Korean NPE's

The majority of international intellectual property disputes regarding Korean companies also involved non-practicing entities, (NPEs). According to the Korean Intellectual Property Protection nAssociation, there were 300 disputes last year, with lawsuits involving NPE's accounting for 81% of them, which was a decrease of 12% from the previous year.

A total of 114 of the suits against NPEs were in the information and communications sector, followed by electrical and electronics (84) and equipment manufacturing (30). By field of technology, computers and mobile represented 31 percent and 21 percent of the cases, respectively. They were followed by AV (13 percent), basic communications processes (11 percent), semiconductors (5 percent), and control (5 percent). In the meantime, the total number of industrial disputes decreased 19 percent from a year earlier to 7,585 last year, and the number of those involved with NPEs dropped 35 percent to 2,856. The ratio of the latter to the former fell from 47 percent to 38 percent between 2013 and 2014, too.

While the Korean government is looking to instill regulations monitoring NPEs, any substantial progress has yet to be made.

Beating Patent Trolls

When targeted by a patent troll, companies normally are faced with one of two options. The first being succumbing to the NPE's demands and paying a hefty fine or royalty. This is the more frequently seen course of action. The second option is for the company to bring the patent litigation issue to court, a extremely costly and time consuming act that deters most firms. But not Chris Hulls, founder and CEO of the company Life360 who successfully fought and won against a patent troll. He attributes his success to 4 key steps.

"Go Nuclear"
Patent trolls hate being accused publicly. 90% of the threat a patent troll poses is in the initial intimidation of their accusation. The majority of the time firms simply bow down to their demands. Mr. Hulls however directly combated the patent troll head on, publicizing AGIS. Inc, the patent troll's law firm, to both the media and industry, negating much of the patent trolls intimidation presence.

"Share Information and Resources"
Life360 was not alone in their battle against AGIS. Inc. Crowdsourcing all of the information from the tech community, Life360 announced free legal support for another tech startups with less than $25 million in funding who had also been targeted by AGIS. This initiative solved two purposes. First, it drew even more attention to AGIS's cases and the meritless claim against Life360. Secondly, it sent a strong message to both the startup and NPE industry, that Life 360 will not only stand up for itself, but for others as well.

"Go with your gut and commit to it" 
As a entrepreneur, or a CEO of a fledgling startup, it can often be hard to justify a combative course of action. But in the end, you always have to remember you are fighting the good fight. "There were some advisors who encouraged me to settle, so I wouldn't have this costly distraction," but Chris Hulls ignore his advisors and took AGIS head on, eventually winning the settlement. You are far less likely to become a target if you have a prior record of victory against patent trolls. Keep victory in site, know what you are fighting for, and give it 100%.

What is a NPE

What is a NPE? A NPE stands for Non-practicing entity, or more commonly known as patent trolls.  NPE's are a highly controversial topic, both in their practice and their contribution to society.  NPE's are defined as entities that earn or plan to earn a majority of their revenue from licensing or enforcement of its patents. As you can imagine, this business model has had serious implications on companies who's products rely heavily on innovation, both from themselves and 3rd parties. As NPE's do not sell products themselves, they are immune to counter-assertion from whichever company they accuse, one of the main settlers in patent disputes. For a company,  a lawsuit from a NPE can be extremely costly and stressful, where they must decide between either succumbing to the NPE's allegations and fines, are engaging in a long costly legal dispute. 

NPE's can take many different forms. Some companies are choose to license their patents to others with more knowledge and resources to better monetize their advancements. Others instead prefer to sell the patent outright, and avoid the legal hassle of royalties. Many NPE's are given a bad reputation due to the all publicity regarding patent trolls. However many NPE's are engaged in very legitimate business; companies who are unable to capitalize on their research and prefer to sell it. This is a important factor to keep in mind when evaluating NPE's in the workforce. 

Fixing the Patent Troll System

Just recently top lawyer, Mark Griffin, testified in front of lawmakers that companies spend millions to scare away patent trolls. Others who cannot afford such deterrents are forced to settle, both of which are unnecessary taxes on innocent operating companies.  He was joined by CEOs of a credit union and app company, who also related horror stories of patent-based face-offs. The focus of the hearing was to encourage Congress to address the serious issue of patent trolls, who have plagued US companies for years despite numerous attempts by the courts and lawmakers. 

Walls that pee Back

Researchers in Hamburg have developed a world changing invention, walls that pee back. Nightclubs have recently began coating the nightclub walls with hydrophobic paint, that causes urine to bounce back on the unsuspecting leaker. The invention was originally designed by Nissan to protect their cars from mud and dirt, but was later found to be just as effective against human fluids. While the costs of the invention run about $700 to cover just six square feet, public urination has long since been a problem in Germany with much public outcry for a solution. 

Patent Obviousness: Online Research

The article I used for this post is linked here.


What is Obviousness:
The article I chose to evaluate was from a patent innovation sight called IpWatchDogs. The term of obviousness was set forth by the United States Supreme Court 50 years ago in the Graham v. John Deere case, which solidified non-obviousness as a key factor in determining patentability. Prior to the Graham v. John Deere case the benchmark had been the KSR v. Teleflex case, which defined obviousness as the existence of two previous inventions that would constitute the innovation. The courts to that point also employed a teaching, suggesting or motivation test to determine obviousness If the invention did not teach, suggest, or motivate, it was a obvious invention. The test was eventually thrown out for being too restrictive.

Now there exist 6 rationale a court can reject a patent basis on:

The other rationales available to the examiner are:

1. If the invention a product of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results the invention is obvious.
2. If the invention is created through a substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results the invention is obvious.
3. If the invention is achieved by using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way the invention is obvious.
4. If the invention is created by applying a known improvement technique in a way that would yield predictable results the invention is obvious.
5. If the invention is achieved from choosing a finite number of identifiable, predictable solutions that have a reasonable expectation to succeed the invention is obvious.
6. If known work in one filed of endeavor prompts variations based on design incentives or market forces and the variations are predictable to one of skill in the art the invention is obvious.

These are the laws and rules that constituted the definition of obviousness before its culmination into what we have today.

Patent Obviousness: Youtube

For the purpose of this blog, I evaluated this video clip

According to the video, for a invention to be patentable it must be both novel, and non-obvious. "Non-obvious means whatever is different about your invention, can't be an obvious leap." The patent invention must contain a unexpectedness that would not be obvious to someone in the field.  In layman terms, it cannot be an invention in which someone in the field is able to identify and do, but just haven't done it yet. One way to distinguish a difference is to compare the invention to its closest competitors in the field. However this difference can often be highly subjective and is best left to those who work in the patent offices.

Patent Analysis Part 3

Anticipation and Obviousness of Patent: Beverage cup sleeving system and method 

(US 20080078824 A1) and Thermal coffee cup (US 2661889 A)

Anticipation: Beverage cup sleeving system

According to the Legal Information Institute  "In patent law, anticipation refers to the prior invention or disclosure of the claimed invention by another, or the inventor's own disclosure of the claimed invention by publication, sale, or offer to sell prior to the inventor's application for a patent. [Essentially], if someone else has known about or used the invention before the patent applicant applies for a patent, that patent applicant will not be entitled to a patent." From my personal perspective, I believe the beverage club sleeving system lacks anticipation and should therefore be invalidated as a patent. 

From what we have observed with the numerous patents we evaluated, we can see this particular patent includes many of the same claims as its predecessors: a conical layer of insulation, open top and bottom, exterior and interior surface etc. However none of these claims vary in any meaningful way from the patents before it. In anticipation sense, a variant of this patent has already been known and used by consumers. Therefore it is my opinion this invention should not qualify as its own unique patent.

Obviousness: Thermal coffee cup 

"A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained... if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains." In layman terms, a patent can not be an advancement so minimal that a reasonable person could have created it. This criteria has been utilized many times in the past for numerous petty patent applications, such as the New York man who attempted to patent the stick. 

In terms of the patent regarding the thermal coffee cup (filed in 1948) I believed this application does fulfill the criteria of obviousness. One obvious sign of this is the fact the patent application only includes one paragraph of claim, displaying a lack of necessity to specify numerous details to separate itself from earlier inventions. The claim itself is rather broad, specifying the container properties, shape, and texture nuances. Based on the broadness of the claim and lack of similar products in the market at the time, I would quality this patent as being non-obvious. 

Patent Analysis Part 2

Personal Patent Analysis

In this post I provide my own personal insight on the anticipation and obviousness of the beverage sleeve patent list.

To recap, for a patent to be approved, it must be deemed non-obvious. Obvious as a term means the patent must not be obviously related to previous inventions before it, and must show a significant improvement to be patentable as a separate invention. In my personal opinion, very few of these show significant improvement to warrant its own patent and I will explain one. Apart from the thermal coffee cup which I believe is unique enough to warrant its own patent,  all of the patents regarding sleeves have the same functionality and structure.

From the initial patent in 2001 to the most recent in 2010, you find the majority of claims are similar and unchanged across the years; specification of a conical shape, flexibility of the sleeve, top and bottom hole for the coffee cup, insulator properties. From my own observation, the only major difference I could discern over the years was the change from paper material to silicon like substitute, to improve reuse and washability, and the change to a clear sleeve as opposed to solid. Are these two factors non-obvious enough to warrant their own patent? 

I will first address the change in material. While newly discovered alloys and chemicals are patentable, they are so because they were previously a undiscovered compound that was discovered after years of painstaking research. However once patented, very rarely are they allowed to be repatented for a specific use. There is no such patent to use copper in electric wires as well as pennies in US currency. The same logic can be applied here. Simply because a already discovered material, is used in a already patented invention, does not make it a completely new invention in my opinion while the fundamental use of the product has not changed. I would disagree. 

Patents and Applications

Issued Patents
Here I chose to evaluate 3 patents which I believe stood out to me the most and were least redundant. 

Insulating sleeve

US 6343735 B1

Filed in 2000 and approved in 2002, this patent regards to a invention known as the insulating sleeve. Previously coffee had been served in insulated cups such as styrofoam which provided excellent insulating in separating heat from the wearer's hands. however as such plastic cups have fallen out of favor due to environmental reasons, a new invention was required to protect drinker's hands. Enter the insulating sleeve. The sleeve in question is, as stated by the claims, an insulating container holder for a container having a sidewall,"  which is flexible and adaptable to the shape of the cup while still maintain insulation. 

Thermal coffee cup

US 2661889 A

One of the oldest inventions on the list, this invention took 5 years to be approved from 1948 to 1953. Unlike the previous coffee cups of the era, this one is unique in the fact that a portion of the cap is able to be torn away, allowing both heat and liquid to escape. However the majority of the cap is to remain on, allowing for the retention of heat. This patent was relatively simple, with only one major claim.

Insulator sleeve for a beverage container 

US 7922031 B1

The latest approved patent on the list, the insulator sleeve was filed in 2006 and approved only a year later. With the increase in popularity of numerous coffee chains such as Seattle's Best, Starbucks, and Peets, the number of coffee cups disposed of has increased dramatically, along with their disposable sleeves. This invention aims to reduce the amount of waste created by disposable sleeves. Unlike the patents before it, this claim specifies the sleeve is to be made of, clear material durable material (possibly silicon), allowing for wash and reuse along with the ability to read print underneath the sleeve.