341 Patents Transcript
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Factory of the Future?
Factory of the Future? Microsoft alum Nathan Myhrvold runs a firm that doesn't make anything, but it's hoarding the key to a new business age: intellectual property By Brad Stone Newsweek Nov. 22, 2004 issue - The offices of the highly secretive Seattle-area start-up, Intellectual Ventures, are filled with evidence of the multiple hobbies of its polymath founder, Nathan Myhrvold. The multimillionaire former chief technologist at Microsoft is a scientist, so there's a collection of antique microscopes in his office. He is a photographer, so striking pictures of nature adorn all the walls. He is an avid writer, so antique typewriters line the hallway. And since he is also a paleontologist, the full-scale head of a T. rex lords it over the lobby. It's actually a replica of the model used in the second "Jurassic Park" Robbie McClaran for Newsweek film. 'Wild and crazy' guy: Myhrvold The dino's ferociously bared teeth hint at elements of Intellectual Ventures' bold business plan. Myhrvold and his partner, former Microsoft chief software architect Edward Jung, have created the quintessential company for the 21st century. It doesn't actually make anything: it outsources, offshores and offloads nearly every task performed by regular corporations. It has no factories, machine shops or marketing teams. Only patent attorneys populate the quiet hallways. The five-year-old firm's plan is to create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents—exclusive rights to use the inventions—and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products. -
Some Facts of High-Tech Patenting
Some Facts of High-Tech Patenting Michael Webb Nick Short Nicholas Bloom Josh Lerner Working Paper 19-014 Some Facts of High-Tech Patenting Michael Webb Nick Short Stanford University Harvard Kennedy School Nicholas Bloom Josh Lerner Stanford University Harvard Business School Working Paper 19-014 Copyright © 2018 by Michael Webb, Nick Short, Nicholas Bloom, and Josh Lerner Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. Some Facts of High-Tech Patenting Michael Webb, Nick Short, Nicholas Bloom, and Josh Lerner NBER Working Paper No. 24793 July 2018 JEL No. L86,O34 ABSTRACT Patenting in software, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence has grown rapidly in recent years. Such patents are acquired primarily by large US technology firms such as IBM, Microsoft, Google, and HP, as well as by Japanese multinationals such as Sony, Canon, and Fujitsu. Chinese patenting in the US is small but growing rapidly, and world-leading for drone technology. Patenting in machine learning has seen exponential growth since 2010, although patenting in neural networks saw a strong burst of activity in the 1990s that has only recently been surpassed. In all technological fields, the number of patents per inventor has declined near-monotonically, except for large increases in inventor productivity in software and semiconductors in the late 1990s. In most high-tech fields, Japan is the only country outside the US with significant US patenting activity; however, whereas Japan played an important role in the burst of neural network patenting in the 1990s, it has not been involved in the current acceleration. -
THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M
THE DEFENSIVE PATENT PLAYBOOK James M. Rice† Billionaire entrepreneur Naveen Jain wrote that “[s]uccess doesn’t necessarily come from breakthrough innovation but from flawless execution. A great strategy alone won’t win a game or a battle; the win comes from basic blocking and tackling.”1 Companies with innovative ideas must execute patent strategies effectively to navigate the current patent landscape. But in order to develop a defensive strategy, practitioners must appreciate the development of the defensive patent playbook. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”2 Congress attempts to promote technological progress by granting patent rights to inventors. Under the utilitarian theory of patent law, patent rights create economic incentives for inventors by providing exclusivity in exchange for public disclosure of technology.3 The exclusive right to make, use, import, and sell a technology incentivizes innovation by enabling inventors to recoup the costs of development and secure profits in the market.4 Despite the conventional theory, in the 1980s and early 1990s, numerous technology companies viewed patents as unnecessary and chose not to file for patents.5 In 1990, Microsoft had seven utility patents.6 Cisco © 2015 James M. Rice. † J.D. Candidate, 2016, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law. 1. Naveen Jain, 10 Secrets of Becoming a Successful Entrepreneur, INC. (Aug. 13, 2012), http://www.inc.com/naveen-jain/10-secrets-of-becoming-a-successful- entrepreneur.html. -
P106 - Word Count: 2,818
Brian Schnack ([email protected]) Garrett Thompson ([email protected]) Group: P106 - Word Count: 2,818 Patents and Technology The patent system was designed to promote intellectual innovation and to protect inventions from being stolen, allowing small companies to thrive if their ideas are new and innovative. The founding fathers thought it was so important to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” that they wrote it directly into the U.S. Constitution (US Constitution, 8). However in recent years, with patents on programming algorithms and different electronic components, the patent system has started to inhibit innovation. The current methodology of the US patent system does not promote intellectual inventions in software and technology, but instead allows companies to abuse the patent system. Companies misuse the patent system to make money through lawsuits rather than innovation, hurting businesses and ultimately the consumer. Slowly, through the judicial court, things are beginning to shape up but the United States is still a long way away from a patent system that actually does promote intellectual innovation. One large company that uses the broken patent system to their advantage is Intellectual Ventures, a company that attempts to help small time inventors protect their intellectual property by buying their patents, a move they call investing in their inventions. Unfortunately, this is not how it usually plays out, and Intellectual Ventures ends up selling patents to companies who attempt to make money purely by suing other companies who are infringing on the patents that they just bought. Many companies that Intellectual Ventures sells patents to are not even companies, but individuals pretending to be a company who will then use those patents to sue actual companies to make quick and easy money. -
Patents & Legal Expenditures
Patents & Legal Expenditures Christopher J. Ryan, Jr. & Brian L. Frye* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 577 A. A Brief History of University Patents ................................................. 578 B. The Origin of University Patents ........................................................ 578 C. University Patenting as a Function of Patent Policy Incentives ........ 580 D. The Business of University Patenting and Technology Transfer ....... 581 E. Trends in Patent Litigation ................................................................. 584 II. DATA AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 588 III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................. 591 I. INTRODUCTION Universities are engines of innovation. To encourage further innovation, the federal government and charitable foundations give universities grants in order to enable university researchers to produce the inventions and discoveries that will continue to fuel our knowledge economy. Among other things, the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 was supposed to encourage additional innovation by enabling universities to patent inventions and discoveries produced using federal funds and to license those patents to private companies, rather than turning their patent rights over to the government. The Bayh-Dole Act unquestionably encouraged universities to patent inventions and license their patents. -
How Valuable Is Your Patent, Really?
1 2 3 4 • These are factors that go beyond the usual realm of a patent prosecution counsel • broad claims • well supported by spec • clean prosecution history • Timely issuance • Can the patent stand alone as an asset? à How much is the patent worth in the market place? 5 • Life after AIA • Presumption of validity at the district court level is no longer there • Parallel proceedings at PTAB • High rate of IPR institution and claim cancellation (especially at the outset of AIA) • While the application of AIA rules and new processes are being hashed out, presumption of validity is definitely gone. • Case law is always evolving – Pendulum still swinging • Gottschalk v. Benson • Parker v. Flook • Diamond v. Diehr • State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group • In re Bilski • Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International • DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (one patent held as patentable! • Enfish v. Microsoft • Certain PTAB decisions being designated precedential 6 http://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/2016-patent-troll- legislation.aspx http://www.law360.com/articles/836578/the-post-aia-battleground-for-patent- challenges http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=3aad1da2- 08a9-4f14-a147-611b1e39ff75 ITC: Availability of Cease and Desist orders and Limited or General Exclusion Orders; speedy proceedings “anti-patent troll” — i.e., entities that have made a business out of directly challenging patents via IPR for financial gain (“...IPR process is being misused by hedge fund companies whose motive isn't -
Intellectual Ventures Comments
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES" July 3, 2018 By Mail & Email ([email protected]) The Honorable Andrew lancu Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office United States Patent & Trademark Office Mail Stop Patent Board P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Attention Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judges Michael Tierney or Jacqueline Wright Bonilla, PTAB Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 2018. Dear Under Secretary lancu: Intellectual Ventures Management LLC ("Intellectual Ventures") thanks the Director for the opportunity to present its views on the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("Office") Notice of Proposed Rulemak ing entitled "Changes to the Claim Construction Standard for Interpreting Claims in Trial Proceedings Be fore the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" as published in the May 9, 2018 issue of the Federal Register, 83 Fed. Reg. 21,221 ("Notice"). Intellectual Ventures urges the Office to adopt the rules proposed in the Notice. About Intellectual Ventures Intellectual Ventures fosters conception, development, and investment in inventions. It was co-founded by Dr. Nathan Myhrvold, who is also its Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Myhrvold was previously the Chief Tech nology Officer of Microsoft, and he holds a doctorate in theoretical and mathematical physics and a mas ter's degree in mathematical economics from Princeton University, as well as a master's degree in geo physics and space physics and a bachelor's degree in mathematics from the University of California at Los Angeles. He was a postdoctoral fellow in the quantum physics laboratory of Dr. Stephen Hawking at Cambridge University. And he is a named inventor on hundreds of issued patents. -
Tossups by Alice Gh;,\
Tossups by Alice Gh;,\. ... 1. Founded in 1970 with a staff of 35, it now employs more than 700 people and has a weekly audience of over 23 million. The self-described "media industry leader in sound gathering," its ·mission statement declares that its goal is to "work in partnership with member stations to create a more informed public." Though it was created by an act of Congress, it is not a government agency; neither is it a radio station, nor does it own any radio stations. FTP, name this provider of news and entertainment, among whose most well-known products are the programs Morning Edition and All Things Considered. Answer: National £ublic Radio . 2. He's been a nanny, an insurance officer and a telemarketer, and was a member of the British Parachute Regiment, earning medals for service in Northern Ireland and Argentina. One of his most recent projects is finding a new lead singer for the rock band INXS, while his less successful ventures include Combat Missions, The Casino, and The Restaurant. One of his best-known shows spawned a Finnish version called Diili, and shooting began recently on a spinoff starring America's favorite convict. FTP, name this godfather of reality television, the creator of The Apprentice and Survivor. Answer: Mark Burnett 3. A girl named Fern proved helpful in the second one, while Sanjay fulfilled the same role during the seventh. Cars made of paper, plastic pineapples, and plaster elephants have been key items, and participants have been compelled to eat chicken feet, a sheep's head, a kilo of caviar, and four pounds of Argentinian barbecue, although not all in the same season. -
Radio-Aig for PDF CS6.Indd 1 7/23/12 1:00 PM
radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 1 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 2 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 3 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 4 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 5 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 6 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 7 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 8 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 9 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 10 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 11 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 12 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 13 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 14 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 15 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 16 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 17 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 18 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 19 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 20 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 21 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 22 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 23 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 24 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 25 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 26 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 27 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 28 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 29 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 30 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 31 7/23/12 1:00 PM radio-aIG for PDF CS6.indd 32 7/23/12 1:00 PM STAFF In April 1999 (when this comic was written) This American Life was produced by Ira Glass, Julie Snyder, Alix Spiegel and Nancy Updike, with help from Todd Bachmann, Jorge Just and Sylvia Lemus. -
The Opinion in Support of the Decision Being Entered Today Was
[email protected] Paper No. 18 571-272-7822 Entered: July 23, 2018 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ EBAY INC. and PAYPAL, INC., Petitioner, v. XPRT VENTURES, LLC, Patent Owner. ____________ Case CBM2017-00027 Patent 7,483,856 B2 ____________ Before JAMESON LEE, KEVIN F. TURNER, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge. FINAL WRITTEN DECISION Covered Business Method Patent Review 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73 CBM2017-00027 Patent 7,483,856 B2 I. INTRODUCTION eBay Inc. and PayPal, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”), filed a Petition requesting a review under the transitional program for covered business method patents of claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 34, 35, 45, and 48 (“challenged claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 7,483,856 B2 (Ex. 1001, “’856 patent”). Paper 1 (“Pet.”). Patent Owner, XPRT Ventures, LLC (“Patent Owner”), did not file a Preliminary Response. We preliminarily determined that the information presented in the Petition established that the ’856 patent qualifies as a covered business method patent that is eligible for review, and that it was more likely than not that the challenged claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Paper 8. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 324 and § 18(a) of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284, 329–31 (2011), we instituted a covered business method patent review as to all of the challenged claims. Id. Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (Paper 13 (“PO Resp.”)), and Petitioner filed a Reply (Paper 14 (“Pet. -
CPI Antitrust Chronicle January 2015 (2)
CPI Antitrust Chronicle January 2015 (2) Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One: Can Antitrust Law and Economics Get Us Past the Trolls? Michelle D. Miller (WilmerHale) & Janusz A. Ordover (New York University) www.competitionpolicyinternational.com Competition Policy International, Inc. 2015© Copying, reprinting, or distributing this article is forbidden by anyone other than the publisher or author. CPI Antitrust Chronicle January 2015 (2) Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One: Can Antitrust Law and Economics Get Us Past the Trolls? Michelle D. Miller & Janusz A. Ordover1 I. INTRODUCTION Patent trolls are currently under intense scrutiny by lawmakers, regulators, academics, and industry players. The term “patent troll” generally refers to patent owners that do not make or sell products, and instead focus on licensing and litigation to monetize their acquired patents. These entities are also known as “patent assertion entities” (PAEs)2, and in this paper, we use the terms interchangeably. Infringement suits brought by trolls have exploded over the last few years—in 2012 patent trolls accounted for 62 percent of all patent infringement suits,3 and recent studies estimate that trolls imposed direct costs of $29 billion in 2011.4 And these costs appear to be deterring investment in new businesses and technologies—one study estimated that venture capital funding was $8.1 billion lower over a five-year period than it would have been without PAE enforcement.5 Although most commentators have concluded that many patent troll business models lead to market inefficiencies, it is not clear what can be done in the short term to address the wide variety of concerns that troll activities raise.6 Various legislative solutions have been suggested 1 Michelle Miller is a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Group of WilmerHale. -
"Game Changer" July 8, 2011
This American Life Episode 440 "Game Changer" July 8, 2011 This transcript contains material from the podcast/online version of the story which was not part of the broadcast version due to time constraints. Back in December of 2007, Terry Engelder, a geologist at Penn State University, put a piece of scrap paper from the recycling bin under his desk, and made a calculation. Terry: What you see here are numbers for thickness and then aerial extent, and porocity is part of this calculation. Ah, porocity. Engelder was trying to figure out the answer to a very, very basic question – something someone had asked him just in passing. Terry: He said “Oh, by the way, how much gas is in the Marcellus?” And I hadn’t actually thought of that. Exactly how much natural gas was trapped in the Marcellus, which is a giant rock formation - a kind of rock called shale - that runs underneath Pennsylvania, where Engelder was actually sitting, and New York, and into Ohio, New Jersey, West Virginia and Maryland. And which we now know, thanks to Engelder, is the second largest natural gas field in the world, the largest outside the Mideast. Terry: And it just so happened that no one, at least in the public domain, up to that particular point in time had actually sat down and done the calculation. And so I found out and was astounded by the numbers. His result? Fifty trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It sounded impossible. Engelder went online to see what the U.S. Geological Survey was estimating for the Marcellus.