The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed a lawsuit against Amazon.com filed by TriDim Innovations claiming patent infringement. TriDim filed a suit on Nov 30th 2015 for infringing two patents (U.S. Patent No. 5,838,326 and 5,847,709) on a “computer controlled display system” which it acquired from Xerox Corp. It claims that Amazon.com uses similar software for its Kindle Fire. The patents describe a three-dimensional computer document workspace that allows users to consolidate a large number of documents by touching, dropping and flicking them into three separate places in accordance to their usage. Amazon.com argued thatContinue reading »
Network-1 Technologies, Inc. agreed to resolve its patent litigation case against Polycom, Inc, pending in the United States District Court of EDTX, for infringement of Network-1’s Remote Power Patent (U.S. Patent No. 6218930, the ‘930 patent). Polycom was one amongst the sixteen defendants named in the litigation.Continue reading »
Yahoo has filed a patent for a camera equipped “smart” billboard that has a wide array of sensors and drone-based cameras to collect information about people for ad targeting.Continue reading »
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 greatContinue reading »
MaxVal has recapped all the latest US patent trends from the first half of 2016.
The total number of patents issued by the USPTO between Jan’16 to June ‘16 is 168,077.
The verdict issued on Friday by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, found that three patents asserted against anti-virus companies were patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and that they did not pronounce a patentable invention. The patents were owned by Intellectual Ventures, which has a standing in the tech world as “patent troll”.Continue reading »
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 statusContinue reading »
SymphonyIAM is the complete intellectual asset management platform that enables IP counsel and IP managers to mitigate risk and manage better by providing visibility, insight and control over their intellectual assets.Continue reading »
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 onContinue reading »
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 beforeContinue reading »