itemscope="" itemscope=""

Steve Jobs, RIP

October 5, 2011 By

This is a very sad day for the technology world, and indeed, for all humanity.

Today, Steve Jobs, co-founder and former CEO of of Apple Computer, died. He was just 56 years old.

Steve Jobs was named as an inventor on 338 U.S. patents., some of which can be found here.

Among Job’s legacy:

* among the first to understood the commercial value of the modern computer interface, including the mouse;

* revolutionized desktop computing using the new computer and operating environemnt;

* revolutionized computer-generated movies (Pixar);

* developed iPod revolutionizing how music is distributed  (through iTunes store);

* developed iPhone revolutioning the smart phone industry (including applications); and

* developed ipad creating the first widely used tablet computer.

America Invents Act a “Jobs bill”?

September 27, 2011 By

To hear the politicians explain it, the recent changes to the patent laws are going to spur job growth.

One may argue whether the changes will spur private sector job growth, but one thing is sure: the Patent Office is hiring!

According to Director Kappos, between 1,500 and 2,000 new examiners will be hired to reduce application backlog.

And in my opinion, this will do more than anything in the entire law to improve things.

Patent Office Fees Increase as of Today

September 26, 2011 By

One of the effects of the Leahy-Smith Act  recently signed into law by President Obama is that  USPTO fees have (as of today) gone up on average 15%.

For an updated fee schedule, see this link.

Here are a few of the new fee amounts:

Old Fee Amount New Fee Amount
Filing Fee**

$462

$530
Issue Fee

$540

$620
Publication Fee

$300

$300
1 Month Extension of Time

$65

$75
2 Month Extension of Time

$245

$280
3 Month Extension of Time

$555

$635

** The above fees are for small entities. Filing fee assumes electronic filing.

There is a new fee category listed on the fee schedule for “Request for prioritized examination” which we will discuss in greater detail in a later post. But, suffice to say, this is a new program in which the applicant can pay a fee for an accelerated examination (a final disposition within 12 months). The fee for small entities is $2400 — which is well worth considering, in many cases. The Patent Office will limit the program to 10,000 petitions per year.

Patent Issued for Snowman

September 25, 2011 By

As first reported in techdirt, a patent has issued recently for a snowman. The patent in question is entitled “Apparatus for facilitating the construction of a snow man/woman”. My first reaction was — given the long wait time  for the Patent Office to issue a patent — that this one might have been pending for the last few thousand years or so. But, as it turns out, the invention is fairly narrow in scope, and merely discloses and claims a particular method for making a snowman. Luckily, the patent does not preempt the traditional snowman.

Analysts: Kodak’s Patent Porfolio Worth More than Company

August 30, 2011 By

In the aftermath of Google’s $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility smartphone business, seen by many as a way for Google to obtain Motorola’s 17,000 patents, analysts are looking at other companies with large patent portfolios. In a recent Bloomberg News article, it was noted that Kodak’s patent portfolio is estimated at about $3 billion while the market value of the company is a mere $600 million. Most of Kodak’s patents relate to digital imaging technology. Potential buyers include Microsoft and Samsung. Meanwhile, it has been reported that Kodak is looking at ways to monitize its digial imaging patents, including possibly auctioning them off.

Kodak was granted its first patent (No. 306,594) in 1884, for “Photographic Film”:

Patent No. 8,000,000 Issued

August 17, 2011 By

On Tuesday of each week the US Patent and Trademark (USPTO) issues patents… and this Tuesday Patent No. 8,000,000 was issued to Second Sight Medical Products, Inc., for a visual prosthesis device to enhance visual perception for people who gone blind because of outer retinal degereration. According the the specification, the retina is electrically stimulated to produce visual perceptions of light. The product (the Argus II) is in clinial trials and has received marketing approval in Europe. As explained in the USPTO press release, the invention works as follows:

The system awarded patent number 8,000,000 is designed to bypass the damaged photoreceptors altogether.  A miniature video camera housed in the patient’s glasses sends information to a small computer worn by the patient where it is processed and transformed into instructions transmitted wirelessly to a receiver in an implanted stimulator.  The signals are then sent to an electrode array, attached to the retina, which emits small pulses of electricity.  These electrical pulses are intended to bypass the damaged photoreceptors and stimulate the retina’s remaining cells to transmit the visual information along the optic nerve to the brain.

The patent will be presented to the inventors by Director Kappos at the Smithsonian American Art Museum on Sept. 8, 2011.

German Court Enjoins Sale of Samsung Tablet Throughout Most of Europe

August 11, 2011 By

A German judge has issued a preliminary injuction (a temporary injuction until the case can be decided on the merits) against Samsung which bars the company from selling the Galaxy Tab tablet PC throughout most of Europe. As we noted earlier with respect to the iPhone versus Samsumg Galaxy smart phone controversy, much of the dispute involves trade dress issues.  Under the Lanham Act (the same legislation protecting trademarks), a product’s visual appearance and packaging (for example, the shape, color, or materials used for a product) can be legally protected. According to a statement by Samsung, “Samsung is preparing to challenge this preliminary order in the court in order to have the injunction lifted as soon as possible.” We interpret this to mean that the company is planning on appealing the injunction order.

Jam Wars

August 9, 2011 By

As reported in Ad Week, J.M. Smucker, the company that makes Smucker’s preserves, has filed a complaint (see below) in federal court seeking a declaratory judgement that it is not infringing on upscale French preserves maker Andros (maker of the Bonn Maman brand of preserves). The issue relates to usage of the distinctive Ginham design on Smucker’s lids. Under a 27-year old agreement, Bonn Mama agreed to allow Smuckers free usage of the Ginham design so long as it did not compete directly. Because Monn Mamam sold its preserves to upscale markets while Smuckers did not, the companies had been coexisting peacefully. However, all that changed when Smuckers launched its new premium Orchard Finest line of preserves.  Andros sent Smuckers a cease and desist letter, commencing the  “Jam War” as it is being called in the industry.

Smuckers v. S.A. Andros

Google Buys 1,000 IBM Patents

July 30, 2011 By

As initially reported by the SEO By the Sea blog, Google has purchased more than 1,000 patents from IBM. According to the article, the patents cover a large range of technologies including fabrication of memory and processing chips. The article also claims that some of the patents are for relational databases, object oriented programming and even business methods. The motivation / strategy for buying these patents, as well as the cost, is a anyone’s guess.

Frisbee Maker Challenges Constitutionality of False Marking Statute

July 9, 2011 By

When may an inventor place the words patent pending on a product? The answer is that the product may be marked patent pending as soon as the patent application is filed. However, care must be taken to remove this marking if the patent application is later abandoned — or the patent is issued but no longer is in force (e.g., expired).

Under 35 U.S.C. 292, whoever falsly marks a product can be fined up to $500 per offense. And the Federal Circuit has ruled that an “offense” means each false marking. Thus, if a company makes a million products marked falsely with an expired patent number, it can (at least theoretically) incur a fine of $500 million. Furthermore, the law allows private individuals to sue the manufacturer.  If the plaintiff prevails, the proceeds are split with the government.

In the last year, a cottage industry has been formed to sue manufacturers for false marking.  According to one source which closely tracks such lawsuits, the law firm of Mcdonnell Boehnen Hulbert Berghoff, [s]ince January 1, 2010, hundreds of qui tam lawsuits have been filed for false patent marking.” However, not all manufacturers accused of false marking are forking over money. Case in point is Wham-O, the makers of the Frisbee, sued for allegedly including expired patent numbers on their product . Now Wham-O is appealing the constitutionality of the false marketing statute itself.  The Federal Circuit heard arguments this week … but most likely, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final say.

« Previous Page
Next Page »