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