Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering,

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 5: Mutual Assent
Advertisements

MELISSA ASFAHANI Patent Attorney El Paso, TX
Stefan Geißler TEMIS Chief Innovation Officer, Managing Director TEMIS Deutschland The Luxid® Community – Collaboration in the Language Technology Industry.
WISACCA – 2014 Annual Conference
V. COPPER INNOVATIONS GROUP ALPEX COMPUTER CORPORATION Rachel Skifton & Tara Miles.
Apple v. Samsung in Japan Tampa, Florida January 2013 Dr. Shoichi Okuyama President Japan Patent Attorneys Association.
RJMorris - Genetics Dept Retreat - Stanford University1September 18, 2008 by Roberta J. Morris, Ph.D., Esq. Lecturer, Stanford University Law School Member.
BLAW 2010 Patent Project Part 1I. Why do we have patent laws?
INTRODUCTION TO PATENT RIGHTS The Business of Intellectual Property
Esha Ranganath IEOR 190G: Patent Engineering Sharp vs. Samsung LG Philips LCD vs. Chunghwa Picture Tubes.
Patent Portfolio Management By: Michael A. Leonard II.
Software patents, innovation and competition policy Rishab Aiyer Ghosh & Luc Soete MERIT, Universiteit Maastricht.
Patent Law A Career Choice For Engineers Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25, 2008 Azadeh Khadem Registered Patent Attorney November 25,
Renaissance of U.S. Design Patents Steven M. Gruskin Sughrue Mion, PLLC Washington, D.C. PLI Seminar, New York City January 31,
CS 5060, Fall 2009 Digital Intellectual Property Law Drafting a software patent application October 19th Lecture.
The BlackBerry Patent Infringement Case.  Patent Troll: A company with no products and little infrastructure that amass patents with the intention of.
Patents Copyright © Jeffrey Pittman. Pittman - Cyberlaw & E- Commerce 2 Legal Framework of Patents The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8:
Vs. Miguel Chan UC Berkeley IEOR 190G March 2009.
1 Introduction to Software Engineering Lecture 38 – Intellectual Property.
Divided Infringement Patent Law News Flash!
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
©2002 Marger Johnson & McCollom PC, All Rights Reserved. Intellectual Property Presentation for 2002 High Technology Protection Summit Presented by Alexander.
Anatomy of a Patent Claims and Claim Charts Infringement
OSS Google Smartphone Patent War The Patent Process Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
Agustin Del Rio CalNet ID: Date: October 27th, 2008.
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Wireless Mobile Devices: The Smartphone Patent War.
Joshua Miller IEOR 190G Spring 2009 UC Berkeley College of Engineering 3/30/2009 DSU Medical Corp. v. JMS Co. December 13, 2006 Patent No. 5,112,311 (“the.
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Wireless Mobile Devices Patents.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal.
Wireless Mobile Devices Patents Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Week 3.
Of Apple Patent US 7,479,949 and US 7,469,381 UC Berkeley, Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology IEOR 190G Patent Engineering, April 27, 2009 Abhishek.
Of Apple Patent US 7,479,949 and US 7,469,381 UC Berkeley, Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology IEOR 190G Patent Engineering, April 20, 2009 George.
What is a Patent Apple’s iOS and Smartphone Patent War Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering,
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Week 2 Wireless Mobile Devices Patents.
Patenting Wireless Technology (cont) Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Wireless Mobile Devices Patents.
Hot Issues in Patent Law Steven G. Saunders
USER INTERFACE.
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 6: Validity and Infringement 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 6 Dr. Tal.
Patenting Wireless Technology Week 2 Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
Basics of Patent Infringement Litigation UC Berkeley Patent Innovation and Strategy Dr. Tal Lavian November 24, 2008.
Patent Engineering, Smartphone and Wireless Technologies, The Smartphone Patent War Dr. Tal Lavian
Patents VI Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents Class 16 Notes Law 507 | Intellectual Property | Spring 2004 Professor Wagner.
Intellectual Property (Quinn Chapter 4) CS4001 Kristin Marsicano.
Operating Systems for Wireless Mobile Devices Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Why does.
Patenting Wireless Technology Week 5 Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET.
© COPYRIGHT DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Post Grant Proceedings Before the USPTO and Litigation Strategies Under the AIA Panelists:David.
Digi-Brush Patent Liability Presenter: Caleb Ayew-ew Team Members: Josh Long Katie Schremser.
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Administrative Notes: Week 1.
Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET Course Review.
10/13/08JEN ROBINSON - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER Claim Construction Order An order issued by the court in which the court construes the meaning of disputed.
1 Patent Claim Interpretation under Art. 69 EPC – Should prosecution history be used to interpret the patent? presented at Fordham 19th Annual Conference.
Intellectual Property Patent – Infringement. Infringement 1.Literal Infringement 2.The Doctrine of Equivalents 35 U.S.C. § 271 –“(a) Except as otherwise.
Vandana Mamidanna.  Patent is a sovereign right to exclude others from:  making, using or selling the patented invention in the patented country. 
Legal and Ethical Issues in Computer Security Csilla Farkas
Civil Law Civil Law – is also considered private law as it is between individuals. It may also be called “Tort” Law, as a tort is a wrong committed against.
Chapter 18 The Legal Aspects of Sport Marketing. Objectives To introduce the key legal concepts and issues that affect the marketing of the sport product.
Tues. Nov. 26. exceptions to issue preclusion In initial action bound party… - could not get appellate review - had lower quality procedures - had burden.
Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.
Introducing Scratch Learning resources for the implementation of the scenario
Nuts and Bolts of Patent Law presented by: Shamita Etienne-Cummings April 5, 2016.
© 2012 Copyright Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC William C. Rowland Fang Liu Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Introduction to Intellectual Property.
Apple vs. Samsung COSC 380 By: Adolphe Ngabo. Roadmap About Samsung About Apple Apple & Samsung Patent Lawsuit Features of Products in question Outcome.
America Invents Act: Litigation Related Provisions
Patents VI Infringement & the Doctrine of Equivalents
P1: Smart Phone Interaction Workaround
Apple v. Samsung: Product Design
Chapter 4: Patents and Trade Secrets in the Information Age.
Presentation transcript:

Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity Dr. Tal Lavian UC Berkeley Engineering, CET

Last Week: Types of Patents 2 TypeIs forTerm#s UtilityFunction, use20 years6,214,874 DesignAppearance14 yearsD202,331 PlantAsexually reproduced 20 yearsPP10123

Patent Infringement – Basics What does it mean to infringe a patent?  Manufacture, import, sell, or offer to sell patented technology  Courts’ test for infringement has two steps:  Analyze the claims to construe their meaning (a.k.a. “claim construction”)  Attempt to apply the claims to the accused infringing product (a.k.a. seeing if the claims “read on” the product’s features) 7

Patent Infringement–Doctrine of Equivalents Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE) – a product may still infringe a patent without directly infringing its claims if it  performs substantially the same function  in substantially the same way  to yield substantially the same result 8

Patent Infringement–Doctrine of Equivalents (cont.) Purpose of DoE is to prevent potential infringers from making insignificant changes to a patented product in order to circumvent the claims Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents  Essentially, even if a product directly infringes on a patent’s claims, if it does so in a substantially different way to achieve a substantially different result, then it doesn’t infringe  Example: you invent a method of curing cancer using Edison’s light bulb  would not infringe  This defense is very rare 9

Patent Infringement Most of the time:  Scenario:  Company A thinks Company’s B’s product infringes, sues B  B’s legal counsel perform due diligence; counsel says, “You’ll probably lose.”  B agrees to settle with A and either Stops producing the infringing product License A’s patent in order to continue infringing Sometimes:  Scenario:  Same as above, but B decides to go to court to defend their product 2

(Direct) Patent Infringement–Options A sues B. B decides to take the case to trial. What are B’s options? 3

Patent Infringement–Defense: Patent Invalidity Argue for patent invalidity:  Perform prior art search to find prior art that invalidates the patent claims Can show that A shouldn’t have gotten patent in the first place  Use claim construction to determine the breadth of the claims Argue that claims are too broad, invalid  Demonstrate inequitable conduct on A’s behalf by providing evidence for clear intent to deceive the Patent Office  Show that A’s patent has expired 4

Patent Infringement–Defense: Non-infringing Use Methods of demonstrating non-infringing use:  Perform an infringement analysis comparing A’s patent claims to B’s product features If not every element of one of A’s patent’s claims found in B’s product, then B is not infringing  Prove that B already had a license for A’s patent Perhaps B already licensing A’s technology from C, in which case there’s no infringement 5

Patent Infringement–Uncommon Defenses Prior user defense  Applies only to business method patents  If B can prove use of the patented process at least one year before its application was filed, B is not infringing  Must be an “innocent infringer” i.e., did not know of the patent Laches  A is not allowed to assert patent rights if it can be shown A delayed enforcement to increase potential damages from B 6

Patent Infringement – Slide-to-Unlock Hypothetical Assume Apple sued Samsung for infringing the slide- to-unlock patent with its Galaxy Tab. First, the court would construe the claim language in a Markman hearing to determine the meaning of key terms Second, the court would use a claim chart to analyze the degree to which the slide-to-unlock patent’s claim read on the Galaxy Tab’s unlock system 10

Slide-to-Unlock Patent –Claim Chart Element-by-element breakdown of a patent’s claims compared to an allegedly infringing product  Often used by prosecution for infringement analysis Very useful for visualizing which aspects of the claims are read upon by potentially infringing devices 12

US# — Slide to Unlock — Claim 1 1. (1.0) A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: (1.1) detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; (1.2) continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display (1.2.1)in accordance with movement of the contact (1.2.2) while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, (1.2.3) wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object ( ) with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and (1.3) unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

Slide-to-unlock patent claim 1Samsung Galaxy Tab A method of unlocking a hand held electronic device device including a touch sensitive display the method comprising: (Each of these rows would be filled with Galaxy Tab features that read upon the claim elements in the opposite column) e.g., The Galaxy Tab has a touch screen that detects contact and which displays unlock images. detecting a contact with the touch sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; The Galaxy Tab has a touch screen that detects contact. Detects contact at the beginning of the unlock image. continuously moving the unlock image on the touch sensitive display in accordance with movement of the contact while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained wherein the unlock image is a graphical interactive user interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and e.g., To unlock the Galaxy Tab, the user must slide her finger across the touch screen, maintaining continuous contact while interacting with the unlock image. unlocking the hand held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch sensitive display. e.g., Once the user completes sliding the unlock image from the starting point to the ending point on the touch screen, the Galaxy Tab is unlocked. (To prove infringement, need to show each and every element of a claim.)

Slide-to-Unlock Hypothetical (cont.) The claim chart must clearly indicate that the Galaxy Tab infringes Apple’s patent What can Samsung do to defend itself? 12

Slide-to-Unlock Patent–Prior Art Prior art listed as other patents under “References Cited” However, other undiscovered or undisclosed prior art is often revealed in court  Example: if Apple sued for slide-to-unlock infringement in the U.S., defendant might cite Neonode N1m (early smartphone released in 2005) as prior art in an attempt to invalidate patent 16

Slide-to-Unlock Patent – Prior Art (cont.) 17 Slide-to-unlock function four minutes in

Patent Infringement – Hypothetical Samsung Defense Samsung could:  Try to invalidate the patent with prior art, such as the Neonode N1m’s unlocking system  Argue that the patent’s claims are too broad  Look for evidence of inequitable conduct on Apple’s behalf while filing for the slide-to-unlock patent  Argue that the Galaxy Tab doesn’t include every element of the claims What do you think would be the result of this case? 13

Summary Infringments: DoE vs Reverse DoE Defense of patent infringement:  Invalidity: prior art, claims, inequitable conduct  Non-infringment: infringement analysis, licensing, prior use, Laches