Corporate Counsel's IP Counsel Forum

Corporate Counsel magazine is presenting its 6TH ANNUAL IP COUNSEL FORUM. This event will bring together over 130 members of the Intellectual Property Community representing leading corporations from a variety of industries.

 

Senior In House Counsel repressentingl Align Technologies, Cisco, Coverity, eBay Inc., Google, JDS Uniphase, Microsoft, Whirlpool, Palm, Sony Corporation of American, Sun Microsystems, Tessera, Whirlpooll, Xilinx, Inc. and Zoran Corporation, among others, are expected to be there. Delegates represent a wide range of companies and firms, including Fortune 500 Corporations, mid-sized corporations and recent start-ups with novel ideas to patent in their respective markets.

For more information and details on how to register for this event presented by ALM, click here.

If you'd like to meet with someone from IP.com during this conference, please contact us here and we'll be happy to arrange a convenient time to meetup.

If you're unable to be at the conference in San Jose, you can follow @IPCounselForum on Twitter where the event will be covered by those attending using the hashtag #ipcf as well as here on the Securing Innovation blog of IP.com..

Tweet of the Week @ipdotcom

"Who would have thought that an online community of patent researchers would even take off?" writes Oscar Bruce on the Patent Quality Review Blog. "For many people, patents are too dense to understand. They are filled with legal and technical jargon that no layman can probably digest. Yet, the diverse community of Article One Partners has grown tremendously since its launch in November 2008. What motivated all these Advisors to register on Article One?"

 

 

In other news of interest to those following @ArticleOne, Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog reports that the Former Head of Patents at MSFT & IBM, Marshall Phelps, recently joined the Board of Directors at Article One Partners. As we have, you can follow Marshall Phelps @MarshallPhelps on Twitter. And, of course, you can follow IP.com on Twitter @ipdotcom, as well.

When is National Inventors' Day?

In recognition of the enormous contribution inventors make to the nation and the world, the Congress designated February 11, the anniversary of the birth of the inventor Thomas Alva Edison who had over 1,000 patents, as National Inventors' Day.

Last year, I wrote about Thomas Edison and National Inventors' Day in a blog post here on Securing Innovation, the corporate blog of IP.com Inc.

Again, this year, I made a pilgrimage to the Schenectady Museum, the virtual shrine to all things Edison and General Electric.  It's amazing all the good things brought to life by GE and its innovative scientists and engineers. From something as silly as, well, Silly Putty, to something as important as the electric automobile.

Early electric cars like that developed with a patent by George Selden and early modern electric automobiles like the GE-100 electric vehicle prototype on display at the Schenectady Museum.

It's been over thirty years since this prototype was shown to Congress. After all these years, what I wanna know is, where's my Tesla?

BusinessWeek Special Report: Patent Trolls

Don't miss this Special Report from BusinessWeek.

Tech Giants' New Way to Thwart Patent Suits

Frustrated by litigation costs, Microsoft, Sony, and Nokia are paying third-party patent acquirers such as RPX to fend off patent lawsuits

Slide Show: Patent Trolls' Top Targets

Apple, Sony, Dell, and Microsoft are the companies most frequently sued by so-called non-practicing entities alleging patent infringement

Acacia: The Company Tech Loves to Hate

With the most patent-infringement cases against tech giants, Acacia Research is often called a "patent troll." Inventors hail it as a savior

Debunking the 'Patent Troll' Myth

Innovation in the U.S. frequently fails to reward inventors. So-called patent trolls are evening the score

Podcast: Insurance for Patent Trolls

How to defend against patent law suits

In other news of interest to those following these topics, Gene Quinn at IP Watchdog reports that the Former Head of Patents at MSFT & IBM, Marshal Phelps, joined the Board of Directors at Article One Partners.
 

Tags:

IPCom, Patent Trolls, Reputation Management

Is there a likelihood of confusion between IP.com Inc. and IPCom GmbH & Co. KG, a German non-practicing entity, or NPE, that is sometimes called a patent troll?

The Register, a British online journal, apparently sees the potential for confusion with the similarity of names and tries to keep its readers well-informed in this report that the British courts recently found the IPCom patents invalid in the UK.

IPCom GmbH (not to be confused with IP.com) acquired a load of patents from Bosch, and has been waving them at mobile-phone companies ever since, with limited success. This time last year, Nokia complained to the EU that IPCom wasn't playing FRAND* with the patents, some of which are necessary to the GSM standard. But IPCom sees no obligation to apply FRAND restrictions, even if Bosch agreed to them.

Clear so far? In the latest round of international patent litigation, the British High Court struck down the IPCom patents, but apparently Nokia and other defendants are not off the hook, yet. There's still the unresolved matter of the $17 Billion Dollar patent infringement case on IPCom GmbH's home field in Germany.

But wait...this just in...at Bloomberg.com

IPCom German Patent Suit Against Deutsche Telekom Put on Hold

A lawsuit against Deutsche Telekom AG, Europe’s biggest phone company, was put on hold by a German court Jan. 22 until patent authorities can review the intellectual property at the heart of the dispute.

The Regional Court of Mannheim will wait for a ruling by the European Patent Office on the validity of the patent at stake, court spokesman Joachim Bock said in a Jan. 22 interview. Patent licensing company IPCom GmbH & Co. brought the suit.

The case is part of IPCom’s effort to force mobile-phone makers Nokia Oyj and HTC Corp. to pay royalties for a portfolio of mobile technology patents IPCom acquired from Robert Bosch GmbH in 2007. The patents are part of a high-speed mobile communications standard.

Nokia this month succeeded in overturning some IPCom patents in a U.K. court and lost a bid to invalidate another patent at the European Patent Office yesterday.

IPCom sued Deutsche Telekom to make it stop selling devices that IPCom claims violate rights it owns. Nokia, HTC and other device makers are supporting Deutsche Telekom against claims by IPCom in this case, Clemens-August Heusch, a Nokia attorney, said in an interview.

Thomas Empt, a spokesman for Munich-based IPCom, said the company will comment once it has reviewed the judgment.

The patent at issue has been contested by the phone makers at the European Patent Office, said Hans-Martin Lichtenthaeler, a spokesman for Bonn-based Deutsche Telekom. Deutsche Telekom is supporting them in that proceeding, he said.

The Mannheim court in December put on hold three related suits against Espoo, Finland-based Nokia and Taoyuan, Taiwan- based HTC. HTC lost another case in February, which is now pending on appeal.

"Nokia and IPCom: more fun before the EPO, but what's going on?" muses IPKat.

Here on Securing Innovation, we've blogged about this IPCom case since day one, to make it clear that our company, IP.com is NOT suing Nokia for $17.7 Billion Dollars, and to deal head-on with the likelihood of confusion with the name IPCom.

We're not the first company, and won't be the last, to use the power of the Internet, blogs, and social media for reputation management.

You've got to speak up for yourself.

In other news, from the land of the mythical patent troll, comes this bedtime story for intellectual property lawyers.

General Patent Video Hits back at ‘Patent Troll Myth’

General Patent Corp., an IP-licensing and enforcement organization, posted a video on its Web site debunking what it calls “The Myth of the Patent Troll.”

The term “Patent Troll,” first used by Peter Detkin when he was head of litigation at Intel Corp., is a pejorative term used to describe patent owners who don’t make products covered by their patents and sue others who do make products. Another term frequently used is “non-practicing entity.”

Detkin is now a vice chairman at Intellectual Ventures, a company based in Bellevue, Washington, that has amassed a large number of patents and does not itself make any products.

Suffern, New York-based General Patent, which has been a plaintiff in a number of patent-infringement actions and doesn’t manufacture products, has sometimes been called a patent troll. The General Patent video claims that corporations “infringe patents with impunity” and refers to them as “the corporate landed gentry.”

The patent troll “is just a myth,” according to the video.

In June 2009, General Patent brought former U.S. Commissioner of Patents Bruce Lehman onto its board.

Sleep tight.

IP.com's Free Global Patent Search Engine

IP.com Inc. has released a new Global Patent Search system for you to test. IP.com's GPS is a free international database of full-text patent and patent-related publications.

Global Patent SearchIP.com's goal is to encourage worldwide access to resources where innovators can explore and understand patents, technologies, and related art.

In this preliminary version, the database contains the full text of U.S. Patents, U.S. Patent Applications, and IP.com's unique Prior Art Database.

In the coming months IP.com will continue to expand its features and add more patent and non-patent literature to the database. Please check back regularly to see what more we are offering. We think you will be pleasantly surprised.

Check it out.

How to Protect your Intellectual Property

In a recent discussion on Twitter about defensive publishing, an article I wrote for publication in Machine Design, an online journal by engineers, for engineers, was linked. It's not a new article but, as noted by the IP professionals discussing it on Twitter, the advice is still good. We thought our readers here on IP.com's blog might be interested in seeing it, so we're cross-posting here with a link to the original publication in Machine Design.

Publishing some of your company's innovations can protect the creativity that keeps the company going.

Intellectual property (IP) has long been a mainstay at companies that turn out the newest and the next "best" products. As a result, the race for innovation has become a mad dash to the patent office. New companies need to make their mark early or risk getting left behind. And established companies must maintain and build upon their current IP portfolios to remain contenders in this innovation race. Defensive publishing lets companies ranging from start-ups to major corporations adroitly manage IP without exhausting valuable time and resources.

By definition, defensive publishing is the practice of placing innovation into the public domain. Although the tactic is not new, when used hand in hand with patents and trade secrets, it lets companies efficiently build and maintain competitive IP portfolios.

Traditionally, patents have dominated companies' IP strategies. But patenting is expensive. Companies spend, on average, $12,000 to $15,000 to file one patent application in the U.S. Filing this same application in key locations throughout the world can cost up to five times that figure. Is it wise for any company, no matter how rich, to invest resources and rely on just patents to protect their innovative ideas? This is where defensive publishing steps in.

Defensive publication protects a company's freedom to use its innovation in its products and services. And most defensive publication tactics are easy to implement. For example, if your company develops and patents an innovation vital to its business, and later develops incremental improvements or new uses of that innovation, those later developments are not protected by the initial patents. Patenting every new improvement or new use could be cost prohibitive. But if your company doesn't patent it, a competitor who independently discovers the incremental improvements or new uses might patent them. This could create far more expensive problems for your company in terms of litigation, downstream product redesign, royalty payments, and lost time to market. So how do you protect your freedom to practice without investing huge dollars in patents?

Trade secrets are one option. However, they are not always a realistic way to protect your freedom to practice in today's business and technological environment. In some instances, trade secrets are more dangerous than protective. Employees are hop-ping from company to company more rapidly than ever before. With the advanced searching and data-mining technologies in the market, competitive intelligence has become more effective than ever. Which leads one to ask: Are my trade secrets really secret? Anyone who has been involved in trade-secret litigation knows that specific actions must be taken to turn company secrets into trade secrets. Managers who think they have trade-secret protection, but don't, are at the greatest risk of having their innovations patented by competitors.

Defensive publishing alleviates some of the risks associated with trade secrets. By breaking trade secrets into actual steps and components, companies can safely publish selected pieces of that trade secret. This successfully blocks competitors' patents without disclosing the trade secret itself.

Defensive publishing offers many individually tailored publication tactics. The most obvious one is to use publishing defensively, protecting already established intellectual property portfolios. Two ways to do this are the noncore publication tactic and the conference proceedings publication tactic.

A business-savvy company understands the need for continuous growth and development. However, no company has unlimited financial resources. Though new innovations are a key to many companies' success, not every innovation will be patentable. Because of the costs, companies need to discriminate in choosing what to patent. Only innovations vital to a company's business strategy warrant such a financial investment. But, if a company decides not to patent an innovation, one of its competitors might. Using noncore publication prevents this by placing noncore innovations in the public domain. This protects the creating company's freedom to practice in noncore areas of business while at the same time letting worldwide patent offices search and find this prior art.

Another seemingly obvious defensive tactic is for a company to publish its conference proceedings. When a company attends a conference and gives a presentation, any innovation discussed may be considered prior art, thus providing the basis for rejecting a competitor's patent application. However, unless patent examiners are present at the conference, they may never know of this prior art. By publishing the conference proceedings, a company ensures that the information is available for search by patent examiners.

Contrary to its name, defensive publishing can also be a valuable offensive business strategy. It's not enough to just maintain your IP portfolio. To be a player in today's business world, companies must aggressively build on their portfolios. Publication tactics can help companies combat the competition.

The Pied Piper tactic, a recent approach in IP protection, involves publishing technical details of a pending patent application. Because pending patent applications are kept confidential while in the patent office (for 18 months, with exceptions), a company would use this strategy hoping other companies adopt the technology before the patent's issue. Once the published technology is adopted by a company and built into its products or services, that company becomes the perfect licensing target when the patent is finally issued.

Another offensive tactic is disseminating misinformation to confuse competitors. Typically publications and patents are an excellent source of competitive intelligence. Competitors can use the information to determine the direction and trends of new products and technology. By publishing noncore technology in the mix with core technology, a company can throw off competitors.

The benefits of publishing information on innovations are evident. So how does a company go about publishing its work?

Companies can take the traditional route of working with journals, both paid and academic. Academic journals are an acceptable option but publication is not guaranteed. Even if the work is accepted, the timeliness of publication is up to the editors' discretion. This means that when working with an academic journal, a company has little control over when the material reaches the public domain if, in fact, it ever does.

Another traditional option is to partner with a select group of paper-based journals designed strictly for defensive publishing. Then publication is guaranteed. But even this has its drawbacks. For one, publication is not immediate. There is a delay between the time an innovation is submitted for publication and when it actually reaches print. What's more, the point of publishing an innovation is to provide meaningful access to the patent examiners. Many journals do not offer searchable electronic indices, so busy patent examiners will probably never see them, essentially defeating the publications' purpose.

The latest option for companies is to publish over the Internet, posting information on the corporate Web site. The assumption is doing so puts the information in the public domain. However, this is not necessarily the case. There are a number of legal requirements as to what actually qualifies as a defensive publication. Generally speaking, most sites don't have the proper safeguards in place that can act as critical references downstream in the event of a trial.

Another consideration when posting on the Internet is accessibility to patent examiners. With a workload that has grown by an estimated 75% since 1992, patent examiners don't have time to search thousands of company Web sites. Realistically speaking, innovations posted on individual corporate Web sites will most likely never be found.

The most recent option is a central Web resource designed solely for defensive publishing. The first site to offer such services is IP.com. With security measures in place to assure document retention and authenticity, IP.com lets companies publish innovations via the Internet at low cost and in a small fraction of the time it takes paper-based sources. In addition to publishing services, the site offers a globally accessible database dedicated to defensive publications that is visible to all patent examiners. A complete overview of defensive publishing tactics is available at www.ip.com.

In this age of research and development, it is the intellectual property portfolio that makes or breaks a company's success. A well-rounded IP strategy can be a company's strongest weapon in these times of patent wars. With the help of the Internet, defensive publishing is becoming a highly recognized and respected alternative to more traditional IP management techniques. Using defensive publishing alongside such practices as patenting and trade secrets helps companies enhance and maintain formidable IP portfolios.

You might also want ot check out some of the currently featured articles and editor's picks on Machine Design. Interesting stuff.

Tweet of the Week @Ballard_IP

Dan Ballard of Sequoia Counsel, who's on Twitter @Ballard_IP was quick to pick up on a tweet by @nishantmodak pointing to an oldie but goodie -- an article in Machine Design written by IP.com's CEO, Tom Colson, in 2001 titled "Defensive publishing: Protect your intellectual property".

We don't know what's more surprising, that patent attorneys and others interested in protecting intellectual property were on Twitter on New Year's Day commenting on an article on defensive publishing, or that we were on Twitter on the holiday, too, following their conversations.

It seems that social media doesn't take holidays off.

LED Tattoos? Implanted Silicon Electronics

Researchers have been able to build thin, flexible silicon electronics on silk substrates that almost completely dissolve inside the body. Does this mean we might be looking at LED tattoos in the future?

A recent article in Technology Review, published by MIT, brings to mind this Philips Design Probe from a couple of years ago, where the human body is explored as a platform for electronics and interactive skin technology. 

 

By building thin, flexible silicon electronics on silk substrates, researchers have made electronics that almost completely dissolve inside the body. So far the research group has demonstrated arrays of transistors made on thin films of silk. While electronics must usually be encased to protect them from the body, these electronics don't need protection, and the silk means the electronics conform to biological tissue. The silk melts away over time and the thin silicon circuits left behind don't cause irritation because they are just nanometers thick.

 

Cool.

Tweet of the Week @jmattbuchanan

Interesting observation by patent attorney J. Matthew Buchanan that, until he mentioned it, Google found no results for "shortest patent claims", in quotes. We expect that may not be so true in the near future. Buchanan Intellectual Property Office is online at bipo and we're following Matt on Twitter @jmattbuchanan where he's also holding in trust the username @uspto for the United States Patent and Trademark Office. If you're into patents and looking ahead of the curve, you'll find Matt Buchanan.

Tags: