FameBit acquired by Google

Google recently announced its acquisition of FameBit, a marketplace that connects brands, influencers, and creators with YouTube and other social networking sites to sponsor their content. This is indeed a huge step for Google as this combination would increase the availability of branded content opportunities and bring more revenue to YouTube. However, YouTube said that the FameBit acquisition does not mean that it will be preferred over other digital marketing agencies and services. YouTube’s Ariel Bardin (VP, Product Management – Google Payment) said “Creators will always have the choice in how they work with brands, and there are many great

Continue reading »

$22 Million Verdict: Cellular Communications Equipment wins demonstrative victory against Apple Inc.

After finding that Apple willfully infringed on a patent, EDTX has adjured Apple to pay $22 million to Cellular Communications Equipment LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research. CCE holds a portfolio of telecommunications patents, mostly into Long-Term Evolution (LTE) technologies. Attorneys from Caldwell Cassady & Curry, a high-stakes civil litigation firm specializing in patent infringement and co-founder disputes, represented CCE in the Eastern District of Texas case. The lawsuit, filed in January 2014, accused Apple of selling multiple products that infringe upon the U.S. Patent No. 8,055,820. The patent is titled ”Apparatus, system, and method for designating a buffer status

Continue reading »

False Testimony Leads to Triple Damages Award by EDTX against Samsung

Samsung Electronics was punished with a $21 million enhanced damages award after finding egregious willful infringement of patents held by Imperium IP Holdings of the Cayman Islands. Judge Mazzant cited the US Supreme Court’s decision this June in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics while making his determination to triple the damages. At Halo, the majority opinion held that the two-step Seagate test is inconsistent with § 284, which has no explicit limit or condition on when enhanced damages are appropriate. Imperium IP Holdings v. Samsung Electronics in E.D. Tex. is the first case to apply with Halo standard for awarding enhanced damages. The original complaint was filed on

Continue reading »

Tips from Experts: For Better IDS Management

  Eliminate Unnecessary Cost: 1. Review the materiality to the patentability of existing claims: It is important to review the reference for materiality to the patentability of existing claims by the attorneys/applicant before the submission. Also, perform a good prior-art or pre-filing search to identify all the relevant references and cite them, which can avoid RCE fee at the notice of allowance stage. 2. File the IDS within the first three months: An IDS can be filed at no extra cost within 3 months from the filing date of a national/original application (other than a continued prosecution application) or before

Continue reading »

Selecting the Right Search Provider: Distinguishing the Experts from the Novices

The prior art search challenge – 2 When going through the process of finding a high quality prior art search provider, you typically start by looking for a provider with experienced searchers that possess technical and academic credentials in the technologies that you are prosecuting or litigating. You look for technical expertise, access to an array of databases, good quality control processes, etc. (Please refer to our previous article on how to select the right prior art search professional here.) What other attributes make a great search provider? An important factor that is often overlooked and one which can be

Continue reading »

How do I select the right prior-art search professional?

  Key questions to ask while hiring a professional/firm to perform prior-art searches. A patentability search and analysis are carried out to ensure that an invention would meet the novelty and non-obviousness requirements for obtaining a patent. However, such search and analysis would not be effective unless claimable subject matter is identified correctly. A patent agent or attorney needs to thereafter determine the breadth of the claimable matter by examining the disclosure along with the prior art identified in the search in order to complete the analysis. A patent cannot claim something that already exists or is apparent on combining

Continue reading »