IEOR 190g: A Semester Recap

When I initially enrolled in this course, I was scared that this class would be packed with computer science and engineering assignments and projects that I would have found myself completely lost in. Instead, I walked in the first day to realize that this class would teach me about patent engineering through a completely different lens. Learning about patent claims, failures, litigation, infringement, obviousness and abstractness through the perspective of social media platforms was an invaluable learning experience for me.

In class, I enjoyed how each session was broken down into a specific analysis of patent characteristics. This helped me ultimately dissect the complex ideas behind patents and patent litigation, which was very overwhelming at first. This topic fits my personal needs because my father had been going through the rigorous patent process about three years ago, when he filed his US patent No. 9179718, for an ergonomic latex glove design. Last November, he received a notification that his patent had been granted. Since then, I have been exploring patents and how valuable they are as a business tool. My interests for patents eventually prompted me to search for patent related classes at Berkeley, where I enrolled in this class.

While the information learned in this class is not necessarily technical, it is extremely valuable because it is information that I would most likely never come across otherwise in the business world. As an economics major, I can definitely see myself using my knowledge about patents in my everyday work world. I would strongly recommend this course to any students who are interested in learning about the untapped power behind patents.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6f8exKT0_g&feature=youtu.be

Social Media: A Revolutionary Device for Learning

In today’s globalized age, 96 of every 100 men, women and children have a cellphone subscription. This means that, in some way, shape or form, over 90% of our population has a type of access to the internet and social media platforms. In more modernized cultures, social media is one of the driving forces behind every societal, cultural and occupational interaction. Keeping up with trends is crucial for societal acceptance. Bonding with and understanding different cultures by exploring them via internet platforms is essential. Reading and researching current issues in the media and movements in world markets is fundamental to maintaining almost any sort of profession.

Social media is no longer a distraction. Rather than skimming through thousands of pages in an encyclopedia, one can simply open their browser on a device and find practically any answer to any question with the click of a few buttons. As a public good, the internet can provide information to those on any rung of the socioeconomic ladder, which helps bridge the gap between high and low income people. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat are designed with a global connectedness in mind, encouraging people to reach out to others all over the world. Nowadays, many people can become famous and find careers simply by one of their ideas going ‘viral’ through YouTube. 

In a class like IEOR 190g, we are forced to release our thoughts out into the world for others to see, ultimately creating a learning platform for any student or researcher to indulge and learn more from. It is for all these reasons that I believe social media is not only a learning tool, but it is ESSENTIAL towards the growth of both our economy and society today.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26VgY6EyFBA&feature=youtu.be

Smartphone Patent Wars Part II: Rockstar Versus Google Android

While the most recent patent wars, particularly between Samsung and Apple, are still in the heat of battle, some other infamous smartphone patent wars have been coming to a close. Recently, one of the largest patent litigation cases between Rockstar and Google has finally began to come to a close. Rockstar is a patent trolling company owned by tech giants Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson and Blackberry. 

When the tech information age began to blossom around 1980, design and technology patents were generally ill-designed and could not predict the explosiveness of technological growth that was to come over the next several decades. Because of this, many companies filed many patents in hopes to someday cash out on their huge portfolios through infringement cases. It was here that many patent troll companies began to take shape, namely Rockstar, a smartphone patent troll giant. In 2011, Rockstar truly began to grow when its owners, Microsoft and Apple, bought $4.5 billion worth of patents from a telecommunications and network equipment company. 

Once Rockstar’s portfolio had been solidified, it launched a patent litigation attack in 2013 against Google’s Android phone makers. This attack was an obvious patent troll that was aimed at weakening Google’s grip on the mobile market. Since this attempted attack, juries have noticed an increase in patent litigation cases led by patent trolls, and have since been rejecting troll attempts to reap money from companies more profitable than them. As of December 2014, Rockstar’s litigation case versus Google began to fade away; today, it has sold off most of its patent portfolio that it had originally been using to fight Google, gradually pulling out of this smartphone patent war. In the more recent years, this failed patent troll attempt has deterred companies from trolling other companies over smartphone designs, truly paving the way for innovation rather than for exploitation. 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkpaStFNMiU&feature=youtu.be

Smartphone Patent Wars Part I: Apple Versus Samsung

Several weeks ago, I discussed the high stakes litigation battle that had been going on for the past four or so years between tech giants Samsung and Apple. This blog post will serve as an update and a more in-depth exploration of this intense battle. 

On the one hand, Apple’s damages expert Julie Davies explains that since Apple filed this lawsuit against Samsung requesting over $1 billion for patent infringement, Samsung has continued to infringement on Apple’s design patents, leading to their demands for roughly another $180 million in reparations.

“I have prepared this declaration to calculate the supplemental damages and prejudgment interest that Samsung owes Apple in Case No. 11-CV-01846," wrote Davies. "I summarize these amounts in Exhibit 1. As shown there, supplemental damages are $178,659,870. Prejudgment interest on the supplemental damages is $1,192,490 through the date of the hearing on Apple's motion for supplemental damages (March 24, 2016).”

On the other hand, Samsung believes that Apple is not only being overcompensated for these so-called damages, but that Apple should even be paying Samsung money in damages due to the outdatedness of the smartphone products that are being litigated over.

This case would potentially be a watershed in the history of design patent infringement. I am very curious to know how this case turns out, because it could potentially influence future litigation cases on how courts should determine such claims on design patent infringement.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIIHHTrpsE&feature=youtu.be

Ridiculous Patents: Cry No More Assignment 2

Cry No More Patent: 

Looking at the drawing above, it may not be inherently obvious what the ‘Cry No More’ patent actually does. Granted by the US Patent Office in 2000, this stupid patent is meant to act as a ‘baby muzzle’ that prevents babies from crying. This patent works by acting as a pacifier that does not allow the babies to make noise. To me, I see this patent as ridiculous for a number of reasons.

The patent claims sum up this device as follows: "The inventive device includes a pacifier having an outwardly extending guard plate, apertures in opposite sides of the guard plate, and adjustable straps employing hook and loop fasteners to form loops for engaging the straps between the apertures in the guard plate and an infant's ears.” 

The ultimate purpose of this device is to prevent the baby from spitting out his or her pacifier because of an attached strap to said pacifier that wraps around the baby’s ears. While this patent is definitely abstract and is not obvious, I believe it is extremely immoral and ineffective. At their age, babies do not have the ability to form a verbal opinion or give any form of consent showing that they are okay with being ‘muzzled’. In addition to the immorality of this patent, some babies are capable of easily detaching the straps from his or her ears if they are in any sort of discomfort. In my opinion, this patent is not worth any sort of effort resulting in going to market with a product because it would surely fail immediately. 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LnPFXdRSyE&feature=youtu.be

Ridiculous Patents: Quick Draw Call Assignment 1

Quick Draw Call Patent: 

The picture above is a snapshot of a ‘Quick Draw Call’ patent granted in 2004. The purpose of this patent it to provide a means of storage for your cellphone on one’s upper wrist, near one’s hand. Essentially, this device acts as a strap that allows the user to ‘slide’ a phone upwards  from their upper wrist into their hand when wanting to use his or her phone. 

While this may have been a potentially interesting idea twenty years ago, this patent is extremely silly today. The patent claims that “not one of the devices actually known allows the possibility of quickly and easily setting the cellular telephone to its use condition and then as well quickly and easily setting it back to rest”. This claim is obsolete: flip phones are no longer widely used, and the necessity of having a cellphone does not trump one’s comfort in day-to-day activities.

According to its claims, the primary purpose of this ‘Quick Draw Call’ patent is to quicken the time it takes between phone storage and phone usage. I personally see the purpose of this patent as ridiculous. Today, most cellphone users store their phone in their clothing pockets. It would not take longer than five seconds for one to reach into their pocket and retrieve their cellphone. While this patent is abstract and not necessarily obvious, it definitely seems purposeless to me. As technology advances and our cellphones become both more storable and more efficient, pursuing any sort of business endeavors with this device is surely not worth any time or effort. 

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B917sfybkqY&feature=youtu.be

KSR Vs. Teleflex: Obviousness in Patent Litigation

On April 30, 2007, a patent litigation case concerning obviousness involving connecting an ‘adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control’ was closed between KSR and Teleflex. According to Teleflex, KSR had infringed on one of its patents because it had been selling products that used a similar idea to the device involving the vehicle control pedal. After examining this case, the Supreme Court ruled that Teleflex’s patent was actually invalid due to obviousness, allowing for KSR to win the case. This case was very significant in highlighting the concept of obviousness that can be present in a patent application. 

In order to determine whether or not an invention is obvious, steps must be taken to examine all aspects of a patent:

1. Determine the scope and content of the prior art; 
2. Ascertain the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art 
3. Resolve the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
4. Consider objective indicia of non-obviousness (i.e., are there secondary considerations of non-obviousness that suggest a patent should issue despite an invention seeming to be obvious?).

After these four steps have been taken, patent obviousness can become much more clear. In the case between KSR and Teleflex, KSR ultimately won not because their argument was stronger than Teleflex’s, but because Teleflex’s patent was actually internally invalid. This case is a perfect example of the important precautions that must be taken by anyone aiming to file a patent.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLP90Ok8BhU&feature=youtu.be

TiVo and TNS Media Research LLC: Patent Obviousness

Several weeks ago, I examined a patent litigation case between TiVo and TNS Media Research LLC, where TiVo accused TNS of infringing on its ‘Holy Grail’ patent, US patent ‘940. In this post, I focused primarily on the litigation of the case. This week, I will be delving further into the case and will be examining the predictability and obviousness of patents, particularly by looking at claim (1) of TiVo’s ad patent. 

Claim (1) of TiVo’s ‘Holy Grail’ patent essentially discusses the means of data collection from clickstream, advertising, program and purchase data and the means used to analyze this data for an advertising platform. I personally believe that the description provided in the patent does not portray obviousness. This is because the large amount of data is processed by specially programmed TiVo computers, without relying on personal information, in order to provide the largest algorithmic return on investment through advertising. 

This type of algorithmic analysis seems to me to be a concept that cannot obviously be copied without carefully looking at how TiVo analyzes its data. Obviousness can definitely play a major problem in many patent applications; in this case, the 10,000 hours of work TiVo invested into this single patent should prove that obviousness is not the problem behind this patent litigation case between TiVo and TNS. Ultimately, I believe that TNS should actually be under some sort of scrutiny because TiVo’s patent is in fact non-obvious and abstract. The court decision has still not been released, however I can confidently see TiVo winning this case.

YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chX40pIS-C0&feature=youtu.be

Instacart: A Naive Unicorn Startup

Instacart, an internet based delivery service, is a relatively new startup unicorn with a valuation of about $2 billion. It works similar to PostMates, by receiving either online or mobile requests from users and then sending employees to pick up the order from a variety of nearby supermarkets. Surprisingly, Instacart has no published patents! As an IP strategy expert, this lack of an IP portfolio is an immediate red flag. Despite this company being coined “America’s most promising company” by Forbes, Instacart may run into some trouble soon, as more and more competitors see this same type of opportunity in this market and might have better ideas that can be patented, which would ultimately hurt and curb Instacart’s marketability. 

In an interview, Instacart’s CEO Apoorva Mehta exclaimed that this $2 billion valuation means that they must allocate a large amount of resources towards expanding into different geographical areas, developing other categories of delivery services and increasing their delivery speeds. I somewhat disagree with Mehta’s strategy. Quickly expanding this company is going to thin in out and make it weaker internally. I fear that if Instacart doesn’t have a base of valuable intangible assets, such as patents, more meticulous competitors may end up outpacing Instacart. 

Three of Instacart’s competitors, FreshDirect, Hellofood, and Munchery are all more recent, smaller startups who are attempting to outpace Instacart in this exact fashion. As a food delivery service, Instacart’s marketing reach may be able to expand into meal delivery, but in order to do so they must find ways to outpace delivery giant’s such as PostMates and DoorDash. Instacart must first step back from their rapid expansion and bolster their IP portfolio. They can do this by focusing on ways to patent their mobile delivery technology and to find more protective methods that strengthen their relationship with supermarket so these markets will allow Instacart to offer deals to consumers that are better than competitors’. Having at least a few patent assets in their IP portfolio will surely give Instacart a leg up over all its competitors in this type of market.

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VI7VnXq98U&feature=youtu.be

Airbnb: A Unicorn in Need of Assets

Airbnb, a unique accommodations company that works by allowing users to put their houses up for vacationers who then pay a fee set by the house owners, is one of the most valuable unicorns to date. It is valued at about $25.5 billion dollars. Surprisingly, Airbnb has fewer than ten patents as of November 2015. For a company with such a large valuation, Airbnb might run into some long term trouble, especially if they consider an IPO, if they do not increase their IP portfolio. 

In today’s world, having a patent on any sort of technology or device related to your market is crucial towards that company’s asset portfolio. Colossal companies such as Google and Apple have tens of thousands of patents, giving them a firm, almost monopolized grip on their market. Airbnb’s rental market has hundreds of small-time competitors, all of which are desperately searching for ways to outthink Airbnb’s business strategy. Three of their competitors, HomeAway, Wimdu and 9flats, are smaller startups that could easily find loopholes and mistakes in Airbnb’s strategy to capitalize on. It is for these reasons that I believe Airbnb needs to up their IP portfolio to include more protective and broader patent specifications. 

The primary difference between the rentals housing market and other markets is that the final service or good is another person, rather than a company. In this case, the company serves as the middleman that combines needs with resources. As an IP strategy expert in this scenario, I would encourage Airbnb to hire and develop a branch within their firm that specifically aims to procure more types of patents that involving buying and selling of intellectual technology. This IP portfolio should be bolstered with patents that utilize the idea of being a middleman and using certain technologies, such as methods of rental payments and website design, to cut out competitors. Ultimately, I can see Airbnb develop even more potential and value if they decide to carry out these tedious but fundamental tasks.

YouTube: https://youtu.be/D7CPX3S66MA

TiVo: Analyzing return on investment of advertising campaigns by matching multiple data sources Claim (1)

Two weeks ago, I wrote a blog post that covered the patent litigation between TiVo and TNS Media Research LLC, where TiVo was accusing TNS of infringing on their biggest patent, patent ‘940. In this post, I will be examining the first claim of TiVo’s ‘Holy Grail’ ad patent:

1. A computer-implemented method for facilitating analysis of consumer behavior in association with advertising exposure or program delivery, the method comprising:

collecting in an advertising measurement system:

(i) clickstream data from a program delivery source of a consumer, wherein collecting the clickstream data is not dependent on a supplemental data collection device, and also wherein the collected clickstream data includes household level data associated with multiple consumer households;

(ii) advertising data associated with delivery of the program by the program delivery source, wherein collecting the advertising data is not dependent on a supplemental data collection device, and also wherein the collected advertising data includes household level data associated with multiple consumer households;

(iii) program data associated with the program delivered on the program delivery source, wherein collecting the program data is not dependent on a supplemental data collection device, and also wherein the collected program data includes household level data associated with multiple consumer households; and,

(iv) purchase data from a purchase data source, wherein collecting the purchase data is not dependent on a supplemental data collection device, and also wherein the collected purchase data includes household level data associated with multiple consumer households;

matching at least portions of the collected advertising data, the collected clickstream data, the collected purchase data, and the collected program data in the advertising measurement system at a household data level with a centrally located electronic computer processor configured for centrally processing data received from the program delivery source, the advertising data source, the program data source, and the purchase data source, wherein the matching further includes:

(i) grouping the collected data in association with an account identifier of each consumer household without processing any personally identifiable information associated with the consumer household, and

(ii) matching each account identifier associated with each consumer household with other account identifiers associated with the same consumer household without processing any personally identifiable information associated with the consumer household;

storing the matched advertising data, clickstream data, purchase data, and program data in at least one centrally located electronic data storage medium operatively associated with the computer processor;

applying at least one cleansing and editing algorithm to the matched and stored data; and,

calculating at least one return on investment metric based on the matched and stored data.

The first claim of this patent is an independent one that capitalizes on different methods of aggregating data for effective advertising. It covers clickstream, advertising, program, and purchasing data obtained from consumers. Clickstream data is utilized by gathering information from households in an independent way. Advertising and program data relies on the program from the program delivery source. Purchase data combines these three other types of data to effectively develop ads targeted towards certain consumers. 

Claim 1 of TiVo’s ‘holy grail’ patent closes by explaining how this large amount of data is then processed by specially programmed computers to match accounts, without relying on personal information, in order to provide the largest algorithmic return on investment through advertising.

Makor: Real time vehicle guidance and forecasting system under traffic jam conditions Claim (1)

Last week, I examined a patent litigation case involving Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. and Google’s Waze. This week, I am going to delve more into the first claim of Makor’s ‘783 patent, involving real time traffic information and directions for mobile devices.

Claim (1). Multi-layer vehicular navigation system, where preferred starting point and destination point of the navigation route are significantly geographically different from each other, the system comprising:

(1.1) a wireless communications system for communicating with client vehicles, and a computer system operatively connected to the communications system, the computer system performing a hierarchically computed route search based on current and statistical section data by choosing roads with fastest classifications first, the computer system further combining data from intermediate layers subsequently and slowest rated roads last and then applying predicted road section coefficients corresponding to each route section;

(1.2) receiving device for collecting GPS data at predetermined time intervals from sample vehicles moving within a predefined geographical region;

(1.3) map database containing digital road maps of a predefined geographical region together with predetermined relevant data on road factors;

(1.4) said computer system operatively connected to the communications system capable of processing in real time said GPS data and transforming them into appropriately structured data suitable for being stored on the computer;

(1.5) a database suitable for storing and updating statistical data on traffic loads on individual roads;

(1.6) statistical application for collecting structured GPS data, computing individual statistical travel time estimates (regular times) for predetermined roads, and storing the results;

(1.7) statistical means application for periodical updating of the said statistical data using statistical criteria for determining volumes of data necessary for obtaining valid and reliable estimates; and

(1.8) computational tools for automatic identification of real time traffic jam conditions at various locations of the individual roads by utilizing the sample vehicles for measuring time delays.

Essentially, this independent claim states that this patent is covering a mobile application that works in a ‘hierarchal’ fashion, meaning that it will compute the fastest route from the current location to another desired destination by comparing all possible routes to one another. Parts (1.2) to (1.5) further define this by incorporating an online, community-based network of different drivers through GPS data and geographical region. 

The first claim of Makor’s patent closes by defining this patent as a database that can store real time traffic data and ultimately provide a computational tool for those who intend on traveling in the most efficient way possible. This relies on statistics and other criteria that determine such volumes of data. Delving into this patent has shown me that it actually does closely resemble Waze’s key aspects, which could be a big problem for Google in the long run. 

Minties, Breathbuster & Dentastix: Mars Inc. Dog Treat Patent Litigation

According to a Law360 article, Mars Inc. was ordered by a U.S. magistrate judge in a Texas district to provide specific documents to TruRX LLC and True Science Holdings LLC, two companies that Mars claims infringed on their patents for breath-freshening dog treats. Last Thursday, Judge K. Nicole Mitchell ordered Mars Inc. to provide documentation and pay attorney fees for True Science’s litigation while also prohibiting any discussion of the documents being given at hand. 

Mars originally filed this complaint in July 2013, when it alleged these two companies of infringing on two of its important product patents. These patents are better known as patent ‘176, held by Mars since December 2002, and patent ‘892, held by Mars since November 2003. These patents pertain to two of Mars’ specific breath-freshening dog treat products, one called “Breathbuster” and the other called “Dentastix”. 

According to Mars Inc., TruRX LLC and True Science Holdings LLC infringed on these products with their competition line product, called “Minties”. True Science argues that, while their product is in the same market as Mars’, it does not infringe on their patent technologies. This case has yet to be decided in one side’s favor. For now, both product lines remain in market. I definitely would argue that food patented technologies are difficult to defend as they are not necessarily a purely man-made invention. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out; it might just add a new dimension to the way veterinary food products are developed in the future.

Article: http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/761808?nl_pk=688afd99-43da-41e2-baf9-0f852e028cd1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vk7aPKUNTv0&feature=youtu.be

Navigational Technology: Google, Waze vs. Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.

On February 22nd, Google Inc.’s navigation app, better known as Waze, was accused of infringing on two patents owned by Makor Issues & Rights Ltd.. Makor is a software company based in Israel that claims it owns two traffic monitoring technology patents that have been infringed on by Waze. In particular, these technology patents help drivers avoid traffic jams, a key factor behind the design of Waze.

These two patents, specifically United States Patent Nos. 6,480,783 and 6,615,130, are said to have been filed in the early 2000s by Makor. Makor claims these patents allow users to receive real-time traffic information via a mobile device. If the court rules in favor of Makor’s patents, this type of information will affect Google Maps as well, as it also relies on a similar type of real-time technology. 

Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. is currently demanding an unspecified payment for damages inflicted by Google’s Waze because of an infringement on its intellectual property. While Google is very accustomed to lawsuits involving patents, notably its large battles with Oracle America Inc. and Priceplay.com Inc., the court has yet to decide on a final ruling for the case. This case in progress could have extreme repercussions for Google Inc. if Makor Issues & Rights Ltd. comes out on top of the case.

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

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAdxVCmhdRg&feature=youtu.be

TiVo's "Holy Grail" Ad Patent vs. TNS Media Research LLC

On Monday, February 22 2016, a court ruling in New York declared that three of the patents television giant TiVo Research and Analytics Inc. used to sue TNS Media Research LLC were invalid under the official standard of the US Supreme Court. One of the patents in particular, coined the ‘Holy Grail’ patent for target advertising, was rendered invalid because ‘abstract ideas using a computer are not patent-eligible’ according to the Law360 article posted this Tuesday, February 23. From here, the New York federal judge ruled that TiVo’s patent was neither innovative nor inventive, and therefor could not be an official patent. 

This patent, U.S. Patent Number 7,729,940, could be performed by humans as well as by computers, and therefore could not be technologically intellectual property. Further, another judge, Judge Scheindlin, ruled that the primary ideas behind the three TiVo patents being used in litigation against TNS were relatively basic and abstract in the sense that they could not be utilized to acquire damages  fromTNS. 

Later in 2013, Judge Scheindlin dumped out TiVo’s claims of infringement and trade secret completely, while only ordering a small damage recovery opportunity for them from TNS. However, later that year the Federal Circuit overruled some of Judge Scheindlin’s rulings, arguing that the actions of TNS were primary proponents in the huge loss of the valuation of TiVo. Their valuation fell from $54 million to $20 million. Currently, there is still no end result from this patent litigation case. There is still a great deal of details for the courts to examine before any definitive ruling can be set forth.

Article: http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/762164?nl_pk=688afd99-43da-41e2-baf9-0f852e028cd1&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ip

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhnVlCFIz-w&feature=youtu.be

Apple Inc. Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. (2007-Present)

In early 2011, Apple Inc. began litigation against Samsung Electronics Co. over four design patents and three utility patents they had filed in over the course of 2007. The design patents were filed four days before they introduced their first iPhone to the world. After their filings, Apple accused Samsung of infringing on their United States utility patent Nos. 7,469,381, 7,844,915, and 7,864,163, as well as their United States design patent Nos. D504,889, D593,087, D618,677, and D604,305. 

Samsung responded by counter-suing Apple for infringing on some of their patents, specifically their United States patent Nos. 7,675,941, 7,447,516, 7,698,711, 7,577,460, and 7,456,893. This litigation continued back and forth for a couple years until 2012, when Apple won a verdict widely in their favor. The jury found that Samsung deliberately infringed on Apple’s design and utility patents, as well as some aspects of their iPhone design. As a result, they ordered Samsung pay $1.049 billion in damages to Apple.

By late 2012, Samsung had done everything in their power to try reverse or mitigate this huge case. In October of 2012, the US Patent and Trademark office rendered two of Apple’s filed patents invalid. This brought Apple and Samsung back to court in December. Court judge Lucy H. Koh decided on December 17, 2012 that the damages Samsung had to pay after their first trial were miscalculated by somewhere around $400 million, ordering a retrial. 

Ultimately, Samsung still ended up losing the case; however, they did not have to pay nearly as much as the court initially ordered. It is estimated that Samsung will end up paying somewhere around $120 million. While this is still a very large settlement, Samsung definitely dodged a bullet compared to their initial ‘damages’ of $1.049 billion.

Article: http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/18/8619871/apple-samsung-appeal-patent-trade-dress-2015

Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezDekNT4U2w&feature=youtu.be

VirnetX & Apple: The Details

Despite VirnetX’s mixed success with their past patent litigations, their most recent $626 million win over Apple was definitely their biggest feat yet. After losing to Cisco last year and winning against Microsoft in 2010, VirnetX decided that Apple was the most important target for 2016. Originally, VirnetX had won the case in 2012, accusing Apple of $368 million in damages. Since then, Apple had appealed the case and won on a technicality; the jury saw no direct causation between Apple’s infringing software and their sales of iPads and other devices that used said software. 

However, the appeal ended up hurting Apple in the long run. A new jury found Apple guilty of $626 million in damages, more than VirnetX initially demanded, because it “willfully violated their patents”. After their win, VirnetX’s shares doubled before the market opened. 

The jury had determined that Apple first infringed on VirnetX’s patent Nos. 7,490,151 and 6,502,135, leading to damages of $335 million. After that ruling, the jury determined that Apple’s FaceTime feature, used from iOS 4 to iOS 6 and from OS X 10.7 to OS X 10.8 i, violated VirnetX’s patent Nos 7,921,211 and 7,418,504. This lead to another $291 million in damages owed by Apple to VirnetX. Apple’s VPN on Demand features also played into infringements on parts of all four patents.

As a company that does not sell any physical product, VirnetX thrives through their ownership of patents. The modern world is becoming increasingly reliant on technologies, and patents are at the core of this development. VirnetX is right where they should be in the technological world.

VirnetX vs. Apple: The Million Dollar Case

After determining that Apple was infringing on VirnetX’s patents through their iMessage, FaceTime and other software applications, an East Texas District Court ruled that Apple must pay $626 million in damages. According the the jury, Apple had violated 4 of VirnetX’s patents, which mainly involve communication over electronic devices. VirnetX is well known the tech community as an infamous patent troll; a company that procures a large amount of patents and then aims to fault other companies by accusing them of infringement. 

Supposedly, Apple had violated the four of the following patents out of the 80 owned by VirnetX:

U.S. Patent #6,502,135 (“135 patent”): Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability

U.S. Patent #7,418,504 (“504 patent”): Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names

U.S. Patent #7,490,151 (“151 patent”): Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request

U.S. Patent #7,921,211 (“211 patent”): Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names

Despite being a company of 14 employees working out of an office with a $5000 rent space per month, VirnetX has claimed a huge victory. VirtnetX makes most of their incomes through this process of licensing and suing other firms based on patent ownership rights.

This case had been going on since 2012; Apple managed to drag it out until now, however VirnetX was persistent enough to see this huge case all the way through. Ultimately, VirnetX succeeded in convincing the jury to see to it that Apple repaid VirnetX for all the damage done to them.

The Internet: A Game Changing Invention

The Internet:

Before the internet was invented, our methods of communication, business and education were drastically constrained because of a lack of ability to access and utilize real time information. Communicating with people who were not within the same city or neighborhood was prolonged by days, if not weeks, because people had to write and send letters via mail. This slowed the progression of our economical, social and cultural growth because everything was delayed by a lack of speedy technology. As a concept, the internet was around for a long period of time, spurred by increasing tensions during the cold war. However, the physical, recognizable creation of the internet took place during the years leading up to 1990. A prototype of the internet, called the ARPANET, was invented in the late 1960s. This invention allowed data to be transmitted between different networks at quick speeds. In 1990, computer scientist Tim Berners-Lee developed the World Wide Web, which ultimately spurred a more global usage of the internet. The internet infinitely expanded our world of knowledge, giving us a multitude of virtual realities that allow us to explore the world through a technological perspective. Its significance goes beyond the idea of any other technological invention because it connected the world through a medium of communication and information. News could be accessed at the click of a button, compared to before, where it took days to hear about something that may have happened overseas. Websites such as Facebook, Youtube and Twitter gave us the ability to form interconnected networks and communities online, connecting us on a global level. These reasons are why I picked the internet as the specific and fundamental invention that drives today’s economy and social environment on more than just a basic level.

Top Ten Inventions That Changed the World

Revised Top Ten Inventions That Changed the World

1. The Compass: 
The compass was a revolutionary invention; it allowed for the development of direction, maps, trade and ultimately globalization. It is essential to almost every part of what we know about the world today.

2. The Internet: 
The internet forms an integral part of almost all of our daily interactions, transactions and cultural exchanges today. It is quite possibly the single most important factor towards keeping mankind connected and in sync with the world.

3. The Alphabet: 
The invention of the alphabet allowed for human communication to evolve at an exponential level. Language is the foundation upon which human society has been built over many centuries.

4. The Wheel:
The wheel allowed for human transportation to develop at a much more rapid pace. The wheel is used in countless different technologies and inventions today, such as cars, bikes, airplanes and machinery.

5. Medicine:
Medicine has been around for thousands of years; this crucial practice is one of the reasons why humankind has thrived and grown exponentially as a species. Preventing disease is fundamentally important in the progression of humanity.

6. The Internal Combustion Engine:
The internal combustion engine is an invention that allowed for the development of our most important forms of transportation and machinery today. This invention burns fuel, creating kinetic energy that is then converted to motive power. Airplanes, automobiles and a multitude of machinery all rely on this simple yet innovative invention.

7. The Computer: 
The development of the computer allowed humans to both store massive amounts of data and configure it to better understand certain phenomena. The computer is a vast source of knowledge for anyone and everyone. It keeps us connected on a global level.

8. Currrency:
The concept of “value” is a manmade economical quality. The invention of currency has allowed mankind to create complete economies that utilize a trade and barter system. Without currency, we would not have been able to develop in such a sophisticated and organized fashion today.

9. The Light Bulb:
Electric lighting was one of the driving forces that spurred the industrial revolution and ultimately our modern world today. The light bulb allowed for many other inventions to exists today. Electrical conduction, construction, and commercial/residential lighting are foundational in our society today.

10. Religion:
Last but not least, religion is definitely a significant feature of mankind. The creation of religion has lead to massive cultural growth in many different areas, and, for some, it leads their everyday choices and values. Without religion, the world would surely be a completely different place.

4.

10 Watershed Inventions

10 Inventions That Changed the Course of History

1.  The Internet (Late 1960s) - Developed due to building tensions during the Cold War, the internet provides humankind with an unlimited collection of information that can be accessed by anyone. In addition, it has paved the way for exponential economical, social and intellectual growth by providing ever-growing resources promoting a start-up culture.

2. Paper (Han Dynasty, China) - Paper is a watershed in history because it allowed for colossal quantities of information to be created and stored in an easily accessible fashion. Originally made from papyrus and other reeds, paper helped inventors save information to create new inventions; I see paper as one of the world's father inventions.

3. Refrigeration (1805) - Refrigerating food changed the way food was produced and sold on a global scale. As a method of food preservation, refrigeration cut costs and amplified efficiency of production all over the world.

4. Internal Combustion Engine (1859) - The internal combustion engine is a machine that works by burning fuel in order to create massive amounts of kinetic energy to be used for motive power. Invented in 1859, this engine allowed for the production of automobiles, airplanes, and other forms of transportation that spurred our modern age of globalization.

5. Lightbulb (1870) - The lightbulb is a device that transmits electrical currents through a wire, using up energy by transforming it into heat and light. This invention led to the widespread development of electricity conduction and ultimately every technological invention that exists today.

6. Antibiotics (1940s) - Made accidentally by Alexander Fleming in the 1940s, antibiotics changed the course of history by decreasing the rate of death due to infectious disease by twenty-fold. This invention is pivotal, even in today's medical world.

7. Wheel (3500 BCE) - As one of the six simple machines of the world, the wheel is fundamental in practically every field of work. The wheel enabled an effective method of transporting goods, which spurred global trade and lead to the development of cars, turbines, clocks and more.

8. Nail (200 BCE) - Despite being such a basic product, the nail was the linchpin in modern construction and global development. The nail allows for multiple objects to be held together firmly; this invention is one of the primary reasons why human civilization was able to develop at such an exponential rate.

9. Sliced Bread (1928) - Bread, the most universally consumed good and one third of the average American diet, is a staple product for basically every culture in the world. In 1928, Otto Rohwedder invented a machine designed to slice bread into pieces. This invention lead to a widespread revolutionary development in the food industry.

10. Television (1927) - I consider television to be one of the greatest inventions of all time because it is a device that possesses both great educational value and entertainment. It allows humankind to keep up with the world through news sources while also creating a network of consumers who use it for various methods of entertainment.

About Me - Assignment 1

My name is Daniel Anstey, a current UC Berkeley sophomore taking IEOR 190G during my spring 2016 semester. I am an intended business major at the Haas School of Business and I am interested in this class for mainly two reasons. The first is because I am pursuing a Certificate in Entrepreneurship Technology from the College of Engineering. The second is because my father recently received a grant for his glove patent a few months ago (US 9179718) and I had been involved in this process for the past 3 years, watching him develop his patent from scratch. The entirety of this process was very interesting to me and really allowed me to develop an understanding of how powerful a patent can be. Enrolling in IEOR 190G seemed like it would help me further my interest in the world of patents!