Why Should Facebook and Twitter be Worried

In one of my earlier post, I had mentioned about the patent portfolio of Facebook and Twitter and discussed why it was imperative for both the social networking giants to lay more emphasis on their respective Intellectual Property. While Facebook has few patents to showcase, Twitter has absolutely no form of patent protection (almost). I did some basic Googling to determine the number of lawsuits filed by various parties against Facebook and Twitter and realized that the number of patent infringement cases against both Facebook and Twitter has witnessed a sharp increase in the last two years. The table below summarizes all the patent litigation cases which have been filed against Facebook. As one can observe, Year 2007 saw two patent litigation against Facebook and Year 2009 saw a total of five patent litigation cases being filed against Facebook. The number of litigation cases increased to eight in the Year 2010 and fifteen in the Year 2011. The increase in the number of litigation should come as a wake up call for the social networking giant to enhance its patent portfolio in order to protect its technology.




Many would suggest that one way to face the challenge of contesting the increasing number of litigation is to acquire smaller companies that have a good patent portfolio or license the key patents from patent owners (less favorable in the current context). Facebook has acquired many startups and small companies and the list of such companies acquired by Facebook is provided here. In the list, one can observed that only the following two companies acquired by Facebook have their own set of patents, the rights for which were subsequently assigned to Facebook after the acquisition.
Friendster - 10 patents and 10 patent applications
ShareGrove: 1 Patent application

A look into the assignment history of patents on the USPTO website discloses that many patents from companies such as Walker Digital LLC (which also sued Facebook on a number of occasions), Divan Industries, Hewlett Packard and British Telecommunication Public Limited Company have been assigned to Facebook indicating that Facebook has bought those patents from these companies. In the future, Facebook will have to be even more strategic while acquiring any company else many companies will continue suing Facebook demanding royalties for infringing their patents or asking Facebook to license or buy their patents.

The table below summarizes the patent litigation cases for Twitter. Like Facebook, Twitter has also witnessed an increase in the number of patent infringement lawsuits filed against it in the Year 2011. To make matters even worse, Twitter does not own any granted patents. A cross-check on assignment history discloses that Twitter has only one patent application (20100199180) assigned to it by Tweetie LLC, which it acquired in 2010. The list of acquisitions by Twitter is disclosed here. However, it seems that none of the companies acquired by Twitter own any patents.



So what should be the next step forward for Twitter and Facebook? Should they be focusing more on acquiring companies or building a stronger patent portfolio. If they should be acquiring companies, what type of companies should they be targeting? Whatever be the case, there will not be any decrease in the number of patent litigation cases against both the social networking giants.

How to Electronically File Patent Applications with the USPTO

Go to File Online link at the USPTO website to reach the page titled ‘About EFS-Web’.

Go to Launch EFS-Web Unregistered eFiler to reach the page titled ‘Welcome to Electronic Patent Filing for UNREGISTERED eFILERS’

a.       Fill in the details and proceed with the ‘New Application’ option in ‘Main Functions’

b.      Subsequently, select ‘Utility’ and ‘Provisional’ options  (User may select non-provisional  application if they don’t intend to file a provisional patent application)

c.       Click ‘Continue’ to reach the page titled ‘Application Data’

Fill in the details

d.      ‘Attorney Docket Number’ can be alphanumeric. You may leave this field empty as well.

e.      For ‘Correspondence address’, please select correspondence address option and fill all the details and continue to next page titled ‘Attach Documents’.

Verify the details and upload the documents. To upload the documents, please note:

f.        The files should be in .pdf or .txt format

g.       No spaces are allowed in file name

h.      Upload the following three documents accordingly:

                                                               i.      Specification and Abstract

1.       Upload the file name

2.       Choose ‘Application Part’ option and select ‘Yes’ for the question asking ‘whether the file contain multiple documents?’

3.       Choose specification in second column and mention page numbers in third columns (Page start and page end)

4.       Choose abstract in second column and mention page number (i.e. the last page) in third columns (Page start and page end)

                                                             ii.      Drawings

1.       Upload the file name

2.       Choose ‘Application Part’ option and select ‘No’ for the question asking ‘whether the file contain multiple documents?’

3.       Choose drawings in last column

                                                            iii.      Provisional Cover Sheet

1.       Upload the file named ‘Provisional Cover Sheet’

2.       Choose ‘Application Part’ option and select ‘No’ for the question asking ‘whether the file contain multiple documents?’

3.       Choose ‘Provisional Cover Sheet’ in last column

i.         After uploading all the three files, click on ‘Upload and Validate’

Thereafter, you will reach a page titled ‘Calculate Fees’

j.        Change ‘Current Business Size’ to ‘Small Entity’. (Confused whether you are a small entity or not. Click here)

k.       Fill the ‘Number of Pages’ box with the total number of pages in Drawings, Specification and Abstract

l.         Click on ‘Calculate’ and then ‘Continue’ to reach next page titled ‘Submit Application’

Verify all the information and click on ‘Submit’

Upon submission, please note down the following details as provided by the USPTO

m.    Application Number

n.      Confirmation Number

o.      EFS ID

p.      Continue to ‘Yes! I want to pay now’

Choose the method of payment based on your convenience and proceed with the payment accordingly.

Network Signature and 37 C.F.R. PART 404 – The case of exclusive License

Network Signatures Inc, a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in California has sued Visa Inc, Novartis Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, MasterCard International Inc. and The Hershey Company (the defendants) for infringement of US patent 5,511,122 (the ‘122 patent).

The ‘122 patent is assigned to “The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy” and was filed on June 3, 1994 and issued on April 23, 1996. The ‘122 patent, titled “Intermediate Network Authentication”, discloses technology related to transfer of sensitive information via the Internet. The technology disclosed in the ‘122 patent was invented by The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy and not by Network Signatures. The ‘122 patent was exclusively licensed to Network Signature under 37 C.F.R. PART 404.

Background information about 37 C.F.R. PART 404: The terms and conditions under which inventions owned by the government of United States can be licensed are described in part 37 C.F.R. PART 404. Specifically, 37 C.F.R § 404.5 (b) (2) states “Any patent license may grant the licensee the right of enforcement of the licensed patent without joining the Federal agency as a party as determined appropriate in the public interest.” The US government had granted an exclusive license to Metrix Services, which in turn with the approval of the government, had granted an exclusive license to Network Signature for the ‘122 patent. Network Signature currently markets NetSig, which is a cloud-based two-factor authentication solution and EasyConnect protected and covered by the various embodiment disclosed in the ‘122 patent. Network Signature also enjoys the right to enforce the ‘122 patent and sue other parties to protect the intellectual property of the US government under the exclusive license. In the past, Network Signature has sued many other parties for infringing the ‘122 patent. A few such companies which have been sued by Network Signature in the past include Scottrade, Virgin Mobile USA, FedEx, AstraZeneca, 3M, Pfizer, Glaxosmithkline, Colgate-Palmolive, Goldman Sachs, and Johnson & Johnson.

It is not clear as of now whether any specific products owned/used by defendants have been disclosed in the complaint filed by Network signature on September 23, 2011 in the California Central District Court. Further, it is highly unlikely that Network Signature would target individual developers or small companies that may be involved in creation of products covered by the ‘122 patent.

Analysis of the first independent claim reveals that any action or article that involves authenticating a sending host at a receiving host using cryptographic signature as covered by the scope of the independent claim would lead to infringement of the ‘122 patent.

Claim 1 of the ‘122 patent:

A method for authenticating an originating host at a receiving host, said method comprising the steps of:

(a) obtaining a network address and a public key of said receiving host;

(b) utilizing said public key from said receiving host in combination with a private key from said sending host to generate a cryptographic signature;

(c) transmitting said cryptographic signature along with data through a first subnetwork in at least one packet;

(d) receiving said at least one packet at said receiving host; and

(e) said receiving host utilizing a private key of said receiving host and a public key of said originating host to verify said cryptographic signature.

Twitter Sued by Easyweb Innovations, LLC

September 19, 2011: Twitter has been sued by Easyweb Innovations LLC for patent infringement in the New York Eastern District court on September 19, 2011. Easyweb Innovations LLC is a New York Limited Liability company having its principal place of business at 3280, Sunrise Highway, Suite 171, Wantagh, New York.


The patents-in-suit are US7032030, US7596606, US7685247, US7689658, US7698372.


US7032030: Message publishing system and method 
US7596606 Message publishing system for publishing messages from identified, authorized senders
US7685247:  System for publishing and converting messages from identified, authorized senders 
US7689658: Method for publishing messages from identified, authorized senders to subscribers
US7698372: System for publishing messages from identified, authorized senders to subscribers 


Easyweb Innovations LLC has stated that it had informed Twitter about the patents on June 2, 2011, however, Twitter has not made any attempts or taken any actions to license the patents-in-suit. 


It is brought to the notice of the readers that Twitter does not have any patents/patent applications in its portfolio. This lawsuit adds to the increasing number of lawsuits that are being filed against Twitter. This lawsuit should act as a wakeup call for Twitter. 


So whats your take - Will we see any patent filings by Twitter in the near future?

Via Technologies sues Apple

Wednesday, September 21, 2011: Via Technologies, a Taiwan based semiconductor company, has sued Apple for three counts of Patent infringement. In the lawsuit filed in the Delaware District Court, Via technologies has alleged that Apple is infringing the following three patents:


US 6,253,311 : Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data - Filed on Nov 29, 1997
US 6,253,312: Method and apparatus for double operand load - Filed on August 7, 1998
US 6,754,810: Instruction set for bi-directional conversion and transfer of integer and floating point data - Filed on April 10, 2002


The plaintiff list also includes IP-First LLC and Centaur Technology. Via Technologies is the parent company IP-First LLC and Centaur Technology.

Optimum Power Solutions sues HP, Lenovo, Sony, Panasonic and Dell

Optimum Power Solutions LLC, having its principle place of business in Texas, has filed multiple lawsuits against various companies alleging infringement of US5781784 (the ‘784 patent). The defendants include Hewlett-Packard Company, Lenovo (United States) Inc., Sony Electronics Inc, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Acer,  Asus Computer International, Toshiba, Fujitsu and Dell Inc. Acacia Research Corporation, a famous troll, happens to be the parent company of Optimum Power Solutions LLC.

The ‘784 patent, entitled “Dynamic power management of solid state memories” was issued on July 14, 1998 to Zilog, Inc and was assigned to Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC on July 14, 2009. The ’784 patent relates to memory controllers for solid state memories. The ‘784 patent discloses a memory controller having a power management function that allows the power consumption of solid state memories to be controlled or restricted. A total of three independent claims are present in the ‘784 patent of which the first independent claim is provided below:

 A dynamic power management device for supplying power to a solid state memory integrated circuit, said device comprising:

power control means for supplying a variable voltage to said memory integrated circuit; and

logic control means for generating address and control signals for said memory integrated circuit and for controlling said power control means;

wherein the power control means supply power to said memory integrated circuit, said power being supplied to the memory integrated circuit at a first variable voltage level during periods of no data access activity and at a second variable voltage level during periods of data access activity, the variable voltage supplied at said first variable voltage level being less than the variable voltage supplied at said second variable voltage level,

wherein the power supplied at the first level is sufficient to preserve information stored in the integrated memory circuit and the power supplied at the second level is sufficient to read and write information in the integrated memory circuit.

Optimum Power Solutions LLC has alleged that the following products of the defendant infringe the ‘784 patent because of which Optimum Power Solutions has suffered losses. Optimum Power claims that the products include components and system for dynamic power management required for supplying variable voltage to solid state devices. The products are:

Hewlett-Packard : HP Pavillion dv3-2150us notebook with an Intel core 2 duo CPU (T6500) 2.1 GHz with a 2MB L2 cache.

Lenovo: Lenovo ThinkPad T500 with an Intel core 2 duo CPU (P8600) 2.4 GHz with a 3MB L2 cache.

Sony: Vaio Z Notebook with an Intel core 2 duo CPU (P8700) 2.53 GHz with a 3MB L2 cache

Panasonic: Toughbook Model CF-F9k

Source:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65821068/Optimum-Power-Solutions-v-Hewlett-Packard-Company

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65821524/Optimum-Power-Solutions-v-Lenovo

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65821335/Optimum-Power-Solutions-v-Sony-Electronics

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65821103/Optimum-Power-Solutions-v-Panasonic-Corporation-of-North-America

Wakeup call for Examiners and Controllers - Indian Patent Office - Winds of change

The Indian Patent office has issued an internal circular regarding expediting and streamlining the patent grant process. This is a wakeup call for the examiners and controllers who tend to take a lot of time to complete their tasks or do a poor job. (Overly spending considerable time, over-ruling opinions etc).

The internal circular includes a set of instructions that the examiners and controllers will have to follow henceforth to improve the quality of examination and avoid duplication of work. A good thing about the set of instructions is that they clarify the roles and responsibilities of the examiner. This will definitely help in reducing the amount of time that is spent in re-doing the same work or over-ruling opinions without any supporting reasons.

The circular can be accessed from this link: http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/Circular_04_21September2011.pdf

Role of Foreign Precedents in deciding the outcome of a Patent Litigation

Ever wondered whether a determination by a foreign court over patent infringement will be considered or admissible in your local court? Does the jury get swayed by the decisions of foreign court in coming to a conclusion?

Patent infringement cases (territorial and extraterritorial) are pretty common nowadays and patent owners as well as product manufactures increasingly find themselves involved in patent litigation in local as well as foreign courts. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to say that patent litigation is slowly going “Global”. Patent owners and product manufactures are often busy pursuing legal battles with each other in many countries at the same time. As a result, patent owners need to be diligent more than ever in deciding which countries to file their patent applications and seek protection for their technology as well as in framing strategies for pursuing a patent litigation battle in local as well as foreign courts.

While the patent laws are jurisdictional, the inventions of today are international and are not bound by any borders. Traditionally, courts in the same country have often relied on issue preclusion (Collateral estoppel) to avoid re-litigation on an issue. The underlying rationale of issue preclusion is to prevent abuse of judiciary and ensuring that the parties involved in litigation are bound by the decisions of lower court. However, no such preclusion are defined when an issue has been resolved by a foreign court. There have been many cases in United States of America and European countries such as Germany, France and United Kingdom where the local courts have overruled the decisions of foreign courts. Thus, it should not come as a shock that courts from different countries have come to different conclusions and decisions in patent litigations that have involved the same product or patent in question. There have been a few cases as well where local courts have decided the outcome of a specific case by relying on rulings of foreign courts where the specific case has been already contested. A few such cases where foreign precedents have been considered and not considered are disclosed below:

Hilton v. Guyot: A landmark case in which the United State Supreme Court described the factors to be used when considering the application of comity and sovereignty. The Supreme Court concluded that if a foreign court has provided a full and fair trial and no evidence of prejudice or bias is present, then merits of such case can be relied upon by US courts.

Medtronic, Inc. v. Daig Corp: In order to prove obviousness, Daig Corp. had urged the court to adopt the conclusion of a German Tribunal that held the German counterpart of the patent obvious. However, the court did not agree with the recommendation and called the argument by Daig Corp as “specious”.

Cuno Inc. v. Pall Corp: This case involved simultaneous patent litigations that were being contested in US and UK court. The UK decided the issue first and ruled that Pall’s patent were valid and being infringed. Pall moved the US court for partial summary judgment and argued that relying on the findings of the UK court would shorten the trial and save valuable cost and money. However, the US court was reluctant to rely on the findings of UK court and stated that it collateral estoppel could not be applied based on foreign precedents as the patent laws and court processed were different.

Ditto, Incorporated v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co: Ditto requested the US court to rely upon a decision of the West German Federal Patent Court which held the German counterpart of the patent as invalid. However, the US court stated that decision of the German patent court was not controlling on its own decision.

There have been many more such cases where some courts have shown the willingness to rely on foreign precedents whereas others have stated that foreign precedents can be relied on a persuasive basis but not as deciding or controlling means. Few such cases are mentioned below:

Vas-Cath v. Mahurkar

Northlake Marketing & Supply Inc

Gordon & Breach v. American Institute of Physics

Computer Associates International, Inc., v. Altai, Inc

Northlake v. Glaverbel

After analyzing the above cases it is clear that there is no definite answer to whether foreign precedents will be considered or admissible in US and European courts. Another important question that comes to my mind is with respect to handling of foreign precedents in countries where the number of patent litigation cases is not as high as it is in US and Europe. US and Europe have a huge number of precedents to rely upon in order to decide the outcome of a patent litigation. Their database is huge enough to cite their own cases to come to a conclusion. Do the courts in other countries such as Australia, India, Japan, Korea, Brazil, etc consider the foreign precedents? I have seen a few cases in India where foreign precedents have been considered during appeal proceedings. However, it was difficult to come to a conclusion whether foreign precedents would be admissible in Indian Courts.

Conclusion

Currently, various measures are being undertaken by patent offices from around the world to harmonize the patent laws and move towards a common set of patent laws to make matters easy for patent owners that are involved in patent litigation in multiple countries. However, the truth is that patent laws will continue to be jurisdictional by nature and each patent office will continue to have its own standards that it would rely on in coming to a conclusion on various aspects of a patent proceeding. Thus, foreign precedents should be considered on persuasive basis rather than on controlling basis.


Further read:
http://www.ipmall.org/hosted_resources/IDEA/39_IDEA/39-1_IDEA_107_McGarrigle.pdf
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/nyuilp27&div=20&id=&page=
http://www.kluwerlawonline.com/productinfo.php?pubcode=EFJ

Apple accused of Copyright Infringement

Taea Thale, a photograph has brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against Apple in California Northern District Court on August 1, 2011. The infringement revolves around use of photographs of the band "She and Him" clicked by Taea Thale in iPhone's advertisements without prior approval. "She and Him" is an American indie band that consists of Zooey Deschanel (Vocals) and M.Ward (guitar). The court case number is 5:11-cv-03778-HRL.


Source: http://www.law360.com/cases/4e3842ec9043431ad0000001

Natco Pharma Applies for India's First Compulsory License

Economic times reports that Natco Pharma has applied for a compulsory license to sell a generic version of Bayer’s drug Nexavar. Nexavar is used for treating liver and kidney cancer and costs about Rs 2.85 lakhs (10lakhs = 1 million) for a month's course in India. The high cost of Rs 2.85 lakhs for a month’s course is un-affordable for an average Indian. Natco has claimed that it can sell its generic version of Nexavar, sorafenib tosylate for Rs. 8, 900 for the same course.

Natco had sought a voluntary license from Bayer in December, 2010. However, the request to grant the Voluntary license to Natco was refused by Bayer.  Consequently, Natco went ahead and applied for a compulsory license. The Indian Patent law (Section 89(4)) allows an interested party to apply for a compulsory license when a voluntary license has been refused to the interested party by the company holding the patent. On grant of a compulsory license, the licensee has to pay some royalty (usually 5% of sales) to the patent owner.

Further information about compulsory license in India

Under the provisions of Indian Patent Act, an interested party may apply for a compulsory license after expiry of 3 years from grant of patent. The request for compulsory license can also be made by a party that has availed a license for the patent from the patent owner. The conditions under which a compulsory license is granted by the controller of Indian Patent office is covered under section 84, section 92(1) and 92(3), and section 92(A).  Section 84 is related to preventing the abuse of patent as monopoly and to make way for commercial exploitation. Section 92(1) and 92(3) are related to situations calling for national emergency and section 92(A) is related to export of drugs/medicines to foreign countries with public health problems and lack of resources and infrastructure to produce the necessary drugs required by the public. Article 30 and 31 cover compulsory licensing provisions in TRIPS. The relevant sections have been added at the end of the article from the Indian Patent Act.

This is the first instance of a company applying for compulsory license in India. Till date, no compulsory license has been issued by the controller or the government of India. There have been a few occasions (three) where parties have applied for compulsory license under section 92(A); however, such applications were withdrawn later by the parties themselves.

Section 84

(a) The reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied;

(b) The patented invention is not available to the public at a reasonably affordable price.

(c) The patented invention is not worked in the territory of India.

Section 89 further explains the rationale of granting compulsory license under Section 84.

Section 89

(i) That the patented inventions are worked on a commercial scale in the territory of India without undue delay and to the fullest extent that is reasonably practicable;

(ii) That the interests of any person for the time being working or developing an invention in the territory of India under the protection of a patent are not unfairly prejudiced.

Subsection 6 of Section 84 specifies the factors while considering the application under section 84.

(1) The nature of the invention, the time which has elapsed since the sealing of the patent and the measures already taken by the patent or licensee to make full use of the invention;

(2) The ability of the applicant to work the invention to the public advantage;

(3) The capacity of the applicant to undertake the risk in providing capital and working the invention, if the application were granted;

(4) As to whether the applicant has made efforts to obtain a license from the patentee on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period as the Controller may deem fit.

Sections 92 (1) and 92 (3)

These sections enable the Central Government and the Controller to deal with situations demanding national emergency related to public health crises by granting relevant compulsory licenses.

Section 92 A

Provides for compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manufacture of pharmaceutical products for export to countries with public health problems.

Online Retail Companies like Amazon Sued for Patent Infringement by SFA Systems

Update 1: SFA systems has also sued Barnes & Noble,Gander Mountain Company, OverTon's Inc, and Newegg, Inc for the '341 patent.


Update 2: SFA systems has also sued BigMachines, Enterasys Networks, Ricoh Americas Corporation
and CareStream Health for the '341 patent.

August 01, 2011: SFA Systems (plaintiff), a Texas based company, having its principal place of business at 207 C North Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670, has sued online retail companies for patent infringement in the Texas Eastern District Court. The lawsuit has been filed against Amazon, Buy.com, DSW, Dollar Tree Stores, Meijer, New York & Company, Rite Aid Corporation, Symantec Corporation, Target Corporation, TigerDirect and Zappos.Com (defendants).

The patent-in-suit is US7941341 (the ‘341 patent), entitled “Sales force automation system and method”. The ‘341 patent was filed on March 27, 2009 and issued on May 10, 2011. This is the second lawsuit brought by SFA against the defendants. On Feb. 1, 2011, SFA had filed a complaint against the defendants alleging patent infringement of US6067525 (the ‘525 patent), entitled “Integrated computerized sales force automation system” in the Texas Eastern District Court. SFA has also been involved in two more lawsuits that revolved around the ‘525 patent, details of which are available here and here. Buether Joe & Carpenter LLC, which represented SFA system in the ‘525 patent lawsuit had reported that many parties had reached a settlement with SFA systems. However, the amount involved in the settlement was not disclosed.

The ‘341 patent and the ‘525 patent are from the same patent family. A comparison of independent claims of the ‘341 patent and the ‘525 patent reveals that both the patents have substantially the same claim matter and are similar in scope.

Claim 1 of the ‘341 patent:

“An automated sales system for facilitating a sale of an item or service by intelligently integrating into a single system tools used by a salesperson in a sales process, the automated sales system comprising: a plurality of subsystems of a computer configured to electronically facilitate one or more actions performed during at least one phase of the sales process; and an event manager, electronically coupled to at least one subsystem of the plurality of subsystems, the event manager detecting one or more changes in information regarding an event occurring within the system and automatically initiating an operation in one or more particular subsystems of the computer to facilitate a new action based on the event, wherein at least one subsystem of the plurality of subsystems determines if the event has occurred previously in the sales process and updates another event or task in at least another subsystem of the plurality of subsystems if the operation is automatically initiated.”

Claim 1 of the ‘525 patent:

“A computer implemented sales system used to facilitate a sales process, the system comprising:

a plurality of subsystems configured to facilitate one or more actions performed during at least one phase of the sales process; and

an event manager, coupled to the subsystems, the event manager

detecting one or more changes in state characteristic of an event occurring within the system,

inferring occurrence of the event and a context in which the event occurred based at least in part on the detected changes in state, and

automatically initiating an operation in one or more particular subsystems of the computer to facilitate a new action based on the inferred context.”

Based on the similarity of the claims in the two patents and considering the outcome of the last patent lawsuit, what do you think will be the likely outcome of the present lawsuit? Will the defendants settle for an out of court settlement or will there be any surprises?

Dell, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility, Philips and others sued for patent infringement

Advanced Display Technologies of Texas has sued Dell, Futurewei Technologies, HTC, Lenovo, Motorola Mobility Holdings, Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Sanyo North America Corporation, Sony Corporation of America and Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications for patent infringement. The patents-in-suit are US5739931 (the ‘931 patent), entitled “Illumination system employing an array of microprisms” and US6261664 (the ‘664 patent), entitled “Optical structures for diffusing light”. The lawsuit was filed on August 01, 2011 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

This is the second instance where Advanced Display Technologies of Texas has sued company's for infringing the '931 and the '664 patents. These patents were also mentioned in the lawsuit filed against Apple, AU Optronics, Vizio, Sharp, Sharp Electronics, Haier America Trading, Research In Motion, ASUSTeK Computer, ASUS Computer International, Haier Group, ViewSonic, AU Optronics Corporation America on January 5, 2011 in the Texas Eastern District Court.

The original assignee of the ‘931 and the ‘664 patent is Alliedsignal Inc, which transferred the assignment to Honeywell International, which in turn sold all the rights to Advanced Display Technologies of Texas. Apart from the ‘931 patent and the ‘664 patent, Advanced Display Technologies of Texas owns the following patents in United States:

US5396350: Backlighting apparatus employing an array of microprisms

US5555109: Illumination system employing an array of microprisms

US6129439: Illumination system employing an array of multi-faceted microprisms

US5428468: Illumination system employing an array of microprisms

US5521725: Illumination system employing an array of microprisms

US6010747: Process for making optical structures for diffusing light

The ‘931 patent is a continuation of US5555109, which is a continuation of US5428468, which is a continuation in part of US5396350. The ‘664 patent is a division of US6010747.

Claim 1 of the ‘931 patent:

“An illumination assembly comprising:

(a) a light transmitting means having at least one light accepting surface;

(b) reflecting means comprising an array of microprisms wherein at least one microprism comprises;

(i) a light input surface optically coupled to said light transmitting means;

(ii) a light output surface distal from said light input surface and having a surface area at least equal to the surface area of said light input surface;

(iii) a first pair of sidewalls disposed between said light input surface and said light output surface and at least one of said sidewalls forms a first tilt angle with respect to the normal of the surface of said light transmitting means; and

(iv) a second pair of sidewalls disposed between said light input surface and said light output surface and at least one of said sidewalls forms a second tilt angle with respect to the normal of the surface of said light transmitting means.”

Claim 1 of the ‘664 patent:

“An optical diffuser comprising a polymerized material layer on a transparent or translucent substrate, which layer has a highly modulated surface having smooth bumps ranging from about 1 micron to about 20 microns in both height and width.”

Image source: Freepatentsonline.com

Source: Priorsmart.com

Internet Threat - Cybersquatting

Today we have a guest post by Mr. Vijit Mishra, who is a "Patent Specialist" from Gurgaon, India. Vijit holds a Masters Degree in Biomedical Engineering and has been involved in the field of patent analytic for more than 4 years now.

_____________

I have been wanting to have my own website where I intended to write about Football and other sporting activities. I had a few names for the website in my mind and cross-checked those names on various domain registration websites. I was surprised to see that most of the names for my website were already taken or registered. In order to satisfy my curiosity, I visited the already registered websites so that I could see what kind of content was uploaded on these websites by, what I assumed to be, people who shared similar interests. To my dismay, a majority of those sites had the following message:

“The domain name is for sale” or “The domain is under construction”. To make matters, worse, many websites were hosting several advertisements on their home page. I did some basic research to determine the rationale of having a website registered and not uploading any content on such websites. I realized that occupying or “sitting” on popular website/domain names is pretty common and is commonly known as “CYBERSQUATTING”. Some more “Googling” and I figured that Cybersquatting is a very serious concern in today’s digital age.

So what exactly is Cybersquatting? Cybersquatting is the act of registering a popular internet address - usually a company name or a person name - with the intent of selling it to its rightful owner. According to the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act in US, Cybersquatting is defined as registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The term derives from squatting, the practice of inhabiting someone else's property without their permission.

Cybersquatting was made illegal by the passage of the federal law in 1999. The law became necessary because numerous large companies were forced to pay large sums to buy their domain names from third parties.

How to check

As a general rule, first check to see if the domain name takes you to a website. If it does not take you to a functioning website, but instead takes you to a site stating "this domain name is for sale," or "under construction," or "can't find server," the likelihood increases that you are dealing with a cybersquatter, a person who creates such sites. The absence of a real site may indicate that the purpose of the owner of the domain name is to simply buy and sell the domain names to other users at a higher price than usual.

Of course, absence of a website does not always mean the presence of a cybersquatter. There may also be an innocent explanation and the domain name owner may have perfectly legitimate plans to have a website in the future.

If the domain takes you to a functioning website that is comprised primarily of advertisements for products or services related to your trademark, you may also have a case of cybersquatting. For example, if your company is well-known for providing audio-visual services and the website you encounter is packed with ads for other company's audio-visual services, the likelihood is very strong that the site is operated by a cybersquatter who is trading off your company's popularity to sell advertisements to your competitors.

If the domain name takes you to a website that appears to be functional, has a reasonable relation to the domain name, but does not compete with your products or services, you probably aren't looking at a case of cybersquatting.

Forms of cybersquatting

There could be various forms of cybersquatting mainly based on the intent of the cybersquatter

·         Typosquatting: Many Cybersquatters reserve common English words, reasoning that sooner or later someone will want to use one for their websites. Another target is mis-typed spellings of popular web sites. Cybersquatters will also regularly comb lists of recently expired domain names, hoping to sell back the domain name to a registrant who inadvertently let his domain name expire.

·         Identity theft: Internet domain name registrations are for a fixed period of time. If the owner of a domain name doesn't re-register the name with an internet registrar prior to the domain's expiration date, then the domain name can be purchased by anybody else after it expires. At this point the registration is considered lapsed. A cybersquatter may use automated software tools to register the lapsed name the instant it is lapsed.

·         Namejacking: It includes the purchase of a famous individual's name as a top-level domain name. A recent example is when Arun Jaitly tried to get his website from the name of arunjaitly.com; he found out that the site is already registered. The whole story can be read here. Setting up a website allows the purchaser to capitalize on any searches done for that name. As the name-jacked domains are set up using non-trademarked names and they have a purpose other than selling the domain name back to an individual, they circumvent the "Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act" (ACPA) laws U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129. Since people frequently search the web to find out information, name jacking provides low-cost web traffic to the name-jacked website. As there is an initial and yearly fee for owning a domain name, some Cybersquatters reserve a long list of names and defer paying for them until forced to - preempting their use by others at no cost to themselves.

·         Brand abuse online: Cybersquatters use variations on trademarked names to draw visitors to their sites. Those sites may contain offensive content or pay-per-click ads, or they may create a false association with the trademark owner or sell competing products. Some may combine offensive content and e-commerce featuring pornographic images or other products.

Protection

Other then moving to the court there are few more policies and law have been established to get protection from the Cybersquatters:

·         Comparing cybersquatting to online extortion, Senator Spencer Abraham, a Michigan Republican, has introduced to Congress the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). This bill, if enacted, would make cybersquatting illegal. Violators would be charged a fine of up to $300,000.

·         The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has also outlined anti-cybersquatting tactics, which have been endorsed by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which licenses the domain name registrars, is working on a process for resolving domain name disagreements outside of the regular court system. Information about initiating a complaint is provided at the ICANN website.

·         The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) is a policy adopted by ICANN that provides a mechanism for trademark owners to obtain domain names from cyber squatters.  All domain name registrars that have the power to grant “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” generic top-level domains must follow the UDRP.  The UDRP provides that before a domain name registrar will cancel, suspend, or transfer a domain name that is the subject of a trademark-based dispute, it must have an agreement signed by the parties, a court order, or an arbitration award.  The UDRP created a streamlined "cyber arbitration" procedure to quickly resolve domain name ownership disputes that involve trademarks.  All owners/registrants of “.com”, “.net”, and “.org” domain names are subject to the UDRP by virtue of the registration agreements agreed to with their registrars at the time of acquiring their domain names

Both of these systems have their advantages, but they must be used properly in order to achieve the desired result.  The UDRP provides a method for quick resolution of a dispute whereas the ACPA allows for an extended legal battle with the potential of large monetary settlements being awarded.  However, both systems help to provide security and structure to the complicated and widespread problem of cyber squatting.  These acts, along with the legal system, are the only protection available to those who wish to defend themselves from cyber squatters. 

Future

Cyber squatting has been an active threat since the early 1990’s and has increased in severity ever since.  The prevention of cyber squatting revolves mainly around two acts, the UDRP and the ACPA. Since cyber squatting is going to shift from larger businesses to small businesses in the future, modifications to the cyber squatting acts will need to be made in order to   increase protection.  The ACPA will need to be modified to protect individuals who own a site similar to a corporation's trademark because currently the act favors big businesses.  Cyber squatting problems are going to continue to develop because of the rapid growth and expansion of the Internet.  The issue cannot simply be ignored or else it may hurt the economy.  It’s important to learn from the victims of cyber squatting so we can prepare ahead of time for the issues to come.


Follow @vijitmishra on Twitter

References:

http://faculty.ist.psu.edu/bagby/Fall05/346F05T8/conclusion.htm

http://www.itbusiness.ca/it/client/en/home/News.asp?id=53682&PageMem=2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersquatting

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/cybersquatting-what-what-can-be-29778.html