While a majority of the 10-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that some of the patent claims in question were invalid, no more than five judges agreed on the legal rationale leading to that conclusion. The judges divided 5-5 on other claims.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Google had argued that Apple was overstepping its bounds by demanding such information from a third party to the case, but U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal disagreed. He ordered Google to comply with Apple’s request, gave the company two days to do so and teased the search behemoth for complaining that the request was burdensome in the first place.

Said Grewal, “The court cannot help but note the irony that Google, a pioneer in searching the Internet, is arguing that it would be unduly burdened by producing a list of how it searched its own files.”

As Google loves to say, “Open always wins” …

The European Commission said Motorola’s actions ultimately harmed consumers, after the company sought court injunctions against Apple over the use of its patents, instead of properly licensing the technology to its rival. Motorola now has eight weeks to reply to the so-called statement of objections.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

Smart watches will likely be coming this year from Google, Apple, Samsung and others — but it’s not yet clear how ambitious the initial products will be.

The newly published Google patent application describes the components for a watch with two touchpads on a wristband that in tandem understand gestures like pinch, stretch and tap up or down. As Engadget points out, it sounds similar to how Google Glass works with a single pad.

This application was filed in October 2011 — so it’s a considerably older version of what Google is working on now. Its timing and inventors are the same as a previously awarded patent that described a smart watch that would connect to a wireless network with a “flip up display.”

Those two patent filings also line up to exactly the same day in 2011, with a batch of at least three already awarded patents for a different Google team covering the wearable display design of Google Glass. That particular crop of intellectual property seems to have been all about the wearables.

As we’re starting to see nerds wearing Google Glass out in the wild, it’s all the more clear that this form factor is not one that will be adopted overnight. Compared to Google Glass on your face, a wrist is a much less obtrusive place to put a computer.

At the same time, a watch isn’t going to have the same ability to capture pictures and video from eye level, or to overlay a display on the world. But maybe many people will appreciate that.

Secure Web Conference Corp., a unit of CopyTele, is seeking unspecified damages in the suit, filed Wednesday in the Eastern District of New York.

Once upon a time, CopyTele was trying to make products based on its technologies, but these days its strategy is focused on trying to derive revenue from its 53 patents.

“For 30 years, the company tried it the old-fashioned way,” CEO Rob Berman said in an interview. “They weren’t particularly successful.”

Berman was part of a team that came in last year with an eye toward making money off its patents. Berman said the company believes that much of the Web-conferencing industry is infringing on its patents, but decided to go after Skype initially because of its size.

A Microsoft representative declined to comment.

CopyTele filed a separate patent action earlier this year over another technology area, suing AU Optronics and E Ink Holdings over display patents.

“We expect to launch additional assertion programs with significant revenue opportunities as we continue to mine (CopyTele’s) patents, and acquire additional patent portfolios from third parties,” Berman said in a statement.

The Bay Area-based private company has acquired BodyMedia, Inc., a 14-year-old Pittsburgh-based company that makes health-monitoring armbands.

The move comes just a couple months after Jawbone, which makes the wearable Up fitness band in addition to popular audio devices, acquired data and digital-design companies Massive Health and Visere.

Jawbone acquired BodyMedia for more than $100 million, according to people familiar with the deal, although both companies declined to give more specifics about the financials of the deal.

So what’s the appeal of BodyMedia for Jawbone? Unlike the Massive Health and Visere buys, which were mainly for talent acquisition, BodyMedia’s value lies in both the team and the company’s patents. BodyMedia has had more than 80 patents issued over the years, many in the area of multi-sensor technology. As a combined entity, BodyMedia and Jawbone will have over 300 patents issued and filed.

While the $130 Jawbone Up wristband does many things — it tracks activity levels and sleep patterns, and works with a compatible mobile app for Android and iOS to log food consumption — it lacks some of the high-tech sensors that BodyMedia’s products have.

“I think the first phase of this market has been about accelerometers and what those can do,” Jawbone CEO Hosain Rahman said in an interview. “Now it’s about getting even more granular, and also, how we can get all that tech into an efficient form factor.”

To that point, BodyMedia’s armbands, which will continue to be sold for the time being, contain four different types of sensors, which measure your skin temperature, heat flux, galvanic skin response (GSR) and overall movement.

But compared with the wristband form factor of the Jawbone Up, the BodyMedia bands are bigger, bulkier products. Earlier this year, BodyMedia introduced a slimmed-down version of its health-tracking band, called the Core 2, to compete in the growing category of barely noticeable, 24/7 wearable fitness devices.

So can we expect to see a Jawbone wristband with GSR sensors anytime soon? “We’re working on lots of things,” was all Rahman would say, adding, “We’re exploring where we would see sensors working, and how we can put more and more on top of the body.”

The BodyMedia team will stay in Pittsburgh and will remain intact, both companies say. BodyMedia’s Chris Robins will no longer serve as CEO of the company, and will instead become the general manager of BodyMedia and a vice president of business development at Jawbone.

Jawbone also said today that it’s opening up its Up mobile software to ten different fitness-app makers, including RunKeeper, MyFitnessPal, LoseIt, Withings, Sleepio and IFTTT (for workout prompts). Jawbone Up users with iOS devices will now be able to share data to and from these partner apps with the Up app.

Source: Microsoft

In the highly anticipated court ruling, U.S. District Judge James Robart determined that Google’s Motorola Mobility unit is entitled to about $1.8 million a year from Microsoft for its use of certain patents.

Motorola had been seeking in excess of $4 billion in the case, which centered around patents related to the the H.264 video standard and the 802.11 wireless standard.

In making its determination, the court noted that there are some 92 different entities with patents essential to 802.11 networking. If each of them got the 1.15 percent to 1.73 percent royalty that Motorola wanted, the cost of wireless networking alone would exceed the price of the Xbox Microsoft was using it in.

“This decision is good for consumers because it ensures patented technology committed to standards remains affordable for everyone,” Microsoft Deputy General Counsel David Howard said in a statement.

Motorola didn’t comment directly on the ruling, offering up a statement that merely noted, “Motorola has licensed its substantial patent portfolio on reasonable rates consistent with those set by others in the industry.”

Microsoft-Google-FRAND –

Microsoft said on Tuesday it has struck a deal with China’s ZTE covering any Android or Chrome OS devices it makes. That follows a deal last week with contract manufacturer Foxconn.

With the latest deals, Microsoft now has arrangements in place with the bulk of the leading Android players including Samsung, HTC and LG. Google’s Motorola unit and ZTE rival Huawei are the remaining significant holdouts.

“Much of the current litigation in the so-called ‘smartphone patent wars’ could be avoided if companies were willing to recognize the value of others’ creations in a way that is fair,” Microsoft deputy general counsel Horacio Gutierrez said in a blog post. “At Microsoft, experience has taught us that respect for intellectual property rights is a two-way street, and we have always been prepared to respect the rights of others just as we seek respect for our rights.”

Gutierrez noted that Microsoft has paid out more than $4 billion in licensing fees over the last decade.

Microsoft hasn’t said how much it is collecting in revenue from its deals or how that compares with the revenue it gets from its own Windows Phone efforts.

Google took a hit of more that 1.5 percent this morning, dropping more than $12 to trade at close to $780 per share.

“We are pleased that the list of companies benefitting from Microsoft’s Android licensing program now includes the world’s largest contract manufacturer, Hon Hai,” Horacio Gutierrez, corporate VP and deputy general counsel of the IP group at Microsoft, said in a statement.

The agreement between Microsoft and Hon Hai effectively means that any Android or Chrome devices — such as handsets or notebooks — created by manufacturers in the Hon Hai group will require royalty payments to Microsoft.

“We recognize and respect the importance of international efforts that seek to protect intellectual property,” Samuel Fu, director of the Intellectual Property Department at Hon Hai, said in a statement. “The licensing agreement with Microsoft represents those efforts and our continued support of international trade agreements that facilitate implementation of effective patent protection.”

Google has long fought Microsoft’s claims that parts of the Android and Chrome software infringe on Microsoft’s vast collection of intellectual property holdings.

But a number of other hardware manufacturers — like HTC, Samsung, LG and more — have already signed licensing agreements with Microsoft to pay royalty fees for each Android or Chrome device manufactured.

That might well be the new/old slogan for GE, which today announced a partnership with Quirky, a young company that develops gadgets conceived by an online community and refined by users and in-house experts, as Liz Gannes explains here. (Unlike other crowdsourced projects, which sometimes amount to little more than vaporware, Quirky gets things done: It has produced more than 200 products over the past few years — things that actually get pushed through big retail stores. The startup recently got a little funding boost of $68 million to continue on this path.)

Here’s how this partnership is supposed to work: GE is opening up a bunch of patents — “thousands” — to people in the Quirky community, who can then come up with product line ideas that build upon those patents and submit them to Quirky.com/GE. GE and Quirky will review them, and will choose products that will be developed by Quirky and sold at retail. They’ll be co-branded “Wink: Instantly Connected.” The creator then gets a share of the revenue. The cut depends on how many “influencers” there are involved in the project.

Some of the patents GE is making available include those for optical tech, like holographic and lens technologies, “thin-film encapsulation” tech that coats and protects electronic devices like smartphones and TVs, and telematics used in vehicle-navigation systems. The initiative is meant to foster ideas for consumer-facing products and app-friendly connected devices, like home appliances.

For those who consider themselves true inventors — say, someone with a game-changing gadget they’ve been building in the basement while they apply for patents — playing with GE patents might not appeal. And Quirky owns the product ideas developed through its site and pays royalties to inventors.

But for people who don’t want to deal with the patent-application process and are looking for a little product-creation support, that’s where this project — or P&G’s similar Connect + Develop program — comes in. And the seasoned industrials and consumer goods companies will gladly take some fresh ideas.

Unified Patents plans to recruit companies for a collective effort to deter patent lawsuits or legal threats against its members.

The first to join United are Internet giant Google and NetApp, which makes data-storage hardware. But the venture plans to set itself apart by also recruiting small tech companies, which often have trouble defending themselves.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

For our readers who are not inclined to constantly hit the refresh button, here’s a quick look back at the Top 10 stories that drove AllThingsD this week:

1. Disney Shuts Down LucasArts
2. Here’s Why You Hate Your Cable Company
3. AT&T: Oh, Wait … About That Samsung Galaxy S4 Pricing
4. Samsung Says Apple’s Patent Damages Could Still Exceed $1 Billion
5. HD Voice Will Start Coming to AT&T Later This Year
6. You Still Can’t Resell Your iTunes Songs, Court Rules
7. Elissa Murphy, One of Yahoo’s High-Profile Tech Execs, Heads to Go Daddy as CTO
8. Henry Blodget Is Quietly Planning a Stunning Return to Wall Street
9. What’s Dell’s Bidding Process Really About? (Clue: It’s Not About Fixing Dell)
10. Windows Phone Gaining a Toehold in Some Markets

For more of the week in review, you should follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

General Counsel Brad Smith had said last month that the Patent Tracker would be available by April 1.

“Transparency regarding patent ownership is an important part of a well-functioning patent system,” Smith wrote in a blog post. “One of the fundamental objectives of the patent system is to provide notice regarding inventions — not only the nature of what has been invented but who owns the patent.”

The tool appears to have more limited search capabilities than the patent office’s own tool, however, limiting searches to the patent name, number, region and whether it is directly assigned to Microsoft. The company is also making available all of its patents in one big downloadable list.

Microsoft is among the biggest applicants for — and recipients of — U.S. patents. The company has over the past decade worked to build a sizable business licensing out its technology and has also signed a slew of patent cross-licensing deals.

The software maker has sought to license its technology for those providing rival operating systems that it says make use of Windows technology including both Linux and Android.

Where companies have not been willing to license, Microsoft has been known to go to court, including in its ongoing battle with Google’s Motorola Mobility unit.

A new report shows that a quarter of U.S. patents issued this year are likely to be related to mobile technology. That’s up from just 5 percent of all patents in 2001, according to analyst Chetan Sharma.

In Europe, mobile is somewhat less of a focus, accounting for roughly 10 percent of all patents.

Samsung led all companies in terms of U.S. mobile patents granted last year, while IBM filed the most applications last year, followed by Microsoft and then Samsung. Apple broke into the Top 10 on the strength of a slew of computer-graphics patent filings.

Among cellular operators, AT&T was the patent leader, followed by Japan’s NTT DoCoMo, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon, Telecom Italia, Swisscom, SK Telecom, TeliaSonera and Orange.

Among device makers, Samsung led the pack, followed by Nokia, Sony, BlackBerry, LG, NEC, Motorola, Siemens, Fujitsu and Hewlett-Packard.

“Mobile will continue to be the growth engine of the knowledge economy and the companies who understand the value of the intellectual property will continue to protect and benefit from their investments for years to come,” Sharma said in the report.

The International Trade Commission judge determined the technology Microsoft uses for wireless communication with the Xbox doesn’t infringed on a Motorola Mobility patent for wireless connectivity.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

In a filing on Wednesday, Apple made the case that it shouldn’t have to wait to collect on the $600 million in damages that the judge upheld. Judge Lucy Koh had encouraged both sides to exhaust any appeals before returning to discuss the damages issues.

“Apple takes seriously the Court’s encouragement, but after careful analysis, Apple believes that until the damages retrial is held and supplemental damages are decided, appellate review of the March 1 Order will not be obtainable,” Apple wrote in its court papers.

Plus, Apple said, “Samsung benefits enormously from any delay, even delay resulting from a failed attempt at an immediate appeal.”

“Samsung must now pay $600 million, and it faces the prospect that it will be liable for hundreds of millions more following a new trial,” Apple wrote. “Moreover, despite the jury’s verdict and Samsung’s representations to the Court that an injunction was unnecessary because Samsung was discontinuing all infringing products and implementing design-arounds, Samsung continues to sell the same and additional infringing products without making any payment to Apple. Every day that a final judgment is deferred, Samsung benefits.”

Samsung not only opposes the request, but in paperwork filed on Thursday, the company asked for more than its allotted five pages because of the substantive issues raised in Apple’s motion.

“Samsung respectfully submits that Apple’s motion, which involves fundamental questions involving the scope and timing of any new trial, is not a proper use of the rule governing Motions for Administrative Relief, which may address ‘miscellaneous administrative matters,’” Samsung said in its filing on Thursday. “Samsung respectfully requests that it be allotted 10 pages for response.”

The ball is now back in Koh’s court to see just what sort of filings and hearings will be allowed.

The federal Patent & Trademark Office received 12,670 patent applications in the week ended March 2, its latest available data. The tally was the highest weekly total of the year and the second-highest weekly total of the past five months. Tallies for the weeks ending March 9 and March 16 aren’t available yet, but they are expected to be even higher, according to a PTO spokesman.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

The verdict from a jury in the U.S. court for Texas’ Eastern District dealt a serious blow to VirnetX, a Zephyr Cove, Nev., company that uses its patent portfolio to seek revenue from licensing fees or court judgments. Most of VirnetX’s revenue has come from a $200 million settlement reached with Microsoft Corp. in 2010, according to research firm ISI Group.

Read the rest of this post on the original site »

A U.K. court on Thursday sided with Apple in a patent infringement suit brought against it by Samsung, dropping the hammer on the South Korean company’s effort to bust the iPhone maker for infringement.

At issue in this case were a trio of standards-essential patents (SEPs) covering the transmission of data over 3G networks. Samsung had asserted them against Apple in the U.K. — and elsewhere — in the hope of squeezing it for royalties on the company’s 3G-capable devices. But Judge Christopher Floyd rebuffed Samsung’s claims, ruling all three patents-in-suit invalid.

Floyd’s ruling further undermines Samsung’s already dubiously shaky campaign to assert its standards-essential IP against Apple in the pair’s endlessly metastasizing legal battle. To date, Apple has prevailed against about two dozen of the SEPs with which Samsung has attacked it.

Samsung, as I noted above, was dismayed by Floyd’s decision and rolled out what has become an old chestnut of a statement for times like this: “We are disappointed by the court’s decision. Upon a thorough review of the judgment, we will decide whether to file an appeal.”

A Mannheim Regional Court on Friday ordered a stay of a Samsung suit against Apple that alleges the iPhone maker’s VoiceOver screen-access technology violated its patent on display into speech data.

The mechanics of this particular spat and the court’s ruling on it are a bit too byzantine to dive into here, but it’s worth a look in broad strokes simply as an example of just how low players are willing to stoop in IP battles like the one between Apple and Samsung. So, in short: Samsung holds a patent on a feature that allows devices to read text aloud to their users with the press of a button. The company asserted that patent against Apple’s accessibility features, specifically VoiceOver which is specifically designed for anyone with impaired vision. Caught in the middle: The blind, low-vision users, folks with dyslexia and anyone else who might benefit from having what appears on their computer screen described to them out loud.

Yes, this move by Samsung against Apple was a tactical one in a nasty battle in which billions of dollars are at stake. Yes, it’s just business. But it’s ill-conceived. Even leaving aside the ethics of asserting a patent against a feature designed to help the blind, this is unwise. It’s the PR equivalent of punching yourself in the face. Samsung has now identified itself as a company willing to accept the loss of accessibility for the vision-impaired as collateral damage in its battle with Apple. It has made a big public move to make it more difficult for the blind to use computers. That’s just foolish — more so, now that the judge presiding over the case has stayed the suit. Again, this is just business and battle, but there’s a PR war being fought here, as well. And Samsung is not doing itself any favors with poorly thought-out assaults like this one.

Reached for comment, Samsung offered a boilerplate statement on the larger IP battle. “For decades, we have heavily invested in pioneering the development of technological innovations in the mobile industry, which have been constantly reflected in our products,” a company spokesman told AllThingsD. “We continue to believe that Apple has infringed our patented mobile technologies, and we will continue to take the measures necessary to protect our intellectual property rights.”

The company’s strategy is to gather enough intellectual property around LTE in one pool that device makers can go to to license technology for their products.

However, many big names — and important LTE patent holders — still aren’t on the list. Some key holders, folks such as Ericsson and Qualcomm, are unlikely to join, since licensing is an integral part of their business.

But Via hopes to get enough of the rest of the big patent holders to make its pool attractive to device makers.

Via won’t say if any companies have actually yet licensed the patents.

Although China Mobile and Deutsche Telekom aren’t seen as among the top holders of LTE-related patents, Via hopes they could inspire others to sign up.

Via Licensing CEO Roger Ross said that he is hopeful that companies such as Huawei, LG or Apple might decide to join the patent-licensing pool.

“I don’t want to be overly optimistic,” he said, but added, “I think we are going to get some of those very large patent holders.”

“Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.”
– Google CEO Larry Page

If the driving motivation behind Google’s $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility truly was the company’s patent arsenal, the search behemoth isn’t seeing much return on its investment.

This week, Google’s Motorola Mobility division was dealt yet another setback in its ongoing intellectual property spat with Microsoft, when a judge gutted some of the patent claims it had asserted against the software company.

On Thursday in Seattle, U.S. District Judge James Robart issued an order invalidating more than a dozen claims across three patents Google asserted against Microsoft. All three patents cover technology related to the encoding and decoding of digital video, and while Robart determined some of their claims to be legitimate (for now), he found that 13 were not specific enough to be brought to bear in this case.

And so he granted Microsoft’s motion for partial summary judgment, tossing those 13 claims. Robart’s decision significantly narrows the case, and bodes well for Microsoft, which claims that Google has failed to make the patents at issue available on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.