were also able to obtain payment from the other competitors that infringed. In the case that Edwards Life does win, it may be important for them to historically look back and realize that their actions may affect the business and alienate patients.
In this week's post I would like to focus on an article related to the necessity of specific patents. In some cases, the patents may not be necessary or end up having unintended societal consequences. In the case of the Aereo company, the introduction of small antennas has caused a great stir on the validity of their invention design.
For the broadcasting companies, this invention provides a huge issue given now that a third party is able to make a profit off the programs these companies provide. Now, the question in the courts come down to contesting whether the stream service that Aereo provides through their individualized antennas is public or private. If private, the claims of the broadcasting companies cannot be upheld.
A more important issue to look at is if this patent is really necessary. It may seem that the device presented in the patent is not truly novel. There are preexisting products out there like TV Slingbox that have been around before this device that provide similar streaming services. Is it important for the court to recognize this point and throw Aereo's case out the window? I do agree that it may be interesting to have these low cost tiny antennas that can go to mobile devices but it just does not seem that innovative.
I am also concerned about the strength of the business plan here. The idea is that people will be buying this device and realizing that there are other alternatives out there. Streaming services like Netflix and Hulu can definitely cover the entertainment needs of the consumers. Also, any news coverage can be easily shown at the consumer's finger tips through app services like CNN and the New York Times.
The question now becomes whether this patent is actually necessary and has it made a huge impact on the technology? It seems that the patent is at least effective in stirring up some conflict between the broadcast groups and Aereo. It has been banned in some states but it will be interesting to see what the national ruling would be here.
The article this week revisits the idea of patent validity. Even in the past cases, it is clearly shown that the Supreme Court has difficulty coming to a consensus on issues including the Bilski case and Alice vs. CLS Bank case even on the basis of obviousness. With the patent landscape filled with patent trolls, it has become more important for patents to be shown to be non-obvious.
For some larger companies, there is a push for patents especially for software patents in proving that the patents are actually necessary. What is interesting is patent holders are pushing for a section 101 test rather than a 103 test (basis on obviousness). However, it may make sense since software patents are different other types given the patent can last for 20 years. The patent could become obvious over the 20 year duration especially if other competitive software can replicate the same features.
Another interesting point is that different companies want to push for different patent tests. The two tests of interest are section 101 and section 103. Groups like Google, Microsoft and Netflix seem to champion a section 101 test on the abstractness of the patent claim to accelerate the processing. However, other groups like IBM seem to want section 103 tests to be adopted more widely to allow better patent processing especially since they do focus on many software patents.
It seems that it may be difficult to determine the best way or if a combination of patent tests need to be done upfront to minimize damage from patent trolls. Despite this issue, it is important to filter patents that seem obvious even if they are obvious.
For this week , I will be talking Micron's victory over the patents held by the University of Illinois. This case is interesting since it focused on the specific claims that were present in the three patents of the university.
Since 2011, Micron and the University of Illinois has been in case on these patents related to semiconductor production with deuterium for better performance. However, the Micron company decided to file for inter partes petition as a response to the situation. This petition is interesting since it officially requests the patent trial and appeal board (PTAB) to examine the claims for any instance of obviousness. As a result, the patent office was unable to accept the patents especially on the basis of obviousness on claim 10 of patent 6888204.
In the patent 688204, there is an instance of obviousness that exists in one of the claims. Claim 10 is describing the semiconductor production process. In fact, the process does not seem that different from making a standard semiconductor device with the right expertise. Also, the PTAB made assumptions that the miniaturization of the technology would seem obvious to the expert. Overall, it seemed that the decision by the PTAB may have been debatable.
Regardless of the situation, the legal team for Micron made very smart strategies that could be implemented by entities facing patent litigation. The petition for inter partes review seems to be a powerful technique since it does disregard the prior decisions on the validity of the patent. Also, the only difficulty with this strategy is that it requires examination of nearly all the parties and patent claims. The inter partes review requires that one of the individuals would be highly capable of proviing one of the claims as invalid.
More surprisingly, the PTAB used the decision in KSR vs Teleflex to indicate that their decision could be based on what an expert in semiconductor production would do. One of the major weaknesses in the claims was the statement of a gate insulating film with thickness of 55 angstroms or less. With at least one claim shown invalid, the overall patent is greatly weakened. It is interesting that they relied on this expert resource to greatly shape the final decision.
For this week, I found an interesting article discussing the Licensing Executive Society (LES) conference being held in Moscow. It is interesting to realize there is a global group dedicated to dealing with intellectual property and patent issues.
Primarily, this conference brings to mind the issue of licensing. It seems that licensing is a huge general trend that people have been moving towards recently. Rather than suffering the costs of litigation, licensing appears to be a compromise to minimize the number of patent disputes. I am not certain though converging to licensing is always the best idea. However, it seems great to have open communications between patent attorneys, judges and the WIPO (world international property organization) director.
Even in other cases, there are efforts to ensure fair competition and help regulate the patent system. However, it will be interesting to learn if any progress can be made through improving the patent process with all of these high officials here. Again, the issue is that the parties involved in this conference has different perspectives and thoughts on patent disputes. For example, Chief Judge Randall Rader has been involved in cases distinguishing patent ownership from copyrights (Federal Circuits: Author post).
Even with the judicial court hammering down on false advertising and patent ownership, it does not prevent patent trolling or endless patent litigation today. However, it was pointed out that lawyer Hess was present at this LES conference who was responsible for helping Microsoft circumvent the Motorola appeal. Hess provided very clear arguments for non-experts to understand in the Microsoft case. Perhaps this style that Hess provides might be necessary to bring up in this conference as a standard for patent litigation.
This week, I recently read a new article that discusses the nuances of patent ownership. It is interesting since there is a distinction between authorship and inventorship. Here, I will be looking at this issue through the case of the StoneEagle company.
The situation was that there were two men, Gillman and Allen, who worked on the collaboration and wrote up patent No. 7,2792,686. Gillman was not on the document officially but later claimed that he possessed the original documents. However, he did not win in court due to the dispute that the Federal Court found on the jurisdiction to rule on this case. The StoneEagle company was able to retain control of the patent that was filed under Allen's name.
The important issue here is determining the extent of the legal jurisdiction. The court decided that there was controversy between Gillman and StoneEagle company but the ownership dispute was related to a local law. As such, the dispute remained in the realm of local laws and processed by local courts. Since Gillman helped write the draft, he was considered a drafter and not necessarily an inventor. I do agree with the article that it would have been more helpful to prove Gillman was an inventor rather than writer for the patent.
Another interesting point was the case was conducted in Texas. Given the significance of location, the case may favor the individual pursuing the disputed patent. However, Gillman did not win the case and could not concretely prove he was part of the inventing process. Allen's name is only shown on the patent which the USPTO had allowed.
Gillman could have made alternative strategies if he was unable to acquire the patent. It would have been possible for Gillman to prove that the patent is invalid and should be revoked. In this case, StoneEagle would not be able to benefit from the patent. Looking at other patents, there is another healthcare payment system patent filed earlier by Lieberman which could have been used to show that StoneEagle did not make something novel.
Also, the Gillman legal group could consider disputing the patent on grounds of obviousness. This tactic could greatly weaken the validity of the patent. If a skilled expert in payment systems would be able to look at an earlier patent and show that it would have been obvious to implement StoneEagle's system, then the patent would have been invalidated and Gillman would have at least prevented others to benefit from it.
