Samsung and Google also didn't specify whether the scope of the deal was limited to Android, which currently powers about four of every five smartphones sold globally.
The companies said that the agreement paves the way for deeper collaboration between Samsung and Google on research and development of current and future products. The Motorola patents are covered as part of the licence. Quite what the point of the deal is (since there's not the slightest indication either was going to sue the other) isn't clear.
Meanwhile, Samsung signed a deal with Ericsson that will see it paying about $650m initially, and an ongoing royalty subsequently over standards-essential patents (SEPs.)]]>
Apple didn't infringe a patent for technology used in wireless networking, a federal jury in Marshall, Texas, said Wednesday. The jury, which deliberated for just over an hour, also said the two patent claims were invalid.
Wi-Lan said it was reviewing its options, and that it "does not believe previous license agreements signed related to the patents are negatively impacted by this decision." Wouldn't be sure about that; earlier licencees include Samsung and Ericsson. Wi-Lan's only revenues are from its patents: $19.9m in the second quarter. Nice business if you can get it.]]>
It is BlackBerry's first appearance on the list. BlackBerry is the only Canadian company on the third-annual list, next to 45 US companies. According to Thomson Reuters, BlackBerry's innovation was "driven by a 38% surge in patent filings between 2010 and 2011, and 17% growth in patent filings between 2011 and 2012."
"Now in its third year, the Thomson Reuters Top 100 Global Innovators study provides further evidence that innovative organizations—those that secure global patent protection for their intellectual property, continue to push the envelope with new technologies and invest more in R&D—are those that outperform the S&P 500 on virtually every measure of business success," noted David Brown, managing director, Thomson Reuters IP Solutions. Up to a point, Lord Copper.]]>
Only older HTC phone models were listed in the case. But the HTC One smartphone and other new devices use the same technology that would be banned if the commission decides in January to uphold its initial ruling, two people familiar with the matter said.
Nokia said it believed that the One also violated the Finnish company's patents and would be included under any ban. Things are going from bad to worse for HTC.]]>
In a notice published Monday, Judge Thomas Pender of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) said HTC had infringed two of the three wireless patents-in-suit claimed by Nokia.
Nokia, which filed the complaint in May 2012, had asked the U.S. trade agency to impose a sales ban on certain HTC Android-based phones and tablets. A final ruling is scheduled for Jan. 23 next year after the judge's findings are reviewed by the six-member panel. Not standards-essential patents, so Nokia could get a trade ban - or HTC could figure out workarounds.]]>
Now, we're getting a vision of how FindTheBest is putting that money to use. The company has made a novel legal claim, saying that the troll that came after it is so reckless, it has engaged in outright extortion, violating racketeering laws. Read on - the use of crowdsourcing to try to find out the links between the patent-owning companies is very promising.]]>
It’s also important to know what we’re not talking about here. We aren’t trying to make it harder to pursue legitimate intellectual property rights, or vigorously defend valid patents. Laudable premise. Going to be hard to make it stick, because PAEs (aka non-practising entities, NPEs, aka patent trolls) are sure to look for loopholes. (Thanks @ClarkeViper for the link.)]]>
That’s according to a follow-up piece airing this weekend on This American Life, the public radio program that first dug into Intellectual Ventures’ dealings as part of a larger exploration of the patent system in 2011. The size of that “back-end” cut is one of the revelations in the new piece. The patent in question was used to in a lawsuit against 16 companies. Intellectual Ventures is the company run by ex-Microsoftie Nathan Myhrvold. There have long been suspicions that it's behind, and benefits from, lawsuits by small "non-practising entities" - aka patent trolls. This is the first time this has been confirmed. And when one targeted company finally took the case all the way to a jury trial, the patent was found invalid. But that didn't help companies which had already signed up to pay in earlier settlements.]]>
That restriction is probably tolerable for a corporation that can execute the agreement once for all products and staff, but for an open source project it's a big problem. Open source communities may not have a legal entity able to sign on behalf of the community, either because there's no actual legal entity or because the community of developers has too loose a relationship with any legal entity to be counted as the equivalent employees. By requiring individual, nontransferrable registration, Google is erecting a barrier that at the very least will provoke suspicion from open source projects.]]>
Against that litigious backdrop, on 4 March 2011, Apple quietly acquired Icon and 11 other Mitsubishi patents. (Presumably, Apple either paid the Japanese company for the portfolio or did an in‑kind exchange of IP, but neither firm would comment.)
Just five months later, Apple transferred those dozen patents to an entity called Cliff Island, a shell company created by Digitude Innovations. Headquartered in Alexandria, Va., Digitude describes itself as a patent acquisition and licensing company. Dirty deeds done dirt cheap?]]>
Apple believes Google purposely uses suboptimal search terms. For example, Apple claims to know that Google uses a different term internally for what Apple calls "slide to unlock". As a result, searches for "slide to unlock" wouldn't deliver too many documents in which Google employees discussed this patented technology.
Google argues that it would be an undue burden to require disclosure of the search terms used, and whether or not a certain burden is acceptable depends on the status of a party. In this context, Google claims that it's merely a third party, and third parties enjoy stronger protection against allegedly-burdensome discovery requests than parties to a dispute. Google is trying to play it both ways: claiming to be a "third party" in the Samsung-Apple litigation but also claiming "common interest privilege" with Samsung to decline to produce documents about Android.]]>
“The parties have no interest in efficiently and expeditiously resolving this dispute; they instead are using this and similar litigation worldwide as a business strategy that appears to have no end,” U.S. District Judge Robert Scola in Miami said in an order dated yesterday. “That is not a proper use of this court.” Motorola began by suing Apple. Apple sued back. Motorola (with Google's explicit approval) sued even more back. Apple... you get the idea. (Thanks @candidcanon on Twitter for the link.)]]>
We’ve begun by identifying 10 patents relating to MapReduce, a computing model for processing large data sets first developed at Google—open-source versions of which are now widely used. Over time, we intend to expand the set of Google’s patents covered by the pledge to other technologies. With 18,000 or so patents to choose from.. how about the next ones are Motorola's Wi-Fi and H.264 patents?]]>
What Nokia is doing here is simply the normal course of business if a patent holder (Nokia) does not share the vision of another company (Google) with respect to a proposed standard and reserves all rights. What motivation could Nokia possibly have to donate something to a Google initiative? None. No motivation, no obligation, no license. Simple as that. ]]>
Whenever it will ultimately be held, the second damages trial over the 14 products with respect to which the jury award has been vacated (Galaxy Prevail, Gem, Indulge, Infuse 4G, Galaxy SII AT&T, Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Tab, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, and Transform) could result in a figure that is lower or higher than (or, theoretically but unlikely, identical to) the one reached by the jury in August. There will have to be a new jury.]]>
Of the 25 SEP assertions by Samsung against Apple that have either been dropped or come to judgment by now, only three have been successful: two in Samsung's own country (South Korea) and a third one in the Netherlands, where injunctive relief (which Samsung was also pursuing in Japan, while it has meanwhile withdrawn its European SEP-based injunction requests) had been ruled out beforehand and Samsung will receive only a minor amount of damages. Today's loss in Japan is the 22nd SEP assertion that went nowhere. SEPs really aren't weapons in the way that some companies thought.]]>
The mechanics of this particular spat and the court's ruling on it are bit too byzantine to dive into here, but it's worth a look in broad strokes simply as an example of just how low players are willing to stoop in IP battles like the one between Apple and Samsung. So, in short: Samsung holds a patent on a feature that allows devices to read aloud text to their users with the press of a button. The company asserted that patent against Apple's accessibility features, specifically VoiceOver which is specifically designed for anyone with impaired vision. Caught in the middle: The blind, low-vision users, folks with dyslexia and anyone else who might benefit from having what appears on their computer screen described to them out loud.
Yes, this move by Samsung against Apple was a tactical one in a nasty battle in which billions of dollars are at stake. Yes, it's just business. But it's ill-conceived. Even leaving aside the ethics of asserting a patent against a feature designed to help the blind, this is unwise. It's the PR equivalent of punching yourself in the face. Samsung has now identified itself as a company willing to accept the loss of accessibility for the vision-impaired as collateral damage in its battle with Apple. ]]>
It was actually a pretty candid response, and it was clear from his body language that he truly is less than thrilled that the legal struggles are ongoing. As Eun noted, Samsung makes money each time an iPhone is sold, yet the two companies are indeed competitors on some levels. (Thanks @sputnikkers for the link.)]]>
Right now, the winner (of this particular skirmish) is Microsoft over Google-owned Motorola Mobility.
On Wednesday, Judge James L. Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, issued an order in favor of Microsoft, invalidating 13 patent claims.
Those claims are in reference to just three patents (U.S. Patent No. 7,310,374, U.S. Patent No. 7,310,375, US Patent No. 7,310,376) -- all of which have to do with encoding and decoding digital video content.
Microsoft had petitioned that the "means for decoding" and the "means for using" elements of the patents in question be declared as invalid based on a specific US patent law specification, and the court has consented. This relates to H.264, where Motorola has been trying to block Microsoft's use of it in the Xbox 360 unless it pays 2.25% of the retail cost. Microsoft's been resisting. Not going too well for Motorola. Even if it gets the patents reinstated, it will have to license them to Microsoft on FRAND terms.]]>
Google has tried to spur adoption of VP8 instead, which it's released for royalty-free use. One major area: online video built into Web pages through the HTML5 standard.
However, VP8 hasn't dented H.264's dominance, and VP8 allies failed in an attempt to specify VP8 as the way to handle online video. As a result, HTML5 video can be invoked in a standard way, but Web developers can't easily be assured that a browser can properly decode the video in question. Google, through Motorola Mobility, is also a member of the H.264 patent pool group. If MPEG-LA decided to sue over VP8 or VP9 infringing, Google would be suing itself.]]>
The injunction request is the latest development in the ongoing patent brawl between LG Display and the affiliate of Samsung Electronics that manufactures screens used in smartphones, tablets and televisions. It also signals intensifying competition as the two companies jostle for market share.
The injunction follows a lawsuit filed by Samsung Display Co. on 7 December, which alleged that LG infringed seven of Samsung's liquid crystal display patents. LG, which filed the injunction with the Seoul District Court on Wednesday, is aiming to block the sales of the Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet computer. So the maker of the Nexus 4 is trying to block sales of the (Nexus) Note 10.1 in the home country of both makers. Google, looking on, perhaps trying to figure out which is its least favourite child. And of course this is another Android v Android lawsuit - Huawei and ZTE are already fighting.]]>
Putting all those pieces together, seeing a pattern in the attacks on Android, I was dumbstruck when the jury verdict came in. Been a long time since the phrase "running dogs" was used seriously in the western media. The idea that you could use FRAND patents (which you're obliged to use) to implement sales bans is unpalatable, though - but that's what Google's Motorola and Samsung are trying to do in a number of jurisdictions.]]>
The presiding Judge Richard Arnold declared Motorola's patent invalid and said it should be revoked because the patent (which has a priority date from 1995, but was issued in 2002) contained technology that “was obvious to experts in the field at the time.” Microsoft brought the case - Exchange and ActiveSync would have infringed. But it's stil in force in Germany. And in the US. (Though Motorola's patent value just fell a little.)]]>
That is because to the best of our knowledge, until now, there has been no publicly available list of Intellectual Ventures shell corporations, unless you count the USPTO assignment database, which contains millions of other records as well. In fact, in response to recent queries about their shell corporations, Intellectual Ventues stated, "Those interested in viewing granted patents and patent applications can search the USPTO's public database."
So that's what we did.
Like all of the USPTO's on-line systems, the assignment database is a technological abomination--sadly ironic for the agency that effectively manages the nation's technology rights. ]]>
The commission, which acts as the EU's competition watchdog, is investigating whether Samsung's past use of injunctions against Apple violated antitrust rules.
"We will issue a statement of objections very soon, I don't know if at the end of this year or at beginning of next year, because we are in the last step of our internal procedure," Almunia said, referring to the formal charge sheet issued by the commission. In case you haven't followed it: Samsung used standards-essential patents to fight Apple in court battles, seeking injunctions (sales bans). But if you submit your patent for a standard, you agree that you'll always license it, judged by a court if necessary. An injunction is in effect a refusal to let the court decide or to license.
This also confirms that the reason Samsung stopped seeking injunctions on SEPs on Tuesday (but not seeking injunctions on non-SEPs, or on SEPs in other countries) was because it got wind it was in trouble with the EU. (Thanks @rquick for the link.)]]>
The threat of a huge patent lawsuit would probably cast a cloud over any acquisition talks, but Stanzione said Google has actually agreed to cap Arris’ liability in the case to “a very small number.” He didn’t say what that number was, but when one of the analysts on the call asked if Arris might be liable for $1 billion in damages, Stanzione laughed and suggested that it was much lower than that — and he added that TiVo won’t necessarily win the case. And so the cost of the Motorola Mobility acquisition goes up again, since Google's ready to step in and cough up for Arris. (Thanks @modelportfolio2003 for the link.)]]>
With Koh due to publish a post-trial order about damages any day now, a key Apple patent is being threatened at the US Trademark and Patent Office. US Patent No. 7,844,915, the patent covering Apple's "pinch to zoom" smartphone navigation feature, may be invalidated. In a patent reexam, examiners discovered multiple pieces of prior art that they found should reject Apple's claims. Some people have been suggesting that the Apple-Samsung jury should have invalidated the patent, which is nonsensical - they're not patent examination officers. It's likely Apple's patents will still be in place (just) by the time Judge Koh finishes. The question is, will they be valid by the time it reaches the appeal court - and will that have an effect on the appeal? (Thanks @rubbernuke for the link.)]]>
MobileMedia is a company that is actually owned by Nokia, Sony and MPEG-LA. It was formed in January of 2010 as an entity for enforcing those companies’ patents. Essentially, MobileMedia is there so that Sony and Nokia don't have to get their hands dirty enforcing their own patents.]]>
That is one nugget in a new report from Thomson Reuters. The report, “2012 Top 100 Global Innovators,” released on Tuesday, includes Google. Last year, the first time Thomson Reuters compiled the list, Google did not make the cut.
In assembling the list, the research group uses four measures of patent activity as its yardstick of innovation. The four are patent volume, patent grant success rate, global reach of the patent portfolio and citations of patents. The combination of factors seeks to take into account patent quality and the influence of patented ideas. And companies’ patents are tracked over a three-year period, with the 2012 list covering applications, grants and citations from 2009 to 2011. Just to reiterate, MMI isn't part of this analysis; this is about Google's own patents.]]>
But thats Boring. We’re about generating clicks. You can do it too. Follow these simple steps: (a) take a design patent, (b) pretend its a utility patent, (c) rant about it, (3) profit. Declare the patent system hopelessly broken. It's easy. Nice examples from "a website with rounded corners". Did you know Google has "patented the keyboard with arrows"? The patent system is broken! (Via @reckless - a former patent attorney - on Twitter.)]]>
The problem for Motorola is that it can't show it deserves anything more than monetary damages. An injunction is a powerful remedy, and in order to get it, a company has to prove it's been harmed in a way that a money award can't compensate for. But in this case, money is enough, US District Judge James Robart ruled.
"Because Microsoft will pay royalties under any license agreement from the time of infringement within the statute of limitations, this license agreement will constitute Motorola’s remedy for Microsoft’s use of Motorola’s H.264 standard essential patent portfolio to include the Motorola Asserted Patents. Accordingly, Motorola cannot demonstrate that it has been irreparably harmed."
Robart went further than just dealing with the patents in his case. His order, he specified, applies "for Motorola's entire H.264 standard essential patent portfolio," including certain European patents at issue in a German action. Big loss for Motorola Mobility (MMI), and thus for its owner Google whose whole rationale for buying MMI was to get its patents to fight back with. Without injunctions, the patents make MMI a low-earning rentier.]]>
The appointment is significant because Lee used to hold the title “Head of Patents and Patent Strategy” at Google, where she issued a number of blog posts like this one calling for reform of the patent system. Could be the start of something big?]]>
It's an enormously important issue for the broader smartphone patent wars. If all the Apple patents are included -including the "user experience" patents that the company has previously insisted it would not license - it could undermine the iPhone makers efforts to permanently ban the sale of products that copy its technology.
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, which could face such a sales ban following a crushing jury verdict against it in August, now plans to ask a U.S. judge to force Apple to turn over a copy of the HTC agreement, according to a court filing on Friday. The joint statement from Apple and HTC said "The license extends to current and future patents held by both parties." Key missing word: "all".]]>
The Taiwanese smartphone vendor's efforts to sell products in the United States and Europe had been adversely affected by the patent disputes and the European debt crisis, Chen added. ICT showed the sharpest decline of Taiwan's exports in October, falling by 36.1% to US$1.2bn. In other words, almost all was HTC.]]>
But it’s also because of the nature of computer programming.
Functional claiming of software inventions is arguably responsible for most of the well-recognized problems with software patents today. Software patentees have increasingly been claiming to own the function of their program itself – not merely the particular way they achieved that goal. His argument would be really powerful if he were to cite an example, but he doesn't. (Thanks @hotsoup for the link.)]]>
]]>
Michael Beloff manfully attempted to dodge the increasing flames and justify what Apple had done. His primary point was that the earlier order had not prohibited Apple from making additional statements and, indeed, in the course of the earlier hearing Mr Carr had said that Apple could “say what they like”. However the Court clearly thought that that was intended to mean, and was understood as meaning, “say what they like ELSEWHERE”. As Lord Justice Kitchin LJ: what if there had been three pages in between the two paragraphs which they had ordered, or a book? At this juncture the smoke signals were coming thick and fast from the general direction of the judiciary and the heat was rising.]]>
The total number of valid Apple and Microsoft patents that Android-based devices have been held by courts around the world and the ITC to infringe has now increased to 20. The ITC ruling is preliminary and can be appealed, and/or worked around. Still means hassle for Samsung. The total of patents against Android doesn't seem to have been fixed by buying Motorola at all.]]>
A Dutch court on Wednesday found that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s so-called “touch event” technology, a feature which associate multitouch flags with one or more views.
“The court judges that Samsung with the trading of its Galaxy products does not infringe on [Apple's patent],” the Court of The Hague explained in its ruling. “Apple, as the unsuccessful party, will be ordered to pay the litigation costs.” (Thanks @rquick for the link.)]]>
“As Apple appears to have realized in introducing that exhibit, it cannot both use its financial data to seek multi-billion dollar damages and insist on keeping it secret,” Judge Koh wrote in her order. “The public’s interest in accessing Apple’s financial information is now perhaps even greater than it was at trial.” At this rate they're going to have to include it in the court-ordered advert. ]]>