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

Patent Obviousness Case #1: KSR International Co. vs Teleflex

Case Overview: KSR vs Teleflex

In KSR International vs Teleflex, KSR International, an engineering, design, and manufacturing firm, was sued by Teleflex, a billion dollar medical device company, in a patent infringement case regarding "an electronic sensor that was added to an existing pedal design". This case set the precedent for further cases of obviousness as its ruling was central to this issue.


Case Details:

In this dispute, Teleflex's maintained rights to the exclusive license of a patent for "Adjustable Pedal Assembly with Electronic Throttle Control." in particular, a claim included "adding an electronic sensor to the pedal which then transmitted information to the computer's controlling the engine's throttle". KSR argued that adding the sensor to the pedal was simply an obvious act.


Decision:

This decision was controversial as issues of obviousness and prior art came in to play. As one article cited judge Kennedy, who stated that "In order to determine the obviousness of a patent claim, the courts must consider prior art, the differences between the prior art and the subject matter of the claim, and the ordinary skill level required of a person in the subject matter". The case was originally ruled in KSR's favor--then reversed by the Court of Appeals--and then ultimately reversed by the Federal Circuit. Their ruling was based on the fact that claim four was obvious.


Future Implications:

Using obviousness as a valid argument against a claim began to become more commonplace after KSR International vs Teleflex. Further cases such as Leapfrog Enterprises Inc v Fisher Price as well as Perfect Web Technologies vs UnfoUSA began to utilize obviousness in their arguments. It is clear that this case set a precedent for analyzing obviousness in patent claims.


Sources:

[1] http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/patent-law/patent-law-keyed-to-adelman/nonobviousness/ksr-international-co-v-teleflex-inc/

Unicorn Analysis #2: SoFi

Unicorn Analysis: SoFi
SoFi, a San Francisco, based online student loan refinancing platform, claims that it is a "leader in marketplace lending, with over $7 billion in loans originated to date". In addition to student loan refinancing, the platform is involved with "low down-payment mortgages, mortgage refinancing, and personal loans"[1]. While the firm has raised over $1.3 Billion in funding from 6 rounds, it has failed to recognize the importance of patents with 0 published patents/applications [1].



Current Portfolio Analysis
In terms of its current portfolio, SoFi could attempt to act as some new entrants into the financial technology space are currently involved in, by patenting portions of the Peer-to-Peer lending process. For example, Metabank has a pending patent involved in "Person-To-Person Lending Program Product, System, And Associated Computer-Implemented Methods"[2]. As the peer-to-peer and online lending space grows, more competitors will continue to stake their claim into the industry.


Market Competitors
In terms of market competitors, SoFi is competing with traditional banks or credit unions and other student loan providers (Stafford loans, need based loans), as well as other FinTech platforms such as CommonBond and Earnest. While these competitors race for more funding, patents will serve as crucial differentiators going forwad.


Strategies:

In order to strengthen its IP position, SoFi can acquire or patent aspects of its online lending process including its online web based UI or its unique "Alumni-Funded Student Loan" which allows it to achieve low rates where it claims it can "save an average of more than $9,600 each over the course of their loans" by partnering with business school alums [2]. Patents and IP will be crucial as many of SoFi's largest competitors (financial institutions) have been in the industry for much longer and have yet to make major strides into the industry.




Sources: 

[1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/social-finance#/entity

[2] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20090228307A1/en?q=lending+club

[3] https://www.sofi.com/press/sofis-innovative-alumni-funded-student-loan-is-now-available-at-27-universities/

Unicorn Analysis #1: Instacart

Unicorn Analysis: Instacart

Instacart is an SF based E-commerce startup, which provides groceries and other items on its online platform. The startup is promising same-day delivery of such goods from local grocery stores and delivering them to homes nearby. As of November 2015, this unicorn has 0 published patents or applications and has raised over 250 million in 6 rounds from 18 investors [1]. 

Current Portfolio Analysis

In terms of their current portfolio, Instacart will need to utilize IP to compete and differentiate itself in the marketplace. An article from 2013 mentioning Amazon's efforts into the delivery space mentioned that it "won a broad patent on technology that lets customers schedule product deliveries to their doorstep or mailboxes on a recurring basis, without needing to submit a new order every time." [2] Such patents proving a unique and non-obvious addition to their delivery process can be crucial as Instacart grows. 

Market Competitors

For Instacard, the competitors are twofold: their E-commerce competitors such as Amazon Prime Fresh, Postmates (providing on demand food/groceries), and traditional brick and mortar grocers entering independently into the grocery delivery space such as Safeway. Risks of not patenting or allowing competitors to patent before Instacart make the firm vulnerable to cloning its unique abilities or drawing investors to raise capital for the other entrants into the E-commerce delivery industry.

Strategies:

For Instacart, acquiring or patenting portions of their delivery service in the real-time, scheduled delivery, recommended items, or application UI can be a critical business asset as it competes with companies of much larger size and more established supplier relations. 


Sources: 

[1] https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/instacart#/entity

[2] http://www.geekwire.com/2013/amazon-patents-milkman-recurring-deliveries/

Claim Analysis #2 Samsung Vs Apple

Previous Case Summary:

The first case I looked at included Apple Vs Samsung where a panel of appeal judges overturned Apple's $120 million claim against Samsung regarding "how to turn phone numbers and other software 'structures' into links instead of copy pasting as well as slide to unlock and autocorrect functionality. 

Patent Summary:

The first patent, 5,946,647 centered around the software structures, the second, 8,046,721 dealt with slide to unlock, and the third, 8,074,172 included the autocorrect functionality. 

Claim Analysis:

For this claim analysis, I analyzed claim #1, out of 38 total claims. This patent also included 15 images and can be found here: http://www.google.com/patents/US8074172

The abstract of the case is also listed here to provide a high-level overview of the patent in question: 

One aspect of the invention involves a method that includes: in a first area of the touch screen, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard; in a second area of the touch screen, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement for the current character string; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user activates a delimiter key on the keyboard; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement displayed in the second area; and keeping the current character string in the first area if the user performs a second gesture on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.

Claim #1: 

1. A method, comprising:

at a portable electronic device with a touch screen display:

in a first area of the touch screen display, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard;

in a second area of the touch screen display that is between the first area and the keyboard, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement character string for the current character string on opposite sides of the second area;

replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement character string if the user activates a space bar key on the keyboard;

replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement character string if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement character string displayed in the second area; and

keeping the current character string in the first area and adding a space if the user performs a second gesture in the second area on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.

This first claim deals with displaying, replacing, and "keeping the current character string" and appears to have elements of spacing depending upon the user "perform[ing] a second gesture in the second area on the current character string". 

Furthermore, the space bar also plays a role in this first claim as it indicates that the "user activates a space bar key" in order for "replacing the current character string". 

For Samsung to have infringed, all these elements would have to have been true, with the suggestion, replacement, and spacing.

Example image included:

Claim Analysis #1 Carnegie Mellon v Marvel Tech Group

Previous Case Summary:

Last week, I focused on the Carnegie Mellon v Marvell Tech Group case centered around two patents which resulted in a settlement of $750 million dollars. This 7 year long dispute ultimately resulted in Marvell, settling and paying Carnegie Mellon in a royalty free settlement regarding error detection technology.


Patent Summary:

Two patents were involved in this case including 6,201,839 regarding a "Method and Apparatus for Correlation-Sensitive Adaptive Sequence Detection and 6,438,180, for " Soft and Hard Sequence Detection in ISI Memory Channels". For the purpose of this claim analysis, I will be looking at the patent: 6,201,839.


Claim Analysis:
This patent included 11 images as well as 28 total claims all of which can be found here: https://www.google.com/patents/US6201839?dq=6,201,839&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip_aG7srzLAhUHxWMKHchADQ0Q6AEIHTAA

I focused on the first claim titled:

 1. A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Virterbi-like detector, comprising:

selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index; and

applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.

Here, not only must it be selected, but also applied.

This claim also included two sub claims consisting of claims regarding receiving signal samples and branch metric functions:

2. The method of claim 1 further comprising the step of receiving said signal samples, said signal samples having signal-dependent noise, correlated noise, or both signal-dependent and correlated noise associated therewith.

3. The method of claim 1 wherein said branch metric functions for each of the branches are selected from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions.

Above, it further specifies the step. After reading through this claim, the first portion regarding "branch metric values" appears to consist of the proprietary elements where selecting and applying the functions "to a plurality of signal samples". At first glance, and due to my background in Economics, not hardware, it appears as though this is a narrow claim as the sub claims further specify the "signal dependent noise, correlated noise, or both signal-delendent and correlated noise" in detail.

The abstract of the patent provided further information regarding a summary of the various claims at a high level and I have included it below:

The present invention is directed to a method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector. The method includes the step of selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index. The method also includes the step of applying the selected function to a plurality of time variant signal samples to determine the metric values.

Carnegie Mellon v Marvell Tech Group

Case Overview:

Marvell Technology Group, a Bermuda based chipmaker, has agreed to a settlement with Carnegie Mellon University for $750 million dollars and no royalty payments in a 7 year long dispute regarding two patents regarding "methods to improve accuracy in the detection of recorded data when certain types of errors are likely due to the recording medium and reading mechanism". Carnegie Mellon University has mentioned that the winnings from this settlement will be used to aid students.

Case Specifics:

There are two patents involved in error detection including 6,201,839 regarding a "Method and Apparatus for Correlation-Sensitive Adaptive Sequence Detection and 6,438,180, for " Soft and Hard Sequence Detection in ISI Memory Channels". After an initial royalty based agreement totalling around a billion dollars, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reduced the award to $278 million in addition to setting "a new trial to determine whether certain chips were finally sold in the U.S."

Long dispute and settlements

After this 7 year long dispute, it is likely that the university or chipmaker simply wanted to settle and move in regarding this case. In addition, the royalty agreement may have favored Carnegie Mellon in this case, and Marvel may have been weary if the new trial would have required a more generous award.

Sources: 

1. http://www.cio.com/article/3034715/marvell-carnegie-mellon-settle-patent-dispute-over-hard-drive-chips.html 

Apple Vs Samsung Verdict

Case Overview:

Apple and Samsung have a long history of patent disputes and claims throughout the years. In this recent dispute, a panel of appeal judges overturned Apple's original $120 million claim against Samsung. In terms of the appeal judges rationale for overturning the decisions, prior art was widely cited as a key reason for this successful appeal on Samsung's part. A Huffington post article titled "Why Apple's Defeat to Samsung Was a Victory for Innovation" argues that this decision "will stop the smartphone patent wars." and finds this beneficial for the industry as a whole. Specifically, the author questions the necessity of such patents due to "an era in which technology is advancing so rapidly that it makes entire computing platforms obsolete in less time than it takes to be awarded a patent." I am curious to see what various opinions are regarding this justification. Should the speed of an industry affect legal decsisions? 


Case Specifics:

In terms of specific patents, the first 5,946,647 dealt with "how to turn phone numbers and other software 'structures' into links instead of copy pasting. The original jury outlined an award of $98.7 million for this claim. The second, 8,046,721 dealt with the slide to unlock feature and was tossed out due to prior art. Finally, 8,074,172  dealt with the autocorrect functionality in iPhones and was also dismissed in appeals due to prior art. 

A Win for Samsung; A Win for Innovation?

Apple originally sought out "2.2 billion" for damages in the dispute but were provided $120 million in the initial award. After the appeal, this can be seen as a big win for Samsung, but is it truly a win in favor of innovation in the smartphone race as the Huffington post article supposes? Are judges taking into consideration factors such as industry speed or are attitudes shifting to dismiss such grand claims? It is clear, however, that it seems that judges are taking a closer look at such disputes. 






Sources:

1. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/02/appeals-court-reverses-apple-v-samsung-ii-strips-away-apples-120m-jury-verdict/
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vivek-wadhwa/why-apples-defeat-to-samsung-was-a-victory-for-innovation_b_9382964.html

Case #2: Waze and Google Intellectual Property Lawsuit

Case Overview:

Waze, the popular real-time traffic GPS provider owned by Google, is facing a lawsuit regarding two patents owned by an Israeli company, Makor Issues & Rights Ltd who is taking issue with two of its patents "covering traffic monitoring technology enabling drivers to avoid traffic jams". Makor has owned these patents from the 2000s and claim "'past and ongoing direct infringement'". Damages have yet to be specified for this case. 




Case Specifics:

In terms of the specific patents involved, the two revolve around "Real time vehicale guidance" and Google has yet to comment regarding this case. The law firms involved included Bayard PA and Lewis Baach at this time. Makor believes that Waze is infringing "By allowing drivers to select and alter routes and apps' continuous collecting and updating of various traffic data" -- which they believe they hold the rights to. 


Google's Current Patent Woes:

Google is facing multiple patent suits at this time, with "long-running litigation with Oracle" regarding Java code as well as winning a case with "Priceplay.com". It will be interesting to see if Google decides to settle or take this case to trial, and since no damages have been specified at this time, Google may be waiting to comment until further informiation is provided. 

Patents in question: 

• 6,480,783 - Real time vehicle guidance and forecasting system under traffic jam conditions
• 6,615,130 - Real time vehicle guidance and traffic forecasting system

Source:

• http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/761840?nl_pk=688afd99-43da-41e2-baf9-0f852e028cd1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip