Assignment 9: pt 2 of 2

WHAT IS BEING DONE TO FIGHT AGAINST PATENT TROLLS?

Though companies (like Life360) have their own suggestions and advice on how to recognize and fight against patent trolls, this is not enough. Patent trolls curb innovation and create aggravating costs, which can cost a business - especially something like a start-up - its entire foundation! So courts must get involved too...

- April 2014: the Court made it somewhat easier for a defendant to recover its legal costs if the judge sees the plaintiff’s suit as frivolous
- June 2014: the Court made it easier to challenge the validity of a vague patent.
- June 2014: the Court made it apparent that you cannot get a patent just by implementing an existing business method on a computer; this was due to the Alice Corp vs. CLS Bank trial

 

Assignment 9: pt 1 of 2

PATENT TROLLS: why they are successful

The case study I earlier explained (Life360 with Chris) was quite an exception! Most defendants, regardless of how strong their case against the patent troll may be, ends up settling with the patent troll. Litigating patent cases is very expensive and companies do not want to have to deal with this. This extra financial burden is even greater in the realm of start-ups, something that is becoming a bigger part of the technology field, especially here in California.


Trolls know this and use the cost of defense to extort settlements. In the rare case where someone shows a willingness and financial means to fight with the accusation, the patent troll will often save its patent at the last moment with a "walk-away deal."

Assignment 8: pt 4 of 4

HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH PATENT TROLLS?

• Do your research. Find out about the NPE and how legitimate they are, you can find so much on social media which will reveal how big of a threat they are! Professor Tal said so himself: social media platforms like Twitter are being used by people to 'sell themselves', see if the NPE is doing this! 
• Be public about the situation. Tell the media what is going on so the patent troll is publicized. 
• Share information and resources by open-sourcing prior art with the relevant community. In doing this, you will make it harder to for the patent troll not only to sue you but also to sue others. 
• Commit to your gut. You know your product and if you have actually infringed a patent or not. If you do not want to settle and think you can win a trial case, go with it and don't listen to other people to settle! 

Assignment 8: pt 3 of 4

Case study: Life360

Life360 was accused by Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc. for patent infringement

- The company did not seem completely legitimate: they had no employees on LinkedIn, and a waterfront mansion in Florida as the corporate headquarters.

- Life360's reply to the company:

Dear Piece of Sh*t,
We are currently in the process of retaining counsel and investigating this matter. As a result, we will not be able to meet your Friday deadline. After reviewing this matter with our counsel, we will provide a prompt response.
I will pray tonight that karma is real, and that you are its worthy recipient,
- Chris 

- In court, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement on all the claims against Life360: patent troll was defeated!

Assignment 8: pt 2 of 4

MORE ON NPEs:

An NPE does one of the following things:

1. Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent
2. Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service
3. Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base
4. Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights
5. Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers

So basically... 
A patent troll enforces a patent. 

The negative parts:: a patent troll is a term given to a person or company who misuses the patent system. Their business strategy is to buy a patent and then either:

a.) launch lawsuits against infringing companies

b.) hold the patent without planning to use it in an attempt to obstruct another company from using it as well 

The practice by a patent troll is seen as an unethical and immoral business strategy. It forces us to see the flaws in the current patent system, especially that in the United States. And most importantly, it reduces innovation and productivity.

The positive parts:: the patent system is upheld. patent trollers make a living! Someone has to enforce it, especially when the "little guys - the inventors of a patent" cannot fight against the bigger companies who are using their patent. The patent trolls do give revenue/shares to these inventors if they win a case.

Assignment 8: pt 1 of 4

Patent trolls: 

Words to know --
Non-practicing entity (NPE) / Patent holding company (PHC): aka patent troll, this will be discussed in length below!
Patent infringement: Using the idea or product from a patent without permission from the patent holder
Rent seeking: An attempt to increase one's wealth without actually creating wealth
American Rule: stipulates that each party (prosecutor and defender) is required to pay its own respective amount of money from a trial

Assignment 7: Part 4 of 4

This is fun and creative video I found about obviousness. The narrators use horse boarding in England as the basis of what is and is not obvious, and how it directly relates to everyday life (especially if you are a horse boarder).


Key points:

+ Inventions are usually "small incremental steps of improvement". This video says that it's okay to add different features from different subjects together, it does not necessarily make the product obvious.
+ Depending on the person whose viewpoint you are looking at, something can be obvious or not obvious. This really depends on the gut feeling of the person who is judging your patent.
+ The narrator says that in his experience, if you are linking three or more things together - especially from three different disciplines - then the judge and jury will not think your product is obvious.
+ U.S. patent laws require product to be non-obvious. European patent laws require that an "inventive step" has been found in the invention and must be necessary for an issued patent.

Assignment 7: Part 3 of 4

I watched the following Youtub clip that the Professor assigned to us, and it was super interesting and easy to understand! I highly suggest taking a look at it, if you haven't already.

This video really takes emphasizes the fact that obviousness is found by looking at multiple pieces of prior art. In the latter part of the video, the "venn diagram" illustration shows that the current product must be compared to both Invention B and Invention A (two different pieces of prior art) to see if the product is obvious or not.

Assignment 7: Part 2 of 4

OBVIOUSNESS:
- Section 103 of the Patent Act has the fundamental test on what is considered obviousness for patents, namely that  “differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.”

- You must look at multiple pieces of prior art, not just a single one (as you did with anticipation)
----> this is something I failed to mention before, and I now think is very important!

- From the KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc court case (550 U.S. 398) in 2007: decisions for obviousness vs. non-obviousness must be based upon common sense and does not require a particular teaching-suggestion-or-motivation found within the prior art itself.
Thus, it is not just a person having ordinary skill in the art only, but hopefully like most of us: has COMMON SENSE!

err, we'll disregard this part

Revised claim: "...differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious . . . to a person having ordinary skill in the art and average common sense to which the claimed invention pertains.”

Assignment #7: Part 1 of 4

NONOBVIOUSNESS:

35 USC: 103(a)
Like the novelty requirement, but trickier
Novelty requirement looks to a single piece of prior art
Nonobviousness requirement looks at multiple pieces of
prior art
Novel means new
Non-obvious means that a person having ordinary skills in the art wouldn't have easily thought of it given the plurality of prior art

 When Professor Tal added these bullets, he asked us for obviousness means. I raised my hand and gave the informal answer of what obviousness means, an answer similar to what I've said in this blog and in my YouTube video. I also cited the example of the bottle cap - you can the red to a green bottle cap. That is obvious. Unless the green bottle cap has a very genuine/super important new purpose that the red bottle cap does not have. Professor Tal said that this is the colloquial way of describing obviousness but it is not a good definition. 

So what is the correct definition?? 

READ ON TO FIND OUT!