Social Media and Learning

As mentioned previously, it has been almost 4 months since I started this blog. It was a really fun experience for me, and also the first time I had to record a video of myself talking to a screen. While I knew it wasn't going to be easy in the beginning, recordings got easier as the weeks progressed. Having watched so many webcasts on YouTube previously, it was nice to experience firsthand how it felt.

Honestly, I spend hours watching YouTube on daily basis. With so much content online and many talking about technology, there is a lot to learn. Sometimes, I see comments on mistakes made in the recording, which are promptly corrected by the uploader. It is a win-win solution as we get more accurate information. However, I learnt that we need to show prudence in taking in what we read. Apart from satirical posts which are purposely inaccurate, many posts contain mistakes or presents a skewed view. It is up to us to judge what is correct for even those backed by experiments could be inaccurate.

Because I am interested in learning as much as possible, this easy availability of resources online is sometimes a detriment for me. I am still contented with in class learning, as it is goes more in depth than what we can learn online. There are too many topics to choose and I tend to avoid topics as they go more in depth, which also becomes more boring. Materials online are sometimes difficult to delve deep into because it takes experience working with problems to assimilate the knowledge. Thus, I firmly believe social media aids in keeping us well informed with the world's progress, and could get us excited enough to learn more. However, it is meant to complement institutional learning and not override it completely.

Finally, I would like to thank everyone for reading my blog, and posting all the comments. I do appreciate all of them, even though they are part of our homework requirement! =)

Semester Reflections

It's reaching the end of the semester, and also brings my overseas exchange experience close to an end (I'll be flying back to Singapore immediately after my exams). While patents are not often discussed in Singapore, if any at all, it was really interesting to learn about the US patent system. The pace of the class was slow, but we had to spend a lot of time out of class scouring through the content that is available online to find out more. It is actually pretty nice in this aspect, as we can better relate the seemingly simple concepts (which is really complicated sometimes) to past and current issues which shape the world. Patents did make or break companies, and helped push innovation to the next level, retiring those who fail to catch up. Some companies unfortunately fall prey to trolls but I guess that's part and parcel of life. Nevertheless, the future seems optimistic with actions being taking to mitigate these issues.

I also believe the experience from taking this class will change how I view technology firms in future. I understood how companies sue one another to protect themselves or to profiteer, but I did not previously know on what basis were they suing one another with. The way lawsuit proceedings are usually published on papers make it seem simply that it is either a bad or a good case but there are more than meets the eye which make some cases so long drawn.

Also, to add on, I find it really difficult to read about ongoing patent cases (especially in the beginning) because of the numerous technical terms involved. It required a lot of effort researching to decipher articles and then blog about them, which I did nonetheless as the articles were interesting. And, it was actually a self-satisfying when I got towards understanding the articles better, despite making mistakes every now and then. Thankfully, technology is so advanced now that everything can be done just in front of my laptop!

Silly Patents: Predicting your Death

I mentioned earlier that I would like to focus on silly food related patents. However, I found this patent so silly that I have to blog about it - the "Life Expectancy Timepiece". US Patent #5,031,161, in simple terms, is a watch which estimates when you will die.

Personally, I think the watch may end up further reducing your remaining lifetime. It is depressing. Instead of focusing on living your life to the fullest, you get reminded of every second of life you have remaining - if it is even accurate in the first place. Moreover, there have been cases where terminally ill patients recover, at least slightly, when they live life positively. Positive thinking leads to a stronger immune system whereas negative thinking does the opposite, even culminating into depression.

Back to the invention, the inventor supports his timepiece by stating that insurance companies routinely updates the actuarial table of average lifespan based on factors such as smoking, alcohol consumption and family (genetic) history. His invention thus includes the ability to program these factors and other habits and events in the user's life to predict his remaining time. Although I understand the need for insurance companies to know the average life expectancy in order to price their products appropriately, but would any single individual have a need for such knowledge? Sure, we go find fortune tellers to predict it, among other things, but I believe it is mostly to find peace and assurance.

Sources:
http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/great-invention-idea-watch-that-predicts-your-death
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5031161.pdf

Silly Patents: Control-Freak Fork

One other patent which caught my attention was US Patent #5,421,089 - "Fork with Timer". Basically, the fork has some circuitry on itself which cues the user when to take another bite. It even has a replaceable power source.

Personally, I find it being a useless invention, and hopefully you  guys agree with me. I do not see any way a fork would be able to dictate when we should it, as we can easily choose to ignore it. In the patent, it states that "getting a person to slow down is difficult, as it takes conscious thought to eat slowly when hungry". However, supposing someone did purchase this fork, there is no punishment mechanism to stop the person from eating too fast as well.

It is also pretty funny that in the patent's summary, it mentions the invention "has all the advantages of the prior art, and none of the disadvantages", when comparing with prior fork related inventions. Certainly, I can think of some disadvantages already - the need to replace the power source and the annoyance when the fork sounds its alarm, to name a few - and that is considering if somebody actually purchased it in the first place. It probably would not come at an attractive pricing given its numerous parts over a simple fork made of just one material. Do let me know what you think about this invention! I would certainly be interested to hear your thoughts.

EDIT: I did another search on the fork, and found out that there is actually another fork (HAPIfork) which vibrates and flashes, and even comes with a corresponding app to track your eating habits! There is also a fondue fork with timer (US Patent #8,503,268). I am at a lost for words right now, so I'll just let you decide whether it is actually a good idea.

Sources:
http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/a-fork-that-tells-you-when-to-eat-great-idea
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5421089.pdf
http://www.shape.com/blogs/shape-your-life/put-fork-eating-too-quickly
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US8503268.pdf

Silly Patents: Edible Garments?

This week, we saw some examples of absurd patents in class. After doing a search online, I chanced upon even more silly patents. Since I enjoy food, I decided to blog about some patents related to eating.

First off is US Patent #6,872,119 - "Garments having Edible Components and Methods for Making Same". The invention claims candies with a hole in the center which can be strung by portions of the clothes, such as by the laces of a bikini or hoodie, bag strap, and even the ankle strap of a stiletto! Although I have seen things like chocolate clothes on the runway and even Lady Gaga's meat dress, I would have thought of these being limited to artistic pleasure instead of being patented. It is highly unlikely anyone would infringe on the patent.

In addition, the candy would become sticky when exposed to moisture, and be pretty gross to even consider eating. What's worse are those that have direct contact with the skin, such as the bikini and shoes!

It is also interesting that there are many prior art cited and after doing a quick search, I found that most are largely unrelated to the invention. Some of them are even cited by the examiner himself. It is likely they were mentioned to supposedly add more "credibility" to the invention and justify its approval.

Sources:

http://www.funnypatentsandinventions.com/edible-garments-great-idea

http://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?PageNum=0&docid=06872119&IDKey=F6501A0DFC1A%0D%0A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPALL%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D2FPTO%25252Fsrchnum.htm%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D6872119.PN.%2526OS%3DPN%2F6872119%2526RS%3DPN%2F6872119

Definitions Part II

Remember I had a post explaining some of the legal terminologies used in legal cases? I read through an article on Patently-O and it left me more puzzled than ever. Thus, I will be explaining some of the legal terms used. Hopefully, upon reading my post then the article, you can make more sense out of it too! Do correct me if I am wrong in explaining some of the points.

Declaratory Judgment
It is simply a judgment that resolves legal uncertainty. Also known as a declaration or declaratory relief, a declaratory judgment is usually sought in situations involving contracts, deeds, leases, and wills, as well as determining rights of individuals or parties under specific laws. It is a legally binding and future similar issues will following the existing judgment. However, it does not require any actions to be taken, i.e. damages and injunction. Thus, the declaratory judgment updates and improves on existing law to address different scenarios, and sometimes also cover possible loopholes.

Jurisdiction
Although this term is pretty well understood and common used even in normal English ("Sorry, this is not within my jurisdiction"), its use in the article did confuse me ("found jurisdiction", "triggering declaratory judgment jurisdiction", "creating jurisdiction"). You can basically replace the word with 'power', and things begin to make sense, or does it always? You could also try replacing it with "power of the court" or "(an) area of control" and it should become clear.

Induced and Contributory Infringement
Induced infringement and contributory infringement are actually two different types of infringement although they both fall under the category of indirect infringement. If someone is involved in some conduct leading to direct infringement (the usual infringement), he could be indirectly infringing a patent. If someone "actively and knowingly" cause someone else to infringe on a patent, he is said to have induced infringement. If no active steps such as by requesting or even forcing was taken and the direct infringer made the decision himself leading to the infringement, there is no induced infringement.

Contributory infringement, on the other hand, happens when something less than the whole invention is sold. If that something has no other substantial purpose apart from for the invention, then the seller is a contributory infringer. For example, if someone makes and sells an aircraft engine which when combined with other parts infringe a plane invention, he is a contributory infringer since there is no other substantial purpose for the engine (its use in reality or comedy shows as part of an obstacle course obviously does not count).

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/microsoft-declaratory-jurisdiction.html
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/declaratory+judgment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisdiction
http://www.quizlaw.com/patents/what_is_the_difference_between_1.php

Opinions on the News

Recently, we have seen a lot of satirical posts online. Some, despite being so ridiculous, are believed to be true by some readers. Nevertheless, they are satirical and most take them as jokes. However, what about articles on legitimate papers which paint the wrong picture? (Truth be told, it actually happens pretty frequently) Recently, two opinion articles, "Slowing the Patent Trolls" and "Abusive and Frivolous Patent Suits", were published on The New York Times Opinion Pages and their inaccuracies were disputed by Michael Borella and Dennis Crouch respectively. I'll briefly summarise about the points that were inaccurate in the former here.

With the current ongoing debate over software patents' patentability, instead of being granted easily, "computer-implemented inventions are held to a higher standard than most other types of inventions due to these additional requirements". While we might tend to agree that software patents should not be granted, the complexity of some software patents, or how the claims actually are, may make them patentable. This complexity is one of the reasons the topic is still debated, and simple examples may not help to paint the full picture.

Another interesting point Borella noted is that the US's patent system "purposely encourages the existence of non-practicing entities by making patent property rights freely assignable and eschewing a "working" requirement". This does highlight the point that patent trolls buy patents from numerous individuals and then use some of them to sue those who "infringe", regardless whether the patent is good or bad. Although addressing this issue could mitigate the problem, it also makes it difficult for proper and legitimate businesses from acquiring patents from others especially as a form of defense, when they do not actually use the patents except in litigation.

Certainly, the topic of patents is broad and complicated, as well as constantly evolving. Although the posts were inaccurate and posted at the wrong places, it does show the rising awareness about patents which could still buy the news some grace.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/opinion/slowing-the-patent-trolls.html
http://www.patentdocs.org/2014/03/new-york-times-op-ed-argues-law-takes-misguided-approach-to-software-patents.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/07/opinion/abusive-and-frivolous-patent-suits.html?ref=opinion
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/fee-shifting.html

Why Provisional Applications?

As we have learnt in class, filing a provisional patent application is very fast, even taking less than 5 minutes if you already know what to do. Apart from the convenience provided, is there any other reason we should be filing for a provisional patent application? I did a search online and found a post by Gene Quinn detailing the benefits as well as some tips on when is the best time to file.

Firstly, a provisional application is a good way to begin the application process. It is cheaper to prepare, plus there is the micro entity discount for individuals, universities and small companies. It is also to be noted that "it is best to think of the provisional patent application as a lower cost way of starting your journey toward receiving a patent, but it is incorrect to think of the provisional patent application as a cheap way to start the patent process", which means we have to apply with the aim of getting the patent eventually.

Quinn also stated the 75-25 rule which applies to most provisional applications, although he also mentioned the Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule). Nevertheless, what we need to know is that the bulk of the application takes a very fast time to complete, while the remaining 20% eventually takes up 80% of the time. Since it is easy to draft out most of the application, why not apply for a provisional application as we work on the full patent. This provisional application can turn out to be very useful as a form of protection while the final invention is being created. Of course, we need to make sure that the provisional application has all the disclosure included, which does not take very long. Mostly, only what is disclosed early on will enjoy the benefit of the early filing although in most cases, the initial disclosures are the most crucial parts of the invention.

Anyway, apart from the very limited information about the provisional applications publicly available on the Patent Application Information Retrieval system, there is little risk of revealing the invention to the world (although it may appear unfair that we do not get to know about that which could be used as a prior art against us).

Quinn also mentioned that the initial invention will be different from the final invention most of the time. Thus, filing should be done after the invention is just about complete (75-80%). Additional provisional applications can be added and combined together as the invention gets firmed up, until the whole patent is ready to be filed as a non-provisional patent.

In final words, there is really no disbenefit of filing a provisional patent application apart from setting a deadline for your final patent, which should be filed as quickly as possible anyway taking into consideration the fast pace of technological advancement now.

Sources:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/14/the-benefits-of-a-provisional-patent-application/id=45156/
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/04/priority-provisional-applications.html

Avoiding the Issue

In addition to my previous posts relating to past obviousness case, I read up about another obviousness case that was decided in 1976 - Dann vs Johnston. This case is interesting because the Supreme Court used the obviousness factor to invalidate the patent, rather than tackle the issue that it was pertaining to software (a business method coded into a program).

In summary, the patent claims to be a "machine system for automatic record-keeping of bank checks and deposits". Since it reached the Supreme Court, it means there were different decisions in the lower courts, similar to the previous cases I blogged, and in this case primarily stemming from it being a software. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled the patent invalid as the processes were known and obvious. Should the processes have been non-obvious, the case might be more complicated and possible to go either way.

Certainly, software in the 70s was still a new area of development and patent rules regarding them were uncertain. I mean, four decades on and it is still widely debated. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not have to deal with the issue of software patentability then, else it would have created a binding precedent. While it seems wrong, choosing to avoid the issue may have been the Supreme Court's best decision then. That era, even before the rising prominence of software, could have created many issues today whichever way the decision went.

Personally, thinking back, I feel that software patents should not be awarded if they had to deal with the issue then. It may seem alright now because there are already so many free software codes available, but back then, any software process could have allowed companies to monopolise an industry, preventing others from adapting the new software technologies, which were already limited by the number of software languages around.

Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/425/219/

Fighting the Government

Previously, I talked about the Graham factors from the Graham vs John Deere Co. case. On the same day as the Graham judgement, another trial involving the Government was decided - United States vs Adams. They were consolidated cases argued together and thus decided together.

Adams invented a wet battery using magnesium and cuprous chloride electrodes, and activated by water. He did not specifically claim that the use of water was what made his invention unique, but simply mentioned that the "battery is ready for use by merely filling with water". Anyway, Adams demonstrated the battery to the United States Army Signal Corps, and their scientists still did not believe the claims. A Government expert from the National Bureau of Standards also expressed doubt a year later. However, at the peak of World War 2, the Army Signal Corps concluded that the battery could work, and the Government then hired various manufacturers to produce the battery, without notifying or seeking permission from Adams.

As a result, Adams sued the Government for infringement and breach of impled contract. The Government, in turn, challenged the validity of the patent, arguing that the concept of chemical batteries using metal electrodes was not new and, thus, the claims lacking novelty and being obvious. The Supreme Court felt that the prior art taught away from the invention - all but one mentioned the use of water, and that which did discouraged its use, so the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Adams.

Anyway, an amusing story about the case, which I will simply copy from Wikipedia (referenced from the book Patent Law: In a Nutshell) so that it remains comical:

"Adams's attorney arose before the Supreme Court, took a drink from his glass of water, and then dropped a tiny Adams battery into the glass. The inventive battery immediately lit a tiny light that continued to burn throughout the argument. Some accounts suggest that the attorney knew he had won the case when the Justices kept their eyes on the tiny burning light throughout the remainder of the argument."

It is certainly very interesting and I hope you laugh at it as I did. It does show attorneys have interesting ways to capture the attention and awe of judges, like we do in presentations to the class!

Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/39/
http://www.google.com/patents/US2322210?dq=2322210
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Adams

The "Invention": Heat-Drying Ink

The Sinclair & Carroll vs Interchemical Corp case took place in 1945, involving the claims of a heat-dried printer ink which is non-volatile at room temperature. The ink was "invented" by Albert Gessler and assigned to Interchemical Corp, and later used to sue Sinclair & Carroll Co., and the patent was first held invalid by the District Court, then reversed by the Circuit Court before finally reversed yet again by the Supreme Court, which is pretty similar to the KSR case.

In summary, the "invention" had a significant impact on the mass printing industry, especially for non-absorbent paper printing such as that used in magazines. It was interesting how Gessler found the composition, as he was first asked to make an odorless ink (in 1930) by testing chemicals from a catalog which had descriptions of the chemicals. The company which asked for his help later found the ink unsatisfactory for other reasons and Gessler stopped testing. However, in 1932, the company then requested for the heat-drying ink mentioned above, Gessler told them one of the inks he made in 1930 met the requirements. From here, we can see that the ink is obvious, as it was primarily based off a catalog. Even though the ink may have been discovered after much failures, it is to be noted that the primary chemical solvent in the ink (butyl carbitol) with the desired properties was first released to the market in 1929, which meant that past failures would not really count to give Gessler the patent, the chemical's inventor deserves it more. Thus, obviousness was the reason the Supreme Court supported the District Court's decision.

Anyway, as I was reading through parts of the case, I found this interesting statement:

"There has been a tendency among the lower federal courts in infringement suits to dispose of them where possible on the ground of noninfringement, without going into the question of validity of the patent. Irvin v. Buick Motor Co., 88 F.2d 947, 951; Aero Spark Plug Co. v. B.G. Corp., 130 F.2d 290; Franklin v. Masonite Corp., 132 F.2d 800. It has come to be recognized, however, that, of the two questions, validity has the greater public importance, Cover v. Schwartz, 133 F.2d 541, and the District Court in this case followed what will usually be the better practice by inquiring fully into the validity of this patent."

It shows that there are probably many cases which may have been judged unfairly in the past, although I am not too sure if any did reach the Supreme Court to overturn the judgement. Nevertheless, that was decades before the Graham factors came along to set a clearer definition on obviousness.

Sources:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/327/

Obviousness Prosecution Strategies

In addition to my previous post, Tom Irving's notes also mentioned how it is "still best to destroy, rather than rebut, a prima facie case of obviousness". This statement means in a patent appeal, it is better for the court to attempt to prove the patent claims, which appear to be obvious, are indeed obvious rather than not. On the other hand, in argument, it is better to attack the "premise of rejection rather than amending claim important in view of prosecution history estoppel and litigation implications". That sounds complicated, but it means it is better not to make a compromise of amending the claim to accommodate the rejection rationale unless necessary.

On the judges' side, to substantiate the rejection, we can check if the draft application spelled out everything relevant to the claims. If they did not reveal everything, they may be hiding the fact that the problem was known and that there was an obvious solution. Also, the application has to include the "starting point" prior art which kickstarted the invention's development, and we can access if it would lead to identifying the problem.

However, for the patentee, Irving states that there has to be some rational reasoning to support the conclusion, and thus it can be challenged if there is not. It would be crucial to show the claims were not obvious to try then, which we have discussed in class and in my other posts. Knowing how the two sides fight in a case will enable us to first draft an irrefutable patent claim.

Sources:
https://law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/centers/judicialstudies/patentlawintensive/wednesday_Irving-May_15_Dev_in_Non-Obviousness.pdf

Improving Odds of Approval

In a powerpoint notes by Tom Irving of Finnegan, he summarised the developments in non-obviousness in great detail, listing many post-KSR cases. It is certainly a good albeit long reading. Of particular interest to me was how Irving suggested we could improve our odds of getting our patent claims approved against obviousness arguments by the USPTO.

We could use the "lead compound" case law results, that there are many choices to try prior to the invention, that results are unpredictable when we combine elements together and that knowing the properties does not equate to knowing the process. In other words, we have to show that it was not obvious (to try). Although the case was related to a pharmaceutical patent, the challenge can be used on any other cases.

Firstly, we have to show that there many unpredictable yet possible solutions. We would then require extensive testing to affirm if any are actually viable solutions. If a prior art pointing the general direction is used by the examiner to challenge the claim, it could be argued that it did not show solutions, which were unpredictable. The best would be that the prior art teaches away from the solution for example, by stating it is impossible based on in accurate predictions.

The second argument of unpredictable results when combining elements means that an ordinary skilled worker would not have thought of trying it, since he would not have thought that something unpredictable would happen.

The last point can be explained using a simple analogy. We know about carbon dioxide and oxygen and their properties, but we may not know how to get oxygen from carbon dioxide (of course we now know chlorophyll is a natural solution but this is just an analogy).

In all, I would say that this is a different phrasing on proving non-obviousness, putting the concepts in an easily understood manner.

Sources:
https://law.duke.edu/sites/default/files/centers/judicialstudies/patentlawintensive/wednesday_Irving-May_15_Dev_in_Non-Obviousness.pdf

The Kubin Case

After the KSR vs Teleflex case in April 2007, another case (ex Parte Kubin) involving the appeal of a patent claim rejection had its judgement reaffirmed in May 2007 based on the new "Obvious to Try" standard.

The patent involves a cDNA molecule (NAIL) that serves as an NK cell surface marker. In summary, the main claim is the isolation of the said molecule. Kubin appealed on the rejection based on a similar case in 1995 (Deuel) that its cDNA claims cannot be "made obvious by mere knowledge of a desired protein sequence and methods for generating the DNA that encodes that protein". However, unfortunately for Kubin and as a result of the KSR judgement, the claim was obvious to try.

Even though obvious to try may not necessarily mean the resulting outcome was obvious or the process straightforward, it was in this case. Straightforward does not mean it is easy, it could be tedious but so long as it is routine, those skilled in the art would be able to do it, which was a point noted. Also, because the claims were not sufficiently detailed, claiming only 80% identity of the described sequence, its rejection was further supported. Certainly, the "obvious to try" rule makes claims harder to be approved, and bad patents without much innovation could have more difficulty being used to sue for damages. However, due to hindsight bias, it can be very difficult to determine if something was indeed obvious to try.

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/07/ex-parte-kubin.html
http://patentlyo.com/media/docs/2007/07/fd070819.pdf
http://www.patents4life.com/Ex%20Parte%20Kubin.pdf
http://www.hoffmanbaron.com/releases/HB%20Article%20Reprint_fnl.pdf

Phosiwhat?

In deciding validity of patents through the obviousness test, the term PHOSITA keeps popping up. It means "person having ordinary skill in the art" and is actually a legal fiction (assumed fact). He does not have to always exist in a case, but is taken as a guideline of skill level to determine non-obviousness. Otherwise, we would know when to determine if something is non-obvious.

It was mentioned in Patently-O that we may think that the education level of the inventor is relevant to determining the PHOSITA skill level, but it should actually be excluded. The PHOSITA is simply a skilled worker (with common sense, of course, and not a robot), and should not be considered someone capable of making the invention (someone really smart). However in the KSR case, the PHOSITA figure was further expanded to be creative when looking at prior art, at least able to think slightly out of the box. That is to say, for example, a bottle invented to store water can be used to store other things, such as flowers, but not have led to being used as the body of a water-propelled rocket launcher (a bit far-fetched I know, but I could not think of anything else).

Certainly, this definition of a PHOSITA is ambiguous depending on the case, but I believe it should be kept that way. Every case can be very different and setting a stricter definition could render it biased to or against some group of cases. Even in the legal world where the law is constantly updated based on new judgement, some things are best left untouched, lest there be no case to fight anymore.

Sources:

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/09/invention-obvio.html

http://www.hjklaw.com/blogs/archive/entry/who_is_a_person_of_ordinary_skill

http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_vii_3.htm

The Graham Factors

The USPTO's examination guidelines for determining obviousness is listed under 35 USC § 103 (Title 35 of the United States Code Section 103). Apart from the KSR case mentioned in this week's class, it also lists guidelines derived from other cases (only briefly mentioned in class), but they mainly improve the Graham factors.

The Graham factors are some basic questions of fact which should first be determined - the scope and content of prior art, differences between claimed invention and prior art, and the level of ordinary skill in the prior art. These are the main factors used for every obviousness decision by the Supreme Court since the Graham case in 1966. Of course, here we see that it is obvious the factors are important. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, it is only obvious because we already know it. What was not obvious then though was what was brought up in the KSR case, which again is obvious to us now. Interesting!

Anyway, the section describes in detail what is required in each factor. I will discuss about the "differences between claimed invention and prior art" in this post, that is the claimed invention must be considered as a whole. This stemmed from a case that an invention was argued to be only a structural difference from a prior art, although if considered as a whole it eliminated a problem from the prior art. Another case involved a claim for a three-step process, of which the first two steps were non-obvious while the third was obvious. If we did not consider the claim as a whole, the third step would become invalid then, but it was actually a necessary step in the invented process.

Also, if we distilled the invention down to the "gist" or "thrust" of the invention, it disregards the "as a whole" requirement. What does this mean? Basically, if we focused on the main point, or any point for that matter, of the invention, we are not taking the invention as a whole. I would say that this rule mainly serves as a reminder to judges not to focus on any specific point. In fact, it is a crime we always commit unknowingly.

Sources:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2141.html
http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2005/03/handling_103_rejections.html
http://www.the-business-of-patents.com/obviousness.html

Obviousness is Difficult

In this week's class, we discussed about non-obviousness, one of the three elements required for a patent to be valid. As I was reading the article by Dennis Crouch on Patently-O, many of the tests for obviousness in the case was mentioned in class and certainly highlights the difficulty in proving non-obviousness.

In summary, the patent by Leo Pharmaceutical claiming a "storage stable and non-aqueous" pharmaceutical composition was challenged by Galderma R&D and initially invalidated, before the Federal Circuit reversed the decision after an appeal. The reason for the invalidation and reversal primarily stems about the obviousness point of the patent, which I will discuss in this post.

First, we need to know a bit more about the composition is that it combines Vitamin-D and corticosteroids by adding the claimed solvent, which then allows it to be storage stable, which means it can be stored for a period of time without degrading. The Board had found this to be obvious as it combined three prior art references. It was known in the references that it would be great to be able to combine Vitamin-D and corticosteroids, but they either discouraged the combination or combined them without making them storage stable. Thus, the Federal Circuit stated that it was actually not obvious since past research pushes them away from the invention.

The Federal Circuit also substantiated with the point that the invention only came after a decade of previous patents, which means it was a different problem to solve or it would have been solved much earlier. As such, the Chief Judge handling the appeal, Judge Rader, felt that older prior art should be seen as less credible. I certainly agree to this point. Had the earlier researchers first known of the problem or not steered clear of it, they would have been able to solve it since they were already researching about it.

Also, while the patent claimed a wide variety of solvents, there were many more potential solvents and it would not have been obvious that the claimed solvents would work without first trying many others which would not. This made a lot of sense in why the obviousness test is such a difficult test to ascertain, such that even the Board would make a mistake. In fact, I would say it in itself is one of the biggest problems! Most inventions and solutions we see are obvious on first sight, simply because they solve the problem. For example, when we tutor someone, we may know how to solve the problem just because we already know how. However, sometimes, we cannot even comprehend why the tutee does not get it. It is very difficult to put ourselves in their shoes unless we can time-travel to when we did not know the solution. That is certainly an interesting side topic to think about.

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/08/judge-raders-obviousness-tutorial-including-the-conclusion-that-older-prior-art-is-less-credible-and-a-restatement-that-o.html
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1520.Opinion.8-8-2013.1.pdf

A Further Blow to Apple

Apple suffered yet another setback today in their war with Samsung, their renewed motion for a permanent injunction in US against some of Samsungs' older smartphones, which was granted after an appeal following the denied injunction in December 2012, was again denied. The denial was upheld mainly because the judge feels "Samsung's competition is, for the most part, lawful, and Apple cannot obtain an injunction only because it is harmed by lawful forms of competition."

Although those smartphones in discussion are not sold in the US market anymore, Apple had argued that the injunction would have been important in preventing Samsung from releasing similar models in future. Nevertheless, Apple and Samsung are still able to appeal any unfavourable parts of the judgement.

On a side note, the case which this renewed motion derived from the first case filed between Apple and Samsung which started roughly 3 years ago. I feel this has been a long drawn fight and should conclude soon, although Samsung has said they will be appealing for the damages they have to pay in the previous ruling in 2012. Apart from monetary damages, the mentioned patents have been brought up countless times, and it will be unlikely that Samsung will be copying them again despite what Apple thinks.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/setback-for-apple-us-judge-denies.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-apple-samsung-injunction-idUSBREA251JM20140306

Public Disclosures, Forced or Self-Initiated?

Progress on one of the many cases between Samsung and Apple managed to surprise Florian Mueller of Foss Patents, which is a rarity, seeing how he responded in his post. In the case, Apple and Nokia argued that Samsung had made use of "highly confidential patent license terms" between Apple and Nokia for their own license negotiation with Nokia (in July 2013). Samsung was cleared of the charge on the end of January, but their law firm Quinn Emanuel was ordered to pay for the cost of litigation for Apple and Nokia as it led to the disclosure of those confidential licensing terms.

However, it was found that Apple themselves had publicly filed the supposedly license terms with Nokia on a publicly-accessible court docket (summary of proceedings on court) since October, before taking it down four months later. What makes this a big deal is that Apple did not have to release exact details of the license terms publicly.

Personally, similar to what Mueller proposes, I think there should be a reduction in the cost Quinn Emanuel would need to pay. Although we can argue that these confidential information would not have been released had Samsung not presented licensing terms to Nokia which were almost identical to Apple's, the revelation was only to those present at court and would not have been publicly available, which Apple chose to disclose whether by carelessness or not. Samsung and their law firm should thus not be required to cover for all the cost of litigation since Apple made a mistake even if the public did not see the confidential licensing terms while it was still available to the public.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/03/apple-publicly-disclosed-terms-of-its.html
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/us-court-declines-to-sanction-samsung.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/203331606/14-01-29-Apple-v-Samsung-Order-on-Sanctions-for-Disclosures

Man and Nature

As mentioned in class this week, everything that is made by man can be patented. However, a product that is similar to what exists in nature cannot (i.e. an exact duplicate of nature). The process that allows you to get more harvest than naturally possible, on the other hand, can be patented. There are many other examples which are difficult to classify into one of the two categories though. Thus, how do we know which claims relating to nature can or cannot be patented?

Just today, USPTO released a memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps listing some guidelines for analysing claims involving "laws of nature/natural principles, natural phenomena, and/or natural products". Dennis Crouch on Patently-O points out that this is important, as there is currently a separation between the examiners, the judges, and the jury, who have technical training, legal training, and neither respectively. The guidelines were listed in lieu of the changes in law from a tried case, and closes the gap between the examiners and judges, as examiners might not be previously informed.

Following this memorandum, it is likely more are to come given the accelerating number of patent lawsuits and, in particular, many regarding validity of patents. While this may further complicate the role of the examiners as they have more different sets of guidelines for different categories of patent applications to follow, it may also aid in rejecting more "bad" patents.

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/03/eligibility-guidelines-phenomena.html
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_qrs.pdf

Microsoft Patent Ruled Invalid in Germany

On Foss Patent, it was reported that the patent court in Germany ruled the German part of a Microsoft patent, EP0845124, as invalid today. This patent was related to the Google Maps Android app and was filed by Google's Motorola Mobility, following an infringement filing by Microsoft prior. Thus, the invalid ruling is a huge blow to Microsoft. It could have been used to leverage settlement from Google's Motorola Mobility (although it is bought over by Lenovo) as all the infringement claims filed by Microsoft against them in 2010 has yet to go to trial even now.

The case is special as Microsoft is filing for an appeal to salvage the patent immediately. This is special as the appeal is usually filed after the court's written decision is out, which is typically months after the hearing. However, the discussed patent is actually expiring in the Summer of 2015, and the delays from each procedure could eventually mean the patent expires (if appeal turns out to be successful) before any infringement can be ascertained. Since the reversal rate in the patent court is very high, at more than 40% for nullity cases, Microsoft still stand a chance to gain some usefulness out of the patent. It will be a marginal race with time though.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/federal-patent-court-of-germany.html
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?FT=D&date=20000517&DB=worldwide.espacenet.com&locale=en_EP&CC=EP&NR=0845124B1&KC=B1&ND=4

A Letter to the UPC

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) Industry Coalition, which includes big tech firms such as Apple, Cisco, Google, Microsoft and Samsung, issued a second open letter to the UPC, the common patent court of EU, to highlight the current limitations of the court which allows for NPEs, or PAEs, to abuse the system. They thus urge the UPC to address this lest the EU becomes a patent troll's paradise.

The letter listed the main flaw being that the court order for an injunction is separated from the determination of validity of a patent. This is also known as bifurcation, as mentioned in the letter. NPEs can use their patents to cause the court to order an injunction on products, even if the patent can be proven to be invalid, since a much longer time is taken to determine validity. As such, NPEs can make use of the flaw to ask for a settlement and thereafter use the patent on another company. This is a serious threat since they are not contributing anything to get some money in return, and the money actually comes from consumers.

Although there are not as many NPE in the EU compared to US, with the tightening of laws making it hard for NPEs to profiteer in the country, they will soon target the EU. In fact, seeing the path we are heading, NPEs will be akin to parasites moving across countries to find a suitable host when the existing host has lost its usefulness. I hope that the various patent courts across the world will be aware of the situation and plan to mitigate it before the NPEs strike them.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/growing-industry-coalition-urges-eu.html
http://www.scribd.com/doc/209104430/25-February-2014-UPC-Industry-Coalition-Open-Letter

Some Patent-related Policy Initiatives

The guest post by Professor Jorge Contreras on Patently-O (Industry Responds to White House Calls for Prior Art, Examiner Training) summarises the significant patent-related initiatives in place now, as well as how the private sector has responded to them. In particular, the call for the private sector to help provide additional training for the patent examiners at USPTO and to disclose and share prior art piqued my interest.

Although the patent examiners know about their sector of expertise well, given they are busy with examining patent applications on a daily basis and the rapid advancement of technology right now, they are certainly not up to date with the technology progress. It will be beneficial to the companies to keep the examiners up to date, else more bad patents may pass through and, in turn, be used against them. However, I feel that there might be limited impact from the training as there is just too much to cover. It will take weeks or even months to be able to fathom what the progress is in every area under the examiner's expertise. Nevertheless, I still agree that this will be a necessary step to take lest they become cavemen. Every bit of training does help.

This brings to the point that I feel the disclosure and sharing of prior art would be more effective for the PTO. With greater accessibility to hitherto unknown technological development, examiners will be able to ascertain if patent applications are indeed new. Anyone will definitely be able to see why this is the case. However, a drawback would be that other companies can then figure out how some processes are done and attempt to copy them, especially since no patents were filed for them. A way to go about this might be to privatise this database of prior art such that they are only available to patent granting offices, which can also prompt more companies to be willing to disclose their knowledge. This way, overlapping patents can be rejected by explaining there is prior art, and companies can make use of the concepts for themselves but without monetising them through litigation.

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/industry-examiner-training.html

Approach to Demand Letters

A bill which spells out what could and could not be considered as evidence for a bad faith assertion in demand letters was passed by the Kentucky Senate last Thursday. This seeks to prevent patent trolls from sending out demand letters on patent infringements without doing a comprehensive analysis and yet attempt to benefit from the unreasonable demand. It prompts the patentee to "engage in a good faith effort to establish that the target has infringed the patent and to negotiate an appropriate remedy". While it does not mean that it is absolutely necessary, it will better substantiate the claim, along with several other points. Another important point is that if the patent-holder is a non-practicing entity, it could also be used as evidence.

This attempt to lower the odds for patent trolls in lawsuits would definitely help to protect the defendants, at least currently in Kentucky. As the defendants have to litigate the case when they do not meet their demands by the plaintiffs and thus get sued, it could end up costing a lot of money and time. If it is shown to be invalid, the time and money wasted would be for nought. With this new bill, the plaintiff would have to pay for any damages and distress it caused to the defendants with the demand letter and subsequent lawsuit. Hopefully, the bill will soon be replicated in other states, especially Texas, Delaware and California which sees the most patent lawsuits.

Copying directly from Foss Patents, which summarises the bill:

These factors may be considered as evidence of a bad-faith assertion:

• A demand letter fails to state the patent number, the name and address of the patent owner(s)/assignee(s), or specific factual allegations relating to the infringement claim.
• A patent holder fails to conduct a reasonably specific infringement analysis prior to sending a demand letter.
• Information reasonably requested by the taret of a royalty demand is not provided within a reasonable period of time.
• The roaylty demand is not based on a reasonable valuation.
• The claim is meritless and the patent holder knew or should have known this.
• The claim or assertion is "deceptive" (not defined).
• Previous behavior and litigation can affect subsequent actions (for example, earlier demand letters that failed to satisfy the criteria laid out in the bill).
• The patent holder is a non-practicing entity.
• Any other factor the court finds relevant.

And these factors can support a patent holder's claim that an assertion was not made in bad faith:

• The demand letter contains the information the bill requires.
• If the original demand letter did not contain it, the patent holder may still be able to cure the defect by providing the information, on request, within reasonable period of time.
• The patentee "engages in a good-faith effort to establish that the target has infringed the patent and to negotiate an appropriate remedy".
• Substantial investment in use of patent or in production or sale of product or item covered by it.
• The anti-NPE assumption is counterbalanced by assumptions in favor of patent holders or original assignees who enforce a patent themselves, and institutions of higher education and any technology transfer entities they own.
• Previous behavior can be helpful to a patentee if he previously demonstrated good-faith business practices in enforcement of the same patent or a substantially similar one, or successfully enforced the patent or a substantially similar patent through litigation.
• Any other factor the court finds relevant.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/kentucky-senate-committee-approves.html
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/14RS/SB116.htm

AIA's joinder rule? First-filed case? Writ of mandamus?

I was reading up on the post, HTC, LG, ASUSTek, Pantech join Samsung in moving for dismissal of Rockstar Android lawsuits, and it ended up being more confusing to me than it is an update on the situation. The article is primarily an update on the situation, but it is a learning experience for me on the technicalities. I went on to do a bit of research on the technical terms mentioned in the article which helped make sense of it.

Below is a brief summary of some of these foreign terms (at least to me)

America Invents Act (AIA)'s joinder rule: Previously, the patentee was allowed to sue unrelated companies through a single patent lawsuit, and that made it difficult for transferring cases. It also allowed the patentee to reach high settlements from many companies through a single lawsuit. However, with the change in joinder rules in 2012, multiple, unrelated defendants may be joined only if the case relates to the same accused product or process, and not because they all infringe the patents brought to court.

First-to-file: Not to be confused with first-to-file for patent application, this means that if there are two lawsuits in different locations relating to the same companies and case, the case will be tried in the district where it was first filed. However, there are exceptions to it such as if the first cased was filed as an anticipated lawsuit. In layman terms, if I know you will be suing me, I should sue you first in a place that is more advantageous for me, knowing that if you sue me, by first-to-file ruling, it will get transferred to my chosen place. For such a situation, there is thus some exception to try the case in the second place.

Writ of mandamus: Simply put, it is an order by a superior court to a subordinate court to properly fulfill its duties, such as making a decision when due, or correct a mistake.

Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/htc-lg-asustek-pantech-join-samsung-in.html
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/04/09/ip-the-failure-of-venue-and-joinder-reform-in-pate
http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=1372
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus

Patent Courts, Copyright Courts

As mentioned in an earlier post, the Eastern District of Texas and District of Delaware are popular regions for patent lawsuits. With all the talk about patents lately, we may have forgotten about copyright and trademark infringements. In the Patently-O blog entry, Disjunction in IP Litigation: Patent Courts are not Copyright Courts, it is found that there is barely any copyright and trademark lawsuits ongoing in the above two districts. The Central District of California, which is third in place for patent lawsuits, ranks first in the number of copyright and trademark lawsuits.

It is interesting to find out that this is due to the different Courts for patent, copyright and trademark infringements. Even though they are all infringement of intellectual property, they are managed by different government offices. This is, as the author Dennis Crouch said, odd. There could be some generality that could be applied for the different forms of infringement, but due to the different courts, there will be different rulings for similar cases. A collaboration between the two courts could also lead to faster cases.

Still, with the large number of patent lawsuits that are ongoing, it probably would be good to separately classify them. Copyright and trademarks have been around and well known by the community for a long time and they tend not to be as technical as patents. Combining them could make the delay for pending lawsuits even longer. Looking at some statistics, there is a huge increase in patent lawsuits from 1,165 cases filed in 1990 to 5,163 filed in 2012, while the number of copyright and trademark cases filed increased from 2,095 to 3,074 and from 2,410 to 3,400 respectively. The total number of patent cases filed in US each year, will soon be more than the sum of copyright and trademark cases together.

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/disjunction-litigation-copyright.html
http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialFactsAndFigures/2012/Table407.pdf

Google's Mobile Application Distribution Agreement

According to Florian Mueller of Foss Patents, there was a shocking revelation of the Mobile Application Distribution Agreement (MADA) just yesterday, from a blog post by Harvard Professor Ben Edelman. The MADA is an agreement between Google and companies using Android for their mobile devices, which requires the companies to distribute devices only if they are all the Google applications pre-installed and Google's software should run as default, such as the search engine. Only then will the companies be allowed to label them as Android devices.

According to Edelman, the MADA simply eradicates competition. Simply put, having multiple apps with the same function is pretty redundant. There is little purpose in having Yahoo or Bing searches installed, if Google search has to be the default search engine when the devices are sold off the shelf. I do agree with Edelman, even though I am happy using a Galaxy S2. Even though we can change the default settings after we download another app, most users would be contend with the existing apps, and this can mold the user preference towards Google when they are using their laptop or other non-Android devices. One feature that I think might be linked to the MADA, is that by default the Google Play store will install the new Google apps that were added on after I got my phone. Since my S2 is an old handset, the memory is extremely limited, in current terms, and I was forced to disable many of the additional Google apps which I found no use for. Although the MADA does not affect me much, its revelation will definitely affect Mueller and other app developers' opinion of Google. Their apps might get relegated when Google introduces their own app of similar functions.

Source:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/googles-once-secret-restrictive-android.html
http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html

Acquisitions and Sales

Following my post about the sale of Motorola Mobility by Google to Lenovo, I did more readings about the initial purchase and whether it was worth it, given they are selling off to Lenovo at a much lower price. Google first acquired Motorola Mobility in August, 2011 for $40 per share, for a total of $12.5 billion. According to Google, they attributed the purchase to two reasons - innovation and to protect the Android ecosystem. I would say the primary reason was to protect the Android ecosystem though. At that point in time, both Apple and Microsoft were already suing almost every Android maker, and Oracle was also seeking up to $6.1 billion from Google. With Motorola's roughly 24,500 patents, Google will be better equipped to battle against the onslaught.

With the upcoming sale of Motorola to Lenovo at $2.91 billion, many are debating whether the initial acquisition was worth it. Jean-Baptiste of Forbes did some "fuzzy math" and estimated Google to be paying less for their remaining patents than valued. Personally, I feel that the price to pay for the initial acquisition was worth the risk. Not many know the details of the acquired patents, and with the sheer amount, we are probably too lazy to find out. Nevertheless, those patents may have or will be protecting Google and the Android system in the years to come. Taking HTC vs Apple for example, HTC's injunction did not just have a short term impact, it allowed Apple to continue growing their market share. As we know, once people uses an Android or iOS, they are more likely to stay loyal to the system due to the cloud support. People usually make the switch only when there is a disgrunt with the existing operating system.

Sources:
http://www.google.com/press/motorola/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/18/us-oracle-google-lawsuit-idUSTRE75H0FP20110618
http://www.dailytech.com/Can+Microsoft+and+Apple+Kill+Googles+Android+with+Lawsuits/article22114.htm
http://basicsmedia.com/google-inc-nasdaqgoog-posts-huge-losses-with-its-motorola-unit-8619
http://techday.com/the-channel/news/was-buying-motorola-a-costly-mistake-for-google-or-a-clever-move/179073/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2014/01/29/google-profits-billions-with-motorola-sale-to-lenovo-keeps-patents/

Jury Trials - A Recent Trend

One of the topics discussed in this week's class was that the choice of jury, to a large part, determines the location of patent infringement lawsuits. For example, Districts of East Texas and Delaware ranks first and second respectively in the number of patent trials in 2012, due to the higher likelihood of getting a less educated jury. Professor Mark Lemley from Stanford Law School wrote a paper, Why Do Juries Decide If Patents Are Valid?, where he discussed that jury trials for patent case has only become a only the norm in the recent decades.

There is no written rule that states that patent infringement lawsuits has to be jury trials, and they can very much be a bench trial. However, as Lemley mentioned in his dissertation, "the evidence that juries favor patentees is overwhelming", and lawyers began to realise that in the late 1970s, thus significantly increasing the ratio of jury to bench patent trials since then. Also, prior to that, it was generally taken that there was no right to a jury trial in patent case, the details of which is in the paper.

Since lawsuits can only be filed by the patent holders and not vice versa, they do not have much to lose opting for a patent trial. The process may be long drawn and cost more money, but it may be worth more than the losses the defendant may suffer, which translates to larger profits for the plaintiff.

Sources:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/01/jury-trials.html
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2306152
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/

Acquisitions, patents, the war and the future...

Despite planning to sell off Motorola, Google will be retaining "majority of the 17,000 Motorola Mobility patents" from its 2011 acquisition. ("Google to sell Motorola Mobility to Lenovo in $2.9bn deal") The vast amount of patents involved in the deal highlights the importance of patents in the ongoing war and why technology companies are so interested in acquisition of start-ups.

Mergers and acquisitions used to be the talk some many years back, when banks and multi-national companies did M&A to expand. This allowed them to enter into new markets - other countries, and also other industries.

Nowadays the topic is all about the digital world. Coming from Singapore, I have long heard about youths creating start-ups in the US, hoping to the bought over by Google (I always hear about Google, so I am not too sure about the rest). I never really thought about it, but I guess there is a link between start-ups and patents, leading to their acquisition. Sure, they are all smart people with smart ideas, but why would Google want to acquire so many. One possibility is that they get to grow their pool of innovative people, and allow for a place for cross communication between different groups which might lead to grander, better ideas. And Google gets to own the patents under their name. It would be easier then to implement more things without as much fear of infringement.

Unfortunately for the phone segment, there has already been so many competitors in it, right from the time of boring candy bar cell phones by Nokia. Apple may have come up with the revolutionary iPhone, but many companies might have owned some patents which they may have unknowingly "copied", and more so the later contender Google with Android. So where am I going with this? Nowhere much, just that the talk of the town will change someday. Although the bulk of patents is currently in smartphones, there are loads of patents elsewhere too. The focus might shift to other segments of the digital world where they might be another revolutionary product (hint: driver-less cars, integrated transport systems, etc?) if they do pick up the pace. This century will definitely be an exciting one.

The smartphone patent thicket

The article "The sky is not falling: Navigating the smartphone patent thicket" by Jeffrey Lewis and Ryan Mott, dated February 2013, is an excellent summary of the ongoing patent war and its representation of "a milestone of progress". With their professional expertise on intellectual property, Lewis and Mott has shown that the ongoing patent war is nothing new in the world of patents. They term the situation as a "patent thicket" which means that every company owns a patent to a part of the whole, but none to everything, which led to multiple companies suing one another. By using an example from history - the sewing machine, they explained how the then patent thicket came to an end. It is definitely an interesting read and I recommend all of you to check out the article if you have not done so.

As for my personal take on patent wars, I agree with the writers that the war represents a huge milestone in technological advances. After all, it created a whole new market well worth the investment. It changes the lifestyle of people. It became easier and faster to come up with individual unique designs at a low cost of failure. Tailors are able to try out different kinds of designs and patterns and industrial machines do not need to be modified to cater to each new design, until they are proven to suit the consumers. Ain't that a milestone? Fashion changes so fast that there's a new style almost every decade, while previously people wore the same designs for decades before cultural interaction influence their sense of dressing. Of course, before that happened, many long years and much money were spent battling for supremacy.

The current smartphone patent war may not be near its end, but I feel proud to be living through its fight. It will end one day, everyone will get sick and tired of fighting anyway, and it will be interesting to compare how different life is before and after the war. Already, it is currently way different from a decade ago! For now, it might be the least of their concerns but I do hope, one day, the corporations will take into account the social impact of such devices when coming up with newer products. There is a growing trend in technology addiction. We'll see how it goes in the decade to come.

I am interested in taking up IEOR 190G as it is strongly related to my field of expertise. As mentioned before, I am an electrical engineer with a keen interest in communications. I am also interested in hardware design, and I have previously designed several electronic circuits. However, these were on an individual scale mainly for learning and fun. In future, I might possibly design circuits with innovative ideas that are nonexistent in the market. It is thus important to be able to protect my idea from copying. With all the hoo-ha now with big consumer electronic corporations suing one another, it further highlights the importance of patents and protection of intellectual property.

With IEOR 190G, I hope to learn more about how patents work, how I can go about applying for them and how to distinguish what I am doing is new and not copying.With the vast number of engineers in the world, there is bound to be some chances that I will be doing something similar to someone else. I am not sure if drawing inspiration from some concepts might even be deemed copying. Thus, I believe the course will be an invaluable experience for me.

You can check out my first webcast here too:

Hi! I am Jun Yi, an exchange student from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. I major in Electrical Engineering and this is my second and final semester in Berkeley. I was born and raised in Singapore, and I have studied electrical engineering since I was 17, and I am now 25 years old!

I first studied electrical engineering in polytechnic for 3 years, specialising in communications, before I entered the army for my military service for 2 years. Thereafter I entered university and I am currently in my third year. Anyway, some might consider me to be pretty old and still be an undergraduate since most people my age in other countries are already working or in graduate school. However, I believe it is not the age when we start working that matters but what we contribute to the society, thus I hope to achieve much more despite starting work late!

I wish to work in the industry as an electrical engineer, perhaps a hardware or communication engineer, for the next one to two decade, and thereafter hopefully become a lecturer in polytechnic. I enjoy teaching and that was also where I first learnt about engineering. I hope that I will be able to inspire more students to be interested in engineering. As you may not know, engineering is not as popular in Singapore as it is here at Berkeley, so I definitely hope that more youths will take it up back home in future!

Anyway, some of my hobbies include solving puzzles, such as sudoku and jigsaw puzzles. I also enjoy watching videos, such as serial dramas and movies. I also like to hike, especially here in US where the weather is cooling and less humid as Singapore (it is a menace to hike in Singapore as we get really sweaty!) and I have hiked the fire trail at Berkeley twice, and also went to Yosemite and Grand Canyon and tried out some trails!