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