patents
Latest
If graphene is the next big thing, is Apple already way behind?
For massive companies like Apple and Samsung, continued success often depends on pioneering new technologies and staying ahead of the curve. Graphene, an ultra-thin and ultra-strong arrangement of carbon atoms is one of the front runners for the category of "next big thing" in tech. A graphene sheet is as thin as a single atom and still retains its electrically conductive and heat dissipating properties, making it a fantastic material for the ever-slimmer world of mobile gadgets. When it comes to graphene, Samsung has been snatching up patents like crazy, filing over 400 (with some duplicates between regions) with mentions of graphene, worldwide. The filings range from manufacturing processes to methods of applying graphene on different surfaces, but the most interesting patents relate to touchscreens (an image from one touchscreen filing is shown below). If the future of smart devices include flexible screens, graphene would be a fantastic material for such an application, as it's bendable, conductive, and extremely durable. Apple thus far has filed exactly two patents mentioning graphene -- one for a graphene heat dissipation system and one for a "graphene current collector." That's it. So are we seeing the foundation for a future where Apple pays for the privilege of using patented processes and material applications? Not so fast. The angle du jour seems to be that Apple and Samsung are in an all-out race for graphene patents, and whoever has the highest number wins. That's a valid, if perhaps a bit shortsighted, way of looking at it. Yes, having patents related to an emerging technology is indeed a good thing, but Apple has never really been a big player in the R&D game at such a basic level. Apple doesn't need to have a patent on an industrial production method for making graphene in order to use the resulting material in a creative and innovative way. Apple's most valuable patents have always been related to actual products and services. Samsung being ahead of the game on potential graphene touchscreen applications is indeed something the company can stick in its cap, it's not as though Apple has ever had a problem paying a competitor for its manufacturing prowess. Remember, while mainstream news sites create goofy TV graphics showing Apple and Samsung logos in a boxing ring over the hugely publicized patent disputes, Apple's ultra-powerful mobile chips are still manufactured by Samsung. If Apple were to end up buying graphene sheets from Samsung for use in its mobile devices, it's not a sign of Apple kneeling to its new master. It's business as usual. [Photo credit: University of Exeter]
Meet the company that is dangerously close to collecting 1% of Apple's iPhone and iPad revenue
If you've never heard the name VirnetX that's OK, since the company doesn't really make anything you use on a daily basis, but Apple knows the name all too well. The two companies have been entangled in a long legal battle over a handful of patents applying to Apple products like FaceTime, and you guessed it, VirnetX is out for cash and not much else. Apple is no stranger to patent trolling, but where so many have failed, VirnetX has succeeded, and is creeping ever closer to scoring a huge payday off of Apple's iPhone and iPad sales. VirnetX bills itself as an "end-user-focused company," that values integrity and security above all else. It does this -- it seems -- by creating licensing agreements to rake in cash and waging legal wars against anyone who it feels has infringed upon its holdings. The company has had some bad beats in its fight against other large tech companies, including losing its infringement case against Cisco in March of 2013. You can see the effect this ruling had on the company's stock price (it's the massive drop which cut its value in half). But VirnetX is having much better luck against Apple. I'll save you most of the complicated details regarding the case and try to put it in simpler terms: VirnetX owns several patents on network protocols which the company argues are being used by Apple without royalties. In 2013, a jury agreed and ordered Apple to pay $368 million. Apple then did some behind-the-scenes tweaking to try to skirt the patents, but earlier this year a judge determined Apple was still infringing and ordered that Apple fork over an ongoing royalty of 0.98% of iPhone and iPad revenue. Running out of options, Apple then leaned on RPX, a company that buys up patents to aid large companies in defense of patent trolls, for help. RPX, operating as an entity separate from Apple, filed petitions to have the patents reviewed and hopefully invalidated as they apply to the lawsuit. The U.S. patent office found that Apple was really the one pulling the strings on RPX's request and, just last week, had it thrown out entirely. VirnetX hailed this as justice being served. This not only makes Apple look a bit desperate, but it also puts VirnetX one big step closer to collecting on nearly 1% of the sales of Apple's most popular devices. Apple's next move is unclear, as the company has been barred from filing additional reviews on the grounds that it already had the opportunity to make its case, and with one of the biggest names in anti-patent-trolling, RPX, also dismissed, VirnetX is clearly winning this fight.
Apple and Motorola agree to drop lawsuits against each other, work on patent reform
And just like that, the longstanding legal battle between Apple and Motorola appears to be winding down. The two smartphone giants have reached an agreement that will see them drop patent lawsuits against each other. The truce doesn't involve offering technology licenses, but Apple and Google (still Motorola's owner at this point) say they'll "work together in some areas of patent reform." Neither side is revealing what this entails, although it won't be surprising if it involves efforts to curb the patent trolls that they face.
Amazon's studio photography patent makes Apple, Samsung look reasonable
Smucker's, believe it or not, has a patent for the process of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You should see the filing, too -- based on the complex diagrams you'd think it detailed architectural concepts or maybe even some weird new camera lens. While the PB&J company won't likely sue for damages the next time you make yourself some lunch, a recently granted Amazon patent addresses another very simple concept, one used by professionals around the world: photography (and video) of items against a white backdrop.
Apple's Data Tapping patent accounted for 85% of its damages award
A jury on Monday finalized Apple's damages award, leaving the company's original $119 million figure intact. While Apple at trial asserted five patents, the jury determined that Samsung's products infringed upon three of them. And from those three, one patent in particular accounted for the vast majority of Apple's damages award. Patent 5,946,647, otherwise known as the '647 patent, was initially filed in 1996 and encapsulates a feature known as "Data Tapping." The patent describes a method by which a device can detect certain types of data -- i.e dates, URLs, phone numbers, addresses etc. -- and subsequently present users with a list of clickable actions. For instance, say you receive a text that says, "Let's meet for lunch next Thursday." iOS is able to detect the data structure "next Thursday", underline it, and subsequently allow users to tap on the string whereupon they can create a calendar event for that day. As another quick example, let's say you receive an email with an embedded phone number. iOS detects the presence of a phone number and presents users with the following options when they tap the string. It's a rather nifty iOS feature, and a valuable one at that. Of the $119.6 million awarded to Apple, 85% of that amount ($102 million) resulted from Samsung products infringing upon the '647 patent. Also worth noting is that if you look at the damages award on a product by product basis, the Galaxy S2 and S3 are largely responsible for the bulk of the damages Samsung now owes Apple.
Judges have more discretion to punish patent trolls, but they probably won't
The US Supreme Court just gave judges a little more leverage to punish patent trolls: it defined the word "exceptional." A provision of federal patent law hinged on the definition of the word, stating that the court could charge a lawsuit's losing party with the winner's attorney fees in "exceptional cases." It sounds straightforward: if a lawsuit is obviously frivolous, the patent troll pays its victim's costs. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court said, precedent from a previous case left the rule with "an inflexible framework onto statutory text that is inherently flexible." In other words, it was too difficult to define exactly how exceptional a case was, making it nearly impossible to implement punitive fee-shifting.
EU prevents Motorola and Samsung from suing over standards-based patents
The patent wars are about to cool down in Europe... a little bit, anyway. The European Commission has revealed measures that prevent both Motorola and Samsung from using lawsuits over standards-based patents as offensive weapons against competitors, rather than last-ditch options when negotiations fail. To start, the regulator has ordered Motorola to cut out any "anticompetitive" terms in patent licensing deals with Apple and other companies. Motorola is allegedly abusing its control of cellular patents by forbidding companies from contesting those patents' validity; companies and their customers shouldn't be forced to pay for licenses that might not hold up in court, the Commission says. Motorola won't pay a fine for the claimed violation since there's no precedent, but the phone maker now can't threaten a lawsuit simply because Apple wants to challenge the patents it's licensing.
Apple refuses to join Intellectual Ventures' new patent acquisition fund
Intellectual Ventures is a patent holding company that's often referenced as an example of widescale and aggressive patent trolling. Co-founded by former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold, Intellectual Ventures likes to spin its business model as creating a net benefit for the tech industry, a position which of course has earned the company more than its fair share of detractors. To put the scale of Intellectual Ventures into perspective, the company currently boasts more than 70,000 patents in its portfolio. While Apple, not to mention a slew of other tech companies, are already investors in the company, Reuters reports that the good folks over in Cupertino recently declined an offer to join Microsoft, Sony, and others to join Intellectual Ventures' most recent acquisition fund which reportedly seeks to raise $3 billion to further future patent acquisition sprees. Last year IV curtailed patent acquisitions as it sought new investors, and IV now is ramping up, say three sources familiar with IV's activity in the patent market. "Microsoft and Sony's investments give IV a fresh war chest to buy new patents," said Kevin Jakel, chief executive of Unified Patents, which advises tech companies on alternatives to patent aggregators like IV. But Apple and Intel's decision is significant because the biggest tech companies have supported IV in the past. "This would be a dramatic departure," Jakel said. In recent months, Apple has become noticeably more vocal in denouncing patent trolls. This past February we reported that Apple, since 2009, has been the target of over 190 patent infringement lawsuits from non practicing entities. What's more, Apple recently revealed that they employ two attorneys "just to respond to letters that demand royalties."
Apple and Microsoft help form lobby group opposing attempts to kill software patents (update: not lobbying)
Few would object to legislative attempts to stop patent trolls in their tracks. However, several companies are worried these efforts might go too far -- enough so that they've formed their own US political lobby organization, the Partnership for American Innovation. The group, which includes tech giants Apple, GE, IBM and Microsoft, wants a "balanced" approach that reduces the volume of junk patents (and the resulting abuse) while letting companies file for software and biotech patents. The policy isn't surprising when these firms are trying to protect their cash cows. However, it also pits the Partnership's members squarely against firms like Netflix and Twitter, which argue that patents only get in the way. No matter what lawmakers do, it's now clear that they're going to get an earful from both sides. Update: Despite what it looks like at first glance, the Partnership is strictly a public advocacy group, not a lobby.
Blizzard scores a victory against patent troll Worlds, Inc.
Activision Blizzard has won a victory over Worlds Inc, which has been leveraging its patents on basic virtual world principles -- like the ability to chat with other users in a virtual environment -- to sue MMO companies like Blizzard and Second Life makers Linden Labs. Patent trolling can be big business and, indeed, seems to be the primary business that Worlds Inc is in these days. However, they may be running out of luck in this case, as the latest ruling suggests the patents are invalid because they describe things already in public use before they were filed. However, this ruling is certainly not the end of the ongoing legal drama involving Worlds, which has lauded the ruling as a clear victory for itself. But with the Supreme Court currently considering whether to take stronger action against patent trolls, which may make it easier for sued companies to recover legal fees from patent trolls (and thus deter these sorts of lawsuits), it may be harder for Worlds to find traction on such lawsuits in the future. We'll have to keep watching to see just what happens between Activision Blizzard and Worlds, but it seems unlikely that they'll manage to recover from this ruling. If you want all the details, check out the writeup on Gigaom or, if you're fluent in legalese, read the decision yourself.
Apple wants Samsung to pay $40 per accused device, court documents reveal
In just a few weeks, Apple and Samsung will begin their second large-scale patent infringement battle in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The trial comes just weeks after top executives from each respective company were unable to reach an amicable settlement agreement via court-ordered mediation. Earlier this week, Florian Mueller over at FOSS Patents unearthed court transcripts which help shed some light on the licensing terms Apple was and perhaps is hoping to extract from Samsung. Specifically, Apple is seeking US$40 per device from Samsung in licensing fees. As Mueller himself points out, that type of royalty rate is ridiculously high. A damages expert will argue on Apple's behalf that, if the parties had acted reasonably and rationally in a hypothetical negotiation, Samsung would have agreed to pay $40 -- forty dollars! -- per phone or tablet sold as a total royalty for the five patents-in-suit, which relate to (but don't even fully monopolize) the phone number tapping feature, unified search, data synchronization, slide-to-unlock, and autocomplete. The theory is that Samsung would simply have raised its prices accordingly. What's particularly interesting about Apple's proposed $40 fee is that it's higher even than previous Apple licensing proposals made to Samsung. Back in October 2010, Apple offered Samsung a $30 licensing fee per each smartphone device and a $40 licensing fee per each tablet sold. At the time, Apple indicated that it was willing to knock off 20% off its proposed royalty rate if Samsung agreed to cross license its own patents to Apple. That would have resulted in Samsung ponying up $24 to Apple for each smartphone sold and $32 for each Android tablet sold. Mueller further points out that the royalty rates Apple sought in the first trial included $3.10 for pinch-to-zoom, and $2.02 for both inertial scrolling and tap to zoom, representing a grand total of $7.14 for just three software patents. Mueller adds: Apple's royalty-type damages claim for five software patents is also far out of the ballpark of anything that has ever been claimed or rumored to be paid in this industry for entire portfolios. After Apple and Nokia settled in 2011, the highest per-unit royalty estimate I heard about (and this was just an analyst's claim, not official information) was in the $10 range -- for Nokia's huge portfolio of SEPs and non-SEPs, not for a handful of patents. Guesstimates of what various Android device makers pay to Microsoft -- again, for a portfolio license, not a five-patent license -- that have appeared in the media did not exceed $15-20 per unit, at least the ones I'm aware of. (And Microsoft has a stronger software patent portfolio than Apple.) Like the first trial, this one is on track to get real interesting real quick.
Apple and Samsung headed for another patent trial in March after failing to reach a settlement
It's back to court for Apple and Samsung. After an attempt at settling their latest patent dispute, the two companies will begin another trial in March, according to a filing with the US district court in San Jose. To be clear, this isn't a re-trial of the case that Apple brought back in 2011 -- you know, the one where Samsung was made to pay nearly a billion dollars in damages. No, this is a new case, one that addresses a different set of patents, and one that names more recent devices, like the GS3. For now, it's unclear how much money is at stake, though experts cited by The Wall Street Journal claim that the damages could be higher this time around, given that the case includes newer Samsung devices that sold even better than the products named in the earlier suit. All will be revealed in March, we suppose. We'll be back then reporting any major developments -- even if we're as sick of these patent wars as you are.
White House offers new web tools to help fight patent trolls
The White House isn't relying solely on legislative measures to try and curb patent trolls; it's also giving the trolls' targets some online resources to defend themselves. To start, it just launched a USPTO website that tells victims what to do if they're served with infringement notices or subpoenas. Meanwhile, a future effort will crowdsource prior art to thwart suits over patents that should never have been granted in the first place. There's still more work ahead in the legal realm, including pro bono defense lawyers and technology training for patent examiners. However, the new online tools just might give smaller companies the know-how to fight back against trolls that prey on their lack of information.
Nokia and HTC end their patent dispute, agree to license each other's tech
Nokia and HTC have officially put all this patent litigation nonsense behind them. The two have settled their disputes, signed an agreement to license each others technology, and even decided to explore further opportunities to collaborate. The details are confidential, as they usually are in these circumstances, and the reasoning behind the move are not entirely clear... not that we're complaining. It could be that Nokia and HTC have realized there are competitors out there with deeper pockets and better stocked patent arsenals, and this alliance is simply to protect themselves against other aggressors. Or, it could be that Nokia is trying to get all its legal ducks in a row ahead of the impending Microsoft acquisition. Whatever the impetus, we're just glad that this is one less intellectual property rivalry we'll have to cover.
Samsung and Cisco agree to share patents, sue less
Tired of endless patent lawsuits? So are Samsung and Cisco. The two companies have entered a patent cross-license agreement, essentially promising not to sue each other for the next ten years. The decade long deal specifically gives the firms access to each other's patient portfolios and new patents filed during the timespan of the agreement. It's not all about avoiding the courtroom, though -- sharing patents should make it easier for both companies to create new, groundbreaking products without wading through red tape and licensing contracts. "Innovation is stifled all too often in today's overly-litigious environment," Cisco's Vice President of Intellectual Property, Dan Lang, said in a statement. "By cross-licensing our patent portfolios, Cisco and Samsung are taking important steps to reverse the trend and advance innovation and freedom of operation." That sounds pretty positive from where we're sitting. If nothing else, the agreement should make it a little easier for Sammy to stick to its five-year injunction hiatus.
Google and Samsung agree to license each other's patents for 10 years
It's no secret that Google and Samsung need each other given that Samsung dominates Android device sales. It only makes sense, then, that the two companies have just struck a deal to license each other's patents for the next 10 years. In addition to accelerating product research, the agreement should reduce the chances for future patent lawsuits. The move suggests that Samsung isn't keen on burning any bridges -- even if it starts drifting away from Android, it should remain in Google's good books.
Judge voids two Samsung claims before Apple patent trial even starts
A US judge has just awarded Apple two summary pre-trial judgments, significantly reducing Samsung's chances of prevailing in the second patent clash between the two tech giants. Judge Lucy Koh invalidated a Samsung multimedia-synchronization patent and determined that the Korean company breached an Apple autocorrect IP -- meaning Koh thought the infringement was so clear that there was no need for a jury to see it. As Foss Patents pointed out, Google could also be unhappy about the autocorrect decision, since it may affect the entire Android ecosystem. With each party bringing five claims to trial, Samsung's chances have effectively dropped by 20 percent since it only has four of its own claims left and Apple has already prevailed on one. That could also impact Samsung's leverage in upcoming negotiations between the company's CEOs, since it hasn't won a single non-FRAND (standards essential) patent dispute through any of the two proceedings. If those discussions don't pan out, then the Apple v. Samsung, part deux trial will begin March 31, 2014.
Amazon is thinking about shipping you packages you haven't ordered yet
Looking forward to buying the next season of Game of Thrones on Blu-ray? Amazon may already be preparing to send it to you. The retail giant is working on an idea it calls "anticipatory shipping" as a way to reduce package transit times. It's everything the name implies -- according to a December patent, the system will send items out before they are ordered. That doesn't mean you'll start receiving unannounced packages from Seattle, however: the patent's examples illustrate a speculative shipment system that deploys goods to specific geographical areas. If a customer in that area places an order that matches a nearby package, it would then be redirected to its final destination. Sure, our next box-set might not land with the fanfare of a drone delivery, but anything that gets us our R.R. Martin fix sooner is certainly a good thing.
Apple and Samsung CEOs to meet by February 19th, give peace another chance
Previous attempts by Apple and Samsung to negotiate a truce in the patent wars haven't exactly panned out, but they haven't given up hope yet. The companies' CEOs have just agreed to attend mediated settlement discussions no later than February 19th, potentially averting a trial in March (and likely future legal action). We'd like to believe that Apple and Samsung will finally reach an understanding, but we're not optimistic given how long the two have been at each other's throats.
Live from the Engadget CES Stage: the EFF's Julie Samuels
Electronic Frontier Foundation staff attorney Julie Samuels has quite possibly the greatest job title in the history of job titles: The Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents at EFF. She'll join us to speak about how said stupid patents are hampering innovation. January 8, 2014 5:30:00 PM EST
