Monday, February 8, 2016

Fair Standards Alliance welcomes [EU Competition Commissioner] Vestager’s comments on patent licensing

This here is a first for this blog: it's the first time I publish a complete press release without any my own commentary of my own. I don't know if and when I'll do so again, so please don't urge me to publish your press releases :-) In this case, the factual information contained in it is worth sharing, and I simply share the organization's perspective on this. I reported on the creation of the Fair Standards Alliance last year.

PRESS RELEASE: Fair Standards Alliance welcomes Vestager's comments on patent licensing

BRUSSELS, 5 February 2016 – The Fair Standards Alliance (FSA) welcomes European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager’s statement that companies that have committed to license their standards-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms must be kept to that promise.

"We are delighted to see the Commissioner giving such a clear message that companies simply must license patents on the FRAND terms that they have committed to. This is very much in line with our view that something must be done about unfair and unreasonable SEP licensing practices," FSA chairman Robert Pocknell said.

In a speech to the College of Europe's Global Competition Law Centre on 1 February, the Commissioner also said guidelines can "be a more efficient way than cases to provide guidance and legal certainty," adding that formulating appropriate guidelines is much easier on the basis of the resolution of cases, and noting that the Commission's decisions in Motorola and Samsung as well as the European Court of Justice decision in the Huawei case have removed a lot of uncertainty.

The FSA's Pocknell said the Alliance would be pleased to constructively support further efforts to establish fair licensing conditions for SEPs, and will continue offering perspectives and recommendations on these matters.

The Europe-based association believes that unfair and unreasonable SEP licensing practices pose a significant risk to the innovation eco-system. The failure to abide by the FRAND commitment, existing in most standardisation licensing, creates barriers to entry for new market entrants, threatens to stifle the full potential for economic growth across major industry sectors, and ultimately harms consumer choice.

FSA's member companies, who hold more than 160,000 patents and spend more than 32 billion euros per year on R&D and innovation, include: BMW, Cisco, Dell, Fairphone, HP, Intel, ip.acess, Juniper Networks, Lenovo, Micromax, peiker acustic, Sierra Wireless, Telit, ublox and Volkswagen.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, February 4, 2016

Apple to Supreme Court: Samsung litigation 'may be high-profile, [but] it is legally unexceptional'

Apple has just responded to Samsung's mid-December petition for writ of certiorari (request for Supreme Court review) regarding two legal questions concerning design patents and, in the same document, to amicus curiae ("friend of the court") briefs from major industry players, many IP law professors and various public interest advocates, all of whom agree with Samsung that the top U.S. court should take a look at this matter. Apple's lawyers from Wilmer Hale and Morrison & Foerster actually filed their opposition brief about two weeks ahead of a February 16 extended deadline, which is consistent with Apple's position at the end of its opposition brief that Samsung's petition should not "prolong" the #appsung dispute that began almost five years ago (this post continues below the document):

16-02 Apple Brief Opposing Cert Re. Design Patents by Florian Mueller

Looking at this from the angle of whether the case is worthy of a Supreme Court review (without getting defocused by arguments about the merits), I'm not overwhelmed by Apple's filing, but anything else would have been a major surprise. Honestly, this must have been one of the most difficult challenges ever for Apple's lawyers: to try to downplay the certworthiness of an issue after pretty much the entire ICT industry has made clear that it is profoundly concerned.

The hurdle for Apple to discourage the Supreme Court from taking the case is (although cert petitions are normally long shots) reasonably high here not only because of all the amici who support Samsung but also because the Supreme Court hasn't heard a design patent case in about 122 years. It's so obvious that a lot of things have changed during that period, and the role design patents play in connection with complex technology products really needs to be adjudicated again.

I'm not going to go into too much detail on that filing, but I'll quickly share a few observations:

  • As expected, Apple doesn't deny that the disgorgement of a company's entire profits over a design patent infringement could have major economic implications (and, by extension, a chilling effect on innovation).

  • Apple does, however, deny that there is a problem with design patent trolls:

    "The lack of concrete instances of 'design patent trolls' is unsurprising. Patent trolls may succeed in anticipating technological features and acquiring corresponding utility patents, but it is much harder to anticipate product designs before they are released—particularly given that innovative design companies typically give their products a unique look to differentiate their brand. Even if a troll anticipated what design patents might prove lucrative, it would be highly unusual for a design innovator to sell, assign, or license design rights to a troll. While a company might monetize unused utility patents through sale or license, it will typically keep its design rights to avoid giving away control of its brand."

    Those arguments would make sense in a world in which only narrow design patents are granted. However, in a world in which even single icons and rough screen layouts can be patented, I just cannot agree with Apple.

    Where Apple has a point is that it's not like design patent trolls are already a rampant problem. So far, design patents indeed appeared to have been of much less interest to trolls. However, if the Supreme Court allowed the Federal Circuit decision to stand, design patent assertions by patent trolls (and also by operating companies who use them for purposes that have nothing to do with protecting and controlling their brand) would become a major problem. It appears that the Apple v. Samsung ruling in question has already encouraged one non-practicing entity to threaten operating companies with the specter of total profit disgorgements. I don't have the slightest doubt that more of this is going to happen unless the Supreme Court restores sanity.

  • Apple's brief talks a whole lot about its success story and the company's undeniably transformative impact on the smartphone market. Between the lines, Apple is basically telling the Supreme Court that Samsung is just an infringer who wants to get away with wrongdoings; Apple also tells the court directly that it should ignore Google because it made Android, the operating system powering the devices in question. I don't think Apple will get too much mileage out of that: the amici supporting Samsung's petition are diverse and (most of them) disinterested enough that the Supreme Court can see one doesn't have to be Samsung or, in whatever way, a Samsung partner to take an interest in this matter.

  • While I can understand everything else Apple's lawyers are saying (because they just have to say it), there is one thing that comes up twice in the brief and which really doesn't make any sense to me: Apple says Samsung "appealed numerous issues, [but] did not challenge the validity of Apple's design patents.

    First, it's obvious that an appellant must set priorities, which is hard enough in such a complex case as this one. So if an appellant doesn't raise an issue, it doesn't mean there would have been no merit. Second, one part of Samsung's Supreme Court petition relates to claim construction, and claim construction informs (in)validity determinations. So Samsung is actually challenging validity, but at a strategically chosen level: I've read more than once in literature on appellate strategies in patent cases that claim construction (a matter of law) is far more easily reversed on appeal than factual determinations by a jury. Third, it's actually counterproductive for Apple to make that validity argument, given that its primary iPhone design patent, the D'677 patent, is indeed being challenged before the USPTO (with Samsung being the presumed anonymous petitioner), and the patent office found that one invalid last year. Apple asked the USPTO to modify its first Office action, but to no avail. Apple filed another petition for reconsideration last month. That reexamination is definitely not going well for Apple.

  • Let's go from the weakest part of Apple's petition to the strongest one: Apple points out very clearly that Samsung's support from amici is not as strong for its claim construction question as it is for the disgorgement issue. Apple notes (as I did in my post on the amicus briefs) that the 37 law professors supporting Samsung are the only group of amici to side with Samsung on design patent claim construction. Apple also notes that Oklahoma Associate Professor of Law Sarah Burstein, who had supported Samsung before the Federal Circuit with respect to design patent damages, decided not to sign her colleagues' Supreme Court brief because she fundamentally disagrees on the question of design patent claim construction (as she made clear in this PatentlyO guest post Apple also points the Supreme Court to).

    Those facts do suggest that design patent claim construction is of much less concern to industry than damages, and that Samsung's legal argument on claim construction may be somewhat more controversial than its position on disgorgement of entire profits. However, the number of law professors supporting Samsung has increased (from 27 to 37), and it's not hard to see why companies would be particularly concerned about outsized damages.

  • On the certworthiness of the damages question, I'd like to point to something interesting in Apple's filing but couldn't find such a thing.

  • Appe's argument is merits-centric as opposed to certworthiness-centric. I don't think Apple had much of a choice in that regard. But merits are not really the name of the game at the cert stage, and if the court accepts to hear the case, Apple will already have used some of its merits-related ammunition.

All in all, I would really be surprised if Samsung's petition didn't at least result in a CVSG (call for views of the Solicitor General so the U.S. government will talk to industry and find out how much of a concern there is). Apple's opposition brief has just added to my belief that at least the damages part of Samsung's petition is really very strong.

While I was looking at Apple's filing, I also saw the latest news of a non-practicing entity having been awarded more than $600 million in damages from Apple. This is an Eastern District of Texas jury verdict and the number will likely change before all is said and done, but every verdict of this kind increases the likelihood of Apple at some point joining the proponents of serious U.S. patent reform.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Monday, February 1, 2016

As I suspected, the 2013 Nokia-Samsung patent deal is far from comprehensive: litigation still a possibility

In November 2013, Nokia and Samsung announced a five-year extension of an existing patent license agreement, with the financial terms left to determination by an arbitration panel. The scope was not announced, but back then, I expressed my belief that it was a license covering only (wireless) standard-essential patents (SEPs):

"I continue to believe it's a SEP-only license, including the 'additional' compensation."

Today, Nokia has announced that the arbitration result has a "positive financial impact" for its patent licensing division. Today's announcement explicitly states that this agreement has only a limited scope:

"This award covers part of the Nokia Technologies patent portfolio until the end of 2018. Nokia will continue to discuss with Samsung its other relevant intellectual property portfolios. Nokia has strong intellectual property assets consisting of intellectual property rights in the separate Nokia Technologies, Nokia Networks and Alcatel-Lucent portfolios, which include patents essential for a variety of standardized technologies as well as relevant implementation patents and proprietary technologies." (emphasis added)

See, I told you so. I remember a call I had with professional investors in late 2013 who told me they had spoken with Nokia's investor relations department and had concluded from their conversation that the deal was comprehensive. I told them I didn't believe so. I told everyone via this blog I didn't believe so. Now it's a fact.

While these two parties have so far been able to avoid going to court against each other, the above passage does mean that litigation (in the event they fail to reach an agreement) is still a possibility.

Nokia is the worst patent holder in this industry with respect to privateering. I've raised that issue in a couple of posts (see 1, 2). The fact that having a license from Nokia itself doesn't mean you couldn't still be approached by dozens of other entities monetizing Nokia patents probably makes negotiations between Nokia and potential licensees a lot harder than those talks used to be years ago.

The fact that most of Nokia's patent assertions against HTC failed (though HTC ultimately felt forced to take a license on whatever terms) may also make prospective licensees feel they should take their chances in court.

The next Nokia-Samsung announcement, whenever that one may issue, will most likely be a "fish or cut bait" statement. They won't be talking forever. At some point they will agree or Nokia will sue. I, for my part, would recommend to Samsung (if they asked me, which they obviously don't) not to overpay.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Friday, January 22, 2016

Broadbased support for Samsung's Supreme Court petition in Apple's design patents case: cert looms large

Persuading the Supreme Court to review a decision is normally a long shot. Even when many pundits predict certiorari, it often doesn't materialize (case in point: Oracle v. Google). In recent years, however, patent law has relatively frequently received the attention of the top U.S. court, which some attribute to the Federal Circuit's exceedingly patentee-friendly approach. "Recent years" does not include design patents, however: the last time the Supreme Court of the United States handed an opinion on a design patent dispute was more than 120 years ago. Is it going to happen now? I have a gut feeling that the answer is yes.

Of course, no one can know what the court will decide. But it's hard to think of a case about design patents that would be more likely than Apple v. Samsung to be of interest to the Supreme Court:

  1. It's the perfect case for a decision on how to apply § 289 (disgorgement of infringer's profits) to today's multifunctional products. Few products embody more patentable designs and inventions than smartphones (given that even screen designs are frequently patented).

  2. It's the perfect case for addressing the need to limit the scope of a design patent to the ornamental aspects of the design, excluding the functional ones. That's because Apple's iPhone design patents at issue in this case (there's also one on an app menu layout) are in no small part about such elements as rounded corners.

  3. The amici curiae ("friends of the court") who filed briefs in support of Samsung's petition credibly demonstrate that large and small corporations, high-tech and low-tech companies, the legal community and consumers are profoundly concerned.

As I wrote yesterday (in a blog post on the fact that Apple and Samsung are the top utilizers of so-called "patent death squads"), it will really be hard for Apple, which has a deadline on February 16 to respond to Samsung's petition, to persuade the Supreme Court that this here is not an important issue. The amicus briefs underscore that this matter has ramifications that make even Apple's original (2012) billion-dollar jury verdict pale by comparison. I venture to guess that Apple's argument will be more of a "there's no need for a review because the law is soooo clear" than a "nothing to see here, move on" message.

Six amicus briefs were submitted a week ago, and the submitters can be categorized as follows (in no particular order):

  1. Major high-tech companies

  2. A high-tech industry body

  3. A leading maker of mechanical devices

  4. Minority and rural communities advocacy organizations (promoting small business as well as consumer interests)

  5. Other non-governmental organizations

  6. IP law professors

A year and a half ago, amicus curiae briefs relating to design patent damages were also filed in support of Apple's maximalist position, but (with only a minor exception) just by low-tech and no-tech companies. I doubt that anyone will file a brief in support of Apple's opposition to the cert petition next month. That's not only because Apple is pretty much isolated on this question among information and communications (ICT) technology companies but also because even those who are on Apple's side won't want to strengthen the impression that this here matters.

Samsung's supporters at this stage are largely the same ones as in 2014. On balance, Samsung's support is slightly more broadbased now, given that it has the same NGOs on its side, the same tech industry heavyweights, but now even 37 IP law professors (10 more than in 2014) and also a mechanical device maker. There are no signs of Apple having found new allies, but if the Supreme Court grants certiorari, I'm sure there will also be filings by those who share Apple's interests in this context. I'm sure it will still be accurate to say that the ICT industry overwhelmingly, if not exclusively (except for Apple), supports Samsung on this one.

All six amicus briefs discuss the disgorgement-related part of Samsung's petition. Only one of them (the law professors' submission) also speaks out on the claim construction issue of limiting the infringement (and validity) analysis to ornamental (non-functional) aspects. With a view to whether or not the Supreme Court will accept to hear the case, I don't view this as a setback for Samsung's efforts. It's easy to understand that outsized damage awards are a particular magnet for third-party submissions. As this dispute continues, most headlines of media reports will likely also focus on the damages-related question. For now, all that Samsung needs is for the Supreme Court to accept to hear the case.

I will now publish a link to each of the six amicus briefs and provide some particularly interesting quotes (so they can be referenced in future posts on this matter).

Google, Facebook, eBay, Dell, HP, Newegg, Pegasytems, Vizio

amicus curiae brief (PDF)

  • "The Federal Circuit's decision is deeply flawed. If allowed to stand, it will lead to absurd results and have a devastating impact on companies, including amici, that spend billions of dollars annually on research and development for complex technological products and their components."

  • "[The Federal Circuit's decision] ignores the reality of modern, multicomponent technologies. These complex products, which have become the norm throughout the consumer electronics industry, are not purchased primarily based on the design of one or more isolated components."

  • "[The Federal Circuit's decision produces] absurd result[s] [that] cannot be squared with the reality of modern, multicomponent technological products."

  • "Awarding a design patentee the total profit from an infringer's product when the design covers only a relatively minor portion of the product is out of proportion with the significance of the design and out of touch with economic realities."

  • "If allowed to stand, the Federal Circuit's decision will create incentives for more [frivolous] litigation, because any technology that somehow encompasses an infringing design—no matter how complex—will trigger the 'total profit' rule and allow the patentee to obtain disgorgement of all profits from the purported infringer."

  • "If allowed to stand, the Federal Circuit’s decision would encourage the procurement and assertion of more low-quality, marginally innovative design patents, in the hopes that those patents will be infringed by the latest smartphone, laptop, or other device."

  • "In all events, the question presented concerning the scope of design-patent damages is an incredibly important one not only to amici, but to the technology industry as a whole."

Computer & Communications Industry Association

amicus curiae brief (PDF)

  • It's worth noting that CCIA already argued in 2014 (as many others do now) that a simple solution to the "total profits" problem is a more up-to-date interpretation of "article of manufacture."

  • Until Apple can show support from at least one significant CCIA member, I come from the assumption that all CCIA members share the concerns raised--and that is an impressive membership base. There was no indication whatsoever of dissenting members in 2014, and there still isn't any.

  • "The Federal Circuit's decision with respect to design patent damages raises constitutional concerns, is a misreading of the statute, and is dangerous to the technology industry."

  • "If the decision below is allowed to stand, design patent infringement will become a new tool for patent assertion entities to use to gain leverage."

  • "The interpretation of Section 289 used by the Federal Circuit raises constitutional concerns because it grants a design patent an effective monopoly over an entire smartphone based solely on certain ornamental features." (in light of the claim construction issue I mentioned above, one could even argue that a largely functional design could have this effect, making this even worse)

  • "While Congress has broad authority to legislate with respect to patents, it is not allowed to remove knowledge from the public domain or grant a monopoly to an inventor far beyond what the inventor has contributed to the public."

  • "The Federal Circuit's interpretation of Section 289, however, does exactly what Congress is not allowed to do."

  • I particularly like this citation from a Supreme Court decision:

    "[W]here a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise and by the other of which such questions are avoided, our duty is to adopt the latter." Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 857 (2000) (quoting United States ex rel. Attorney General v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U.S. 366, 408 (1909))

  • "This case is important to the thousands of businesses that are the targets of patent assertion entities, also called patent monetization entities."

Systems Inc. (leading maker of dock levelers, i.e., mechanical devices)

amicus curiae brief (PDF)

  • "The Federal Circuit has adopted an interpretation of Section 289 that appears to contradict over a century of established jurisprudence."

  • "The Federal Circuit's erroneous interpretation has resulted in a foot race to the courthouse with design patent holders seeking exorbitant windfalls in some cases that offend all notions of substantial justice."

  • "The problem presented in Petitioner's case is not isolated or unique."

  • "The Federal Circuit's erroneous interpretation of Section 289 is contrary to a century of established law and is having a rapidly-increasing detrimental impact on patent litigants."

National Black Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Leadership Fund and the National Grange of the Order of the Patrons of Husbandry (rural communities/farmers)

amicus curiae brief (PDF)

  • "The threat posed by these total-profit disgorgement damages also will hand design-patent-holding companies a weapon so powerful that it threatens to distort markets in a variety of industries and exact tangible harms on the vulnerable communities amici represent."

  • "Minority and rural entrepreneurs will be particularly hard-hit by the anti-competitive harms posed by the Federal Circuit's interpretation of Section 289 because of their vulnerable position in the American marketplace."

  • "The anti-competitive forces set in motion by the Federal Circuit’s decision also threaten to make smartphones far more expensive, rendering it impossible for millions of low-income, minority and rural Americans to connect to the Internet."

  • "[T]he Federal Circuit's interpretation of Section 289 harms entrepreneurs from minority and rural communities by inhibiting the potential success of their developing businesses. It also harms the consumers and citizens of these communities, pricing them out of the only affordable means of obtaining the essential benefits of Internet access."

Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Public Knowledge

amicus curiae brief (PDF)

  • "It would be entirely unsurprising if the Federal Circuit's damages rule spawned a new generation of abusive patent litigation."

  • "[T]he Court of Appeals opens the door to a new species of abusive patent litigation, namely those over design patents, that will potentially plague future innovators for years to come."

  • "[A]warding 'total profits' on an entire product for a patent only on a small component overcompensates the design patent owner to an absurd degree."

  • "The Federal Circuit's absolute 'total profits' rule, in practice, will serve [...] to promote abusive litigation and licensing practices, and provide yet another mechanism for suppressing competition."

  • "[T]he Federal Circuit's interpretation may raise constitutional doubts, specifically because an absolute 'total profits' rule can result in excessively high and disproportionate damages awards that could violate the Fifth Amendment."

37 (IP) law professors

amicus curiae brief (PDF)

  • Stanford Professor Mark Lemley is counsel of record for his colleagues

  • The professors describe as "counterintuitive" that the "Federal Circuit upheld a finding of design patent infringement based on the very same Apple designs that it found functional under trade dress law."

  • "There is no justification in statutory text, history or policy for interpreting functionality differently for design patents than for trade dress."

  • he Federal Circuit has applied a "draconian" total-profits rule that "dates back more than a century to circumstances that no longer apply."

  • "As applied to a modern, multicomponent product, the entire profit rule drastically overcompensates design patent owners, undervalues technological innovation and manufacturing know-how, and raises troubling questions about how to handle other potential claims to a share of the defendant's profits."

  • "If there is more than one patented design in a product, the assumption that any particular patented design drives the sale of the product falls apart."

  • "Nor does all, or even most, of the value of a product come from patented designs. People do not buy iPhones for their appearance alone; they buy them for their functions."

  • I've saved (a part of) the best for last:

    "It is (barely) possible to argue with a straight face that it is the shape and overall ornamental design of the iPhone, rather than its functionality, that motivates consumers to buy it. It is not even remotely plausible that the shape of the Apple iTunes icon is what motivates people to buy the whole iPhone. And it literally cannot be the case that the phone shape patent and the iTunes icon patent are each the sole driver of a consumer buying the phone. Notably, all of the patents Apple asserted in this litigation cover discrete parts, rather than the entire phone. And while these patents on different aspects of the iPhone's design happen to be owned by the same company, there is no reason to think that the same will always be the case for similarly complex products."

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Thursday, January 21, 2016

Study reveals Apple and Samsung are the leading utilizers of so-called 'patent death squads'

I have a post coming up tomorrow on the tremendous support Samsung has received from industry, the legal community and non-governmental organizations for its cert petition relating to design patent claim construction and damages. For now, suffice it to say that Apple will have a hard time trying to persuade the Supreme Court next month that there's nothing to see (or review) here. I will publish and discuss all those third-party submissions tomorrow, Friday.

Today I received a really interesting Lex Machina press release. Lex Machina, a LexisNexis company, operates the Legal Analytics platform and claims that companies such as Microsoft, Google, Nike and eBay as well as various top-notch law firms are among its clients. Its new "Patent Trial and Appeal Board 2015 Report" provides lots of insight about last year's trials before the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board, i.e., the USPTO's in-house court system. The following two bullet points are particularly relevant to the topics covered by this blog:

  • "Apple has filed 252 PTAB trials (making it the leading filer of PTAB petitions with 197 IPRs and 55 CBMs) but has never appeared as a patent owner.

  • Samsung Electronics, the second most active petitioner, has filed a total of 155 PTAB trials (141 IPR and 14 CBM), and has appeared as a patent owner in 11 petitions."

IPR means inter-partes review and CBM means covered business methods, i.e., a category of subject matter with respect to which a challenge before the USPTO can be particularly effective when defending against patent infringement lawsuits.

Here are my observations:

  • The report comes at a time when the Supreme Court has just decided to review a key principle underlying many patent invalidation decisions by the PTAB: the broadest reasonable claim construction principle. As Bloomberg notes, PTAB challenges have a very high rate of success, with at least part of a disputed patent getting invalidated in 87% of all PTAB cases. The Bloomberg article I just referred to mentions former Chief Judge Rader's derogatory remark: he called PTAB panels "death squads" for patents. I disagree with Mr. Rader. Most patents, at least in this industry here, are invalid as granted. It's a form of hygiene, or one might call it garbage collection, to shoot those junk patents down. The appropriate conclusion is to downsize the patent system and prioritize quality over quantity.

  • Lex Machina describes communications and semiconductors as the "most litigious sectors." It's widely known that no one gets sued as often over patents as Apple these days, and Samsung is also a defendant in countless patent infringement cases. I consider it unfortunate that the two are still embroiled in a long-running patent infringement dispute instead of teaming up to promote reasonableness in patent enforcement, which as a side effect would benefit app developers.

  • In the U.S. patent reform debate, one of the most controversial questions--though in my view it should not be controversial at all--is a proposed expansion of the Covered Business Method (CBM) review program. It was originally created to help banks fend off lawsuits by patent trolls over financial services-related patents. For the reason stated above--hygiene or garbage collection, or whichever other term you may prefer--this program should be extended. It's very interesting that Apple is a big-time utilizer of CBM proceedings (more than 20% of its PTAB trials, as compared to approximately 10% of Samsung's cases). I just don't understand why Apple doesn't actively promote an expansion of the CBM program. It would certainly be in the interest of Apple's shareholders to do so.

In a nutshell: there's way too many bad patents out there; some of them are unbelievably stupid, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation regularly highlights; the PTAB process enables especially deep-pocketed litigants to strike down such bad patents; and Apple and Samsung, though they are fighting each other in court, are the top two utilizers of that kind of proceeding. It would be great if the Supreme Court could affirm the PTAB's approach to claim construction once and for all. I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Tuesday, January 19, 2016

Apple finally obtains U.S. sales ban against certain features in Samsung phones, but it's useless

Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Samsung's petition for an injunction rehearing relating to the second Apple v. Samsung case in the Northern District of California. But earlier this month the appeals court indicated that the underlying ruling on the merits had serious issues, with two patents being likely invalid and the relatively most important one of them, the '647 "quick links" patent, not being infringed under the appropriate claim construction. That wasn't just my interpretation: Law.com understood the judges' statements the same way.

On remand, Apple wanted an injunction that would enter into force immediately as opposed to after a 30-day "sunset period," especially since the '647 patent is set to expire on February 1. However, Judge Koh has now (in her order entering a permanent injunction) rejected Apple's attempt to modify the language of the injunction on remand. Therefore, the '647 patent is--apart from the claim construction issue I mentioned before--now practically irrelevant from an injunction point of view.

The '721 slide-to-unlock patent, whose European sibling has already been held invalid by 15 judges, is irrelevant not only because it will likely be held invalid but also because it covers only certain graphical variants of the slide-to-unlock mechanism, but not the slide-to-unlock functionality as a whole. In fact, even Apple did not claim that various Samsung devices at issue in the spring 2014 trial had infringed the patent. The injunction only refers to "the slide-to-unlock feature accused at trial as implemented in Samsung's Admire, Galaxy Nexus, and Stratosphere products," but not to the implementation found in other products at issue in the same litigation, such as the Galaxy Note, Note II, S II and S III products. In other words: the products accused in the 2014 trial were pretty old from today's perspective (where the current Galaxy is the S 6), but even the less old ones of those weren't even accused of infringing the slide-to-unlock patent. So Samsung can still provide the functionality by simply avoiding the implementation it used in its oldest products. If the patent is indeed held invalid, then Samsung can also use the older implementations (but it presumably won't even be interested in that).

The third injunction patent, the '172 autocorrect patent, is the one I have paid the least attention to so far because I felt that the parties didn't view that one as important. Samsung has claimed to have workarounds for all three injunction patents. What I don't know is whether Apple agrees with respect to the '172 patent. If it doesn't, then we may soon see an enforcement dispute. However, that patent is also likely invalid (not only in the preliminary opinion the Federal Circuit judges indicated at this month's appellate hearing but also in the opinion of the USPTO's Central Reexamination Division).

Some of the reasons for which a majority of the Federal Circuit panel had determined that Apple was entitled to an injunction initially appeared so outrageous to me that I hoped Samsung would take this matter to the Supreme Court. But in practical terms, I guess it wouldn't make (or have made) sense for Samsung to ask the top U.S. court to take a look at this matter while Samsung is trying to get the Supreme Court interested in a couple of design patent issues. It's not that the issues aren't important; they definitely are. But in the practical context of the Apple-Samsung patent dispute, this injunction doesn't matter. Samsung or anyone else could still try to take such questions to the Supreme Court in some future case in which there are would be actual business implications.

What does this injunction mean for Apple?

  • Cupertino doesn't really get leverage from it with a view to a settlement with Samsung.

  • It is, however, a significant accomplishment for Apple's in-house and outside counsel. They had been fighting for an injunction like this for several years. They had to deal with multiple setbacks. But ultimately they got an injunction (albeit one without business implications) over a set of features allegedly found in highly multifunctional devices. If Apple's lawyers had a Ben Carson approach to their own achievements (which they certainly don't), they could put that injunction on a wall because it really is a major achievement from a "persistent litigation" perspective. Alternatively, one could print a poster for lawyers that shows this injunction and says: "No one is ever beaten unless he gives up the fight."

  • Anyone considering infringing any of Apple's patents in the future now knows that Apple may obtain an injunction even if the patents cover only limited aspects of small features of highly multi-functional products. Whether the Supreme Court would uphold such a decision is another question, but it's hard to even persuade the Supreme Court to hear a case.

So the injunction isn't going to have any direct impact, but at a meta-level it does have some relevance.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn:


Monday, January 11, 2016

U.S. patent reform activists should prepare for an increasingly possible Donald J. Trump presidency

One can't plan the future, but one can at least prepare for it. Next year, there will be a new president and a new push for patent reform.

U.S. patent reform advocates have been disappointed term after term, presidency after presidency. Washington has a "do nothing" reputation, but a sea change appears to be around the corner and it may also create an environment in which, at long last, the massive and dramatic problems caused by a broken patent system may be addressed more forcefully and courageously than before.

Political correctness has terrible effects because it prevents politicians, the media and the general public from discussing the real issues without mincing words, and when you can't even talk about the real issues, you're very, very unlikely to identify and implement solutions.

Political correctness is the root cause of many problems not only in such contexts as immigration policy or the problem with certain ethnicities' crime rates.

There are many areas in which a dogma has been turned into an axiom. Even though I'm an environmentalist (my house has a groundwater heat pump and uses groundwater temperature for cooling), I'd like there to be a more open discussion of the causes of global warming. Just an example.

Political correctness is also a huge problem in the debate over U.S. patent reform. Organizations and individuals probably feared that they would be "anti-American" if they simply said that the U.S. patent system is broken and fails to serve true innnovators.

In all those congressional hearings on patent reform that I watched, each and every politician repeated the mantra of the U.S. patent system being key to innovation and allegedly being the envy of the world, when the reality is that it's the laughing stock of patent and industry professionals in the rest of the world. Over the years I've talked to so many patent lawyers from Europe and Asia, and even to patent examiners (though not the ones the EPO leadership accuses of having been in contact with me), about the overall situation, and no one believes that U.S. juries are qualified to determine infringement and validity issues, no one has ever disagreed with me that the Federal Circuit is generally too patent-holder-friendly, and no one has ever disagreed with me that the quality of USPTO-granted patents is generally even lower than that of European patents.

Impactful patent reform in the U.S. won't happen until at least a significant percentage of all politicians and stakeholders participating in the debate will start to tell the truth, which is that most information and communications technology patents are invalid as granted, that a high percentage of all claim construction decisions are reversed on appeal, that even those patents that are not invalid and are ultimately deemed infringed generally don't protect anything that justifies a 20-year monopoly, and that there is no point in incentivizing "being first to file" when the combination of copyright, trademarks, trade secrets, and the first-mover advantage in relatively fast-moving fields are more than sufficient to protect investment in innovation. Reform advocates must place more emphasis on the fact that ever more U.S. patents are not granted to U.S. companies, just like most European patents are not held by European companies. It must be said that the correlation between patents and innovation in a country is hardly a causation of patents promoting innovation, that patents increasingly serve as a substitute rather than an incentive for innovation, and that studies linking patents to innovation are often based on circular logic, considering each patent an innovation.

Less is more. How can anyone seriously believe that patent inflation has anything to do with increased innovative activity? Would anyone believe that merely printing more money creates prosperity? Reform advocates should talk about how to gradually bring the number of patents granted per year down to a fraction of the current rate.

With the political culture of recent decades, further U.S. patent reform will either not happen at all or it will be diluted and useless. But there is hope that the way in which such debates are held--in all policy areas--may change. Donald J. Trump is living proof that raising the real issues can work. He says there's no time for political correctness to make America secure again and great again. And I believe there's no time for political correctness and old-fashioned political strategies in connection with patent policy either.

It took Mr. Trump some time to convince others that his campaign was for real. Last month an Obama spokesman said the Trump 2016 campaign belonged into the dustbin of history, when the reality is that Donald J. Trump's candidacy may finally deliver on Obama's undoubtedly-unkept promise of "change" (of how political processes work). Time and time again, the media--and not just left-leaning commentaqtors--thought Mr. Trump had gone too far and was going to lose support. Instead, he kept rising in the polls. And now the media has started to talk about how he may win.

Bill O'Reilly's thoughts on whether Mr. Trump can really win and on the hurdles he faces make sense to me, but Fox News is obviously not trusted by everyone. Even the Wall Street Journal, which noted that many, many Democrats and independents agree with Mr. Trump on such issues as Muslim immigration, would be more likely to agree with a conservative than the average newspaper. I found it really impressive when the Washington Post published an article on "why Trump may be winning the war on 'political correctness'." By far and away the biggest breakthrough is the latest TIME magazine, which has Mr. Trump on its cover and says: "HOW TRUMP WON (Now he just needs the votes)" (this post continues below the image):

No real vote has been cast yet, and the GOP establishment may make a last-ditch attempt to get the candidate that career politicians and Republican donors want. A lot of things may still happen until Election Day. Where things stand today, I believe Mr. Trump has chances of well over 50% of becoming the 45th POTUS.

Political correctness is much less of a left-vs.-right question than some tend to portray it. There are times when idiocies and fallacies by conservatives right cause most problems. At this stage, however, the idiocies and fallacies of the left threaten average people's security and overall economic prosperity in America and Europe. When Silicon Valley leaders like Vinod Khosla know very well that 50% of jobs will go away due to technological progress in AI and robotics and, unlike in previous eras, won't just simply be replaced with new jobs, immigration must be extremely selective to have a positive bottom-line effect. This is an aspect of immigration policy in the U.S. and Europe that you don't hear anyone talk about because politicians usually have no grasp of innovation and its impact until it's too late.

It takes voters time to realize when certain approaches don't work, but a silent majority may finally be ready to elect someone who is bold rather than politically correct.

Pre-election polls likely favor a candidate like Mrs. Clinton because no one has a problem with saying so, but when people secretly vote, many who wouldn't openly admit that they support Mr. Trump will ultimately vote for him. That may include enough Democrats and independents for him to become president.

Pushing for patent reform in 2017 after a Trump victory

In my opinion, patent reform advocates should openly support the GOP in 2016, given that many Democrats, except for some really great ones like Senator McCaskill, are aligned with those who benefit from a broken and inflationary patent system. But that probably won't happen, especially since many of those who push for reform are traditionally aligned with the Democratic Party. Especially in California.

Assuming that Mr. Trump does become president and Republicans continue to have a majority in both houses of Congress, this is what I believe patent reform advocates should do:

  • Be bolder and louder. You must cut through the noise. Patent reform is not and will not be a political priority for Mr. Trump himself, but at least you can try to raise the profile of the issue. Challenge the axiom that patents protect innovators even in this industry. Don't just use patent trolls as a bogeyman when the primary issue is not their business model but the quality problems that enable them. Don't make it sound like some minor fixes would be enough but ask for a fundamental change of direction in patent policy.

  • Talk about what's in the national interest. Mr. Trump wants to Make America Great Again. Those who oppose meaningful reform will say that patents are needed to make America great. You must explain why the opposite is the case. How do patents serve that purpose when the greatest American company in many (though not all) ways, Apple, is a net payer of patent royalties to China and to Europe? Talk about the issues that Western companies face when fighting Chinese rivals with patents. Talk about the fact that a U.S. patent is not a patent for a U.S. company, but a patent in the U.S. market, more likely than ever to actually belong to a non-U.S. company.

  • Tell the whole Main Street vs. special interests story. Mr. Trump stands for the real economy rather than special interests that should serve industry but actually seek to siphon money off. I have so many friends now among lawyers, and I've personally benefited over a period of about 10 years from doing work closely related to legal and political processes. But let's be realistic: at the end of the day, someone needs to build real products. If someone is really talented as a lawyer, and maybe also understands technology well enough to be a great patent litigator or prosecutor, that's great, but the goal must always be that lawyers serve businesses and not the other way round.

    Many patent trolls are lawyers. Lawyers make also money on patent applications and patent litigation. What Main Street businesses need now is that politicians (even though many of them, and most of their advisers, are lawyers) redress the balance between the real economy and the legal profession. It doesn't make sense to let the tail wag the dog.

  • Do differentiate between fields of technology. The one-system-fits-all approach is clearly not working. There's a fundamental difference in economic terms between an industry like pharmaceutics and the ICT industry in terms of what level of investment goes into a single patent, and in terms of how many patents a single product may be alleged to infringe. It isn't radical to say that the patent system causes more problems than it solves in a field of incremental innovation. Mr. Trump mentioned that he had Muslim friends who are great people, nevertheless he wants to put a complete halt to Muslim immigration because of what he believes the impact would be on balance. Similarly, there are ICT companies who benefit from patents, but what's really in the public interest when you look at most of those patnets? How good is the average patent granted out there, if even most of the patents large companies pick from their portfolios for litigation purposes are, on average, very questionable? Over all these years I haven't seen even one ICT patent that I thought justified a 20-year monopoly. The one I liked best in some ways, Apple's rubber-banding patent, is more psychological than technological.

  • Meritocracy. Stress the injustice that legitimate innovators suffer. They write their programs independently and then get sued over patents they have no way of even researching (because of patent inflation). Needless to say, the patents they get sued over are often invalid, and even to the extent they're valid, they're either not infringed or the infringement is usually insignificant in technical terms. The biggest problem when discussing economic policy with conservative politicians is often that they confuse conservatism for the law of the financially strong. Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly explained that companies seek to form an alliance with the government instead of outcompeting their rivals in the marketplace, but only a market-oriented approach is true conservatism--the former has more to do with cronyism. Mr. Limbaugh has said it very clearly: it's not conservative to just let big corporations buy the government. Traditional Republican politicians often failed to understand that. Companies shouldn't be able to tax smaller competitors with large patent portfolios that wouldn't actually hold water in court if asserted against large rivals. These issues must be raised, loud and clear. Mr. Trump is not going to be beholden to any large company, and if he wins, that will also make it harder for other politicians to advance any corporate agenda against the public interest.

The next president won't be inaugurated for about a year. But patent reform advocates should already now think about their message, not only with a view to who may or may not win but also because the tone of political debates is indeed changing now. The transformational impact of Mr. Trump's campaign is already a reality. An approach that flies in the face of conventional "political correctness" wisdom has made him the front runner, and every time the media said he had gone too far, he emerged even stronger. Fortune favors the brave, and U.S. patent reform advocates have by far not been bold and brave enough so far. Their push for "too little, too late" has been pathetic. They should try something new. Something Trump-style.

Political incorrectness isn't racism or anything

This is now the final and shortest section. I want to point out very clearly that I despise political correctness and I want real solutions to pressing problems facing Western civilization, but I view every person individually. On my app development team I have people from three continents, and I count people from different parts of the world and of different religions among my personal friends.

It's a great idea to be more tolerant here than certain other countries, but one can disagree on how much more tolerant we should be vis-à-vis intolerance of the dangerous kind.

I do consider it crazy if fear of political incorrectness through "racial profiling" prevents the police or airport security staff from taking a closer look at those who are really likely to be a threat, but I'd like the need for racial profiling to go away.

No, I'm not Charlie. I never supported the #jesuischarlie movement. As a blogger, I value the freedom of speech (which is why I hate political correctness), but there must be respect. Charlie Hebdo blatantly and unnecessarily did things and continues to do things that hurt the religious feelings of millions, if not billions, of people. That doesn't justify an attack, but they provoked it. The French policeman of Arab descent and Muslim faith who was shot outside the Charlie Hebdo building is the victim whose fate really made me sad because he wasn't there by his choice.

Politics is a pendulum. It swings in one direction, then in another. Terrible mistakes of recent years and decades must now be corrected, and that's better than doing too little, too late. There are high-profile issues, such as the ones Mr. Trump focuses on, and there are others, such as the broken U.S. patent system. Come November, many things may change.

If you'd like to be updated on the smartphone patent disputes and other intellectual property matters I cover, please subscribe to my RSS feed (in the right-hand column) and/or follow me on Twitter @FOSSpatents and Google+.

Share with other professionals via LinkedIn: