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