us patent office
Latest
AI can't be legally credited as an inventor, says USPTO
Patent law only allows 'natural persons' to be credited, the agency determined.
Candy Crush dev's 'candy' trademark approved for publication
The US Patent and Trademark Office has approved the trademark "candy" for publication for King, the developer of the hit free-to-play match three game, Candy Crush Saga. King filed an application with the USPTO for the trademark in February 2013, which was updated last week to note its approval for publication by the examining attorney. If it's published without opposition, the trademark grants King the exclusive use of the term "candy" in video game and clothing products. Once published, the public (namely, developers of games and apps that use the word "candy") has 30 days to issue a statement of opposition to the trademark office before a certificate of registration is handed to King. The phenomenon isn't new, as another social games developer threw its weight around with its seemingly broad trademarked terms: Zynga sent cease-and-desist letters to developers like Blingville LLC and Kojobo for the use of its now-trademarked suffix "ville" in 2011 and 2012, respectively.
Google patent filing would identify faces in videos, spot the You in YouTube
Face detection is a common sight in still photography, but it's a rarity in video outside of certain research projects. Google may be keen to take some of the mystery out of those clips through a just-published patent application: its technique uses video frames to generate clusters of face representations that are attached to a given person. By knowing what a subject looks like from various angles, Google could then attach a name to a face whenever it shows up in a clip, even at different angles and in strange lighting conditions. The most obvious purpose would be to give YouTube viewers a Flickr-like option to tag people in videos, but it could also be used to spot people in augmented reality apps and get their details -- imagine never being at a loss for information about a new friend as long as you're wearing Project Glass. As a patent, it's not a definitive roadmap for where Google is going with any of its properties, but it could be a clue as to the search giant's thinking. Don't be surprised if YouTube can eventually prove that a Google+ friend really did streak across the stage at a concert.
Microsoft granted patent for wearable EMG device
Those muscle spasms? They're now good for something. Okay, so Microsoft's just-granted patent for a wearable EMG device doesn't really thrive off of involuntary twitching and such, but it does use your movements to control your smartphone, notebook and other gadgets. The "Wearable Electromyography-Based Controller," which we first glimpsed back in 2010, uses sensors to interpret the electrical signals generated by a user's muscles, and then communicates with the wearer's computer via a wireless (or wired) connection. Redmond envisions the wearable device in various incarnations: as an armband equipped with sensors, a shirt, eyeglasses and even nodes attached directly to the user's body. In the armband example, motion control could be used to interact with a PMP while the user is jogging. No matter the setup, a calibration process allows the system to locate specific sensors and collect information based on specific gestures or movements, which means playing Guitar Hero with only an air guitar may someday be a reality after all.
Apple awarded a patent for in-call app switching, starts drafting next lawsuit
Wondering how Apple planned to follow up its small victory over HTC in front of the ITC? Well, in addition to opening up a new front in its war on Samsung, the Cupertino crew have added yet another arrow to its IP quiver. The company has been awarded a patent for a "portable electronic device with graphical user interface supporting application switching." In other words, a multitasking smartphone. Of course, despite its rather broad wording (which appears to cover almost any phone that lets you switch between calls and apps) an infringing device would have to copy almost every facet of the design to find itself on the wrong side of an ITC judgment. But don't you worry, we're sure Apple lawyers are already hard at work figuring out which Android skin they'll have the most success against in court. And Google is probably already sharing collections of prior art with its manufacturers circle.
Apple patent application reveals plans for external battery pack, spells further trouble for HyperMac
Way back in September of last year, Apple filed a patent-infringement suit against HyperMac, the folks behind these external batteries. At the time, it looked like Apple was protecting its patented MagSafe power connector, but a newly released USPTO application for a "Power Adapter with Internal Battery" might reveal a more accurate view of the company's litigious motivations. From the look of things, the outfit intends to make its mark on juicing solutions with what is basically a wall charger packing an internal battery. According to the patent filing, the contraption would include a processor for parceling energy to the host device as well as the adapter, and could also incorporate a supplemental energy source like a solar cell. Among other things, it would also communicate with the device being charged to allow users to monitor the juice stored in the extra battery. If the thing does end up making it to market, it looks like HyperMac could have a whole lot more trouble on its hands than a little patent-infringement suit.
Shocker! WiLAN drums up another lawsuit, this time against big cable
As the saying goes, every time an iPhone is dropped, another wide sweeping patent lawsuit in the tech world sprouts up in the plaintiff-friendly US District courts of east Texas. Okay, so perhaps there's no factual basis for that, but who knows if the latest case filed by suit-happy Canadian wireless company WiLAN against Comcast, Time Warner, and Charter Communications is any more legitimate. The dispute is over US patent No. 5,661,602, which is one of the company's 970 issued or pending patents, and was awarded in 1998. It covers "hybrid multichannel data transmission systems utilizing a broadcast medium" -- a.k.a. the broadcasting of data to remote networks and computers. WiLAN has tapped their ole' favorite US law firm, McKool Smith for the case, and asserts that the big cable triumvirate is in violation of the patent, though a spokesperson for Comcast did note they had not been served with a complaint just yet. Sadly (or not-so-sadly, depending on perspective) we can't take part in the gavel swinging, but considering that WiLAN filed suit against Alcatel-Lucent, Sony Ericsson and LG last month, and sued Acer, Apple, Dell, HP, and Lenovo in April, there's plenty of evidence that this outfit's lawyers are the hardest working employees on the payroll.
Trademarks hint at possible Metal Gear for arcades
Konami has filed a pair of trademarks that hint towards possible Metal Gear arcade action in the future. The listings are Metal Gear and Tactical Online Action, and both are described as "arcade games, namely, amusement game machines, coin-operated video games, electronic game machines" in the filings. With Metal Gear Solid Touch recently arriving on iPhone, it looks like Konami is willing to put the franchise on more platforms than ever (except for, you know, that one).Let's just hope that this Metal Gear -- if it ever becomes more than a trademark -- gets a little more TLC than that silly Silent Hill arcade game. Source - Metal Gear trademarkSource - Tactical Online Action trademark [Via Kotaku]
Apple patents movement-based gestures for shaking, rattling, and rolling with your portable devices
We wouldn't recommend speculating too much here, but a patent Apple filed back in October 2007 has surfaced, describing a "movement-based interfaces for personal media device." If that's not enough of an explanation, in a nutshell it's for interacting with a device by tilting and shaking. Chances are this is just for accelerometer-based commands like switching to landscape, steering virtual go-carts, and undo -- but hey, if the gang at Cupertino devise a way to control an iPhone entirely by waggle, we'll be more than happy to witness a demonstration.[Via Unwired View]
Wee bit of trouble: Nintendo can't trademark 'Wii Remote'
Oh, woe is Wii. Sure, Nintendo's latest console is printing money, but it has a little problem on – or, rather, in – its hands: the US Patent Office has suspended a request by the company to issue a trademark for the "Wii Remote."GamePolitics reports the application was put on hold due to the fact that "remote" is such a widely-used term, but the USPTO is willing to compromise. As long as the word "remote" is always preceeded by the word "Wii" (in all marketing, manuals, etc.) and Nintendo admits it holds no trademark on the word "remote," the government will reconsider. Why not just go with "Wiimote," something that we (not Wii) and, well, everyone else have been calling it from day one? GamePolitics points out that Nintendo did, in fact, try for that one – only to learn that a Florida company markets a TV remote for children under the name "Weemote." D'oh. Perhaps Nintendo could take this opportunity to re-brand the controller? Think of the possibilities: the "WaggleWand," the "GameBaton," the ... "Einhänder!" Oh, wait. Why don't you give it a shot? (And, as the Superintendent says, "Keep it clean!")
Patent granted on smartphones, everyone sued
What would you do if the US patent office gave you the go-ahead on a far-reaching, non-specific application filed for a "mobile entertainment and communication device"? If your answer was that you would immediately draw up lawsuits against almost every major electronics manufacturer that even looked at a smartphone funny, you get a cookie. Yes folks, as impossible as it is to believe, the holders of the aforementioned patent have just sued Apple, Nokia, RIM, Sprint, AT&T, HP, Motorola, Helio, HTC, Sony Ericsson, UTStarcomm, and Samsung... amongst others. So eager was this company to sue, in fact, that legal papers were filed a day before the patent was granted, and subsequently had to re-submitted. The real sucker-punch here is that the patent simply combines a list of prior technologies jumbled into one product, a practice which has recently been ruled against by the Supreme Court. Still, we doubt it will stop the holders from trying to nab a few dollars in settlements, staying the work of real innovators, and generally making a mockery of our patent system. Bravo![Via Slashdot]
