An Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a trial held before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to cancel specific claims of a patent on a ground that could be raised under §102 or §103, and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications. An IPR petition may be filed by any person who is not the patent owner and who has not filed a civil lawsuit challenging the validity of the patent. IPR proceedings are available 9 months after the grant date for patents issued under the AIA first-to-file rules, and for all patents filed before the first-to-file rule took effect. A petition for IPR must be filed within one year from the date of service of a patent infringement complaint. Prior art search is the most important part of any IPR to invalidate a patent (subject patent). Below a list of top prior art search mistakes that can most often undermine IPR petitions and trials: 1. When the Novelty is Not Fully Understood The wrong interpretation of the novelty of a subject patent leads to a wrong prior art search. The novelty of the subject patent can generally be understood by reading the patent or independent claim thoroughly. For complex patents, novelty can be better understood by going through Public Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) document history. Public PAIR is an online service provided by the USPTO for general public to access information regarding patents and published applications. It allows users to see prosecution history of US patents and patent applications. Prosecution history describes the interaction between applicants of the subject patent and a patent office. Prosecution history describes the amendments made in the claims of the patent on the basis of the examiner’s objection and/or prior search results provided. 35 USC §102: “A person shall be entitled to a patent unless— (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 2. When a Wrong Priority Date is Picked. Priority Date, Filing Date, Publication Date and Grant Date of a patent play different role in any prior art search. The priority date is generally the earliest filing date of a subject patent or its family patents, i.e. it is generally the filing date of the earliest application that disclosed the subject patent’s specification. A patent’s life term is calculated based on its priority date. The filing date of a patent is the date on which the patent’s own application was filed. The publication date of a patent is the date on which the patent office made the application public and is usually 18 months after the filing date. The grant date of a patent is the date on which the patent was granted after examination by the patent office. A patent can be enforced in a patent infringement case only after it has been granted. For non-patent literature (such as research papers, product manuals, etc.) and, in most cases, foreign patents to be considered as prior art for a subject patent, they must have been published before the priority date of the subject patent. For US patents and applications to be considered as prior art for a subject US patent, they must have been filed before the priority date of the subject patent. 3. When the Prior Art Search Relies Only on the Claims of a Prior Art Patent. It is a common misconception that a patent prior art can be used to invalidate a subject patent only if its claims map on the novelty of the subject patent. A prior art reference can disclose the subject patent’s invention anywhere in its description. The only condition is that its filing or publication date must be before the priority date of the subject patent. 4. When the Prior Art Search Misses NPL References Prior art for a subject patent need not be restricted to patents or patent applications. Non-Patent Literature (NPL), which includes any type of literature such as research papers published in academic journals or presented in any conference, product user manuals, user guides and/or product application documents, and Non-Digitized NPL (includes offline literature such as magazines, newspapers, books, pictures, academic journals and/or user manual) must be included in a prior art search for it to be successful. If any of the NPL is missed, it can harm the IPR. 5. When Prior Art Search Misses Actual Products Available at the Time A strong prior art can be found even in products (launched before the priority date of the subject patent) but which may have since been discontinued and for whom literature such as user guides and manuals may no longer be available. It is in fact sometimes easier to show the same technology in the physical product than in the documents, once the product is identified and procured. Such a prior art search is stronger if it can be substantiated by reverse engineering and/or source code analysis of the product, showing that the prior art product embodied each of the claim limitation before the priority date of the subject patent. 6. When Claim Terms Are Not Construed Correctly Claim construction refers to the legal interpretation of claim terms. Generally, prior art searches would use claim terms used in the subject patent for making search strings while searching for a prior art. Search strings includes every possible synonym and combinations of the claim terms that might be used by a different inventor in their patent or NPL. Therefore it becomes important for searchers to know and consider the correct construction of the claim terms. Using a narrower construction than necessary may miss out on important prior art. But using a construction that is over-broad results in too many false positives and generally would increase costs of analysis later. The correct construction to be considered for claim terms comes generally from the description and the prosecution history of the patent. For example, the claim term “multimedia” may include all text, audio, video or any other data, but if it is restricted to the audio and video in the patent itself then text must be excluded from the search string. Only in cases where neither the description nor the prosecution history sufficiently define a term, the searcher must rely on extrinsic sources such as industry dictionaries and manuals. 7. When the Combination of §103 Prior Art References Would Not Have Been Obvious. While searching for a prior art, a combination of two patents, a patent and a patent application, or a patent and an NPL can be considered in combination in order to render a claimed invention obvious. Beyond the fact that the combination discloses each of the claim limitations, a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) must have at the time of the invention found it obvious to combine the two references in order to arrive at the patented invention. For example, in a very broad sense, the combination can be said to be obvious if both the references are from same field; even better, if they both address the same problem. Combining two or more references that relate to different technology areas would have little chance of success in invalidating a subject patent. 35 USC §103: ‘’A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.’’ 8. When Proper Prior Art Search Tools Are Not Used A prior art search cannot rely on just Google and/or free search engines – because the search interface usually offers very limited functionality and their coverage only spans a few popular patent offices or journals. There are however many paid patent databases available for prior art search and NPL searches, such as Orbit Intelligence by Qestel, PatSnap, PatBase, etc. that provide the ability to form more complex search strings. We at Copperpod, for example, use Orbit Intelligence for its wider coverage as well as its ability to perform complex searches (including use of wildcard expressions and operators) and generate useful analytics. 9. When Prior Art Search Results Were Already Cited By Or To The Examiner For any prior art search, it is important to make an exclusion list before performing the search. An exclusion list should include all the patents and NPL cited by the subject patent and family patents of the subject patent, because in most cases it can be presumed that the examiner considered those references and found that the subject patent was novel in view of those references. 10. When the Right Experts Are Not Retained An IPR petition would in most cases be accompanied with a report by a technical expert on whose testimony the petitioner intends to rely on at the trial. However, often the petitioner’s counsel relies on certain technical experts because they have worked with them before or are more comfortable working with them. However, even if they do not finally submit a report, it is advisable to consult academicians and industry experts who were working on the technology (described in the subject patent) around the same time when the subject patent was granted. At a minimum those experts can provide guidance for the searchers, counsel and the eventual testifying expert. Even more importantly, their institute archives (online or offline) or company documents (if not confidential) can be a great source of prior art. In IPRs and patent litigation (and arguably in life as well), it takes a thousand correct steps to win, and only one incorrect step to lose. The mistakes listed above are by no means exhaustive, but are certainly the most common ones we have encountered while helping our clients not only file successful IPR petitions but also while helping our clients successfully defend their patents against IPRs. Did you encounter any of these as well – or encounter new ones during your IPR campaign? Write to us at info@copperpodip.com. #priorartsearch #intellectualproperty #ptab #invalidity #ipr Keywords: priorart search, prior art, ipr, prior art patent, prior art search tools, intellectual property rights, intellectual property, patent search, us patent search, uspto patent search, wipo patent search, us patent, patent lawyer, ip law, ip protection

Information today has become an influential mechanism – almost equivalent to money or power. Its extravagance and distribution have led to knowledge (including the ability to create it) becoming an incredibly crucial economic input. With the development of information and accessibility to it, the necessity to protect such information, which may often contain pieces sensitive to the survival and growth of an enterprise, has become far-reaching. Such information is known as a trade secret. Trade secret may consist of commercial or technical know-how that is used in a business and offers precedence over competitors who do not know such information. For example, a trade secret may be a formula for a chemical compound, an apparatus for manufacturing a product, a manufacturing process, computer software, or valuable business information (e.g., marketing information or, under certain circumstances, a list of customers). Therefore, trade secret protection is of utmost importance in today’s era. Trade Secret US Laws The U.S. Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996, which became effective on January 1, 1997, makes theft or embezzlement of trade secrets a federal crime. Prior to this law, both civil and criminal actions for such trade-secret misconduct were governed by state laws. While federal authorities had previously made efforts to prosecute those who stole trade secrets by employing interstate auto theft, mail fraud, or wire fraud allegations, such actions were not ideally suited to accomplishing the main objective of punishing those who engaged in the theft of trade secrets. The act defines trade secrets as all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing. The act defines the owner as "the person or entity in whom or in which rightful legal or equitable title to, or license in, the trade secret is reposed." The judgment of the theft of trade secrets under the EEA can result in a fine of up to $250,000 for an individual (up to $5 million for corporations), imprisonment of up to ten years, or both. If the crime is committed for the benefit of any foreign government, instrumentality, or agent, the penance increases to fines of $500,000 (up to $10 million for an organization), imprisonment up to 15 years, or both. Under economic surveillance, "Whoever, intending or knowing that the offense will benefit any foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, knowingly steals or without authorization appropriates, takes, carries away, or conceals, or by fraud, artifice, or deception obtains a trade secret; without authorization copies, duplicates, sketches, draws, photographs, downloads, uploads, alters, destroys, photocopies, replicates, transmits, delivers, sends, mails, communicates, or conveys a trade secret; receives, buys, or possesses a trade secret, knowing the same to have been stolen or appropriated, obtained, or converted without authorization; attempts to commit any offense described in any of paragraphs (1) through (3); or conspires with one or more other persons to commit any offense described in any paragraphs (1) through (3), and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy shall be liable for the recited penalties." The section on the theft of trade secrets begins with the preamble "Whoever, with intent to convert a trade secret, that is related to or included in a product that is produced for or placed interstate or foreign commerce, to the economic benefit of anyone other than the owner thereof, and intending or knowing that the offense will, injure any owner of that trade secret, knowingly . . . performs any of the acts set forth in numbered (1)­(5) recited hereinabove shall be liable for the recited penalties." The Economic Espionage Act provides another weapon in the arsenal available to prosecute those who have been involved in the theft of trade secrets. The act also permits those who cannot afford to initiate civil litigation against the one plighted in the theft of trade secrets to attempt to have the government bring a criminal action that, although not providing any direct financial relief to the trade-secret owner, may result in criminal conviction and punishment of the jailbird. The DSTA defines the term “trade secret,” to mean almost any kind of information for which the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep such information. For example, a medical marijuana company in Arizona sued its departed CEO under the DTSA for the alleged theft of trade secrets from a cloud storage account. AZ DP Holdings LLC, et al. v. Gullickson, (D.Ar. – DATE). In another “weed” case, a state court in Pennsylvania found that news organizations should not receive uncensored copies of applications for state licenses to grow and process medical marijuana because the applications include applicants’ sole information on things like fertilizer, pesticides and cannabis processing, all of which are included in the “trade secrets” exemption to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know law. Pennsylvania Dept. of Health v. McKelvey et al., 189 CD 2018, Commonwealth Ct of Pa. In a case from November 2018, a New England craft beer brewer sued another brewer for theft of trade secrets, among other claims, under the DTSA and Massachusetts trade secret law for publicly posting secret beer formulas on a public job recruitment forum. Trade Secret Theft in ITC The International Trade Commission (ITC) is a way out for victims to file suit where the acts of misappropriation occurred outside the United States and an infringing product is imported into the US as seen from two investigations that the ITC opened during 2019. Under Section 337(a)(1)(A), a trade secret claim provides ITC jurisdiction for “unfair methods of competition and unfair acts in the importation of articles,” commonly referred to as “non-statutory claims”. Resolvement includes restricting the entry of the offending products into the US or preventing their commercialization to the extent already imported. The Federal Circuit in TianRui Group. Co. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 661 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2011) held that the ITC has jurisdiction even where the acts constituting the alleged misappropriation occurred entirely outside the United States. On February 28, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation into the botulinum toxin products manufactured by Korean Daewoong Pharmaceuticals Company Limited (Daewoong) and its California licensee, Evolus, Inc. (Evolus), after two courts in the United States dismissed theft of trade secrets cases filed by Medytox Inc. and Allergan entities. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 for the importation into the US and sale of certain botulinum toxin products, processes for manufacturing or relating to the same and certain products containing the same misappropriate trade secrets used by the plaintiff. Medytox pursued its trade secrets claims at the ITC after the claims in its actions filed in Indiana and California were dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds and stayed pending the outcomes of litigation pending in South Korea. Moreover, the Indiana court found that because certain conduct related to the theft occurred in Korea, the court was without jurisdiction. Establishing Trade Secret Claims Due to the complexity of trade secret law, it is wise to seek the advice of an experienced and knowledgeable intellectual property and business law attorney to draft non-disclosure agreements for your business and put proper safeguards and systems in place. Generally, there are three criteria to establish a trade secret claim: The ‘secret’ must qualify for trade secret protection; Precautions were made to protect the ‘secret’; and The information was misappropriated, either through breach of confidence or improper means. It is important to note that the law allows replication if reverse engineering was used, the information was discovered for oneself, or if the originator of the secret does not take reasonable precautions for trade secret protection. Unlike criminal law, the legal burden of proof in a civil trade secret claim requires that the plaintiff prove each element of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. While this protects those in possession of trade secrets, it requires sound legal advice to really ensure proper protection and enforcement. Trade Secret Theft Cases Tesla Motors v. Anderson et al. (April 2017) - In January 2017, Tesla Motors, Inc. filed an infringement of contract lawsuit against former employee Sterling Anderson, former chief of the company’s Autopilot Program, and Chris Urmson, former CTO of Alphabet Inc.’s self-driving technology. Tesla alleged that Anderson and Urmson attempted to enroll multiple Tesla engineers to their new company, Aurora, and allegedly stole “hundreds of gigabytes” of confidential Tesla information. Anderson’s and Urmsons’s goal for Aurora is to develop driverless cars and improve safety for self-driving technology. Tesla claimed in the suit that Anderson violated his employment contract and ruptured a duty of loyalty to Tesla by recruiting Tesla engineers and using company information to form Aurora. On April 19, 2017, the parties settled the lawsuit when Tesla agreed to withdraw its suit without damages, attorneys’ fees, or any finding of wrongdoing. Aurora agreed to compensate Tesla for future ongoing audits conducted to establish that Aurora did not in fact misappropriate Tesla’s trade secrets. Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (December 2018) - Recently, Apple was the disputed subject as it was alleged to have stolen trade secrets from Qualcomm and shared them with Intel Corporation after Qualcomm allowed Apple access to its source code and tools for LTE modem chipsets. Qualcomm claimed Apple misappropriated their trade secrets in an attempt to preserve the quality of the chips Apple purchases but changed the supplier of the chips from Qualcomm to Intel Corporation for their new iPhones. A complaint was initially filed in November by Qualcomm claiming that Apple ruptured a software-licensing contract by sharing confidential details regarding Qualcomm’s chips with engineers at Intel Corporation. A motion to amend the complaint accuses Apple of stealing trade secrets “for the purpose of improving lower-quality modem chipsets, including those manufactured by Intel, a competitor of Qualcomm, to render such chipsets usable in Apple devices with the ultimate goal of diverting Qualcomm’s Apple-based business.” The Engineer behind Google, Uber trade secret theft case sentenced (April 2020) - Anthony Levandowski, the former Google engineer, was sentenced on August 4, 2020, four months after he pleaded guilty to stealing Google's trade secrets. He was also ordered to pay a $95,000 fine and $756,499.22 in restitution to Waymo, Google’s self-driving car program he stole from. The case started from an incident in 2016 in which Levandowski downloaded and copied files from Google onto his laptop and resigned. He then used that data to form a self-driving truck company, Otto, that eventually went on to be acquired by Uber. Waymo filed a lawsuit against Uber, alleging that by acquiring Otto, it was able to extract sensitive information that Levandowski took with him on the way out of Google. Waymo and Uber settled the trial after 4 days of argument and testimony in San Francisco in February 2018 but it wasn't immediately clear that a criminal case was being pursued against Levandowski until 2019, when a federal grand jury summoned the engineer. The engineer was ultimately charged with 33 counts of theft and attempted theft of trade secrets for absconding with 14,000 files belonging to Waymo. The files reportedly cost the company millions of dollars to produce and contained highly technical information. Levandowski pleaded guilty to one of those charges as part of a plea deal in March in exchange for federal prosecutors dropping the other 32 charges. According to the U.S. The Attorney's Office of the Northern District of California, when Judge William Alsup called the case "the biggest trade secret crime I have ever seen," adding "this was not small. This was massive in scale." Trade Secret Protection Trade secrets are often what makes a business unique and can effectively set a business up for sustainable and long-term success. While trade secret theft may seem uncommon, several current cases suggest otherwise. “Tappy”—the automated robot used to test iPhones at T-Mobile—is at the center of trade secret theft charges against Huawei Device Co. and Huawei Device USA Inc. Huawei was originally contracted in 2010 by T-Mobile to supply phone handsets, but used the relationship to gain access to and photograph the testing robot and allegedly copy the robot’s design. Huawei is scheduled to appear before the U.S. federal court on March 2 and is looking at paying up to $5.5 million for all combined charges brought against the company including trade secret theft, wire fraud, and obstruction of justice. The current case pending against Huawei is an example of a trade secret breach of confidence and illustrates the necessity to protect against trade secret theft. Unlike patent, trademark, and copyright law, there is no way to register a trade secret with U.S. federal or state governments, so protecting this type of proprietary information requires a different strategy. When seeking to protect a trade secret, it’s important to think about all the ways trade secrets can be exposed in a worst-case scenario. Non-disclosure agreements: Potentially the most important component to legal protection of trade secrets is the creation of a non-disclosure agreement (NDAs) with the help of a trusted attorney. These legally binding documents must articulate that employees are not allowed to share the employer’s confidential information during or after employment. An NDA will typically be enforced by a court in the event of a trade secret theft claim and will help to ensure your business is protected. Managerial precautions: Conceptually, the goal is to clearly identify what is considered a trade secret and to minimize human involvement and contact with those elements of your business to only those employees whose work requires the information. First, make it clear what is confidential. Both electronic documents and files, as well as tangible files and documents, must be labeled as confidential. Locking up documents in cabinet files or storing trade secrets in secured rooms with minimal access is also essential to minimizing access to sensitive information. Other forms of trade secret protection include creating passwords for computer files or restricted access to certain rooms. It is also important to monitor sensitive information so that you and your business are aware of who has access to trade secrets and when. Another strategy is to only allow access to certain pieces of confidential information only to certain parties on a need-to-know basis. Employee training: Another key role in establishing the protection of trade secrets is informing employees of company policies and the treatment of confidential information. As an employer, this is important to ensure reasonable protection efforts of trade secrets and will ensure streamlined dissemination of protocol for confidential information. Based on trade secret misappropriation cases filed over the last 10 years, 40% of cases dealt with former employees taking trade secrets with them over to their new employers while 25% of cases dealt with suppliers, consultants, and vendors misusing trade secrets disclosed to them in due course of business. Interestingly, cyber-criminals and hackers constituted only 15% of trade secret theft, while the remaining 20% were attributable to actions by current employees at companies where the theft occurred. These numbers highlight the need for not just technical solutions (effective most against cyber-criminals and hackers) but also (and even more so) legal and procedural solutions to protecting trade secrets before, during, and after the secrets are willingly disclosed to employees and vendors. Copperpod’s proprietary DM2 (Define, Mark, Disseminate, Monitor) model for trade secret management and enforcement helps companies protect their competitive advantage through trade secrets and their trade secrets through technology. We have also leveraged our source code review capabilities to help clients achieve success in several high-tech trade secret cases covering enterprise software, embedded systems, power management, web browsers and applications, cryptography, data compression, content management systems, video surveillance systems, image processing, and semiconductor memory management. ​References https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9711.html https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2020/01/26/review-of-key-2019-trade-secret-decisions-and-trends-part-ii/id=118215/ https://digitalguardian.com/blog/engineer-behind-google-uber-trade-secret-theft-case-sentenced http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/recent_decisions https://www.themyerslg.com/blog/2019/05/protecting-against-theft-of-trade-secrets/ Tanisha is a Technical Content Writer at Copperpod IP. She has a Master's degree and a Bachelor’s degree in Economics specialising in Policy Making and Industrial Economics. Tanisha has worked before as a Content Strategist at an Event Management Company and a Non-Profit Organisation. She takes a keen interest in Sensor Networks, IoT, Wearables, Life sciences and Virtual Reality.

The scanning electron microscope (SEM) uses a focused beam of high-energy electrons to generate a variety of signals at the surface of solid specimens. The signals that derive from electron-sample interactions reveal information about the sample including external morphology (texture), chemical composition, and crystalline structure, and orientation of materials making up the sample. Areas ranging from approximately 1 cm to 5 microns in width can be imaged in a scanning mode using conventional SEM techniques (magnification ranging from 20X to approximately 30,000X, the spatial resolution of 50 to 100 nm). The SEM is also capable of performing analyses of selected point locations on the sample; this approach is especially useful in qualitatively or semi-quantitatively determining chemical compositions (using EDS), crystalline structure, and crystal orientations (using EBSD). The design and function of the SEM are very similar to the EPMA and considerable overlap in capabilities exists between the two instruments. How does SEM work? The main SEM components include: Source of electrons Column down which electrons travel with electromagnetic lenses Electron detector Sample chamber Computer and display to view the images Electrons are produced at the top of the column, accelerated down, and passed through a combination of lenses and apertures to produce a focused beam of electrons that hits the surface of the sample. The sample is mounted on a stage in the chamber area and, unless the microscope is designed to operate at low vacuums, both the column and the chamber are evacuated by a combination of pumps. The level of the vacuum will depend on the design of the microscope. The position of the electron beam on the sample is controlled by scan coils situated above the objective lens. These coils allow the beam to be scanned over the surface of the sample. This beam scanning enables information about a defined area on the sample to be collected. As a result of the electron-sample interaction, a number of signals are produced. These signals are then detected by appropriate detectors. Sample-Electron Interaction SEM produces images by scanning the sample with a high-energy beam of electrons. As the electrons interact with the sample, they produce secondary electrons, backscattered electrons, and characteristic X-rays. These signals are collected by one or more detectors to form images which are then displayed on the computer screen. When the electron beam hits the surface of the sample, it penetrates the sample to a depth of a few microns, depending on the accelerating voltage and the density of the sample. Many signals, like secondary electrons and X-rays, are produced as a result of this interaction inside the sample. The maximum resolution obtained in an SEM depends on multiple factors, like the electron spot size and interaction volume of the electron beam with the sample. While it cannot provide atomic resolution, some SEMs can achieve resolution below 1 nm. Typically, modern full-sized SEMs provide a resolution between 1-20 nm whereas desktop systems can provide a resolution of 20 nm or more. Where does SEM help? The SEM is routinely used to generate high-resolution images of shapes of objects (SEI) and to show spatial variations in chemical compositions: Acquiring elemental maps or spot chemical analyses using EDS, Discrimination of phases based on mean atomic number (commonly related to relative density) using BSE Compositional maps based on differences in trace element "activitors" (typically transition metal and Rare Earth elements) using CL. The SEM is also widely used to identify phases based on qualitative chemical analysis and/or crystalline structure. Precise measurement of very small features and objects down to 50 nm in size is also accomplished using the SEM. Back Scattered Electron images (BSE) can be used for rapid discrimination of phases in multiphase samples. SEMs equipped with diffracted backscattered electron detectors (EBSD) can be used to examine micro fabric and crystallographic orientation in many materials. Material Science - In modern material science, investigations into nanotubes and nanofibers, high-temperature superconductors, mesoporous architectures, and alloy strength, all rely heavily on the use of SEMs for research and investigation. Nanowires for Gas Sensing - Researchers are exploring new ways nanowires can be used as gas sensors by improving existing fabrication methods and developing new ones. Semiconductor Inspection - Reliable performance of semiconductors requires accurate topographical information. The high-resolution three-dimensional images produced by SEMs offers a speedy, accurate measurement of the composition of the semiconductor. Microchip Assembly - As the Internet of Things (IoT) becomes more prevalent in the day-to-day lives of consumers and manufacturers, SEMs will continue to play an important role in the design of low cost, low power chipsets for non-traditional computers and networked devices. Forensic Investigations - Criminal and other forensic investigations utilize SEMs to uncover evidence and gain further forensic insight. Uses include: Analysis of gunshot residue Jewellery examination bullet marking comparison Handwriting and print analysis Examination of banknote authenticity Paint particle and fiber analysis Filament bulb analysis in traffic incidents Biological Science - SEMs can be used on anything from insects and animal tissue to bacteria and viruses. Uses include: Measuring the effect of climate change on species Identifying new bacteria and virulent strains Vaccination testing Uncovering new species Work within the field of genetics Soil and Rock Sampling - Backscattered electron imaging can be used to identify compositional differences, while the composition of elements can be provided by microanalysis. Valid uses include: Identification of tools and early human artifacts Soil quality measurement for farming and agriculture Dating historic ruins Forensic evidence is soil quality, toxins, etc. Medical Science - SEMs are used in medical science to compare blood and tissue samples in determining the cause of illness and measuring the effects of treatments on patients (while contributing to the design of new treatments). Common uses include: Identifying diseases and viruses Testing new vaccinations and medicines Comparing tissue samples between patients in a control and test group Testing samples over the lifespan of a patient Art - Micrographs produced by SEMs have been used to create digital artworks. High-resolution three-dimensional images of various materials create a range of diverse landscapes, image subjects are both alien and familiar. Copperpod IP helps attorneys evaluate patent infringement and uncover hard-to-find evidence of use through public documentation research, product testing and reverse engineering, including reverse engineering techniques outlined above. Please contact us at info@copperpodip.com to know more about our reverse engineering capabilities.

DDR4 SDRAM or Double Data Rate 4 Synchronous Dynamic Random-Access Memory is a type of synchronous dynamic random-access memory with a high bandwidth interface. DDR4 SDRAM was released to the public market in Q2 2014. Following that, Intel introduced their new Haswell-E processor and Intel LGA 2011-3 platform with a built-in 4-channel memory controller that supports DDR4 modules. Because of the different signaling voltage and physical interface, DDR4 is incompatible with any previous form of random-access memory (RAM). A DDR4 module, or DIMM, is physically identical to a DDR3 DIMM. In DDR4, the printed circuit board is marginally taller, and the pin count is increased from 240 pins in DDR2 and DDR3 up to 288. The main notch (which ensures the DIMM is not mounted incorrectly) is also in a different spot. The connector's overall form has a subtle "V" contour to assist with mounting. DDR4 is designed to run at higher speeds and capacities while using less power, and it includes reliability features not found in DDR3. DDR4 – Functional Description For faster data transfer rates, DDR4 SDRAM has an 8n prefetch with a parallel bank. Internally, the memory is set up with 16 banks, four bank groups, and four banks for each bank group. A bank is an independent memory array. The requested bank address is located in memory using the row and column addresses. The page is a unique address that includes the bank group, bank, and row addresses. The total number of columns in a row is referred to as the page size. To increase the data rate without raising burst length, rank architecture is critical. DDR4 - Market Insights In 2016, the latest, faster DDR4 DRAM generation gained a major market share, accounting for 45 percent of total DRAM sales. DDR3 DRAM, which includes low-power models used in laptops, smartphones, and notebook PCs, accounted for 84 percent of total DRAM sales in 2014 and 76 percent in 2015, but DDR4 price premiums disappeared in 2016, and prices dropped to nearly the same ASP as DDR3 DRAMs. DDR4 controllers and interfaces are now used in a growing number of microprocessors, including Intel's newest 14nm x86 Core processors. DDR4 accounts for 80% of DRAM market revenues in 2020, while DDR3 sales account for 17% of market revenues. Revenues from DDR and DDR2 account for 2% and 1% of the market share, respectively. DDR4 – Top 10 Players The above graph shows a total count of patent families assigned to top 10 players in the market in the field related to DDR4 SDRAM. The top three companies holding more than 100 patent families are Intel, Alibaba Holding and Shanghai Lianshang Network Science & Technology. Apart from these, Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, Advanced Micro Devices, Micron Technology and Apple are almost at equivalence. DDR4 – Top 10 Markets The above chart shows the top 10 potential markets in the DDR4 SDRAM industry. China dominates with 1,182 patents followed by the US with 1,061 patents. Sumit is a research analyst at Copperpod. He has a Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering. His interest areas are Microcontrollers, IoT, Semiconductors, Displays, Wireless Communications and Memory Devices. Download the full report References 1. http://www.ilinuxkernel.com/files/ddr4_for_dummies_hp.pdf 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR4_SDRAM#cite_note-hynix_April_2011-1 3. https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/dram/module/ 4.https://m.dailyhunt.in/news/india/english/techquila-epaper-tecqla/difference+between+ddr4+vs+gddr5+hbm+and+lpddr4-newsid-133447206#:~:text=LPDDR4%20is%20the%20mobile%20equivalent,or%20a%2064%2Dbit%20channel. 5.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301412054_Design_of_DDR4_SDRAM_controller 6. https://www.kingston.com/en/memory/ddr4-overview 7. https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91LwsXv8xUS.pdf 8.https://www.statista.com/statistics/553383/worldwide-dram-market-share-by-architecture/ 9.https://www.icinsights.com/news/bulletins/DDR4-Set-To-Account-For-Largest-Share-Of-DRAM-Market-By-Architecture/ Copperpod provides Reverse Engineering services. Copperpod analyzes existing hardware and software systems and processes owned by the seller to provide you a clear and detailed view of the seller's architecture, growth plans and the investment that such growth will require.

With thousands of transactions and billions of dollars spent on technology mergers and acquisitions (M&A) every year, buyers must protect their investments by conducting due diligence. M&A due diligence allows acquirers to do three important things: Confirm the premises of the deal Gather information to plan the integration Identify unknown risks When considering an acquisition, a buyer will first amass information about the target company and formulate an investment thesis. Then, the buyer would perform due diligence to integrate the target into their operation, within a predetermined window of time as agreed upon between the buyer and the target company. The buyer must figure out how the target’s people and products fit into the organization and plan integration costs which are critical to a successful outcome and future growth post investment. Then comes the process of identifying the unknown risks. Even in the best-laid plans, there are unknowns. Some unknowns put the business plan and efficacy of the investment at risk. The buyer needs to unearth and mitigate those unknown risks. M&A due diligence for technology acquisitions typically focuses on security and legal risks. However, poor code and architecture quality can have a lasting impact especially where software assets are a significant part of the valuation of the target company. When a technology company or private equity buyer acquires a software-based product company, the technology is often the most important asset, even more valuable than existing customer base, branding or employees. In that scenario, among all the other due diligence considerations, identifying risks in the software becomes a top priority. Technology Risks during Technology M&A Modern software contains a mix of open source, third-party, and proprietary code. They all contribute to the following dimensions of risk: • Legal Risks For open source and third-party software, legal risk is the most prevalent. Being out of license compliance can have real-world consequences including lawsuits, impact on corporate reputation if sued for licensing and loss of IP if license compliance requires distribution of source code. To surface and mitigate legal problems in codebase, careful assessment should be performed highlighting obligations in open source and third-party licenses and any conflicts with their use and distribution models. • Security Risks To create a full risk profile of the technology being acquired, buyer must examine its security risk across multiple dimensions. Issues with the architecture, proprietary code or open source components could lead to points of weakness making the software vulnerable to attack. The consequences associated with such vulnerabilities include data breaches, regulatory issues and unplanned work to resolve security issues. A security evaluation must identify high-level design flaws and ensure security controls are designed into the architecture. Next, it must analyze the proprietary code for security bugs externally using ethical hacking and internally using application testing tools. Finally, it must examine open source and third-party components for known vulnerabilities. • Software Quality Risks Although Software Quality Risk may not appear to have as immediate an impact as legal or security risks but it does have a significant effect insidiously. Low-quality code written in a nonmodular way is hard to maintain and makes it difficult to add features, fix bugs, and patch vulnerabilities. Low-quality code creates technical liability including non-value-adding efforts such as bug fixes, brittle code maintenance, code refactoring that must occur to keep the codebase functioning. It imposes a burden that eats away resources from the future and reduces developer availability. Poor quality software can slow integration and blow the business case for an acquisition. Software Audits A software audit is an internal or external review of a software program to check its quality, progress or adherence to plans, standards and regulations. Software audits may be conducted for a number of reasons including verifying licensing compliance and compliance with industry standards. Code quality and Design quality are two different aspects of the source code that should be reviewed in order to check quality and sustainability. A good Software Audit incorporates both a Code Quality Audit and a Design Quality Audit to assess the source code comprehensively. Code quality includes the extensive quality check of code line by line and function by function. The company with poor code quality won’t get sued or breached but its products may be hard to enhance and maintain. The product would be buggy and there can be a drag on every fix or feature. In order to reduce these problems company may need to redesign the code which may further require to hire more senior developers. Code Quality Audit combines static analysis tools and manual code review to analyze code quality. It requires access to source code and libraries and focuses on quality of coding at the file and method level relative to the industry. Further, it includes comparisons to industry benchmarks to assess quality, reusability, extensibility, and maintainability in proprietary code. Various metrics and benchmarks such as Total Size of Codebase (File Size and No. of Lines), Comment Density and Ratios, Inactive to Active Code Ratio, and Quality Compliance Rates per Developer are used to quantify how well the code has been developed. Design quality involves the hierarchical construction and architecture of the code depicting its modularity and scalability. The code should ideally have layered architecture and hierarchical dependencies between them. Each layer should have their individual APIs and bad cyclicality must be avoided. The architecture update of the code is time consuming, thus fixing poor design quality is a slow process. Design Quality Audit combines the skills of experienced architects and powerful architectural analysis tools to assess overall architecture in terms of modularity and hierarchy, thus rounding out a complete picture of the health of the software. It includes an analysis of how the architecture affects maintainability and identifies potential risk areas that are candidates for code refactoring. Metrics such as Open Source vs. Proprietary Code, Number and Ratio of Classes and Methods and File Interdependencies are used to quantify how the code has been designed. A great architecture can have a poor implementation, and vice versa, so it’s important to dig into the quality of the code. Ideally, the proprietary code is well written and the open source components are up to date and well supported by the community. The quality of code greatly affects the economic aspect of the product. An unhealthy code with lots of bugs would decrease developer’s productivity as he has to spend more time fixing those bugs. Had the code been architecturally sound, this time could have been used to develop new features. It directly affects the revenue generation and optionality for new businesses. Moreover, the safety of an unhealthy code would always remain a question and would result in decreased cyber reliance of the product. It is therefore important to understand the holistic risk when evaluating software assets in M&A. Poor quality design and unhealthy code can slow integration, impede fixing and improving software whereas healthy code can increase developer’s efficiency, cost reduction and enhance safety. #technology #codereview #software

The pendulum against covered business methods and software continues to swing backward or forward depending on whom you ask. Patent litigation statistics from 2014 and 2015 show that patent litigation on the whole decreased by over 13% - while NPEs in general increased their share of filings in the last year. America Invents Act and Alice-related decisions failed to rein in the number of case filings, contrary to knee-jerk public opinion. However, one effect the America Invents Act and Alice did have is that plaintiffs, especially NPEs, find it increasingly difficult to successfully argue broad infringement reads. At the same time, plaintiffs are also required to furnish increasingly detailed evidence of infringement in their contentions and expert reports. This has generally worked in favor of defendants – however plaintiffs that do survive these early tests pose an increased threat for the defendants. A defensive code review can enable defendants to more effectively counter plaintiff’s infringement contentions in such environments. A review of defendants' source code has traditionally been seen as the plaintiffs' burden. On a typical software/telecommunications patent lawsuit worth more than $25 million, plaintiffs spend a median $3 million until end of discovery. By the end of the case, the median expense rises up to $5 million. Of the $3 million, plaintiffs can spend up to $100,000 on code review alone, not including the hundreds of hours of derivative work such as interrogatories, depositions and costs of movement, storage and security of code printouts. Plaintiffs’ experts conduct their review of the code and present their opinions substantiated with select portions of the source code. Depending on the scope and complexity of the claims, these contentions are seldom comprehensive. Instead, code excerpts included are notional at best and the governing language is intentionally ambiguous and over inclusive. It is not uncommon for plaintiffs to cite 10 lines of the code, taken out of any context, with omnibus comments that encompass the entirety of the code production as potentially infringing - escaping their burden to provide exact evidence of potential infringement and leaving the defendants in dark f about the actual infringement read the plaintiff is enforcing. Defendants on the other hand incur a median expense of $2 million by end of discovery – and a median $4 million by the end defending similar cases. A major portion of the expense is code collection and production – often up to $1 million. However, beyond diligent collection, a marginal effort is actually spent on review of the collected code by the non-infringement expert. Non-infringement arguments most often hinge on difference in opinion of experts on how claim terms are interpreted and how code functions are interpreted. An in depth review of the defendants source code by the defense expert may often be overlooked by the outside counsel in this process. Defensive code reviews increase the confidence of the non-infringement expert as well as of the jury regarding the expert’s opinions. In addition, defensive code reviews can also provide non-infringing alternatives (and in some cases, even prior art). It is not uncommon for different programmers within the organization to use varying approaches in different products or modules – some of which can be working proof of viable non-infringing alternatives. In addition, in select situations where plaintiffs are operating entities, the plaintiff should be compelled to produce their code from around the time or before the asserted patents were filed. Experts can review this code for bolstering on-sale bar and/or non-enablement arguments. Given that code productions can be fairly large – running into millions of lines, thousands of files, gigabytes of data – clients desire to keep expenses at a minimum. Fortunately, a number of tools exist that help streamline code reviews. Review platforms such as Scitools Understand and Eclipse, for example, allow experts to quickly navigate bi-directionally between classes and functions – reducing efforts and cost by over 80%. These tools also provide experts the ability to visualize the code as flowcharts, graphs and butterfly diagrams – which work as great visual aids for not only understanding the code but also during technology tutorials. Using the tools such as above, defense experts should deepen their analysis beyond rebutting only the interpretation of the code under the claim construction guidelines and/or highlighting gaps in the contentions. Taking plaintiff’s citations at face value is indeed a risk generated by the defense counsel and one that can be easily mitigated. Further, the defendant expert has a clear and consequential advantage conducting this review by virtue of access to the institutional knowledge from the defendants’ general counsel and engineers. The cost benefit of such a review is easily assessed and should be a standard operating procedure of every patent defense. #patents #codereview #electronics #security #software #sourcecode

A patent is a contract between the patent owner and the government that gives the patent owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, selling and importing an invention for a limited period of years, in exchange for publishing an enabling public disclosure of the invention. But what happens when the infringer is the government itself? The Eleventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides immunity to the State Government of U.S. against any patent infringement lawsuit. The Eleventh Amendment reads: “The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” The import of the Eleventh Amendment is that state governments have sovereign immunity, which prevents individuals and private parties from suing them in court for money damages. However, it is still possible to sue state entities in Federal Court for an injunction. If a court finds that infringement occurred, an injunction is issued which requires that the infringing activities be ceased. While it is impossible to sue a state government for patent infringement due to the protections of the Eleventh Amendment, it is possible to sue the Federal government of U.S. for infringement in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This is due to 28 U.S. Code § 1498, which waives the United States’ right to sovereign immunity and grants individuals and private entities the right to sue for infringement damages. The statute 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) states: “Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture. Reasonable and entire compensation shall include the owner’s reasonable costs, including reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, in pursuing the action if the owner is an independent inventor, a non-profit organization, or an entity that had no more than 500 employees at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture of the patented invention by or for the United States. Notwithstanding  the preceding sentences, unless the action has been pending for more than 10 years from the time of filing to the time that the owner applies for such costs and fees, reasonable and entire compensation shall not include such costs and fees if the court finds that the position of the United States was substantially justified or that special circumstances make an award unjust. For the purposes of this section, the use or manufacture of an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States by a contractor, a subcontractor, or any person, firm, or corporation for the Government and with the authorization or consent of the Government, shall be construed as use or manufacture for the United States. The court shall not award compensation under this section if the claim is based on the use or manufacture by or for the United States of any article owned, leased, used by, or in the possession of the United States prior to July 1, 1918.” The statute explains that an owner whose patent has been infringed by the United States Government can sue the Government for recovery of his entire compensation or at least reasonable compensation. The compensation will cover owner’s damages and lost profits. The compensation may even include reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys if the owner is an independent inventor or a non-profit organization or an entity with employee base up to 500 at any time during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture by or for the U.S. Government. Authorization and Consent The Government can also authorize its contractors to infringe another company’s patents when performing under a Government contract. Thus, an infringing contractor can use Government’s direction as a defense against patent infringement lawsuit. Therefore, a patent owner who sues the private party infringer in such cases is wasting its time and efforts. Instead, the owner needs to properly exercise its rights against the Government. In practice, many Government contracts contain a standard Federal Acquisition Regulation (“FAR”) clause – “52.227-1 Authorization and Consent”- that states: The Government authorizes and consents to all use and manufacture, in performing this contract or any subcontract at any tier, of any invention described in and covered by a United States patent- (1) Embodied in the structure or composition of any article the delivery of which is accepted by the Government under this contract; or (2) Used in machinery, tools, or methods whose use necessarily results from compliance by the Contractor or a subcontractor with (i) specifications or written provisions forming a part of this contract or (ii) specific written instructions given by the Contracting Officer directing the manner of performance. the entire liability to the Government for infringement of a United States patent shall be determined solely by the provisions of the indemnity clause, if any, included in this contract or any subcontract hereunder (including any lower-tier subcontract), and the Government assumes liability for all other infringement to the extent of the authorization and consent hereinabove granted. However, if a contract or grant fails to contain this clause and the Government does not otherwise give its consent in some other form, a contractor or grantee may be liable for patent infringement. The Government’s right to take patents can sometimes have extreme consequences. One such example is “Gerard T. O'BRIEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant” case. The Government had developed a worldwide radio navigation system that was found to infringe a patent held by the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleged a series of continuing violations through which his intellectual property has been “taken” by the Government. The alleged taking occurred through both the Government's prevention of plaintiff's use of his patented process as well as by the Government's aid and inducement of others' infringement of plaintiff's property through their unlicensed use of his process. The Court of Claims noted that the Government’s action prevented the patentee from exploiting its patent. Since the Government’s system was already in use worldwide, it was incredibly far-fetched that anyone else would license the patent; there simply was no need for a second navigation system. The owner was restricted to obtain a reasonable royalty from the Government. Also, it did not receive any other damages for the fact that it was essentially put out of business. While it may sound impossible to win a patent infringement case against the Government, it does happen. In 2016, SecurityPoint Holdings sued the Transportation Security Administration, alleging that the TSA infringed on its patent for a cart used to transport security screening trays. The TSA didn’t dispute that it had duplicated SecurityPoint’s design. Instead, it took the position that the cart system could be implemented by any skilled artisan, thus rendering the patent obvious and void. However, the judge ultimately found that while the invention was simple and was composed of a combination of simple items, that it was only a simple design in hindsight, and thus wasn’t obvious. The argument for the non-obviousness of the patent was bolstered by the fact that using the cart system resulted in an 80% increase in efficiency, which quickly led the TSA to implement the system nationwide. While the prospect of filing a patent or copyright infringement suit against the Government is a daunting task, once the case makes it to court, you can be assured that the case will be judged on its merits, just like any other patent case. Like in any other infringement case, patent owner may file an administrative claim with the allegedly infringing agency for settlement. If the agency denies the patent holder’s claims, the patent owner can file complaint in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. But you must file complaint within six years after the infringement occurs. This also means that you will be able to collect only six years’ worth of damages. Under the section 1498, a patent holder may obtain reasonable and entire compensation. The preferred basis for calculating damages in a section 1498 suit is a reasonable royalty which is the established rate that the patent owner actually asks in the commercial marketplace. The compensation may also cover reasonable fees for expert witnesses and attorneys, provided the owner is an independent inventor or a non-profit organization or an entity with employee base up to 500. The action could be taken during the 5-year period preceding the use or manufacture by or for the U.S. Government. You may even collect damages for lost profits. To do so, a patent owner must show the strictest proof that the plaintiff would in fact have earned and retained those sums on its sales to the Government but for the infringement. #patents #patentlitigation #litigation #intellectualproperty Keywords: patent register, patent filing, intellectual property infringement, ip intellectual property, patent protection, patent infringement, intellectual property, patent, ipr, intellectual property rights, intellectual property law, patent attorney, patent lawyer, ip protection, ip infringement, infringement, intellectual property litigation

What is a Claim Chart? - Claim Chart (infringement contention) is one of the most important component in a patent infringement case and is often a legal requirement as per most US District Courts’ local patent rules. Claim charts serve the purpose of giving the Defendants notice of the infringement read, on a limitation-by-limitation basis and eventually become the basis (and exhibits) for the infringement expert report(s) in the case – undergoing multiple iterations as discovery proceeds in the case and new facts are uncovered. Yet, not all claim charts are born equal – and courts have on several counts punished plaintiffs for not meeting their burden of proof in their claim charts. On even more counts, plaintiffs have found themselves restricted and cornered due to missteps taken right at the beginning of the case when the preliminary infringement contentions were prepared. Based on an analysis of over 200 cases spanning the last decade, this article provides instances when their claim charts actually do more harm than good in forming, advocating and ultimately proving the patent infringement position in the case: 1. When individual limitations are not discussed. A claim chart by definition should address how the accused product practices each claim limitation of an asserted claim. A claim chart that maps the accused product to the claim as a whole without addressing individual limitations most likely fails to meet the burden of proof. Further, even if necessary evidence is not publicly available for a particular limitation, it is suicide to just leave the analysis blank. At the very least, the analysis for such a limitation should contain the best-effort evidence and an explanation that the infringement is “upon information and belief” and can/will be proved from proprietary documents/code in due course of fact discovery. 2. When claim limitations are incorrectly separated. Claim limitations are typically separated by semi-colons. While that is a good thumb rule, it can be more advantageous to separate limitations more granularly. If a particular limitation is lengthy or recites multiple components/steps – it may be easier to address those components individually. 3. When the wrong entity is accused. Always be cognizant of who actually infringes on the patent claim. Name the correct corporate entity that makes, uses or sells the infringing functionality. Is it the company that makes the product? Is it the company that imports or sells it? Is it the company whose employees use the product – or perhaps is it the end users of that company’s products who actually infringe by using the product? The claim chart language should clearly define who is being accused of infringement and how or when that infringement occurs. 4. When only an exemplary product is charted. It is not uncommon to see dozens of products being accused in a single lawsuit – we see this particularly in cases involving smartphones/tablets/laptops. It may indeed be unduly burdensome for a plaintiff to chart every single product individually (though that may indeed be a requirement under local rules of certain U.S. District Courts). In those cases, a good strategy is to chart one or a few exemplary products – but the claim charts must clearly mention all the accused products and state that the claim chart cites a particular product as an exemplary infringing product. 5. When incorrect or inconsequential products are charted. Pay special attention to the product family, model number and variants while charting a product. Marketing material can often be ambiguous and deceptive similar across products of the same family and especially when products are bundled as part of a larger service/product offering. Charting the wrong product will drive the court to quash the claim chart (and the case) altogether and you may not get a second chance to chart the correct product. In addition, while choosing an exemplary product to be charted, it is a good practice that the most significant of the many accused products is charted. That way if your damages calculation is later restricted by the court to only the products actually charted, the damages fall back to a lower but not laughably lower number. 6. When claim charts have insufficient evidence. This is a no-brainer - more evidence is most likely better than less evidence. Plaintiffs sometimes do not want to divulge all their cards in a claim chart – and while that may make sense in certain cases (especially before the Markman hearing), our experience has shown that it is better to include as much evidence as we can find in the claim chart, but leave leeway for eventual changes in strategy/theory through comments and disclaimers. In any case, removing content from 500-page claim charts later is much easier than adding new content into them. 7. When the correct source of information is not provided. Make sure that every piece of evidence you have in the claim charts has a supporting source citation – and in case of hyperlinks, the hyperlinks point to the correct document. In case of webpages, since webpages often change content, it is good idea to also mention the last date on which the webpage was accessed. It is an even better idea to make a PDF of each source document referred to in the claim chart and attached as an exhibit – which can later be submitted along with the claim chart. 8. When evidence does not support the assertion. It is sometimes tempting to jump to the conclusion before evaluating and analyzing the facts – hoping that in due time the facts will come together and make sense to the reader. While that does indeed happen – it is better to include detailed analysis of why and how the facts lead to the conclusion, and if it happens that the facts are just not sufficient, that can be stated as well. It is much better to have factual gaps than to fill the claim chart with conflicting facts that do more harm than good to the conclusion. 9. When charts do not provide corresponding structure for means-plus-function claims. Functional claiming has had a checkered past. The current law dictates that means-plus-function limitations must be supported by identification of a “structure” from the patent specifications that performs the claimed function. The “structure” may take the form of physical components, systems, drawings or even algorithms discussed within the patent specifications. Failure to identify sufficient structure for an MPF limitation can lead the court to hold that claim indefinite – hence, it is strongly advised that the claim chart address means plus function language appropriately. 10. When the claim charts do not mention doctrine of equivalents and indirect infringement. Unless the infringement theory presented in the claim chart is airtight and clear as a day, ensure that the claim chart clearly spells out that to the extent the claims are not infringed literally, they are infringed under doctrine of equivalents. Most people would not explain the equivalents in the claim chart (the equivalence may not be entirely understood before significant fact discovery) – but a statutory statement on doctrine of equivalents pre-empts the argument later that the defendants were not given notice that the plaintiff was going to assert infringement under the doctrine. The same goes for indirect infringement. For method claims, sometimes the direct infringement may not be company accused of infringement – for example, the direct infringement may only occur when the company’s end users operate the product in certain ways. It is therefore important to analyze and address that the infringement by the company may be direct and/or indirect. 11. When there is no direct infringement of method claims. The current law states that for an indirect infringement to occur, an act of direct infringement must also have occurred. For example, if Company A sells an infringing product (but never itself performs the infringing act), then Company A can be accused on indirect infringement if and only if somebody, presumably users of the infringing product, actually perform the acts of direct infringement. So if the claim chart does not sufficiently show that actual direct infringement has occurred (by the target company or by any other entity), an indirect infringement argument may not be successful. 12. When over-broad constructions are used for asserting infringement. Claim terms can sometimes be open to interpretation. For example, a claim may require a "wireless communication network" - which may mean any of IEEE 802.11 wireless LAN, Bluetooth, Zigbee, NFC, 3G/4G telecom networks, satellite radio or any other wireless technology. While the exact scope of a claim term will (hopefully) become clear once the case goes through a Markman claim construction hearing, it may sometimes be beneficial to include the assumed construction at the time of drafting especially for terms that go beyond a "plain and ordinary meaning" and where there is likely to be dispute later in the case. It further shows that the plaintiff has reasonable basis for its infringement theory. 13. When the analysis is cryptically referenced. For patents with a number of infringed claims, it is often tempting to stuff all the evidence and analysis up in the first few claims and then keep referring to those claims when dealing with the subsequent claims. While that is a nice shortcut and makes the claim charts easier to read – that advantage exists only as long as the claim charts are in draft form. Once the claim chart goes out to the defendant, it is advisable that each claim limitation has its own analysis and evidence – since claims often get dropped in due course of the litigation, and so if a particular claim (with the evidence) is dropped in favor of later (that references the earlier claim), it gets unnecessarily cumbersome to put back the evidence in the later claim at such a later stage. Nevertheless, if that is a risk you are willing to take (and many do), make sure that the references only travel in one direction – up. For example, claim 10 should refer back to claims 1-9 – and not claim 11-50. Even worse would be if certain claims in the chart refer upwards and others refer downwards. Not only would the claim chart be cumbersome to read but it would be a nightmare to supplement or use for the purposes of an expert report. Note: Copperpod IP conducts deep technical analysis and helps attorneys substantiate infringement arguments with detailed evidence of use (EoU) reports, claim charts and other licensing/litigation artifacts - while reducing the overall cost of enforcement. Contact Us to know more! #patents #licensing #duediligence

3D image sensors acquire Z-direction information in addition to imaging in the X and Y directions, allowing for 3D sensing. 3D sensing allows for the detection of things that are impossible to detect with traditional 2D images, such as volume or shape inspections or separating overlapped objects. The ToF sensor realizes 3D sensing by calculating distance using time difference until the reflected light is detected by the sensor. ToF can be divided into two categories - Direct ToF and Indirect TOF. Direct ToF (dToF) involves a simple, direct measurement of the time until the reflection is detected. Indirect ToF (iToF) measures distance by collecting reflected light and discerning the phase shift between emitted and reflected light. Apple first implemented 3D sensing in its iPhone X in 2017. The iPhone X and later models use structured light 3D sensing for facial recognition. iPhone models supporting Face ID houses a variety of sensors, including the new True Depth camera system. This includes an infrared camera, a flood illuminator, a regular camera and a dot projector. The flood illuminator shines infrared light at the face, which allows the system to detect whoever is in front of the iPhone, even in low-light situations or if the person is wearing glasses (or a hat). Then the dot projector shines more than 30,000 pin-points of light onto the face, building a depth map that can be read by the infrared camera. Now, Apple recently introduced dToF technology into their latest devices, the iPad 11 Pro tablet and the iPhone 12 Pro and Pro Max, by adding a LiDAR scanner. Apple is laying the groundwork for Augmented Reality with the addition of a direct time-of-flight sensor. Many smartphone vendors such as Samsung, Huawei and LG have been already using iToF for taking better pictures (ToF can blur backgrounds in photos), but not dToF. Apple limited Structured light 3D sensing to Face ID and introduced a new dToF technology in the rear cameras of the latest device for 3D sensing. The reason is that even though the structured light method provides a high degree of depth accuracy, but the complex post-processing required to calculate the depth from pattern matching is time-consuming. In contrast, the advantage of the dToF technique, on the other hand, is that it allows for easy post-processing. Another benefit of dToF is that it works for longer ranges than Apple's grid-based Face ID system, which only works from 10 to 20 inches away from the phone. If the subject is too far away, the dots for the grid are too spaced out to provide a good resolution. However, to measure the time-of-flight with a small number of incident photons in a single measurement, it requires photodetectors with high sensitivity (such as single-photon avalanche diodes) and a large form factor. Seminal Patents - Apple, Inc. US Patent & Trademark Office published patent applications US20200256669A1 and US20200256993A1 (filed on August 6, 2019 and published on August 13, 2020) from Apple that relates to a next-gen depth sensing camera system associated with a Time-of-Flight camera. According to one embodiment of the invention, a depth sensing apparatus is given, which includes a radiation source designed to emit a first plurality of light pulses toward a target scene. An array of the second plurality of sensing elements is configured to output signals indicating respective times of photon incidence on the sensing element, with the second plurality exceeding the first. The target scene is imaged onto the array of sensing elements using light collection optics. Processing and control circuitry is coupled to receive signals from the array and is configured to search over the sensing elements in response to the signals in order to identify respective regions of the array on which the light pulses reflected from the target scene are incident and to process the signals from the identified regions in order to determine respective times of arrival of the reflected light pulses. The figure given below is a schematic side view of a depth mapping system, in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. LiDAR Scanner Module In iPad 11 Pro The LiDAR scanner in apple devices comprises an emitter — a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) from Lumentum, and a receptor — near infrared (NIR) CMOS image sensor that does the direct measurement of time of flight. A new generation of Near Infrared (NIR) CIS with a Single Photon Avalanche Diode (SPAD) array from Sony is included in the LiDAR scanner module. The sensor features 10 µm long pixels and a resolution of 30-kilo pixels. The in-pixel connection is made using hybrid Direct Bonding Interconnect technology between the NIR CIS and the logic wafer, which is the first time Sony has used 3D stacking for its ToF sensors. The LiDAR uses a vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) coming from Lumentum. Multiple electrodes are connected to the emitter array separately in the laser. To improve wafer probe tests, a new design with mesa contact is used. The pulse is generated and the VCSEL power and beam shape are controlled by a wafer level chip scale packaging (WLCSP) five-side molded driver integrated circuit. To produce a dot pattern, a new Himax Diffractive Optical Element (DOE) is assembled on top of the VCSEL. Apple’s LiDAR Scanner – Applications For a long time, Apple has promoted the use of augmented reality on the iPad and iPhone. Many AR apps are currently available on Apple's App Store, many of which are aimed at students. The LiDAR sensor on the iPad Pro, on the other hand, is useful for future applications for developers. The system makes use of "ARKit," a toolkit that allows developers to create powerful augmented reality apps. Furthermore, stakeholders can use ARKit to virtually transport to the field and collaborate in real-time, seeing what workers on-site see through the iPad's new cameras, which are integrated with AR and detailed depth information created by the LiDAR Scanner. Apple's LiDAR Scanner is a powerful and precise 3D scanning and measuring device (especially when combined with the Measure App) that allows for 3D mapping, measuring, and classification of interior spaces, as well as to object identification and classification. The Apple LiDAR Scanner is a response to the increasing demand for mobile scanning in short/indoor and complex environments, as well as confined outdoor industrial sites. One recent example is TeamViewer, which recently announced an update to the AR-based TeamViewer Pilot that takes advantage of the new Apple iPad Pro's LiDAR Scanner. Experts or technicians will use TeamViewer Pilot and Apple's LiDAR Scanner together in industrial sites to identify and present an accurate understanding of the environment. The LiDAR Scanner in the iPad Pro allows the pilot to identify and obstruct annotations behind physical objects by providing an understanding of the physical environment. This gives both the remote expert and the person in the field a much better understanding of the actual situation, greatly improving first-time fix rates. Apps available in the App Store utilizing LiDAR scanner – Complete Anatomy Snapchat iScape Warby Parker JigSPace DSLR Camera Hot Lava IKEA Place AR Quick Look Plantale Some may argues that there are already some AR apps that appear to work well on smart devices that do not have a LiDAR scanner. The truth is that smart devices do not address the problem of depth without a LiDAR scanner. When a hand is placed in front of an AR object (skeleton) in Figure 1, a smart device without LiDAR does not detect it and instead overlays the AR object over the hand. There is no sense of depth as the hand simply disappears and therefore the smart device with no LiDAR does not recognize what should be in front of and behind the AR object. In contrast, in Figure 2 when the hand is put in front of the AR object (doll), a smart device with LiDAR detects it. Therefore, the LiDAR scanner solves the depth problem by detecting what should be in front of and behind the AR object. Current Limitation of LiDAR in Apple While the LiDAR Scanner makes Apple's devices useful for sensing 3D-spaces, it is not yet "accurate" enough to use with a 3D printer, according to numerous studies by LiDAR experts and app developers. Apple's LiDAR Scanner and its use in spatial tracking were investigated by vGIS, a leading developer of AR/MR solutions, who discovered that the Scanner offers improvements in surface scanning and object detection but is still unable to accurately track position. The LiDAR Scanner is best suited for an indoor environment, according to the findings. The use of raw depth data from the LiDAR Scanner is still heavily dependent on the innovations of the application developers, especially in the AR domain (such as Measure, Halide, Shapr3D). Market Insights The Time-of-Flight (ToF) Sensor Market is expected to grow at a CAGR of 20.0 percent from $2.8 B in 2020 to $6.9 B by 2025. The rising demand for ToF sensors from the automotive industry, as well as the growing adoption of 3D cameras in smartphones and increased use of such smartphones, are driving the growth of this market. The growing adoption of 3D machine vision systems in industries like aerospace and defence, consumer electronics, and healthcare, as well as the growing deployment of Industry 4.0, is expected to drive the ToF sensor market forward. Rising demand for 3D-enabled devices in consumer electronics and increasing users of smartphones are the key factors for the growth of the ToF sensor market for consumer electronics. Conclusion The developers have a strategic role to play in improving the adaptation and integration of the technology to engage users and elevate the technology on industrial sites, for indoor mapping, complex, and confined environments, now that the Scanner is easily available to customers/surveyors. The multi-functional hand-held tool is cheap and lightweight, and it covers a small area in almost no time. This also applies to architects and industrial designers, who must be able to accurately measure and model the space. The Scanner can be integrated with Shapr3D – a design modeling tool – to create a CAD model of the indoor environment in real-time on a mobile device, as LiDAR is an important technology for architects and industrial designers. To push augmented reality, Apple will launch a mixed-reality headset and augmented reality glasses in near future. It has been predicted that Apple's MR / AR product scheduling plan includes three phases: helmet with hearing aids by 2022, glasses by 2025, and contact lenses by 2030-2040. Sumit is a research analyst at Copperpod. He has a Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering. His interest areas are Microcontrollers, IoT, Semiconductors, Displays, Wireless Communications and Memory Devices. References https://www.apple.com/augmented-reality/ https://www.eetasia.com/look-inside-ipad-pro-11s-lidar-scanner/ https://www.systemplus.fr/reverse-costing-reports/apple-ipad-pro-11s-lidar-module/ https://www.pocket-lint.com/tablets/news/apple/151476-what-is-lidar-ipad-why-arkit-measure https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/e/products/IS/industry/technology/ToF_technology.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS3J4V_BgP0 https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/what-is-lidar-and-why-is-it-in-apples-new-ipad-pro-2020-6323223/ https://www.computerworld.com/article/3235140/apples-face-id-the-iphone-xs-facial-recognition-tech-explained.html https://www.geospatialworld.net/blogs/apples-lidar-scanner/#:~:text=%E2%80%93%20Apple's%20LiDAR%20Scanner%20provides%20for,spaces%2C%20object%20identification%20and%20classification. https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2020-02-11/time-of-flight-tof-sensor-market-worth-6-9-billion-by-2025-exclusive-report-by-marketsandmarkets Copperpod provides Reverse Engineering services. Copperpod analyzes existing hardware and software systems and processes owned by the seller to provide you a clear and detailed view of the seller's architecture, growth plans and the investment that such growth will require.

This is the second episode of our series on "Students and Patents - Intellectual Property" and this episode talks about the eligibility criteria for students to file a patent and the importance of patents for a student. In the first video, we spoke about five important points that a student should know about. 1. Whether he/she is eligible to file a patent? 2. What does he/she need to do to obtain a patent? 3. How can the university help him/her? 4. How much does it cost to a student to get a patent? 5. How much money can he and the university make after getting a patent? Now, to take it further, the first point is whether a student is eligible to file a patent application? Absolutely Yes. In fact, there is no law that defines an eligibility criteria on who can file a patent and who cannot. Literally, anyone can file an application to get a patent. The only rule set by the government is that a patent should essentially describe an invention or an improvement or modification to a previous invention.

What is Copyright? A copyright gives the owner of the subject an exclusive right over his work. If a work is protected by copyright, no one can imitate, copy or reproduce the original work in any other way. Copyright can be taken for the following works: Music Books Manuscripts Films Fashion Designs Training Manuals Software Literary Work Performance Paintings etc The register of the Registrar of Copyrights is divided into 6 categories: PART – 1: Literary works other than computer Programs PART – 2: Musical Works PART – 3: Artistic Works PART – 4: Cinematography Films PART – 5: Sound Recording PART – 6: Computer Programs, tables & Compilations Copyright doesn’t specifically require registration of the copyright. It is an exclusive legal right given to the work creator, to reproduce or generate copies or translate or adapt his work. It is governed by the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (as amended in 2012) and Copyright rules 1958 (as amended in 2013, 2016). Copyright in India is recognized virtually worldwide under the “Berne Convention” and the applicable law of its member nations. If total compliance is followed the “certificate of copyright” is a future safeguard for the creative minds to preserve their creativity and reap exclusive monetary benefits from it as well. Online Filing Procedure of Copyright Registration Step 1: Open the portal https://www.copyright.gov.in/# Step 2: Enter your valid User ID and Password to login. Step 3: Click onto NewUser Registration, if you have not yet registered. Note down User ID and Password for future use. Step 4: After login, click on to link “Click for Online Copyright Registration”. The online “Copyright Registration Form” is to be filled up in four steps- Complete the Form XIV, press SAVE button to Save entered details, and press Step 2 to move to Next Step. Fill up the Statement of Particulars, and then press SAVE button to Save entered details, and press Step 3/4 to move to Next step Fill up the Statement of Further particulars. This form is applicable for “LITERARY/ DRAMATIC, MUSICAL AND ARTISTIC” works, and then press SAVE button to Save entered details, and press Step 4 to move to Next Step. Make the payment through Internet Payment gateway or; The fee is either in the form of Demand Draft, Indian Postal Order favoring “Registrar Of Copyright Payable At New Delhi”. Step 5: After successful submission of the form, Diary Number will be generated (Please note it for future reference). Note: Artistic works are required to be uploaded in JPG, PNG or PDF format whereas literary works are to be uploaded in PDF format, less than 5 MB. Step 6: Please take a hard copy (print) of “Acknowledgement Slip” and “Copyright Registration Report”, and send it by post. Why should one get their work registered under the copyright law? It is not mandatory to get copyright protection but always advisable to do so because it will give the owner a certain set of minimum rights over his work and the protection that no one will be able to copy his work for a minimum period of time. This satisfaction will always motivate the owner to do more work and create more items. Registering a copyright is an added advantage, which protects the ownership of the work from any unnecessary disputes. In the event of probable copyright infringement dispute, certificate of registration of copyright and the Register of Copyright containing particulars of registered copyrights are considered as “admissible evidence” in the court of law. These serve as prima facie evidence with reference to dispute relating to ownership of copyright. A copyright shall subsist in the work from the time it is published within the lifetime of the author until sixty years after the author dies. In Section 22 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957; it is mentioned as, “Except as otherwise hereinafter provided, copyright shall subsist in any literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work (other than a photograph) published within the lifetime of the author until 60[sixty] years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the author dies”. What is the procedure to obtain a copyright registration? To obtain the copyright registration the following process has to be followed: An application (including all the particulars and the statement of the particulars) in the format of FORM IV has to be sent to the registrar along with the requisite fees (mentioned in the Schedule 2 of the act.). A separate application has to be made for separate works. Fees for different works have been given by the government in this link: http://copyright.gov.in/frmFeeDetailsShow.aspx Every application has to be signed by the applicant as well as an Advocate in whose favor a Vakalatnama or a Power Of Attorney (POA) has been executed The registrar will issue a Dairy No. and then there is a mandatory waiting time for a period of 30 days for any objections to be received If there are no objections received within 30 days, the scrutinizer will check the application for any discrepancy and if no discrepancy is there, the registration will be done and an extract will be sent to the registrar for the entry in the Register of Copyright. If any objection is received, the examiner will send a letter to both the parties about the objections and will give them both a hearing. After the hearing, if the objections are resolved the scrutineer will scrutinize the application and approve or reject the application as the case may be. Chapter X of the Indian Copyright Act,1957 and Rule 70 of Copyright Rules, 2013, mention the following procedure about the registration of copyrights in India: 1. Application: An author or applicant can file the application for registration of copyright, himself or via his authorized legal representative. This application can be made by applying physically in the copyright office or through speed/registered post; or through e-filing facility available on the official website of Copyrights Office (copyright.gov.in). There should be one application for one work. Each application in Form IV should be accompanied by the requisite fee prescribed in the second schedule to the Rules. Fee ranges from 500 INR to 40,000 INR, depending on the form of work. The fee can either be in the form of Demand Draft or Indian Postal Order favoring “Registrar of Copyright Payable at New Delhi” or through E-payment. Other information which needs to be provided are: a. Name, address, the nationality of the applicant; b. Nature of applicant’s interest in the work; c. Title of the work; d. Name, address, the nationality of the author of the work and if the author is deceased, date of his death; e. Language of the work; f. Whether the work is published or unpublished; i) Year and Country of first publication and Name, address, the nationality of the publisher; ii) Year and Countries of subsequent publications, if any, and name, address, the nationality of subsequent publishers; g. Name, address, the nationality of a person authorized to assign or license the rights comprising the copyright, if any; h. No-objection Certificate signed by the author (if different from applicant); i. Vakalatnama or Power of attorney signed by the advocate and the party (if the application is made by the advocate of the party); j. Three copies of published work must be sent along with the application. k. If the work is unpublished, two copies of the manuscripts must be sent with the application (one copy will be duly stamped and returned and other will be retained). l. Application for registration of a computer programme must be filed with the source and object code. m. Application for registration of an artistic work used or capable of being used in relation to goods must be filed with a statement to that effect and a no-objection certificate from the Registrar of Trademarks. n. Application for registration of an artistic work capable of being registered as a design must be filed with a statement in the form of an affidavit stating that it has not been registered under Designs Act, 2000 and has not been applied to any article through an industrial process. o. Application must be signed by the applicant or the advocate; p. Applicant must provide his mobile number and email address to receive the filing number. 2. Examination: Once the application is filed, a diary number is received. There is a provision of a mandatory wait period of 30 days, so that “No Objection” is filed against the claim made by the author. If some objection is filed against the copyright claim, then it may take one more month. The Registrar of Copyrights gives both the parties an opportunity of hearing the matter. After the decision on the ownership or if the objection is rejected, the application goes for scrutiny. The applicant is asked to remove any discrepancy, if found; within 30 days. 3. Registration: On further submission of documents, if the Copyright Registrar, is completely satisfied with the completeness and correctness of the claim made in the application, he shall enter the particulars of the copyright in the register of copyrights and further issue a Certificate of Registration. Registration completes when the applicant is issued with the copy of entries made in the Register of Copyrights. Documents required for Artistic Work No objection certificate from the author if applicant is different from author; No objection certificate from the publisher if contender is different from the publisher; No objection certificate from the person whose photograph appear on the work; If the application is being filed by any attorney, an original duly signed specific Power of Attorney by the applicant and accepted by the attorney; Demand Draft (DD) in favor of ‘Registrar of Copyrights’; 2 Copies of Work. Documents required for Cinematograph Films 2 Copies of work; Demand Draft (DD) in favor of ‘Registrar of Copyrights’; No objection certificate from various copyright holders or copy of agreement; No objection certificate from the publisher if contender is different from the publisher; If the application is being filed by any attorney, an original duly signed specific Power of Attorney by the applicant and accepted by the attorney. Documents required for Musical Work 2 Copies of Graphical Notes; Demand Draft (DD) in favor of ‘Registrar of Copyrights’; No objection certificate from the publisher if contender is different from the publisher; If the application is being filed by any attorney, an original duly signed specific Power of Attorney by the applicant and accepted by the attorney. Documents required for Literary or Dramatic works 2 Copies of Work. Demand Draft (DD) in favor of ‘Registrar of Copyrights’; If the application is being filed by any attorney, an original duly signed specific Power of Attorney by the applicant and accepted by the attorney; No objection certificate from person whose photograph appears on the work; No objection certificate from the publisher if contender is different from the publisher; No objection certificate from the author if applicant is different from author; Documents required for Sound Recording 2 Copies of work; Demand Draft (DD) in favor of ‘Registrar of Copyrights’; No objection certificate from various copyright holders or copy of agreement; No objection certificate from the publisher if contender is different from the publisher; If the application is being filed by any attorney, an original duly signed specific Power of Attorney by the applicant and accepted by the attorney. Documents required for Software 2 copies of work Demand Draft (DD) in favor of ‘Registrar of Copyrights’; Object code and Source code of work for verification; No objection certificate from various copyright holders or copy of agreement; No objection certificate from the publisher if contender is different from the publisher; If the application is being filed by any attorney, an original duly signed specific Power of Attorney by the applicant and accepted by the attorney.

This is the first episode of our latest series on "Students and Patents - Intellectual Property" and this episode talks about the need for patents for students. As a maker of a creation, imaginative work, plan, or a product, there is consistently a need to get perceived. IP guarantees that. On the off chance that you are an understudy, this video series is for you!