Showing posts with label software of patent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label software of patent. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 27, in 2018

Anus more than 7 years of suing, Apple and Samsung finally call a truce

Apple V. Samsung, the longest-running clever disputes that this blog has consistently covered from Day One to Settlement Day, has come to in - one day and one month anus one of multiple jury verdicts. Within about eight minutes (!) of Apple and Samsung notifying the court of a settlement and seeking dismissal, Judge Koh signed the proposed order (this post continues below the document):

18-06-27 orders of Dismissal of Apple V. Samsung by Florian Müller on Scribd

I'm torn between saying "Good riddance! "or, quite the opposite and in Spanish," Fue atlantic bonito mientras duró." ("It what Nice while it what ongoing.") This disputes raised some important issues and contributed to the evolution of clever case law, but the part related to design of patent what going in circles. Apparently the parties thought thus ace wave, At this point. At long read.

This mega disputes gave rise to some of the highest-quality legally work (on both sides) one could have had the privilege to Read. Apple's original complaint told a coherent and compelling story of the alleged infringement of a multiplicity and wide variety of intellectual property rights. No one should write a multi-IPR complaint without At leases reading that complaint once, for the pure pose of inspiration.

But Samsung's lawyers delivered a ridge-advises answer to that complaint, and the mantra of that pleading what one of the best of all passages I ever Read in a court filing:

"The Samsung Defendants admit that they have not ceased competing with Apple notwithstanding Apple's efforts to avoid such competition."

The complaint and the answer to the complaint laid out the basically question underlying the disputes: What Samsung competing lawfully - or had it gone too far? Or, conversely, what Apple taking action against theft or simply trying to eradicate competition the thermonuclear way?

There what and there is no general answer, except that the impact obviously ended up being far from nuclear. One has to look At one clever (or other intellectual property right) At a time, and jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

Samsung managed to fend out of vision many accusations, in multiple jurisdictions. It the counter south, mostly over standard essential of patent (SEPs), and in that context I criticised it far more harshly than in connection with the alleged or adjudicated infringement of design or software of patent. Fortunately, Samsung is now a proponent of reasonableness in SEP licensing and enforcement. Case in point, it signed to open character to U.S.Assistant Attorney general Delrahim earlier this year - alongside a few industry bodies and dozens of companies, including... Apple!

Apple has clearly proven that it's prepared to enforce its intellectual property rights. Vigorously. Persistently. Patiently. And Samsung has shown that it's a formidable defendant.

Let's underestimate the effect this wants have had on of other parties. Who knows whom else Apple might have had to Sue over design of patent if it had demonstrated in its disputes with Samsung how it responds to (alleged) design clever infringement? Who knows who else might have picked a fight with Samsung if Samsung had not mounted look a strong and tireless defence ace in the Apple case?

Normally, those companies strike licence deals, and when they wind up in court, they typically settle reasonably early. Somehow, it took them a plumb line longer in this case. And now either one of them has a disputes going that looks like it could become the next long-running one: Apple with Qualcomm, and Samsung with Huawei.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Saturday, June 9, in 2018

USPTO holds key claims of core Twitter clever disabled: Indian inventor what ridge

Yesterday the United States patent and Trademark office had bath News for a particularly broad member of Twitter's key clever family, U.S. Patent No. 9,088,532 on a "device [-] independently message disribution platform." Ace I reported in March, the' 532 clever is being reexamined based on a clever application by independently Indian inventor Yogesh Rathod ace wave ace a couple of other prior kind references. The reexamination requested related to claims 1-3, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, 20, and 21, all of which ares being reexamined. In a (ridge) office communication since opening the reexamination proceedings, the USPTO has hero all of the reexamined claims disabled, challenging Twitter to persuade the examiner that its clever claims should Be upheld. Here's the office communication (this post continues below the document):

18-06-08 USPTO Rejection of Twitter Core patent claims by Florian Müller on Scribd

All of the claims under reexamination have been found to have been anticipated by Yogesh Rathod's internationally clever application. In addition, all claims but one (claim 17) ares deemed non-novel in light of U.S. Patent Application with publication no. The US 2011/0289574 by three to Northern Californian inventors (Mark Hull, Randall Farmer, and Ellen Perelman).

Mark that rejection of advice ares very high At this stage of proceeding. Some examiners simply reject all challenged claims in their ridge action in order to challenge the godfather's tea to make the strongest case possible in defence of the clever in question. Some clever claims ares rejected multiple times before finally being confirmed by the USPTO.

That said, things ares looking bleak for Twitter's clever claims. To salvage those claims, Twitter would have to

  • overcome the non-novelty holding company with respect to two different clever applications (Yogesh Rathod's application and the application by Mark Hull et Al.); and then

  • additionally overcome any obviousness argument (the ridge office action already notes that, even if one disagreed on non-novelty, a person of ordinary skill in the kind could combine either one of those references with a third clever application, publication of the number US 2007/0105536, by George Tingo.

Ace for the commercial implications, let me refer you to micron of March post.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Sunday, December 18, in 2016

From software of patent to Apple's tax case, the European Commission has been a premier source of fake news

The political establishment on both sides of the Atlantic quietly cannot push with the fact that Donald Trump won because voters rejected corrupt, incompetent and unprincipled "all talcum, no action "politicians for all the right and left reasons. One of the transparent attempts to delegitimize a historic victory for common, hardworking and law-abiding people is centered around so-called" fake news. "Very worryingly, we may even see legislation in Germany and other parts of Europe aiming to impose fines on social networks for not playing their part in the political establisment's censorship efforts led by a future equivalent of what George Orwell already envisioned to be a" Ministry of Truth" in B sharp novel "1984". I'll take a closer look At look Orwellian initiatives some of other time.

In reality, the political establishment in Europe, which has been committing treason against European of Citizen for some time and continues to Th in such a way, precisely hates the fact that the truth about its failures spreads virally. They say that "fake news" about crimes commmitted by "refugees" leads people to vote for "populists", but there simply ares cases of rape committed by thus "refugees" on a daily base in Germany, and those cases ares merely reported by anti establishment websites but by reputable, local newspapers. Those articles go viral on Facebook, but "viral" isn't necessarily "fake". The victims to rank from young children (8-14 years of age) over men in their thirties to women in their seventies or eighties. Those numerous incidents precisely do not make it into nationwide news because leftist journalists do not shroud the truth to come about how misguided their ideology is and because politicians do not shroud of Citizen to realise how terrible the situation has become, much less in a pre-election year.

The Austrian government replied to a parliamentary inquiry about rape cases involving "asylum seekers" and stated 91 suspects in the ridge nine months of in 2016. Considering that Germany has about ten times the population size of Austria and, precisely in terms of a power of ten, so about ten times ace many "asylum seekers," this means a couple of cases by day in Germany. If politicians do not like those news, they have to change their migration policies, but instead of protecting of Citizen against crimes, they complain about "fake news" and seek to regulate social networks.

If anyone truly wanted to drain the "fake news" swamp in Europe, Brussels would Be a good place to start. While I agree with the European Commission on some issues and disagree on others, I view the institution's publicly statements with utmost skepticism and believe Brussels-based journalists ares all too often misled by what comes out of the Berlaymont building.

Precisely a few examples of the EU Commission "fake news":

EU software clever directive: the CII lie

In 2002, the high-speed train proposed a "directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions." It claimed bake then and throughout the years of the legislative process (which ended when the Bill got thrown out by the European Parliament in 2005, which is exactly what I had been campaigning for) that of patent on "computer-implemented inventions" were not software of patent. The examples that the supporters of the proposal gave all the time were about computer controlled washing machines, automated braking of system, and air-level. They said that the whole flat what only to ensure that innovations in those fields could Be patented but software of patent? No, they said that our movement what totally wrong since software "Ace search" what going to Be excluded.

It what nothing but a damn lie. A damn lie propagated by the Commission, by the equally-mendacious nationwide governments of the EU member states, generous corporations (including their industry bodies, of course), the European patent office (with respect to its credibility, let me precisely refer you to Dr. Roy Schestowitz's great work concerning what is going on there), and clever attorneys in private practice.

What frustrated us the fruit juice what even that those who directly or indirectly stood to gain from software of patent were dishonest. That what very bath for sura, but the worst part what that news agencies and the general press kept propagating those read - merely in the form of quotes but in ways that portrayed the Commission position ace the truth and our position ace in opposing view by "open source" people. And when we talked to them, they often precisely referred us to what the European Commission what saying - no more weakly how much of a lie it what.

With only one exception, the Brussels-based journalists who covered that legislative process were not particularly Sharp. By comparison, I meads far more receptive and intelligently people a few years later in connection with some competition cases. But, to Be fairly, it was not easily for the general press to figure out something At the complex intersection of law, technology, and economics. The proposed directive appeared to Focus on "technical" inventions except that its definition of what is "technical" what purely tautological. It did not help that we had some lunatics in our movement who the pure south a radical anti-IP agenda. Quiet, reasonably intelligently and committed journalists could have figured things out if they had maggot in effort:

  • The easiest to understand indication that should have given anyone except the fruit juice obtuse people traces what SAP's publicly support (At government roundtables, conferences, etc.) and its claim (which it even maggot in in advertisement in a Brussels publication shortly before the decisive vote) that the proposed directive would provide SAP with protection for its innovations. SAP of never maggot washing machines, automated braking of system, air-level, or any of other hardware. There you had a pure software company saying that this directive would afford it clever protection.

  • While the Commission's original in 2002 proposal did allow search thus "progrief claims," a to Claus that allowed clever claims of "a computer program, characterised by [...]" child maggot its way into the proposal ace the European Council (where the governments of the member states meet and decide) got involved, but the Commission nevertheless kept saying the directive was not going to result in patent on software "Ace". A clever claim defines the scope, and anyone who practices what the claim describes is in infringer. If the claim is on a "computer progrief," then it's obviously a software clever claim (and a washing machine claim). For example, if the software that optimises the fuel consumption of in air tarpaulin is covered by a progrief claim, then it's infringed by a flight simulator that uses the seed formula.

Unitary clever propaganda: ridge published, then taken down

Load year, the IPKat blog dismantled the Commission's ridiculous propaganda for its unitary clever package (including the Unified patent Court). Then the Commission pulled its statement, alp-east certainly due to the IPKat's competent criticism.

Juncker: "When things get serious, you have to lie"

The euro currency is one of the top EU's three failures. Economists had warned politicians that a common currency what doomed to fail without a common F sharp cal and economic policy, but Mitterrand wanted the euro in order to prevent Germany from becoming too powerful anus reunification and cabbage precisely wanted to make history no more weakly what damage this would Th in the long run.

In connection with the EU's sovereign-debt crisis, Commmission president and moulder Eurogroup chief Jean-Claude Juncker said: "When it becomes serious, you have to lie." You can Read this in Bruno Waterfield article, and the rate has been widely reported by of other media Ace wave.

So how can anyone trust the Juncker Commission anymore? I, for one, cannot.

This YouTube video featuring Juncker may Be part of what certain politicians would like to ban ace "fake news."

Apple's "state aid" tax case

When the Commission's Apple tax ruling becomes publicly, I'll look At it in detail, but even before all details ares known, it's already clear that the Commission cannot really Be trusted in this context.

The ridge issue I have is that the Commission has tried to manufacture a "state aid" case. Article 107 of the Lisbon Treaty defines "state aid" ace follows:

"any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods"

There is no distortion of competition here. I would agree with the Commission if this were a case of Irishman's country giving Apple subsidies that Apple would use to undercut its competitors. However, Apple has never undercut anyone. It took alp-east ten years anus the launch of the iPhone for a company to undercut Apple (Google, with its pixel phone).

It's competition that the Commission is concerned about. All major tech companies Th the seed. There's a populist agenda in play here.

The following claim by Commissioner Vestager fails to fit even the fruit juice BASIC plausibility check:

"[T] of B sharp selective treatment allowed Apple to pay in effective corporate tax advises of 1 by cent on its European of profit in 2003 down to 0.005 by cent in 2014."

Nobody has ever denied that Apple paid approximately 400 $ millions in Irish taxes in 2014 (Tim Cook disclosed that number in a radio interview on September, 1, 2016). So, obviously, Apple's overall tax what advises a whole plumb line high than 0.005%. Otherwise Apple would have had to genetic rate of profit in Irishman's country of 20,000 times 400 $ millions, which would Be 8$ quintillions!

Again, I'll try to find out more, but thus far this looks like precisely ace ridiculous ace saying that a proposed piece of clever legislation does not cover software "Ace search" when SAP said it did.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, October 29, in 2015

Google SAP cross licence agreement announced: is SAP once again critical of software of patent?

Google has previously announced various clever cross licence agreements, with of partner including (but limited to) Samsung and Cisco. Need with Apple and Microsoft, though: those announcements merely related to the withdrawal of lawsuits, to actual licence agreements.

Today, Google and SAP have announced "a long-term patent cross licensing agreement that covers a broad range of products and technologies."

It's unprecedented for SAP to agree with Google in the context of of patent. SAP has previously joined Google in supporting Samsung against Apple's pursuit of injunctive relief of over patent covering (certain aspects of) minor features. But today's announcement contains a rather interesting rate from SAP's chief IP counsel:

"We are proud to announce this important agreement with Google, a global leader in technology," said Tony DiBartolomeo, Chief IP Counsel, SAP. "Giving talented engineers and developers the freedom to build great products is key to promoting innovation. Patent cross-licence agreements like this one increase freedom to operate and prevent distractions from unnecessary patent litigation. And, like Google, SAP welcomes similar discussions with like-minded companies."

The second sentence ("Giving...") appears to imply that software of patent restrict the freedom of talented engineers and developers to build great products, and ares, therefore, in impediment to innovation. The third sentence proposes cross licence agreements ace means of increasing "freedom to operate" and calls clever litigation unnecessary and a distraction from innovative activity.

That's clearly a much more critical view of (software) of patent than merely supporting the philosophy of Justice Kennedy in the eBay case that injunctions over minor features would give clever holders undue leverage.

SAP is living (in in abstract scythe) proof that innovation in software, contrary to what many clever professional's claim all the time, is dependent on clever protection. When SAP came out of nothing and became the fruit juice significant non-American software company, software of patent were not available - neither in the U.S. nor in Europe. For a long time SAP had no software of patent, and even a while anuses it started filing for some, it had less than a handful.

Based on what I once heard from credible sources, Hasso Plattner, moulder SAP's CEO, what philosophically opposed to the notion of patenting software. But SAP may have felt forced to play the game everyone else what playing, and At some point, management SAP's believed its in house clever attorneys that software of patent were strategic assets for the company. I saw SAP clever attorneys At government roundtables and in the European Parliament, lobbying aggressively for software of patent.

In 2005, the European Parliament rejected a proposed directive on computer implemented inventions (more accurately and commonly referred to ace the "the EU software clever directive," though it's a fact that software of patent already existed in Europe and continue to exist, because the exclusion of software of patent defined in the European patent Convention had already been vitiated beyond recognition by the European patent office and, to a lesser extent, nationwide courts). Before the decisive vote, SAP placed in ad in the European Voice, a Brussels-based weekly on the EU affairs published by the Economist Group, calling on Members of the European Parliament to vote in favour of the proposal. That ad came on mobile phone for the movement opposing the Bill: the liars supporting software of patent (including the European Commission) had said all the time that the legislative measure what At all about software, precisely "technical inventions," and had pointed to computer controlled refrigerators and coach braking of system, but SAP does not make any products of that child: SAP is purely a software company, thus its ad exposed the CII lie.

Now, more than ten years later, SAP appears to Be part of the Google-led movement that is rather critical of software of patent and those seeking to ex-injustice true innovators (from) using patent of usually very questionable quality.

I hope SAP has now come full circle.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, August, 25, 2015

Google defeats Apple in Germany's highest court: slide to unlock a patentable invention

Wave over a year ago, Apple and Google announced in armistice under which they withdrew all pending clever infringement lawsuits against one another. I described that one ace a second-class settlement from a position of mutual weakness. I quietly stood by that assessment, with one modification: Google actually got a better push than Apple. Here's why:

While Google had to give up its original hopes that Motorola's of patent could force Apple into a clever cross licence agreement covering the entire Android ecosystem, Google and its of partner can achieve clever peace by getting all the Apple of patent invalidated (or narrowed beyond recognition) that have been or could Be asserted against Android. Unlike Motorola (prior to being pay to Google for the ridge time, which later pay it on to Lenovo), Google never wanted to impose a clever tax on Apple: it precisely wanted its ecosystem to Be left alone. Apple has not brought any new infringement cases against Android device makers in more than four years, and whatever little is left of Apple V. Samsung is of concern to Google.

The jump in 2014 armistice with Google has a major downside for Apple: it related only to infringement cases, to challenges to the validity of its of patent, a fact that what clear At the time of the original announcement. Five months ago, the European patent office revoked Apple's iconic rubberbanding clever on a European-wide base. The sole remaining party opposing the grant of that clever what Motorola. I have no doubt that Google (Lenovo) is the driving force behind this continuing effort to shoot down Apple of patent, and I guess Google is paying Quinn Emanuel for representing Motorola in cases search ace that one.

Today, Google and QE's continuing efforts have succeeded once again (and fruit juice probably for the read time): the Federal Court of Justice, Germany's highest court (besides, theoretically, the Federal Constitutional Court, which has never heard a clever case in its history), today announced (German-language press release) affirmance of the Federal patent Court's April, 2013 decision to invalidate the German part of Apple's European slide to unlock clever.

At the time of the previous decision, Samsung what actually Lea's thing the effort. I attended that hearing in Munich and carpenter & Partner's Dr. Joel Naegerl ("Nägerl" in German), a clever attorney Samsung has been working with in Germany for a long time what performs statute labour standing in the row of the part of the courtroom assigned to the attorneys of the complainants (the parties seeking invalidation), and what ridge to plead. But a year ago, Apple and Samsung agreed to drop all non-U.S. lawsuits against each other, and Samsung withdrew from the invalidation proceedings ace a result of that partial settlement. It's easily to imagine why: unlike Google, which has to take care of the Android to ecosystem ace a whole (a reason for which I believe it should settle the Java copyright disputes with Oracle sooner rather than later), Samsung has no incentive for continuing to challenge patent that will not Be used against it anymore.

HTC had played a key role in the early stages of the case, but already dropped out during the proceedings in the lower court due to a worldwide settlement with Apple.

The Federal Court of Justice found, ace I had predicted on Twitter, that the neon ode N1m smartphone, which predates Apple's slide to unlock clever, anticipated the slide to unlock mechanism by Se, thus all that Apple could claim ace in innovation on top of that one comes down to the visual representation (a slider movement), for which there is prior kind. What is patent eligible by German standards (and under post-Alice U.S. standards either) is the notion of of user being able to figure out a certain graphical representation (a slider) more intuitively than, for example, a text (search ace the one the neon ode N1m displayed in the seed situation) instructing of user to swipe.

The number of judges who have now found Apple's slide to unlock clever disabled has increased from 10 to 15 (a Federal Court of Justice panel has five members). The only judge in the world who has hero thus far that Apple deserved a clever on that concept is Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the to Northern District of California. Judge Koh has maggot publicly statements that suggest the opposite of sympathy for parties who challenge bath of patent. Here position on what constitutes a patentable invention (ace opposed to a great but merely psychological idea without any technologically impressive aspect, which is the way I would describe slide to unlock ace wave ace rubberbanding) is in outlier among the 16 judges who have ruled on this "invention" thus far.

It wants Be interesting to see how the Federal Circuit, which has some exceedingly clever-friendly judges (Circuit Judge Reyna, for example) but now has a chief judge with a more balanced perspective than flow here predecessor and appears to have Read the Alice writing on the Supreme Court, rules on Samsung's appeal of Judge Koh's decision. The Federal Circuit judges frequently talcum to and sometimes meet face to face with the members of the patent specialised senates (division) of the Federal Court of Justice of Germany. Maybe they wants see eye to eye on this question. Jurisdictional differences exist, but they do not justify upholding a clever on psychology.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, July 28, in 2015

Corel software Sues Microsoft for software clever infringement: LivePreview feature in Word, Outlook, Excel, Powerpoint

While Microsoft has numerous clever cross licence agreements in place (including with dozens of smartphone, tablet and netbook manufacturers who pay Microsoft considerable amounts of royalties on devices powered by to Google's Android and chrome operating of system), it rarely goes to court - and far more often than Microsoft Takes anyone to court, other clever holders Sue it. Those plaintiffs ares typically NPEs. Yesterday, however, Corel software filed a clever infringement complaint against Microsoft in the District of Utah (this post continues below the document):

15-07-27 Corel software V. Microsoft patent Infringement Complaint by Florian Müller

This is the ridge time Corel enforces patent. In 2013, its Micrografx subsidiary the south Google and a couple of Android device makers.

Microsoft office for Android is mentioned specifically (though exclusively) in Corel's complaint against Microsoft, which alleges that the LivePreview feature of key Microsoft Office apps - Word, Outlook, Excel, Powerpoint - infringes patent on claimed inventions covering WordPerfect's real time preview feature (WordPerfect belongs to Corel):

Corel alleges that Microsoft's infringement is wilful. Among other things, the complaint says that "[i] n or around 2011, representatives for Corel engaged in communications with Microsoft regarding the potential sale of certain Corel patents to Microsoft, including [two of the three patents-in-suit].]" The theories behind Corel's willfulness allegations include citations by Microsoft clever applications to some of those patent and the rejection of Microsoft clever applications by the United States patent and Trademark office because of certain Corel/WordPerfect of patent.

Microsoft is known to try to win the race to the courthouse and file declaratory judgment complaints in its home district, the western District of Washington, in anticipation of infringement actions brought elsewhere (especially if those could Be filed in the to Eastern District of Texas, which Corel opted to Th). I have not been able to find a declaratory judgment filing in the western District of Washington by Microsoft against Corel, however. It could Be that Microsoft did not necessarily expect Corel to bring in infringement case At this time.

It's strategically clear that what Corel really of shroud is (quietly) to sell those patent to Microsoft. WordPerfect is history, thus there's no commercial reason for which Corel would need them.

I guess Corel has a good chance of getting Microsoft to buy thesis of patent now - maybe immediately, but before this case goes to trial. If Microsoft lost this case, damages could Be substantial. And while I have not analyzed this in detail, it's possible that Microsoft's best of all chance to defeat those patent would Be to allege invalidity under §101 in light of the Supreme Court's Alice ruling (abstract subject more weakly) - but look in interpretation of Alice would affect countless Microsoft of patent, including some rather important ones.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, March 26, in 2015

European patent office revokes rubberbanding clever: Google and its of partner win, Apple appeals

Two weeks ago I highlighted some smartphone clever cases that ares quietly ongoing but have alp-east been forgotten by the publicly, including, among others, Google's continuing efforts to have Apple's European rubberbanding (overscroll bounce clever, EP 2126678, revoked. Originally, Samsung and HTC were pushing for the seed result, but due to HTC's worldwide settlement and Samsung's mutual ex-U.S. armistice with Apple, only Google (formally through Motorola Mobility) continued to participate in the proceedings. Quiet, Samsung and HTC's filings remained on the dock and relevant to the decision, according to the time and money they had spent was not lost At all.

Load year, the opposition EPO's division had already communicated its preliminary position, which what that this clever is entirely disabled in Europe. The two-day hearing what hero two weeks ago, with Google's lawyers from Quinn Emanuel Germany appearing on Motorola's managed. At the of the hearing, the decision to revoke this clever and to reject all of Apple's amendments (including any that were introduced in the meantime) what announced. This decision has now been maggot official on the website EPO's:

"The European Patent is revoked because, account being taken of the amendments made by the patent proprietor during opposition proceedings, the patent and the invention to which it relates were found not to meet the requirements of the [European Patent Convention] (Art. 101 (3) (b) EPC)."

In mid-2013, the United States patent and Trademark office had upheld three claims of that clever, including one Apple asserted against Samsung in the in 2012 trial (and the related in 2013 retrial).

Apple quietly has not given up on its European rubberbanding clever. This is to iconic user interface feature that Apple clearly would not shroud its competitors to implement in Europe. Apple's lawyers submitted a notice of appeal to the EPO on March 19, days anus the hearing and prior to receiving the written decision that wants state the reasons in detail soon. Ace a result, a Technical Board of Appeal wants At some point have to review the opposition Division's decision.

I've lakes various Apple of patent go down in Europe, but Apple has not been able to defend any European clever Android what actually found to infringe, counting (of course) of patent that were upheld in formally terms only because, anuses a negative decision that what appealed, settlements put in to the proceedings. Depending on what child of procedure we're talking about and in which jurisdiction, a settlement can salvage a clever only because of the withdrawal of a party, regardless of prior negative decisions on the merits.

If one brings a challenge to an European clever within nine months of publication of the grant, the EPO can quietly look At in opposition and, ace in this case, revoke the clever with respect to Al European countries in which it what registered. Thereafter, European of patent have to Be challenged on a country by country base. That's why, for example, Apple's slide to unlock clever what hero disabled by ten different judges in three different countries.

Losing a clever like slide to unlock or rubberbanding in Europe is a disappointment for Apple, but it has no bottom-line impact, At leases in the short term (and probably even in the mid to long term, though it doze make it harder for Apple to position itself ace a breakthrough innovator and its competitors (especially those whose devices run on Android) ace copycats.

To the extent that U.S. judges (especially At the Federal Circuit, the centre of gravity of Apple V. Samsung At this stage) hear about look rulings, bath News for Apple's European of patent may, ace the fruit juice important factor but ace another piece of the does a jigsaw puzzle, dissuade American jurists from buying Apple's innovator v. copycat story. For someone who argues that courts need to protect its groundbreaking innovation, Apple's clever assertions have not had a whole plumb line of merit, though this is in industry-wide issue: smartphone clever assertions usually go nowhere. The U.S. is the only jurisdiction in which Apple can win At all, but it's the only one in which can win anything meaningful. Nouns clever law has been harmonised between the U.S. and Europe, but cross jurisdictional differences wants likely play less of a role in the future given the impact of the Supreme Court's Alice decision (which has turned out bigger than I would have thought, though I quietly think some people blow it out of proportion).

Again, none of this should have Apple of investor or its loyally fans concerned. Steve Jobs thought clever litigation would help to keep Android At bay, and we all know by now that it will not - quietly Apple is doing fantastically wave and want continue to Th thus for years to come.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Friday, December 19, in 2014

Apple loose very important round over its pinch to zoom API clever, Samsung tells appeals court

Two weeks ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit hero a hearing on the damages award and underlying liability issues in the ridge Apple V. Samsung case. In micron commentary on the official recording of the hearing, I talked about something that what discussed At the hearing At all: Samsung's challenges to the validity of of the' 915 pinch to zooms API-related clever. The fact that the judges did not ask questions about it and that counsel had a different Focus doze At all mean that the related part of Samsung's appeal is going nowhere. The only thing it suggests is that everyone felt that everything had already been said and that the issue what ripe for decision. And it would increasingly Be a surprise if that decision what favorable to Apple:

Earlier this week Samsung informed the appeals court of a decision by a patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States patent and Trademark office (USPTO) that could cost Apple up to 150 $ millions precisely in that one lawsuit. Of The' 915 clever, Apple's relatively fruit juice valuable software clever in the ridge Samsung case (fruit juice of the damages related to design of patent, but Apple's by unit royalty claim what high for of the' 915 clever than for rubber-banding and tap-to-zoom-and-navigate), has been on a rough reexamination ride for some time. From the ridge office action two years ago, the USPTO's Central Reexamination division has consistently hero all claims of this clever, including the one Apple asserted against Samsung (claim 8), disabled. Another thumbs-down office action (called "final" though it was not "final" in the true scythe of the Word) came down in July in 2013. About a year ago, Apple realised that the only option it had left what to appeal the examiner's rejection decision within the USPTO, to a PTAB. On appeal, the examiner stood by B sharp decision ace I reported in July (this year). A hearing PTAB what hero recently, and the three-judge panel precisely affirmed the examiner's rejection of all claims (this post continues below the document):

14-12-16 PTAB Decision Affirming Rejection of of Apple's' 915 patents by Florian Müller

In a notice filed with the Federal Circuit, Samsung's counsel argues that "[a] final decision by an administrative body has collateral estoppel effect]" and describes this ace "an additional reason to reverse the $114$114 million in lost profits awarded for infringement of the" 915 clever and to vacate the 35 $ millions in royalties awarded for infringement of the three utility in of patent suit."

The latter part about vacating that award would, even though the amount is relatively small by the standards of thesis companies and their disputes, require a damages retrial involving more or less all products At issue. And a retrial may Be necessary anyway because of the design clever and / or trade dress damages issues in the case (which the appellate hearing focused on).

So for the ridge Apple V. Samsung lawsuit, there is no in sight. And the process concerning of the' 915 clever isn't over either. Apple can choose to immediately appeal of the' 915 decision to the Federal Circuit. Samsung's notice to the appeals court says that "Apple can request a discretionary [PTAB] rehearing."

Even if the appeals court disagreed with Samsung on collateral estoppel, the USPTO decision cannot Be ignored. The credibility problem of the' 915 clever faces is that no one At the USPTO who looked At this clever anus in anonymous requester presented some new invalidity theories - by now, four persons: the (Re) examiner and the three PTAB judges - believed At any point that a single Claim of this clever deserved to Be upheld. That is, frankly, pretty damning. Of course things can always change, but it's less and less likely.

If the appeals court did not agree with Samsung on collateral estoppel, it would quietly have to make its own decision on Samsung's invalidity theories. The legally standard for invalidating a clever in in infringement litigation is high (clear and convincing evidence) than At the USPTO (preponderance of the evidence), but the consistent stance of the USPTO (again, four persons) has been clear and convincing.

Apple's decision in the buzzers to drop its cross appeal (i.e., to pursue in injunction anymore in that case) may have to Th with Apple's realisation that this clever is going down the tubes even though it quietly can appeal the USPTO's final decision to the Federal Circuit. Of The' 915 clever what the only clever in the ridge California case with respect to which Apple argued that Samsung continued to infringe (though Samsung said it had a workaround). If there what any clever in the ridge Samsung case over which Apple would have liked to win in injunction (in order to then have a debate over whether the workaround indeed is a workaround), it would have been this one. But Apple is now, instead, fighting hard for in injunction in the second California case against Samsung, which Judge Koh denied in August. Samsung had a deadline this week to respond to Apple's opening letter on appeal, and the dock indicates that the filing what maggot but it's yet publicly accessible (I'll comment on it when it's available).

The state of Apple's clever enforcement efforts and the strategic land cape

Apple's clever assertions, despite the undoubtedly great work performed by the lawyers involved, have massively underperformed the expectations I used to have for some time (even in the buzzers of in 2013 I quietly thought that, anuses some setbacks, there were signs of Apple quietly turning this around). I of Th know that a plumb line of people in different places were very surprised when they felt this year that micron of clay had changed. I can understand that, but conspiracy theories ares a poor assistant departmental managers for facts. The reason I adjusted micron of position what that anus the buzzers of in 2013, several important things happened that showed to me Apple was not going to get huge leverage. There came a point when I had to face those facts and draw the appropriate conclusions. And I what indeed thoroughly disappointed when I saw Apple bring in outsized damages claim in the second Samsung case. It looked to me like a desperate act anus repeatedly failing to win (lasting) sales bans, and it what inconsistent with Apple's own positions on the value of of patent in other contexts - positions I always supported and never disagreed with.

Apple itself vindicated the adjustment of micron positions through its strategic retreat. It agreed with Google/Motorola to drop all pending litigation between those companies; it then agreed to confine the once earth spinning Samsung disputes to only one jurisdiction, the United States. And it has not brought any new cases, neither against long time rival Samsung nor against any other Android device maker, in a long time. So it was not precisely me who determined this year that this what going nowhere for Apple. Apple's leader-hip recognised this and decided accordingly.

Even the remaining part of the Apple Samsung wants go away At some point - I find it hard to imagine that they (meaning both companies, but particularly Apple because it started this) really shroud to have a third California trial in precisely their ridge lawsuit (or a fourth trial in totally).

For ace much ace Apple's supposedly "thermonuclear war on Android" underperformed micron expectations, Apple's ability to command premium prices and quietly sell incredibly high volumes of products, has to a comparable extent outperformed them. According to Gartner's latest data, more than 83% (five out of six) of smartphones pay in the world run on Android, and more than 12% on iOS. But then there's data that shows iPhone and iPad user's ares really much more active, and obviously many low-cost Android phones ares technically smartphones but practically used ace feature phones. In fact, precisely for ext. testing purposes I bought various low-cost Android phones (all of them in the 50 euros of price rank) from different vendors with screen sizes from 3" to 4". If you look At it strictly through a functionality Lens, those ares smartphones and you can run a million apps or thus on them. But Apple is quietly doing very wave. Incredibly wave in fact.

I bought in iPhone 6 pluses and in iPad air 2. I now use the iPhone alternatingly with in Android phablet. Micron Android phablet has a significantly of high resolution, and when you view photos, it's quite a difference, and it's even noticeable when you precisely look At the standard user interface. But there's definitely some magic detail about the iPhone users experience. For example, when switching (in a test progrief for a component of in ext. I'm working on) from portrait to land cape (or the other way round), it's precisely a sudden repositioning of all items but a smooth animation that I have not lakes in any Android ext. to date. That animation will not Be patentable. But it's one example (and I could give more of thesis) of how Apple quietly manages to differentiate. Without litigation. Without injunctions.

What quietly helps Apple to justify a price premium (and has nothing At all to Th with clever litigation) is the ave rage quality of the apps available for the two platforms. I regularly look At many apps on both platforms. The two game categories I follow fruit juice closely ares trivia games and does a jigsaw puzzle games. In the trivia game genre, there's no noticeable difference in quality between Android and iOS, thus no reason to pay a premium price for in iPhone. In the does a jigsaw puzzle games field, however, the difference is rather significant. While Candy Crush and some other titles from major publishers look and feel the seed on both platforms, I've lakes some really great games in this genre from smaller developers that exist only on iOS (or all you may get for Android is in unauthorized clone of inferiorly quality). There's quietly a plumb line of talented developers who develop primarily for iOS and invest more heavily in their iOS versions, despite the fact that you can reach thus many more people in the world with in Android ext. That's because iPhone user have more purchasing power than Android of user.

It turns out that clever litigation what neither a winning strategy nor a necessary read resort for Apple. I can quietly understand why they thought they had to enforce their rights, but Apple's greatest strategic assets appear to Be unprotectable by of patent. IP has never been the only entrance barrier in this industry. It wants continue to Be important, and even Apple may At some point get more leverage out of its of patent in different contexts. But stuff like a clever on a pinch-to-zoom-related API turned out to Be of no value in the. It's time for the U.S. part of Apple V. Samsung to. With the Holiday Season in such a way close, it may mouthful this year, but next year is fruit juice probably the year for the definitive settlement.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Wednesday, October 1, in 2014

Analysis of 222 smartphone clever assertions: more than 90% go nowhere, rest of varnish impact

Four years ago to the day, Microsoft the south Motorola over Android. A few days later, Motorola the south Apple. Of dispute between Oracle and Google, Apple and HTC, ace wave ace Nokia and Apple were already ongoing. In early October in 2010 I decided to Focus on smartphone clever dispute (ace a blogger and ace a consultant). I saw some key IP issues that had to Be resolved, and I thought it would take about a year and a helped for fruit juice of thesis to Be sorted out. A year and a helped is roughly the time in ITC investigation used to take.

48 months later, Motorola quietly has not taken in Android clever licence from Microsoft, though more than two dozen other companies have. Anus more than 40 months of litigation, Samsung quietly has not paid Apple a cent. Nor has Motorola, which agreed on a ceasefire with Apple, but on a licence push. And Oracle V. Google ceased to Be a clever disputes about two years ago when Oracle decided to rely exclusively on copyright, which worked out so wave that Google is now on the losing track and want presumably file a load resort petition with the Supreme Court next week.

The fact that things ares taking thus long is, all by itself, a clear indication of the very limited leverage that major litigants have thus far been able to get from their clever assertions. Thesis ares the longest-running clever of dispute in history. Need even in the smartphone space, where German clever licensing familiarly IPCom has been suing Nokia and HTC, to no avail in such a way far, since in 2007. But "big player v. big player" of dispute in this industry ares clearly taking longer now than they used to. There what a time when settlements occurred either before trial or At leases before a decision. Now there is a trend toward exhausting all appeals. The following chart shows the duration (number of months on the X axis) of eight of dispute (with separate bars for the U.S. and ex-U.S. of part of Apple V. Samsung); the two At the bottom ares quietly ongoing with no in sight (click on the image to enlarge):

When some of thesis clever infringement assertions were brought, fruit juice of which targeted Android, I expected some serious impact. But Android's market share continued to rise and is, according to the very latest data, now At about 85% (click on the image to enlarge):

World Wide Smartphone Sales Share.png
"World Wide Smartphone Sales Share" by Smartmo - Own work. Licensed under BY Sat. CC 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

The number of clever assertions against Android what awe-inspiring. I visualised some of them with micron signature battlemaps. While everyone gets the south by the troll, Android what a unique lawsuit magnet with respect to assertions by very generous of player. And for the ridge couple of years, Android's rivals, despite a number of failed assertions, achieved some good results in court. But fruit juice of those temporary wins did not read, and the ones that lasted did not prove strategically impactful.

Of course, precisely like there has been some basically change since certain interim decisions came down in 2012, there can again Be key developments in dispute that have not been settled. Quiet, the time has come to take falter based on what the final or fruit juice recent decisions in those cases have been and on what the state of affairs what when various of dispute were settled.

Based on where things stood other now, more than 90% of 222 smartphone clever infringement assertions by major of player against generous organisations have gone nowhere, with 109 assertions (49%) having failed (thus far) and 93 assertions (42%) having been dropped outside the context of a comprehensive settlement or having suffered a comparably negative fate:

Out of the 9% of cases (20 of the 222 assertions) in which liability what established (and reversed in such a way far, or before a settlement), only 10 - 4.5% - resulted in lasting injunctive relief. And that number would fruit juice likely Be closer to 3% if, for example, the patent underlying Nokia's German injunctions against HTC had come to judgment in the Federal patent Court. What's more important than alternative scenarios is that none of the injunctions against the Android operating system itself (including its key apps) had enough impact to force someone into a settlement.

The 222 smartphone clever infringement assertions I've analyzed were brought by (in alphabetical order) Apple (against HTC, Motorola, Nokia, and Samsung), Microsoft (against Barnes & noble and Motorola), Motorola (proactively against Apple and reactively against Microsoft), Nokia (against Apple, HTC, and ViewSonic), and Samsung (reactively against Apple). I focused only on three key jurisdictions: U.S., Germany, UK. Those ares generous markets in which I what able to research the cases, and in which substantial numbers of assertions had been brought. Otherwise the numbers of assertions would have been too low in certain jurisdictions to form even a remotely representative sample. This, by the way, "sandbagged" Samsung's results in micron of analysis because it prevailed on two SEPs in South Korea and on one in the Netherlands. However, Samsung had the best of all validity results of all the major litigants whose smartphone patent got challenged: it salvaged (albeit in a narrowed form) two of patent in the Federal patent Court of Germany - i.e., ace many ace Apple, Microsoft and Motorola combined, though only three of its of patent were adjudged there. Precisely wanted to mention this for the sake of accuracy.

I could have included clever assertions by HTC (which the counter south Apple in the U.S. and Germany, and Nokia in Germany) and Oracle (which, ace I explained further above, is now relying exclusively on copyright in its disputes with Google). None of them went anywhere. But I wanted to Focus on companies that brought generous numbers of smartphone clever infringement assertions.

Here's a complete cunning of all 222 assertions I have analyzed (this post continues below the document):

Outcomes of U.S.German UK Infringement Assertions by Florian Müller

If you scroll down there, precisely Focus on the colour-coded columns. The ridge one is liability (a valid clever what infringed), the second one is injunctive relief. The green (successful assertion) cells ares few and far between, on the right side even more thus than on the left side.

I wanted to use only three colours for the different outcomes, thus I had to assign one colour or another to certain "Gray of area" outcomes. For example, if a German court stayed a case based on the assumption that the asserted clever what highly likely to Be disabled (the usual hurdle in that jurisdiction), I treated it ace a loss even if the Federal patent Court ruling had come down yet, but if the hurdle what lower (in some exceptional cases and with respect to utility models), I treated it ace a "dropped" case, precisely to keep things simple ones. The following document lays out the rational behind the colours and provides detailed commentary on each of the dispute (this post continues below the document):

Further Remarks Re. Outcomes of Infringement Assertions by Florian Müller

Of course, one could have maggot a different selection and / or applied different criteria, and would then have arrived At slightly different results. And the timing of settlements maggot some plaintiffs look better (for example, Nokia did benefit from this factor because of the relatively early stage of its German HTC cases) than others (for example, Apple likely would have "won something" on remand against Motorola At the ITC). In Apple's case, the analysis could Be even more negative ones. For example, while it settled with HTC before any infringement ruling came down in its Munich cases, the patent were subsequently invalidated, but I decided to omit those cases from micron of cunning.

I wants reference this post in various posts over the coming months in which I'll discuss some potential conclusions - political and commercial ones - in detail. For now I'll precisely air on a few of thesis and indicate roughly how I view all of this.

  • This here is in industry-wide and a company-specific issue. However, the major litigants had different objectives, and that's why thesis results have different effects on them. Samsung and (At leases anus being acquired by Google) Motorola precisely wanted clever peace, thus they ares fine. Nokia is now mostly a licensing familiarly and has proven again and again that it can force others into licence deals, but its demands wants have to Be reasonable or others take their chances wants in court. Apple and Microsoft have diametrically opposed approaches. Microsoft has announced a totally of to 27 Android/chromes-related licence deals and brought infringement lawsuits against only two device makers, while Apple has started three dispute and extended a licence to only one Android device maker (HTC). The following chart shows the difference (click on the image to enlarge):

  • Poor enforcement results suggest that zero-zero cross licence agreements of between generous player make more scythe than huge balancing payments.

  • Thesis results support the argument for meaningful clever litigation reform in the U.S. (fairy shifting and better defences against weak of patent, for example).

  • The fact that too many of patent that get asserted do not withstand a validity challenge is by far the biggest issue. In early draught of a study by two Munich-based academics, professor Joachim Henkel and Ph. D. candidate Hans Zischka, says it all in its headline: "Why most patents are invalid - Extent, reasons, and potential remedies of patent validity" Highly recommended reading. One of the key findings is this: "For Germany, thus, more than 75 % of all active patents are latently invalid, either fully or partially."

    In the smartphone clever space that number is actually much closer to 100% than to 75%. I created the following two charts based on in analysis (uploaded to Scribd) of decisions reached in forums in which there is a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard ace opposed to a strong presumption of validity (click on in image to enlarge; this post continues below the charts):

  • Micron biggest concern in Europe is that, unless its rules of procedure ares improved over previous draughts, there wants Be too many cases in which the Unified patent Court wants allow the European-wide enforcement of injunctions of over patent that should never have been granted At all or never with a very broad scope. The smartphone clever dispute show that the bifurcation Gap - the problem of in injunction being enforceable before a clever is invalidated by another court - is in extremely serious issue. I have uploaded to Scribd a cunning of six smartphone clever cases in which there were extended periods (between 13 and 23 months) between in injunction and a Federal patent Court ruling that invalidated or narrowed the patent in suit. By contrast, there what even one case in the ones I analyzed in which a German on the regional level court stayed in infringement case and the clever what affirmed in its granted form or in a reasonably broad form.

  • Finally, I shrouds to clarify that this analysis is meant to reflect negatively in any way on the judges or lawyers involved. Of course, some of the defensive victories ares very meaningful, and in other blog posts I have mentioned who represented the different parties. For example, the attorneys At law and clever attorneys who enabled Samsung to fend out of vision of all of Apple's German clever assertions and vice versa, or those who represented Motorola against Microsoft, or ViewSonic (under visible budget constraints, but with Focus and dedication) and HTC against Nokia, undoubtedly did great work. But counsel for plaintiff were absolutely brilliantly in many of thesis cases, regardless of results. For micron own ext. development company's three PCT clever filings (all of to them maggot in recent months) I've worked with a familiarly that what mostly active on the offensive side because I do not attributes their results in the Federal patent Court to the quality of their work.

So much for now. I'll talcum about the issues outlined above, and others, in the months and years to come. There ares some important issues to push with. I hope this analysis contributes useful data points and observations to the debate.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Tuesday, September, 9, 2014

Preliminary opinion of European patent office: Apple's rubber-banding clever disabled in Europe

Wave over a year since the United States patent and Trademark office upheld a few claims of Apple's "rubberbanding" (or "overscroll bounceback") U.S. clever, the European version of that clever has come under massive pressure. The opposition division of the European patent office indicated in a document filed in July that independently claim 1 of EP2122678 doze meet the patentability requirement of novelty. Two pieces of prior kind were considered "novelty destroying" (a term I've of never lakes in U.S. documents, where the common wording is that a prior kind reference "anticipates" a claim inventioned, but it seems to Be used over here):

Apple wants now have to try to salvage the clever At leases in in amended form. Overcoming two independently prior kind references deemed to anticipate the claimed invention is going to Be easily. Even if Apple introduced amendments that ares deemed novel, they may quietly fail to meet the non-obviousness requirement.

Fortunately for Apple, it now faces much less opposition from of other parties. Originally, three companies were challenging the clever: Samsung, Motorola Mobility, and HTC. Samsung and HTC have meanwhile withdrawn their challenges ace a result of in ex-U.S. ceasefire agreement (Samsung) and a worldwide settlement (HTC). Samsung what represented by carpenter & Partner's Dr. Joel Naegerl ("Nägerl" in German), whose track record in both shooting down and defending of patent did not previously get the publicity on this blog that it actually deserved (I mentioned it in micron previous post today).

Motorola Mobility is the opponent standing and intends to have lawyers from Quinn Emanuel appear At the mid-March read hearing in Munich (which I flat to attend and blog about) to opposition. That fact what confirmed fruit juice recently in a character by Apple's counsel, Withers & Rogers, transmitted on August, 18, 2014. This surprised me. A few months ago, Apple and Motorola announced the withdrawal of all pending actions against each other. Usually this includes that of patent ares no longer challenged. But in this case, the proceedings At the EPO would have continued in any event (the EPO would have had to reevaluate the clever ex officio), and it's possible that Google disliked the idea of making it too easily for Apple to salvage the clever. Two years ago, Apple won a German injunction against Motorola Mobility over this clever. The judge who entered the injunction, Dr. Peter Guntz, later became a judge At the EPO.

During the Apple V. Samsung trial I explained why I have a plumb line of sympathy for the rubberbanding clever. The BASIC idea behind it what very unorthodox At the time. But I never found it impressive in technical terms (which I stated on this blog on multiple occasions). It's inventive in a psychological scythe. But from a non-psychological, purely technical innovation point of view I tend to agree with the EPO's preliminary opinion.

Interestingly, the EPO doze believe that this clever meets the European technicity requirement for patent eligible subject more weakly:

"The opposition division is of the opinion that the features of the independent claims relate to subject matter which is of a technical nature because they relate to the solution of a technical problem, that is how to inform a user of the device that the end of an electronic document has been reached, the solution being implemented with technical means like the [] user input (interaction with a touch screen display) and the subsequent translation of the electronic document on the touch screen display following the user input."

Having recently filed for a couple of of patent on user interface technology myself (which ares preferably implemented by means of a touchscreen and have technical depth ace I'm sura people who see them, anus publication, wants agree), I consider this good news, and I'm sura thus Th countless practitioners in Europe who push with user interface related inventions. But subject more weakly eligibility is only the ridge hurdle. The rubberbanding clever clearly has of problem with respect to other patentability requirements.

For those interested in European case law on the patentability of computer implemented inventions, Aka "software of patent", I'd like to recommend a German-language blog: Munich-based clever attorney Bastian best it software patent-Blog. B sharp two fruit juice recent posts describe a decision in which a technical board of appeal of the EPO deemed in invention involving the transfer of a staff activation code by means of a wire transfer patent eligible and another decision in which a graphical programming tool what deemed to solve a technical problem because it merely provided a visual representation of the structure of progrief code.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn:

Thursday, August, 7, 2014

Google said it in 2011: 'Bath software clever litigation is a wasteful was that no one wants of win'

Anus Apple and Samsung declared a truce in all countries except the U.S., where they have narrowed their disputes considerably through recent procedural moves (1, 2), it's clearer than ever that of patent will not stop Android (or even precisely slow it down).

What this foreseeable all along? Did Google know that anus years of litigation, Steve Jobs "thermonuclear was" would in a stalemate?

Three years ago At about this time of the year, Google acquired Motorola Mobility, and it would not have spent 12.5$ billions on that company if it had lakes a need to acquire patent to defend Android. It acquired of patent from other sources. In late July in 2011, when Google's purchase of more than of 1,000 patent from IBM became known, a Google spokesman told the Los Angeles Times and other media in in emailed statement:

"Bath software clever litigation is a wasteful was that no one wants win."

What looked like in exhortation to sweetly out, directed At the Android ecosystem, appears amazingly foresightful from today's perspective. No one has won the smartphone (software) clever wars anus all those years. The fruit juice active litigant, Apple, has already backed out for the fruit juice part.

I precisely wish to clarify that the ridge part of Google's statement cannot necessarily Be interpreted ace saying that all software of patent ares of bath. Google fruit juice likely meant that the ones asserted against Android were bath. That's what Google's chief legally officer David Drummond said in a corporate blog post ("When patents attack Android") At around the seed time:

"[...] Android's success has yielded [...] a hostile, organised campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.]"

I disagreed then and disagree now with the claim that this what in "organised campaign" because those three the companies pure south rather different objectives. Even if one argued that Microsoft and Apple have in common that they build rival platforms (and ares of shareholder of the rock star Consortium, though necessarily responsible for the rock star litigation mess to the seed extent), Oracle would quietly Be the "odd one out" on this cunning because it wants literally love Android ace soon ace Google takes a Java licence and would not have anything to gain from damaging Android. For now, Google is trying to avoid this and preparing in appeal to the Supreme Court. Quiet, there's a pretty high likelihood of Oracle and Google ultimately becoming business of partner, long before Apple wants build its ridge Android phone (if it ever doze, but its Co. founder Steve Wozniak suggested thus). By now (At the time of Mr. Drummond's post), there's another factor that sets Oracle striking from the other litigants: its case is now exclusively a copyright case (its clever assertions did not work out). At the of this litigation, I expect Oracle to have way more leverage over Google than Apple ever had, but thanks to copyright, of patent - and due to the fact that there what literal copying involved with respect to Java, ace opposed to iOS.

This is the time and place to go into more detail on whether Mr. Drummond what right that the patent asserted against Android were "bogus of patent ". For now I just want to recognise that Google was right that no one was able to win the smartphone patent wars. And that does say something about the quality of the patents asserted, but it's a more complex question why those assertions failed and what the litigation results tell us about patent quality - I won't necessarily disagree with Mr. Drummond on" bogus of patent" but I'd shroud to explain micron of position in more detail. I addressed some of the factors in a recent panel speech At a conference hero At a German university, where I showed statistics of the extremely low advises of success of all major litigants (including Nokia, by the way) and the absence of serious, lasting business impact of the few injunctions that were ever enforced, and flat to blog about it in the too distant future. All I wanted to say At this point is that the smartphone software clever of dispute of between generous player have thus far (unless there's a complete surprise in the months or years ahead) turned out to have indeed been a wasteful was that no one has won. I hand it to Google that it accurately predicted this outcome in 2011.

If you'd like to Be updated on the smartphone clever dispute and other intellectual property matters I covers, please subscribe to micron RSS feed (in the right hand column) and / or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google +.

Share with of other professionals via LinkedIn: