Summarizing the Semester

Summarizing the Semester

What I learned from the class:

I learned a lot this semester in a wide array of topic areas in the field of patents and patent litigation. Learning about a patent itself, where to get one and how to get one, as well as the various types of intellectual property types available served as a comprehensive overview of the subject. I enjoyed learning about specific case studies in which patents were analyzed critically, from patent litigation cases in the technology industry to silly and ridiculous patents. This class provided us with the tools to analyze a specific patent and view a claim in detail. 

How the topic fit my needs:

As someone studying Environmental Economics and Policy and getting a CET certificate, I found this class very relevant. As someone who aspires to either work in the tech sector or work in a startup, this topic showed me the advantages that intellectual property can provide and the ways to use IP to strengthen a business. Even if I do not file my own patent, I can communicate the necessity or advantages that effective IP can provide. 



Future Benefits:

This class taught us some of the legal and technical ways in which to analyze patents and this ability to think critically in this field will be valuable. Using social media to communicate this is also helpful. I will recommend this class to other students due to the unique skill sets which a student will gain while simultaneously learning about a field which is very relevant for us in the Silicon Valley. 

Thanks for a great semester!

Sid Moghe

Social Media as a Learning Tool

Social Media as a Learning Tool


Learning Strategy:

When I first learned that we would primarily be using social media as a learning tool, I was apprehensive due to the fact that I had only considered social media for entertainment and connecting with existing established friends. It quickly became clear that collaborating and learning from one another served as a valuable learning experience, and receiving immediate feedback and criticism on our work from one another was very helpful. Furthermore, being able to learn strategies regarding how to present information in the blog and YouTube format was interesting as it provided valuable insight as to figuring out what strategies work best to present information. 

Unique Advantages:

There are many unique advantages to using social media, ranging from the amount and speed of receiving feedback as well as the ability to learn from each other. Other unique advantages include the necessity to present information in a quick and concise way and highlight only the key points. Often times we tend to go on and on and include extraneous information, but a unique advantage here is that social media (such as Twitter) requires a concise format. When compared to other types of media, utilizing social media to learn about the various patent cases was helpful and allowed us to learn about many different industries as we were given the flexibility to focus on companies that interested us. 


Future Benefits:

In the future, we will be able to communicate better online and have an online presence which can be helpful when recruiting. Having the ability to present information clearly is a vital skill which this class nurtured. I had fun learning from my classmates and enjoyed receiving constructive feedback after every post. 

Smartphone Patent Litigation #2: Nokia and HTC

Smartphone Patent Litigation: Nokia vs HTC (2014)

Case Overview:

Many of the cases we have dealt with involve lengthy court proceedings and appeals--often reaching all the way up to the Supreme Court. Nokia and HTC's patent litigation case is much simpler: utilizing a settlement deal to end the smartphone battle. A Verge article mentioned that Nokia "signed a patent and 'technology collaboration agreement' with HTC"--effectively ending the patent litigation which was going on for months.  In this case, HTC is paying Nokia for damages and often licenses Nokia's patents as part of their business ventures. 

Technologies involved:

Nokia did not only sue HTC as part of this patent litigation case, and also sued RIM as well as ViewSonic as part of the 45 patents covering technologies such as "antennas, radios, and power management, as well as software features like multitasking, navigation, app stores, retrieving email attachments" among others. 

Settlement versus Courts:

This patent case demonstrates the ability for companies to end lengthy and costly patent proceedings and instead choose to settle and drop the case. It is likely that the settlement offer is in the multimillions--and the specifics of the amount of the damages remain unclear. HTC did respond publicly, however, and mentioned that the company is 'pleased to come to this agreement, which will enable [them] to stay focused on innovation for consumers'. While Apple and Samsung have chosen to utilize the courts to iron out their patent litigation disputes, other companies such as HTC and Nokia have found settling it with one another to be more effective.

Source:

[1] The Verge: http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/7/5390612/nokia-and-htc-sign-patent-agreement

Smartphone Patent Litigation: Apple Versus Samsung

Smartphone Patent Litigation: Apple Versus Samsung 

Case Overview:

When smartphone patent litigation is concerned, the first thing that pops up in someone's mind is usually the long-standing battle between Apple and Samsung. These two smartphone giants have had litigation since 2011 which concerned Apple accusing Samsung of "copying some basic design features of the iPhone in competing devices". Recently, the courts ruled that the case will be taken up in the Supreme Court dealing with how damages are calculated. This case reveals the difficulties in compensation when dealing with patent litigation as a whole and the highly competitive smartphone litigation sector. 

Damage Calculation Case:


A recent Washington Post article mentioned that "This will be the first design patent case to make it to the Supreme Court in more than 120 years". And since 2012, a judge awarded Apple with over $1 billion, but it was later lowered after appeals processes". This $500 million damage cost was calculated in terms of "Samsung forfeiting all of its profits from the devices that allegedly infringed on Apple's patents". This is the "total profit" calculation method. 

Now, the Supreme Court must decide on whether this method is fair and equitable. Samsung argues that total profit does not make sense in this case and wants the damages to be calculated based on "money it made thanks to parts of the devices that infringed on the patents" instead of total profit from the whole device. 

Conclusion:

It will be interesting to see how the court weighs in on the damage cost calculation and if this figure of $500 million will be reduced significantly. A win here for Samsung may incentivize companies to take more risks in the smartphone industry as damages would be reduced to only the component which is infringed upon. A win for Apple indicates that the courts favor strongly on the patent holder's side. 

Source:

[1] Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/03/21/the-smartphone-patent-war-between-apple-and-samsung-is-headed-to-the-supreme-court/

Silly Patent #2: Body-connected bike

Silly Patent: Body-connected bike

In this patent, 6805657, the original inventor filed for a Body-connected bike on November 5th, 2002 and was later published on October 19th, 2004. This patent includes "A body-connected bike" which "comprises a front roller assembly and a separate rear roller assembly." Essentially, this bike has two wheels but no chain connecting the first and second wheel. What makes this patent silly is not only its absurdity--but the mechanics which would create a dangerous riding experience for the biker. 

Non-Obviousness, Prior Art, Reasonable, Novel?

This patent is clearly not obvious as it appears rather ridiculous to patent a bike without a connection from the first to the second wheel. There is likely patents related to traditional bikes but none like this. It appears to be very unreasonable and not novel as the rider will likely be unsafe from riding on such a device. 

Claim Analysis:

Claim 1: 1. A wheeled apparatus for transporting a rider, the apparatus comprising a separate front roller assembly and a separate rear roller assembly such that the roller assemblies are only coupled together by the rider's body during exercise the front roller assembly comprising a front wheel and a handgrip portion disposed on both sides of, and operatively supported from, the front wheel.

2. The wheeled apparatus of claim 1 wherein the handgrip portion is supported by a bearing engaging an axle through the front wheel.

3. The wheeled apparatus of claim 1 wherein a first handgrip portion comprises a brake operably attached to the front wheel.

4. The wheeled apparatus of claim 3 wherein the brake comprises a friction element disposed on the handgrip engageable with a complementary friction element operatively connected to the front wheel.

This claim outlines that both components are separate and are connected by the rider holding the front wheel. There appears to be a brake on the front wheel. While the claim is descriptive, it is truly absurd.

Conclusion:

The "Body-connected bike" is truly a silly patent that could be a dangerous riding experience all around. It is unlikely that this patent would bring a novel idea into society and it will be very unlikely for the innovator to license or sell this patent. 

Silly Patent #1: Apparatus for Simulating a "high five"

Silly Patent: Apparatus for simulating a "high five"

In this patent, #5356330, the original inventor filed for an Apparatus for simulating a "high five" on December 7th, 1993. This patent was later published on October 18th, 1994 and is rather amusing after reading through the claims and description. The abstract mentions that the patent is for "An apparatus for simulating a 'high five' including a lower arm portion having a simulated hand removably attached" which has applications when an individual does not have a second participant to share a high five with. While I struggle to think of how this apparatus would be used in the real world, or who the customers of such a silly patent would be--it is clear after analyzing the claims and images that this truly is a silly patent. 

Non-Obviousness, Prior Art, Reasonable, Novel?

This patent appears to be very unique and it would be difficult to find any prior art to find similarities. In terms of non-obviousness, it does not appear to be an obvious patent. In terms of its reasonability, it seems very unreasonable and not very novel. It is quite impressive as to how it received approval from the USPTO or why they believed filing for a patent was a smart business decision. 

Claim Analysis:

Claim 1:
 "An apparatus for simulating a "high five" comprising:

a first, movable arm portion for simulating a forearm, said first arm portion having a simulated hand secured thereto;

a second, immovable arm portion for simulating an upper arm;

a mounting arrangement for mounting said second arm portion to a supporting surface;"

Claim 7:
7. An amusement device comprising:

a first, movable arm portion having a simulated hand secured thereto;

a second, immovable arm portion;

a mounting arrangement for mounting said second arm portion to a supporting surface;

a pivot member for pivotally securing said first arm portion to said second arm portion, wherein said first arm portion is adapted to be pivotally displaced about said pivot member along a single plane when struck by a user, with said second, immovable arm portion remaining stationary;

a stop arrangement for limiting the pivotable displacement of said first arm portion along said single plane;"

Both of these claims outline the mechanics behind the high five and the first describes it as an apparatus while claim 7 outlines its uses as an amusement device. While the claims appear to be technical and specific, the larger absurdity is apparent.

Conclusion:

The patent "Apparatus for Simulating a "high five" clearly fits the definition of a silly patent. It does not appear to serve any useful purpose and simply is not a useful patent that anyone would likely build upon or want to license. 

Prometheus Laboratories Inc v Roxane Laboratories

Case Overview: Prometheus Laboratories Inc v Roxane Laboratories

In another case of obviousness coming into the decision in a patent dispute case, Prometheus Laboratories v Roxane Laboratories brings the argument into the pharmaceutical industry. Here, Roxane Laboratories was able to have Prometheus Laboratories' patent invalidated for a "treatment for irritable bowel syndrome" due to prior art and obviousness.

Case Details:

In this dispute, Prometheus Laboratories attempted to seek legal action against Roxane Laboratories for "infringement by planning to produce a generic version of the treatment". Patent Number 6, 284,770 dealing with a drug called alosetron for females with IBS "was rendered obvious by prior art" from "methods of identifying diagnosing IBS" in addition to the connection of alosetron and IBS.

Decision:

Judge Hochberg in a New Jersey court ruled on the case and found that the claims "are nothing more than predictable instructions to doctors on how to treat their patients" and explained that "a gastroenterologist with three years of experience, for example, would be expected to track the latest IBS research -- and that all of the prior art cited in the case comes from that field".

Future Implications:

I found that this case ultimately would be beneficial for individual patients who now have access to a lower costing generic drug. This case represents a key example of how the principles of obviousness found in the Teleflex case can even be applied in the pharmaceutical industry.

Sources:

[1] http://www.law360.com/articles/541268/judge-invalidates-prometheus-patent-for-irritable-bowel-drug