Patent Law Practice Center

More Fanciful? Google Glasses or Useful Online Reviews?

Two weeks ago Google quietly obtained a patent that might lead you to wonder whether it could revolutionize online ranking systems, making Internet reviews more accurate and meaningful. Of course, this invention was overshadowed by the published Google application titled Optical Display System and Method with Virtual Image Contrast Control, which relates to Google glasses. See U.S. Patent Application No. 20130063486. But Google glasses merely relate to a wearable optical display that resembles a pair of glass lenses resting on a user’s face.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding the cool factor presented by Google glasses, the much cooler and more relevant innovation embodied in U.S. Patent No. 8,396,879 relates to a method of ranking authors and their content in the same framework. I know, far less cool factor, but it could potentially create a completely new ranking system for user comments that helps users distinguish good reviews from bad ones. If Google can pull that off, it would solve so many problems now experienced by companies plagued by hostile, unfair, mean-spirited, damaging reviews. It could also provide a solution for those of us who genuinely want to know what we are going to get or what we might experience.

(more…)

Google’s Patent Portfolio: As Impressive as Cars that Can Drive Themselves

Google’s patent portfolio has been in the news a lot lately, and not in reference to the plethora of patent litigation Google has found itself in in recent years. Google expanded its patent portfolio in 2011 by acquiring more than 2,000 of IBM’s patents and added another by having its patent application for a self-driving car awarded by the USPTO. Not sure which is more impressive? Let’s spell out the recent acquisitions: (more…)

Google and Yahoo! Attack on Browser Patent, Among the Reexamination Requests Filed the Week of December 26, 2011

Here is our latest weekly installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Google and Yahoo! have requested reexamination of a browser patent owned by Interval Licensing (see ex parte Request No. (3)). Interval had already sued the two companies for infringement of the patent. Google and Microsoft have requested reexamination of a patent owned by Paid Search Engine Tools for a bid management system (see inter partes Request No. (1)). As above, there is a pending infringement action regarding the patent in question.  This approach of two or more companies jointly requesting reexamination is becoming more common.

Ex parte reexamination was requested by an unidentified party against Intellect Wireless’ U.S. Patent No. 7,266,186 claiming a paging receiver and system (see ex parte Request No. (1)). Intellect Wireless has sued a number of companies – among them HTC, RIM, AT&T Mobility – for infringement of the ‘186 patent, as well as for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,310,416. HTC America filed inter partes requests against the ‘186 patent at the beginning of October, and against the ‘416 patent in November. Non-final rejections have already issued against both Intellect Wireless patents. According to HTC, the infringement action has been “effectively stayed pending a ruling” on HTC’s motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct. The various reexaminations might have an impact on HTC’s inequitable conduct allegations.

(more…)

Tech Giants Weigh In On USPTO Post Grant Rule Making Effort

Written by Scott McKeown, Partner at Oblon Spivak, Practice Center Contributor and author of Patents Post Grant blog.

Group 2 Comments on AIA Implementation Due to USPTO Tomorrow

As pointed out last week, the USPTO has been busy fashioning new rules to implement the various provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Comments on Group 2 Rules, which include Inter Partes Review & Post Grant, must be submitted by November 15th.

Last week, Cisco, Google, Verizon and Intuit submitted joint comments (here) directed solely to the implementation of post grant proceedings, namely, Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR). Not surprisingly, these tech giants (i.e., targets of serial patent infringement suits) are especially supportive of post grant mechanisms as an alternative to traditional litigation. The Group’s comments encourage the Office to adopt liberal standards for initiation of IPR and PGR, limit the potential estoppel affect of a concluded proceeding, and provide procedural flexibility for petitioners. (more…)

Requests For Reexamination Of Four Round Rock Patents Among Those Filed Week of 9/12/11

Here is the latest installment of Reexamination Requests from Scott Daniels, of Reexamination Alert and Practice Center Contributor…

Requests for reexamination were filed against four RFID patents owned by patent-holding/enforcement company Round Rock Research (see ex parte Request Nos. (1), (2), (4), & (5)).  The requests do not indicate who filed them, and the patents does not appear to be the subject of pending litigation, raising the prospect of a party simply targeting Round Rock patents.Rou

Earlier this year, Universal Electronics sued Logitech in the Central District of California for infringement of three touch-pad patents. Logitech has now replied by seeking reexamination of those patents (see inter partes Request Nos. (7), (8) & (9)).

Google, Apple and Quattro teamed up to request reexamination of a StreetSpace patent for online advertising (see inter partesRequest No. (10)).  The parties are currently in litigation over that patent in the Southern District of California.

And yet another reexamination request was filed in the long, on-going war between Abbott Diabetes Care and DexCom over analyte measuring devices (see ex parte Request No. (9)). (more…)