28. Patent for eating counter apparatus for mobile vending vehicle and seating apparatus therefor

There is patent for eating counter apparatus for mobile vending vehicle and seating apparatus therefor issued by the USPTO. This patent is for an eating counter apparatus for mounting to a three or four-wheeled, motorized or pedal-powered vehicle used as at least part of a mobile food vending eatery whereby to utilize the vehicle to provide an eating area for the patrons of the eatery. The eating counter apparatus also may mount a seating apparatus arranged to support seated patrons about the vehicle as they eat at the counter of the eatery vehicle.

This patent, although issued, seems to violate the non-obvious requirement of patents. The idea of this patent really is a combination of 2 commonly seen things: a food stall, and a food truck. Such a simple combination seems quite obvious to a general person. Also linked to this idea of non-obviousness is novelty. Because it is such an easy combination, it is highly likely that such an idea has been thought of before and documented. 

With this idea being non-obvious and not novel, it seems highly like that this patent could be invalidated easily when the owner of this patent sues truck vendors for any infringement. 

27. Stupid Patents: Method of swinging on a swing

A patent was issued by the USPTO for a method of swing on a swing, in which a user positioned on a standard swing suspended by two chains from a substantially horizontal tree branch induces side to side motion by pulling alternately on one chain and then the other.

When first hearing about this patent, many questions of the validity comes up. Firstly, who would the inventor of this patent go after for cases of infringement? The children playing the swings will be the one who infringe the patent, but it is not realistic that  the inventor sue every child who did that. In addition, the inventor cannot go after the people who installed the swing, or the people who made the swings because they did not infringe on the patent.

The non-obviousness and novelty of this patent is also in doubt. It seems that this method may be considered obvious because there are only a few ways you can move a swing. You can move it sideways, up and down, or rotate it with respect to a different axis. This method then falls under the rotation because when one chain is pulled, the swing rotates vertically. Although it seems like an idea that is out of the box, it really is not because of the limited options there are to move the swing. When it comes to novelty, it further does not make sense because even a little kid can accidentally pull a chain on one side because of his/her playfulness, and see the effects. This then causes it to not be a new idea anymore. 

With this being said, it seems like this patent for swinging is unrealistic and a stupid one. No one can ever earn royalties from having this patent, and it should not even have been valid to begin with. I wonder how it was first approved.

26. Nokia vs HTC

Recent discussions in class has really struck me when I came across this article regarding the battle between Nokia and HTC. We talked about how language is really important in determining infringement, and we analyzed the different preambles of patents. In the case with Nokia, the German court has not been kind with Nokia in granting injunction against HTC because its patent is still pending. In addition, HTC has also been invalidating Nokia's patents as a form of defense. Most invalidation comes because of the wordings of the claims, and it is said that HTC has been doing a good job so far defending itself.

However, as Nokia is in a similar position of what we mentioned as patent trolls in class. Nokia does not worry about losing those litigations. They can lose countless amounts of patent cases, but all Nokia needs is to win just one highly impactful patent, or a few that are collectively very impactful. To Nokia, it is like a soccer game, where it doesnt matter how many times you try to score because the final number of goals is what that matters.

This strategy is then even made easier for Nokia because of its patent portfolio which has enormous breadth and depth. They can easily bring new assertions to HTC, and it is a matter of time that Nokia will win this one major lawsuit against HTC. This can be said to be a sure-win strategy, but it will just be time and resources consuming. It is then up to either party to try to resolve this situation where it is a lose-lose for both, and settle for a much beneficial outcome.

25. Motorola: a mistake by Google

Just last week, the court has reached a FRAND rate for Motorola's SEP and this has served a huge blow to Google. This is because the FRAND rate will affect Google's ability to generate licensing revenues, which they had optimistically accounted for when purchasing Motorola. This inability to generate as much revenues meant that Google's ROI from its Motorola purchase has dropped significantly. In fact, it is calculated that it will take around 7000 years to make back the $12.5Billion it paid from licensing the SEPs to Microsoft. This of course will be impossible, because the patents would have expired way before then.

Apart from this poor revenue stream from licensing, Google additionally burdens its financials with funding lawsuits. They are involved in patent lawsuits where its expected returns if they win do not surpass its cost of litigation by much.

This all may not make financial sense, but I am sure there is a strategic reasoning behind these moves that Google has taken. Google can definitely afford such a loss in the short term, and these deals might allow it to gain much more in the long term through signals of strength sent to its competitors. Motorola might also provide other strategic benefits aside from those patent related.

24. FRAND or foe?

Federal judge has set a FRAND rate for Microsoft's licensing of Google's SEP. Microsoft had previously brought a lawsuit against Google's Motorola for a breach of FRAND contract. It feels that the initial royalty demand of Motorola was "blatantly unreasonable and constituted a breach of Motorola's FRAND pledge. In the first trial last year, an ITC judge had concluded that "Motorola  was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a FRAND license" to Microsoft. 

A FRAND agreement is a win-win situation that allows companies involved to all benefit. Each and every companies in the FRAND network can gain from the licensing fees, and can gain from the ability to innovate because it is assured of the opportunity to license a patent from another company in the network that it knows would be essential for its development. Although there is a limit to how much licensing fees can be obtained, the benefits of being able to access other patents, and innovate far outweighs the cost. 

In addition, a company does not earn money from preventing or suing others from using its technology or infringing its patents. It earns money from licensing their patents and therefore, FRAND is generally largely beneficial for companies. FRAND also allows companies to make friends, rather than foes because of the openness in sharing and controlled licensing price. 

After this lawsuit between Microsoft and Google, it will then be interesting to see if they are friends under FRAND or foes with or without FRAND.

23. More help needed for USPTO

The USPTO is signaling to people that it will be cutting its spending with the Commerce Department mentioning that the USPTO is continuing its effort to develop a sequestration plan. This plan is said to be work in progress, and its details are still forthcoming. Sending this signal of budget cut means a huge deal to innovators and parties that are considering applying for patents or even disputing patents. The lack of funds will delay patents or trademarks examinations, further extending the wait-time for any process. 

That being said, the USPTO is still identifying potential savings and projects that could be managed in a way that minimizes the impact of this budget cut on both its services, and its employees. Non-examination related spending will be the first to focus on, so as not to affect the standards and performance of the examinations as much. 

This reduction of spending, although having a negative connotation, is not as bad as it seems if considered over a few years. The USPTO's current budget has increased by almost 50% over the past 3 years, and the sequester reduction is minuscule compared to the size of this increase. However, firms should still expect some form of change in the standard or service provided, which is most likely translated to longer wait times. This then bodes ill for companies awaiting patent issuance or litigations status, that are really time sensitive.

22. Apple having fiercer relations with Samsung

Apple has won Samsung in California claim construction battle on all patents except one SEP. A claim construction is a huge component of the lawsuit for any patent as it sets the definition of the the words in the claim. As infringement requires all elements in the claim to be violated, setting the definition of such elements in Apple's favor would give a huge advantage to Apple in its case for the patent lawsuit. Apart from proving infringement, winning a claim construction battle also reduces the chances of having the patent invalidated. As mentioned last week with the case of the slide-to-unlock in Germany, one alternative of fighting back against a lawsuit for patent infringement is to try invalidate the patent. Laying out the 'rules' of the patent well would then aid against having any patent invalidated.

It is also interesting to note that companies sometimes do contradicting actions in hopes to win against patent infringement. As in the case of Samsung and Apple, Samsung had consistently tried to narrow the scope of the claims in order to have a better basis for disputing infringement. However, sometimes, defendants will broaden them instead, so that they can argue that it is too broad and request for invalidation. Samsung's efforts were, however, rejected by the court, and it seems like it will get much harder when going for the trial next year to dispute infringement, because of the claim construction.