Post #28: Hamster Vest

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5901666.pdf

Probably the best drawing of all time. This is patent #5901666. This is essentially a bunch of hamster tubes you can wear. This was filed in 1997 and published in 1999, a brisk 2 years. I think it was really the smile of the character that sold the deal. Maybe the little hamsters in the pouches. Brice Belisle in New York must be a very happy person.

Here is the abstract and main claims:

A vest or belt is integrally formed with tubular, pet receiving passageways which extend around the wearer's body and terminate in pocket-like chambers for feeding and retrieval. Outer wall portions of the passageways are transparent so that a pet moving along the passageways can be seen by a spectator. Graphics or indicia depicting the pet's habitat or a pet story are marked on the vest and extend across portions of the passageways masking delineations or depicting the passageways as burrows.

An object of the invention is to provide pet display clothing having one or more, at least partly transparent, enclosed, pet receiving, passageways or tunnels extending across a surface thereof so that pets traversing the passageways or tunnels can be viewed by a spectator while the clothing is worn by a person.

More particularly, the invention provides a pet display vest having an elongate, enclosed, pet receiving, passageway extending thereacross with at least one closable pet admitting entry, at least part of the passageway being transparent so that, when the vest is worn, a pet moving along the passageway across a wearer's body can be viewed by a spectator.

In another embodiment, the invention provides a pet display belt having an enclosed, pet receiving, passageway extending therearound with at least one closable pet admitting entry and means for releasably securing the passageway extending around a waist of a person, at least part of the passageway being transparent so that, when the belt is worn, a pet moving along the passageway across a wearer's body can be viewed by a spectator.

Best part in the abstract: "Graphics or indicia depicting the pet's habitat or a poet story are marked on the vest and extend across portions of the passageways..." This is freaking awesome. Makes me want to buy a hamster.

Post #27: Beer Umbrella

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6637447.html

This is the Beerbrella. As you can see, it is an umbrella for your beer. One of the few masterpieces of our time. As per common knowledge, harmful UV's can turn our delicious and refreshing beers into disgusting, foul-smelling sadness in a bottle. The drawings in this patent are actually quite good however.

Mason Schott McMullin, the inventor, filed this description:

We claim:

1. A combined beverage container and shading apparatus, comprising: a beverage container, for containing a beverage; a means for removably attaching the apparatus to the beverage container; a shaft, coupled to the means for removably attaching the apparatus, and extending vertically with respect to the beverage container; an umbrella, coupled to the shaft at a point above the means for removably attaching, so as to shade the beverage container, wherein the means for removably attaching comprises a clip provided to attach to the beverage container by means of spring action and friction. 

2. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the umbrella comprises a small umbrella approximately five to seven inches in diameter. 

3. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the umbrella comprises a small paper-like umbrella with balsa framing. 

4. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the umbrella comprises a solid plastic umbrella. 

5. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the umbrella comprises a cloth umbrella. 

6. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a pivot joint, coupled between the shaft and the means for removably attaching; and a counterweight, coupled to the shaft, wherein the shaft extends downward from the pivot joint and the counterweight is coupled to the shaft at a location below the pivot joint such that when the beverage container is tilted, the shaft remains substantially vertical. 

7. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a pivot coupling the shaft to the umbrella to allow the umbrella to be suitably angled to shield the sun or for aesthetic purposes. 

8. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the clip is made of spring steel. 

9. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the clip is made of plastic. 

10. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the clip is made of formed cardboard. 

I don't think it gets better than this. This is actually a pretty specific patent. I think potentially the best part about this patent is the following:

 "One problem with these Prior Art devices is that although they do provide insulation for beverages, they do not shield the beverage from the direct rays of the sun. A beverage left out in the sun, even if insulated or cooled with ice, quickly warms due to the effect of the intense infrared radiation from the sun, particularly on hot, sunny summer days.

Thus, it remains a requirement in the art to provide a means for shielding a beverage from direct sunlight."

Sweet patent, can't wait to buy one.

Post #26: Interesting facts about USITC

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/facts-and-trends-of-usitc-litigation.html
http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/documents/featured_news/sec337factsupdate.pdf

The USITC is tasked with the goal of protecting US domestic industries against improper foreign competition. One major form of this goal is to prevent against foreign competition from unauthorized importation of patent goods. This would be filed under a 19 U.S.C. 1337 ("Section 337"). Due to this, a patentee can file both in the USITC and the Federal Courts.

The main distinction for a section 337 in the USITC vs. an equivalent form in the Federal Courts, is that the only result if a patent assertion is the blocking of importation of infringing goods. Furthermore, because the USITC is not bound by some previous injunctions that limit the importation power of patent infringements, patentees have a greater chance of asserting a Section 337.


As you can see, the 337 investigations have increased over the course of several decades. This has caused many to accuse the USITC to be improperly supporting the activities of patent licensing companies. On closer inspection, it seems the comments against USITC for supporting NPEs are unfounded. The # of NPEs have not grown substantially.This is interesting, because we read about many patent assertions between Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and many other companies. I had no idea the ultimate result would be a injunction on importation, a pretty serious result.  Very interesting data that provides a different perspective on what we learn about specific patent cases.

Post #25: Google losses again, questioning value of Motorola acquisition

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/google-keeps-losing-itc-finally-tosses.html



As of today, Google has once again lost a patent assertion against a major rival, Apple. The patent, U.S. Patent No. 6246862 on a "sensor controlled user interface for portable communication device" was found invalid. This is the last patent against Apple from Motorola's Oct. 2010 assertion against apple. This is troubling considering the $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Today's loss follows a loss in the German courts on Friday 4/19 against Microsoft over a push notification patent.

Here are some details on the patent that was thrown out today against Apple. The patent relates to the feature that a touch screen ignores touches if the user is on a phone call and holds the device close to his head. Google wanted the ITC to ban Apple from importing any iPhones because of this. Google can appeal this decision, but a similar case with similar results for a Motorola case makes this pretty difficult for Google. In short, Google would have to overcome two determined obviousness theories as well as Apples defense.

This goes to show holes in Google's Motorola Mobility patent portfolio. This news is not different to what has happened historically with Google. Google has also recently pulled out some assertion from Apple. On Oct.2 Google withdrew its entire second ITC complaint against Apple. This was an assertion of over seven non-standard-essential patents. This could be that the patents were hard to defend or other more political, relationship reasons. However, in any case, Google is having difficulty in asserting their Motorola patents. They really need a victory to justify the full value of their acquisition.

Post #24: New Maintenance Fee Regime in USPTO

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/responding-to-usptos-new-maintenance-fee-regime.html
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8be04267-991e-423c-8977-4c70c9599f40

Oh March 19th, the USPTO's new fees on maintenance fees came into effect. This resulted in 50% increase in fees due at three intervals of the patents life: 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after patent issuance. The effect of this was a bunch of patent owners paying the renewal fees early.



While some of the patent prosecution fees are decreasing, most large entities can see their total patent prosecution fees increase. So why have these costs increased? The AIA, American Invest Act requires the USPTO to set fees "...only to recover the aggregate estimated costs to the Office for processing activities, services, and materials related to patents...including administrative costs." This gives the USPTO leeway to recover costs through fees. There is a broad definition of administrative costs and the organization is using it for its own advantage.

These are not only fee changes. A whole slew of fee changes have occured. For, micro-entities can receive much lower patent costs. For larger entities, they will see generally greater patent fees. For most large entities, the only main cost that has decreased is the Request for Prioritized Examination, from $4800 to $4000. The maintenance fees increases cover many of the decreases in other fees for a net increase of $340 for a large entity. Also, RCE fees are increasing to $1200 for the first RCE for a large entity and $1700 for each subsequent RCE. There is also a new fee of $2000 for a large entity for forwarding the appeal to the Board.

In general, I believe this makes sense. Increasing fees for larger institutions and decreasing costs for micro institutions. For large institutions they will not feel the price increase, especially relative to lawyer fees. On the other side, micro institutions will feel a large amount of change relative to their income. I wonder how the AIA will continue to change the patent landscape.

Post #23: Nokia streamlines vs. HTC

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/nokia-streamlines-itc-case-against-htc.html



On Friday April 12th, Nokia filed a motion for partial termination on a patent against HTC with the USITC. Nokia drops three patents from its complaint and will now focus on four patents-in-suit to being on May 31st. Originally Nokia asserted nine patents against HTC. This was clear earlier last year when Nokia withdrew a patent in October 2012 and dropped several claims from one patent. This is not really Nokia's doing. The USITC generally wants complainants to narrow their cases. Nokia had to do the same thing with Apple in a previous case. Also, four patents is a pretty average number for ITC trials if the original assertions involves nine or ten patents.

Patent dropped the following three patents:  "U.S. Patent No. 7,106,293, which is a light guide patent and two closely-related database synchronization patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,141,664 and U.S. Patent No. 7,209,911. " 

The ITC is not only the court that Nokia has filed a complaint against HTC in. Nokia recently won an injunction in a German court injunction against HTC. HTC hasn't taken this lightly. HTC has also filed several claims against HTC in ITC and German courts. It's asserting its power saving patents.

It is interesting that this article's author has already predicted the outcome of this patent streamlining. I wonder how experienced patent lawyers analyze a specific patent situation.  I wonder how much experience you need in the industry to be a successful and experienced patent lawyer.

Post #22: Double Patenting Problems

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/double-patenting-problems-when-inventors-move-to-a-new-employer.html



It is a no-brainer that the inventor owns their invention, unless otherwise noted. A usual exception is one where the inventor signs an agreement to allow the inventors employer to own the rights of the patent. This is usually required in the individual employment contract. Without a contract like that, the inventor keeps the right to the patent. Even with the AIA (American Invents Act), this fundamental principle is in place.

This gets tricky when an employee moves employers. One employee, in Dawson v Dawson, filed a patent with Caltech and another with ETH Zurich. The ETH Zurich patent filed but the Caltech one did not. The Caltech one was rejected on the doctrine of obviousness -type double patenting. This is interesting because ETH Zurich was filed afterwards, and was not considered prior art.

Normally this type of rejection for Caltech is non fatal given the following conditions:" (1) disclaims any term of enforcement that extends beyond the other patent and (2) agrees to that both patents will be co-owned throughout their lifespan. "

However, The problem is that the patents are not co-owned. Caltech cannot make that promise. Caltech argued that doubling patenting rejection should not apply because the two applications have different owners and inventors. However the court decided that Caltech cannot receive its patent.  I agree with Caltech since they have different ownership, they really should be counted as separate patents. Oh well, this is how it goes with patent law