Big Tech Turns to Biometric Innovation
Over on IPWatchdog.com, I publish what we call Companies that We Follow. The goal is to look for interesting new technologies by exploring what some of the most innovative companies in the world are working on. After a while, you see a lot of different technologies and sometimes you start to notice patterns. Analysis of biometric data has been a major area of new research among electronics manufacturers in recent years, and over the last several months we have seen quite a few biometric innovations from a variety of very large tech corporations.
One recent innovation that we saw came from Microsoft, and it related to something that you might not ordinarily associate with the giant from Redmond, Washington…namely, a mood detection device. Stress is something that everyone experiences throughout their daily life, and biometric systems for determining mood and stress levels are not new. However, reducing stress and the associated negative impacts, like chronic health conditions and poor work performance, is an important goal that could easily result in a meaningful increase in productivity in the workplace. To tackle this problem, Microsoft came up with a device that uses a microcontroller capable of processing biometric data about a person’s stress levels. The patent application filed, U.S. Patent Application No. 20140085181, claims priority to a provisional patent application filed in September 2012, which is incorporated by reference. The device described in this patent application includes a flexible material that morphs its shape to create a representation of the received biometric information. Stress information can also be output to a display that lets a person view stress and mood information and add their own personal input. This system could receive biometric data signals indicative of mood from a variety of sources, including a heart rate monitor, galvanic skin monitor, camera or microphone. For instance, a camera and image processing system could determine a change in mood based on an eyebrow shift or another facial expression. Along with changing shapes, the device can indicate a person’s mood through sounds or light display.
Samsung Invents Bio-tech Chips for Pharma
When we look at Samsung as a part of the “Companies We Follow” series on IPWatchdog.com, we normally see electronics, mobile devices, wireless technologies and a variety of processes and methods that relate to computers and the Internet. An interesting patent application of a different sort recently published to Samsung caught my attention.
The patent application is simply titled Bio-chip, and issued on June 12, 2014 as U.S. Patent Application No. 20140162908. It covers a method of performing multiple analytical tests on a single source of biomaterial. This bio-chip testing system has applications in the medical world, for quicker diagnosis of disease, as well as the cosmetic fields by providing a more cost-effective way to measure a product’s toxicity.
Biotechnologies present an intriguing area of development in a variety of consumer industries, from pharmaceuticals to cosmetics to medical services and more. One way in which the technological application of biological systems can be used to benefit society is through the rapid diagnosis of diseases, perhaps an area of innovation that one would normally not associate with Samsung. For pharmaceuticals and other industries, bio-chips and cell chips can help a manufacturer test their products for toxicity.
06.17.14 | Patent Issues | Gene Quinn
FTC Says Thermo Fischer Must Sell Assets to GE Healthcare
On January 31, 2014, the Federal Trade Commission announced that Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., a global manufacturer and distributor of scientific products, laboratory equipment and consumables headquartered in Waltham, Massachusetts, agreed to sell assets to GE Healthcare. This asset sale settles FTC charges that Thermos’ proposed $13.6 billion acquisition of Life Technologies Corporation (Life), headquartered in Carlsbad, California, would likely substantially lessen competition.
The FTC complaint challenging the transaction alleges that the deal as originally proposed would have eliminated competition between Life and Thermo Fisher, which supplies siRNA reagents under its Dharmacon brand, and cell culture media and sera under its HyClone brand. The FTC specifically charged the acquisition would substantially increase concentration in the markets for short/small interfering ribonucleic acid (siRNA) reagents, cell culture media, and cell culture sera, enabling the combined firm to raise prices and reduce quality for consumers.
The proposed order settling the FTC’s charges requires Thermo Fisher to divest its gene modulation business, Dharmacon, which contains the siRNA reagents business, as well as its cell culture media and sera business including the HyClone brand to GE Healthcare, along with all intellectual property and know-how necessary to operate each of the divested businesses.
02.5.14 | Biotech, Federal Trade Commission | Gene Quinn
Patentee’s Arguments in Reexamination Create Intervening Rights Erasing $29.4 Million Verdict
Scott Daniels, Partner at Westerman, Hattori, Daniels & Adrian and Practice Center Contributor, sent in this article discussing Tuesday’s CAFC decision in the Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon case. In a decision that seems to encourage reexamination, the Court held that “intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination. Daniels discusses the history of the case and highlights the key points of the CAFC decision.
The CAFC panel decision [Tuesday] in Marine Polymer Techs. v. HemCon will do more to popularize reexamination than all the proselytizing by all the reexamination lawyers and bloggers ever could. The Court held that an argument made by the patentee traversing a rejection in reexamination constituted a disclaimer of patented subject matter; this disclaimer triggered absolute intervening rights for the accused infringer under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252 and 307(b), thereby eliminating all damages for the period before the issuance of the reexamination certificate. The Court also suggested that the accused infringer might also be protected by equitable intervening rights for the period after issuance of the reexamination certificate and sent the case back to the trial court for further fact-finding. (more…)
09.29.11 | biotechnology patents, CAFC, Patent Litigation, Reexamination | Stefanie Levine
No Comments
10.27.14 | Biotech, Patent Issues | Gene Quinn