The Microsoft HoloLens has finally received its first major update in over a year, which Microsoft calls the RedStone 4. The update provides a boost to developers using the UWP (Universal Windows Platform) to develop applications for the HoloLens with ease. Mixed reality has been a top emerging technology for at least 4 years now, but despite increasing investments in mixed reality, the current industry majors have yet to sufficiently commercialize a consumer product. The headset which weighs around 580 grams, with no wires or oddly shaped antennas popping out of it, is surely on the heavier side of the spectrum of headsets, but the weight is evenly distributed and designed to provide great comfort. After the tragic failure of the much hyped Google Glass, the domain of HMDs (Head Mounted Displays) remains highly unpredictable as to what it carries for us to see in the future. The tech is new and is still in its nascent stage and with the launch of products like HoloLens and other HMDs, and it promises exponential growth in the near future. The HoloLens, in contrast with most of the current technology on the market works on the concept of holographic imaging. The closest you can get to a HoloLens in terms of physical appearance is the now Facebook-owned Oculus Rift. The Rift aims at teleporting you to a whole new world where you see and interact with things and completely isolate yourself from the real world (virtual reality), whereas the HoloLens teleports things from the virtual world right in front of your eyes, for you to see it and interact with it. It won’t cause you to get isolated from your ‘real’ world, it just augments new objects to it, hence the name, Augmented Reality. Microsoft does not want to stick a screen to your face with this one, they want to stick a screen virtually everywhere you look, and create a Mixed Reality environment. The possibilities, are of course, endless. From turning your entire living room into a Minecraft playground to getting real time instructions on how to fix the damaged solar panels on the International Space Station, everything can be made possible. It’s almost like Star Trek, the only difference being that only the person wearing the whopping $5000 headset can see the holograms, and everyone else just sees things as they are. The tightly packed headset contains in itself a wide array of embedded sensors and the holographic display assembly. The depth sensing cameras analyze your surroundings and the combination of the CPU, GPU, and HPU (Holographic Processing Unit) use the holographic lenses to project images directly into your retina via the set of holographic lenses mounted in the front. The headset includes a built in battery pack, the capacity of which has been kept a secret by Microsoft, and it powers the entire headset for 2-3 hours, before needing a recharge. The entire set-up is completely wireless and uses Wi-Fi and Bluetooth for communication with other devices. Microsoft revealed at HotChips, the annual semiconductor conference held at Stanford University, that the HPU chip used in the HoloLens is a 24-core DSP beast that uses Tensilica cores from Cadence. It is a custom made chip, designed specifically for the purpose and sports 8MB of SRAM and a GB of low power DDR3 RAM, all of this tech packed into a tiny 12mm x 12mm ball grid array package. The almost insignificantly sized package is said to perform calculations of the order of trillions every second. It achieves this marvel by using each of the 24 cores at same time to perform a different task by using multiprocessing. The CPU stacked in there next to the HPU is a 14nm Intel Atom Cherry Trail SoC, running a specially designed 32 bit version of Windows 10 and has its own 1 GB of RAM. All the current applications do not strain the HPU cores past 50% load, hence making the product future ready, yet the HPU leaves out only little work to be carried out by the CPU. With the release of the HoloLens 2.0, Microsoft also announced their in-house AI co-processorwhich now comes built into the HoloLens, and learns about the user over time, thus continuously providing a better experience than the previous one, every time. The HoloLens consists of a lot of small components packaged together to give the marvelous end product. But the heart of this product lies in the way it actually produces the holographic images. A technology called Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) enables Microsoft to achieve what they have achieved. Liquid crystal on silicon (LCOS) is a reflective microdisplay technology that is based on a silicon backplate. It is a combination of digital light processing (DLP) and liquid crystal display (LCD) projection technologies as it is reflective, but instead of using mirrors as in DLP, it uses liquid crystals that are applied on a reflective silicon backplate. Light is reflected off the backplate, while the liquid crystals open and close to modulate it. The LCoS displays generate the light, which then passes through a set of imaging optics, and then through a waveguide, a combiner and a bunch of diffraction gratings which direct the light directly into your eyes. The waveguide is the most easily visible part of the assembly, being the transparent set of lenses mounted on the front. They carry the light from the light source to the position it is meant to be seen from. The diffraction grating, on the other hand is not a different component in itself. It is essentially just a coating on the surface of the waveguide that is used to direct light rays into the eyes. Microsoft talks about this technology in its patent US9164290, which details on the invention titled ‘Grating configurations for a tiled waveguide display’, and explains how a set of 3 gratings can be used to create a field of view from the light travelling through a waveguide. Patent US9091851, on the other hand talks about how light is guided from the light source, into the waveguide and then mixed with light from the surroundings to power the augmented reality based head mounted display assembly. The HoloLens also uses Infrared sensors to track the movement of your eyes and adjusts the generation of images accordingly. It does so in order to keep the holograms in a fixed relative to the eye, failing which would cause the holograms to randomly fly around and end up making the user extremely nauseous. The HoloLens also has the capability of adjusting its interpupillary distance in order to fit a wide range of variation in face structures across demographics. The HoloLens runs only on Windows 10 (for now) and also comes with Microsoft’s digital assistant Cortana which is capable of doing all the basic chores you’d expect out of a virtual assistant. A lot of applications and use cases have been teased by Microsoft, two of them being HoloGuide and HoloHear. The concept of HoloGuide being centered on guiding the user through an area with low visibility, which utilizes the spatial awareness feature of the HoloLens, whereas that of HoloHear being a real time translator for the deaf. It is supposed to translate in real time, from speech to sign language. With most of the journalistic hype focusing on consumer applications, most notably gaming, Microsoft has been in the parallel attempting a different path – i.e. focusing on enterprise and industrial applications. The medical industry, for example, is expected to gain a lot from the possibilities offered by HoloLens. From allowing young doctors and surgeons to seek training in a much more immersive and effective manner, Augmented Reality will also prove to be a great tool to increase the ease with which major surgeries can be performed, assisting the surgeons with a plethora of information right where it is needed. A clear view of the internal organs of the body may be achieved with minimal size of incisions. The technology has also received a widely positive response from industries involved in space exploration and research. Astronomy has received a boost from the opportunities that HoloLens provides, by bringing the vastness of remote interstellar locations right at the fingertips of scientists. For example, researchers can get a clear 3D view from a cliff on Mars captured by a rover right here on earth, and record their observations with an increased level of accuracy, thanks to the added factor of spatial awareness. Other anticipated applications may fall into the e-commerce industry, with virtual product demos allowing customers to get a full blown view of the products. This extends further into the automobile industry, where you could get a ‘closer look’ at the car you want to buy sitting in your living room, or even inside your own car. The applicability of HoloLens to consumer arenas, including and mostly obviously gaming, is profound. More than just playing for a character, gamers can use HoloLens to experience authentic encounters in first person, be it shooting or racing. With Oculus Rift grossly underwhelming consumers (blame it on cost, lack of game titles or the inevitable nausea), it remains to be seen if Microsoft can solve those problems to make HoloLens the preferred instrument for gaming on its already popular Xbox platform. Notwithstanding however the gaming industry, HoloLens is uniquely positioned to change whole industries – which is still hard to imagine for other mixed reality players, including Oculus, Samsung, Sony and Leap. #microsoft #hololens #emergingtech #virtualreality #patents #electronics #licensing #software

Tuesday, April 10, 2018: A federal jury in Eastern District of Texas awarded VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC) with a $502.6 million verdict against Apple Inc. finding that Apple was infringing 4 secure communications patents – providing a new chapter to the now eight-year old battle between Zephyr Cove, Nevada based VirnetX and Cupertino-based Apple, Inc. VirnetX first sued Apple back in 2010 (6:10-cv-00417), for which the jury awarded VirnetX $368 million in damages in November 2012 plus a 1 percent ongoing royalty on iPhones. The four patents-in-suit relate generally to creating Virtual Private Network (VPN) connections from a client to server by way of sending a domain name service (DNS) request. VirnetX had alleged that Apple’s FaceTime and iMessage applications continue to practice the claims of these four patents. The 6:10-cv-00417 case involved the following four patents: United States Patent No. 6,502,135, titled "Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability" United States Patent No. 7,418,504, titled "Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names" United States Patent No. 7,490,151, titled "Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request" United States Patent No. 7,921,211, titled "Agile network protocol for secure communications using secure domain names" Apple however appealed the decision and won a damages retrial. In the retrial, VirnetX doubled down and claimed $532 million in damages instead, and later (due to continued willful infringement) increased the claim to $625.6 million – which the new jury also awarded to VirnetX in February 2016, though Judge Robert Schroeder threw out that verdict, holding that the jurors may have been confused about the damages calculation. In October 2016, at a third trial, the jury awarded VirnetX a $302.4 million verdict for two of the four patents (’504 and ’211) for which infringement had already been determined. This verdict was also increased to $440 million. Judge Schroeder held that Apple’s decision to continue to sell iPhones with the VPN-on-Demand technology after losing the 2012 trial was "unreasonably risky or reckless", could not be justified and therefore must be considered as willful infringement. This week’s verdict of $502.6 million comes from the fourth trial (6:12-cv-00855) between VirnetX and Apple, covering the same technology (VPN-on-Demand) implemented in FaceTime and iMessage. The 6:12-cv-00855 case involved the following four patents: United States Patent No. 6,502,135, titled "Agile network protocol for secure communications with assured system availability" United States Patent No. 6,839,759, titled "Method for establishing secure communication link between computers of virtual private network without user entering any cryptographic information" United States Patent No. 7,188,180, titled "Method for establishing secure communication link between computers of virtual private network United States Patent No. 7,490,151, titled "Establishment of a secure communication link based on a domain name service (DNS) request" Of the four patents-in-suit in this case, two patents (‘135 and ‘151) had been first asserted in the 6:10-cv-00417 case and the other two patents (‘759 and ‘180) also cover roughly the same technology. VirnetX’s stock prices naturally shot up over 40% after market hours after the verdict was delivered – though the celebration may be short-lived. Not surprisingly, Patent Trial and Appeal Board has already stated in cases currently pending at the Federal Circuit that the patents are invalid – so when in time the Federal Circuit issues its verdict, Apple is almost certainly going to get this verdict thrown out as well. Just as the Eastern District of Texas continues its reputation for being plaintiff-friendly, the PTAB continues its reputation for being infringer-friendly and in some circles, even adverse to patent rights in general. After all it is difficult otherwise to justify how an invention worth at least $500 million in the market can be no more than an "abstract idea" in the eyes of the law. According to its latest statistics, the PTAB has invalidated all claims in as many as 65% of instituted petitions and at least some of the claims in as many as 81% of the instituted petitions – which means either there exists such an incompetency at the USPTO that in 81% of these cases, the examiner allowed claims that should not have been granted – or that there exists a 81% bias against patent owners in PTAB. Both those possibilities are bad for inventors and businesses that spend thousands of dollars on earning patents, millions of dollars monetizing and enforcing their earned patent rights, and most certainly bad for the legal framework that assures small and medium sized businesses their competitiveness and fosters innovation in all quarters not just at large corporations. This article was first published on IPWatchdog. #apple #patents #judgments #networks #electronics #news #licensing #software

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal has put billions of Facebook users into deep concern on the issues of data privacy and security, given the enormous potential that lies in the data, and given that they are living in the so called Data-era wherein everything from a company’s Business model to data-hungry ML algorithms used in variety of fields from predictive analyses to deep learning techniques depends on user data sets and patterns as raw input to bring out commercially remunerative outcomes for businesses and a personalised experience for the users. Let’s have a brief recap of the scandal that took a major share of the news for the past month, caused Facebook’s stock to plummet and its CEO to face a two day long testimony before the US senators. Aleksandr Kogan, a social psychologist working as a lecturer at Cambridge University developed a Facebook app, which according to the University’s statement on the matter was initially created for academic research but was later repurposed for use by Global Science Research (GSR), Kogan’s commercial enterprise established in 2014. In the process, it was rebranded and released with updated terms and conditions stating that it was commercial and not academic and that clearly stated that users were granting Kogan the right to sell and license the data. The app was used by 270,000 Facebook users. It included a survey and collected information based on users’ residential cities and likes so as to generate a psychological profile for every user. The same information was collected for users’ friends without informing them which amounted the app to harvest data of as many as 87m users. Back then, this was a core feature of the Facebook platform called ‘friends’ permission’ which allowed the developers to access their app user’s friends’ information if the user allows them to do so without asking or informing the concerned! Shady, isn’t it? Kogan gave away this data to his company’s client Cambridge Analytica – a political consulting firm that worked for Trump’s presidential campaign. It is speculated that CA used the same data to influence the users through political advertisements on Facebook based on their psychographics and demographics- gender, age, race. It was totally justified on Kogan’s part to use the data, given that he declared in the updated app that the data collected would be used for commercial purpose. Moreover, the users signed in to the app with their Facebook account at their own will and allowed the app to access their friends’ data by giving their consent. The blame goes to Facebook for housing the feature. Facebook did shut down the friend’s data API in April 2015, but there was no way to monitor or control the data that has been harvested until then. Sandy Parakilas, the then manager in charge of data protection at Facebook, said that he even brought this to the attention of higher authorities but no action was taken as they prioritized growth in the number of user and data collection, and their advertising ventures over data privacy issues. Only one case of data misuse has come out, it is not known how other developers might have used their data warehouse. Facebook has clearly subverted democracy, as accused by the US congress, by leaking public data. They could have in the first place brought out the data scandal in public back in 2015, when they got word of it, rather than asking Cambridge Analytica to delete the data and recklessly taking their word for it. Zuckerberg had apologised to the people and the senators for the same but clearly it won’t suffice. Since what is done cannot be undone, Facebook needs to have a stringent data privacy policy and a restricted and well monitored developer access so as to abstain the developers of taking undue advantage of users’ data. Facebook has come up with a quite a few solutions to combat the issue and investigations are on to bring out the minutiae of the leak. Let’s wait and watch as the world expects further revelations. The opinions expressed in this article are personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Copperpod IP, Carthaginian Ventures or any other related entity. #facebook #security #journalism #cryptography #opinions

With majority of news channels and other media largely targeting and blaming Facebook for the entire scandal, it isn’t really unwise to talk about the other side of the story. Facebook continues to insist that all the data that was ‘inappropriately’ used to collected from the users with their explicit consent. Kogan’s app “thisisyourdigitallife” was launched as his personal project and Facebook users ‘willingly’ gave up their personal data to the app, not knowing what the consequences were going to be. Zuckerberg did argue that Cambridge Analytica was warned to delete all the inappropriately obtained user data and not to use it, but the blunder that they made was to think that this would be enough. Discipline needs to be enforced when it doesn’t exist, it cannot just be requested. Guess Facebook just had to learn this the hard way. In the end, it does come down to the end user, who never saw it coming. The user would not have ever imagined that checking into a New York City cafe could actually be one of the billions of data points which could be used and manipulated to achieve what has now come to surface. The user never knows, that these notorious data-hungry companies like Cambridge Analytica are always out there, waiting to ‘get to them’. No matter how much you act shocked over it, or however harshly the media defames Facebook, the truth is, it all happened because we, the users, decided to ‘opt-in’. At Zuckerberg’s congressional hearings, Senator Graham pointed out to the CEO how the average consumer would never care to read the hefty document detailing Facebook’s Terms of Service. Zuckerberg, in response to the senator’s argument that “This ain’t working”, further stated that Facebook needs to come up with a better way of communicating those terms with the users, at different places, apart from the never opened ToS which contains almost nothing that falls within the limits of an average consumer’s field of view. Further, blaming Facebook for the whole debacle is like firing an argument with no foundation. You posted your data on the platform. You set the privacy setting to ‘public’. You allowed third party apps to access all your as well as your friends’ data without giving it a second thought, and when the said third party turned out to be a notorious one and sold your data, you run after Facebook for allowing this to happen. It is really hard to point the finger at Facebook for this one. It can be easily agreed upon that explicit warnings everywhere on Facebook that the posts and content you share can be used for purposes you do not have a single clue about will not work out. It will just hinder the user experience and probably lead to a decline in the already declining user base, as the #deletefacebook shot up in the trending section. The change, to avoid such a catastrophe in the future has to come from within. No governmental body or private institution can be trusted when it comes to the privacy of your own personal data. Only give it out when you know what you are doing, and where that data point you just created is headed. And it isn’t like all these social media platforms are doing these activities in a shady manner. It is all out in the open, and any user can adjust one’s privacy settings to restrict the audience for the content that the user posts. Data Analytics is a booming technology right now, and developers like Kogan are going to keep innovating on new methods for creating an accurate online profile of internet users. It is up to us, to choose what we give out to them. The opinions expressed in this article are personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Copperpod IP, Carthaginian Ventures or any other related entity. #facebook #security #journalism #cryptography #opinions

What once seemed to be a series of relentless bickering, smartphone giants Apple and Samsung finally reached a settlement on June 29, 2018. Although terms for the agreement have not been disclosed, it is quite apparent that both the parties had had enough mutual drama, in and out of the courtroom. When Apple filed its first lawsuit against Samsung back in 2011, the news set off alarms because Samsung at the time was a major component in Apple’s supply chain, which manufactured everything from DRAM and SSDs for MacBook Pros to the A4 and A5 processors in the iPhone, iPod touch, Apple TV, and iPad. In its complaint, Apple said “Instead of pursuing independent product development, Samsung has chosen to slavishly copy Apple’s innovative technology, distinctive user interfaces, and elegant and distinctive product and packaging design, in violation of Apple’s valuable intellectual property rights” – bringing shade over Samsung as a leading innovator in electronics worldwide. Through its tough stance, Apple made one thing clear - protecting intellectual property is no laughing matter. Of course, there was a lot of speculation in the public as to which side was more genuine, and hence a lot of biased comments were made according to different loyalties and agendas. Apple fanatics held Samsung to be a fraud megacorp, whereas others were of the opinion that the moment Apple detects potency of competition, it runs towards the courthouse, hinting towards Apple’s previous lawsuits against prominent companies including Motorola, HTC and Microsoft. In fact, four days before the first iPhone launch 11 years ago, Apple filed a suite of 4 design patents covering the basic shape of the iPhone. That was followed by a massive design patent covering 193 screen shots of various iPhone graphical user interfaces later that year. That was Apple’s way of telling the world that not only were its products unique, but that it will do anything to protect them. It didn’t take Apple long to dominate the smartphone market – replacing Research in Motion (Blackberry) on the throne. Android remained a sloppy contender with the likes of HTC, Samsung, Motorola and LG each vying for the prize. But a lot changed for Android in the 2008-2011 timeframe. Samsung more than overcame the software limits of Android by their (superior) hardware specs and filled marketplaces with a whole spectrum of smartphones (as opposed to Apple’s insistence on basically a single iPhone). It wasn’t surprising therefore, when Apple fired the first shot – accusing Samsung of infringing atleast 3 of its utility patents and 4 design patents. Steve Jobs was a man on a mission, and his mission was to bring Samsung down. He made no secret of his hostility towards Android, considering it to be nothing short of embezzlement. Samsung attempted to strike back and reclaim respect by countersuing Apple in June 2011, asserting that the company too had infringed on Samsung patents around wireless communications and camera phones. Apple came back even tougher – and filed a second case, this time accusing Samsung of infringing an additional 8 utility patents. It was clear that neither side was going to back away from the fight. When the first case finally came to trial in August 2012, it took the jury less than 3 days to establish that the Korean electronics maker did infact infringe on the design patents covering the iPhone and iPad and owed a whopping USD 1.05 billion. Unfortunately for Samsung, the jury also found that Samsung was entitled to zero damages. The monetary figures aside, both companies mentioned time and again that the trial was about more than just money. Apple went in for the kill – and tried to bar Samsung from selling some of its flagship products in US. Apple’s argument did not carry, however, and the preliminary injunction order was vacated soon after. Adding to the confusion, in December 2012 Judge Koh also concluded that the jury made an error in its damages assessment of $400 million and ordered a retrial. When the retrial concluded in 2013, Apple got awarded USD 290 million, but it was unsuccessful in obtaining a permanent injunction over Samsung’s infringing products. The second case went to trial in 2014 - the motive and energy remained the same even if the patents did not. Unlike the first trial, Google’s presence in the courtroom was quite consequential as Samsung noted that 4 of the 5 accused functionalities were licensed from Google as part of the Android OS. The jury found that Samsung infringed upon two Apple patents but though Apple had requested for USD 2 billion in damages, they awarded Apple (only) USD 128 million. In addition, Apple was found guilty of infringing one of Samsung’s patents but while Samsung had expected to receive damages worth USD 6 million, it was awarded a mere USD 158,400. But it was still the first case – that continued to capture the techno-legal industry’s attention – in no small measured due to the repercussions it would potentially have for how companies view, value and enforce design patents. The case ultimately went up to the Supreme Court – where Samsung argued that Apple is not entitled to total profits from the entire phone (as was the age-old standard for design patents), but only the profit from the components that infringe. After all, products and technology in general have evolved at a faster pace than the law. An electronic device could consist of a 1000 inventions put together – and it would be improper to apply the 100% apportionment standard to such complex products. Samsung argument carried. The Supreme Court tossed the USD 400 million decision and sent the case back to the lower courts to decide. Samsung’s victory at the Supreme Court was short-lived as well – as the jury in the lower court gave Apple a $539 million verdict in May 2018, which finally broke the camel’s back. Samsung could theoretically still challenge the verdict in the Federal Circuit – but decided to settle with Apple, presumably driven by at least the following factors: Legal costs: Challenging the latest verdict (again) at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court would have cost many millions over and above the tens of millions already spent over the last 10 years. Market Dominance: While Apple may still be the single largest player in the US smartphone market, its position is nowhere as dominant as when this war started. Samsung has established itself as a respectable second largest player despite the legal setbacks. Changing Political Climate: Conservative ideology is on the rise among the US population and leadership, and popular opinion is moving increasingly against foreign companies. While Apple, Samsung and just about any other electronics company continue to manufacture products in China and whereabouts, Apple is seen essentially as an American company while Samsung essentially as a Korean company. While that has always been a disadvantage (no matter the jurisdiction), it is definitely more pronounced now than ever in the preceding few decades. Newer Technologies: Apple’s focus on perfection often means Apple lags behind other companies in introducing new technologies to the market. The cases at the end of the day are a distraction from Samsung’s latest strides in foldable displays, artificial intelligence and other offerings that arguably leave Apple behind. 5G: As 5G technologies come to fruition, Samsung no doubt would be among the first OEMs to support 5G networks when they launch – hopefully before Apple has a chance to upgrade its iPhones. Samsung for example has already announced Galaxy S10 that supports 5G for launch in 2019, while Apple has been characteristically silent about how 5G affects its ecosystem. In the end of course, both Apple and Samsung understand that the world really is big enough for both giants to peacefully co-exist. #electronics #apple #telecom #patents #licensing #judgments #samsung #news

It never ceases to amaze me how fast the wireless communication sector has evolved. To keep up with the expectations of the consumer, in terms of faster speed and stronger connectivity, the pioneers in the industry have worked their fingers to the bone. And hence fueling the contest, as to who rules the markets. LG and Ericsson have been one of the largest contributors to the 2G, 3G and 4G standards, and are determined to even dominate the 5G domain. Lately, the 2 companies had been in a patent licensing dispute which they finally decided to settle out of court. They’ve also renewed their global licensing agreement along fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, covering both companies’ 2G 3G and 4G cellular standard essential patents. The terms of the agreement have been kept confidential, although Ericsson’s chief intellectual property officer has remarked that the company is “very pleased” with the new agreement. “It will allow us to focus on developing new technology for the global market and add to our already industry-leading patent portfolio. The agreement confirms the value of our patent portfolio and validates our ability to license it on FRAND terms and conditions,” he said. Previously, LG had licensed Ericsson’s essential patents under three separate reciprocal licenses entered into in 2003, 2008, and 2014. All licenses, including the most recent ones, had expired. LG claimed that the offer had not been made in accordance with the FRAND terms in the first place. In addition to this, LG asserted that it owns a portfolio of essential patents related to the 2G, 3G and 4G standards, which it has repeatedly committed to license on FRAND terms. In the complaint against LG, Ericsson stated that they had been attempting to negotiate with LG to renew the parties’ reciprocal license for nearly a year, but the negotiations had been unsuccessful due to LG’s decline to pay the FRAND rate, giving it unfair competitive advantage over its rivals that have licensed Ericsson’s essential patents on FRAND terms. LG engaged in insincere negotiations and tried to make a counteroffer for a cross-license which covered Ericsson and LG’s entire portfolios of essential patents on terms that were significantly outside the range that many other participants in the mobile telecommunications industry have accepted. This ultimately followed a lawsuit against LG in March, 2018, constraining it to comply with Ericsson’s FRAND commitments. Ericsson has never been reluctant to grant licenses to its patented technology which is essential to practice the 2G, 3G and/or 4G standards, as long as the necessary rules and regulations are followed. They are happy with the cross-licensing agreement, and look forward to new R&D investments – boosting innovation and promising continued success of open standardization. #networks #telecom #patents #electronics #licensing #standards #5g #lg #ericsson #news

A U.S. jury awarded IBM $82.5 million after finding that Groupon infringed four of its e-commerce patents. It had been a running battle between the two companies since 2016, when IBM accused Groupon of failure to license technology and intellectual property which provided the foundation of e-commerce. Initially, IBM sought damages worth $167 million, which Groupon managed to bring down to half its value (source). The verdict underlines IBM’S booming intellectual property licensing business, which brought $1.19 billion for the company the previous year. IBM holds more than 45000 patents and is widely regarded as the most prolific patentee in modern history. Midway through their first full day of deliberations in Wilmington, Delaware, IBM had the jurors in their corner, who decided that Groupon had willfully infringed the patents – which developed a possibility of an increase in the damages award. "IBM invests nearly $6 billion annually in research and development, producing innovations for society," IBM spokesman Doug Shelton said after the verdict. "We rely on our patents to protect our innovations." Groupon consequently has started to figure out its chances of a comeback after the hard hit – considering post trial motions and appeal. "We continue to believe that we do not infringe on any valid IBM patents," he said. "To the extent these patents have any value at all -- which we believe they do not -- the value is far less than what the jury awarded." Two of the patents came out of an online service called Prodigy, which was started by IBM in the late 1980’s. It offered its subscribers access to a broad range of networked services, including news, weather, shopping, bulletin boards, and a variety of other features. Another patent is related to guarding information in a continuing conversation between clients and servers. The fourth is related to authentication, and expires in 2025. IBM drew attention during the trial to the fact that the same patents had been licensed to Google, Amazon, and Facebook, and each company paid between $20 million and $50 million. “The new kid on the block refuses to take responsibility for using these inventions,” as stated by IBM lawyer John Desmarias. This is also the first time in 20 years that IBM managed to get a filed patent lawsuit to the start of a jury trial. This was an important case in the online advertising and marketing sector, and underwent a detailed examination. Ten companies, including GoDaddy Operating Co., LinkedIn and Twitter had requested confidentiality on information related to their prior IBM patent deals. In an interview after the verdict, John Desmarais shed some light on how recent reforms, designed to fight abuses in the patent system have made it harder for companies to protect their intellectual property – which encouraged firms to resist IBM's demand for a licensing fee. "It's put companies like IBM, who have real portfolios, real R&D investment dollars, in a situation where they have to go to court," Desmarais said. Although IBM emerged intact from the Groupon trial, he said "it took years and millions of dollars when it should have taken a couple of meetings." IBM was also fighting Priceline.com, part of Booking Holdings Inc. on similar grounds. U.S. District Judge Leonard Stark, who also presided over the IBM-Groupon trial, ruled in October that Priceline.com infringed on only 3 of the four patents in question. IBM has appealed in response to this verdict. #ibm #patents #ecommerce #software #judgments #news

Cisco and Arista have ended a 4-year-old legal conflict over networking patents. Arista is set to pay Cisco a total of $400 million in damages in order in order to settle the dispute. The two companies have decided to use an arbitration process to address any patent issues which arise regarding new products that come out in the next three years. In a joint statement, they stated - “Cisco and Arista have come to an agreement which resolves existing litigation and demonstrates their commitment to the principles of IP protection. They have agreed that, with limited exceptions, no new litigation will be brought over patents or copyrights to existing products, for five years.” (source) Arista was founded by former Cisco employees who were directly and confidentially familiar with Cisco’s patented networking technologies, including those protected by patents. Eventually, Aristo arrived as Cisco’s potential competitor in the multibillion-dollar market for Ethernet switches used in data centers. In the complaint against Arista filed in 2014, Cisco has deeply expressed how Arista, instead of building its products and services based on new technologies, has merely taken a shortcut by using innovative networking technologies designed, developed, and patented by Cisco. Arista however, came forward and agreed upon the possibility, that had they tried to legitimately compete with Cisco, it would have taken a substantial investment in time and employment. Arista’s President and Chief Executive Officer, former Cisco employee Jayshree Ullal stated: “Since I helped build the enterprise [at Cisco], I would never compete with Cisco directly in the enterprise in a conventional way. It makes no sense. It would take me 15 years and 15,000 engineers, and that’s not a recipe for success.” Cisco sued Arista, claiming that it had blatantly copied software that runs switching products and other technology protected by patents and copyrights. Arista denied these allegations, accusing Cisco of abusing its monopoly to repress the competition to sustain its dominance in the market. In 2016, the U.S ITC ruled in favor of Cisco, that Arista infringed three patents, and suggested a limited ban on Arista’s products that infringe the patents. Arista complied with this by redesigning its technology by eliminating the factors that infringed on Cisco’s patents. This improvement worked and led to Arista’s victory as a U.S jury in 2016 said that it owed zero damages over Cisco’s claims of copyright infringement. It didn’t end here. An antitrust lawsuit was filed by Arista shortly after the settlement, alleging Cisco of first letting its competitors use its interface technology, and when they were confined to it, asserting copyright infringement. "Arista contends that for over a decade, Cisco encouraged customers and competitors to invest in and adopt Cisco's CLI. This practice was effectuated, among other ways, through Cisco's representations that its CLI was an 'industry standard,' and without independent assertion of copyright or other intellectual property rights in the CLI commands," the complaint read. "Arista contends that despite knowing for years that Arista and other competitors had adopted Cisco-like CLIs, prior to 2014 Cisco made no statements that asserted intellectual property or other proprietary rights in the Cisco CLI itself," the complaint continued (source). Cisco denied this by saying that it never advised Arista to use its technology and the allegations against Arista are only justified. In addition to the damages cost, the deal includes Arista to be released from all claims of infringement in the pending litigation. Arista will also drop its lawsuit alleging that Cisco indulged in anticompetitive conduct to safeguard its dominant share of the Ethernet switch market – which otherwise would have commenced on Monday in San hose, California. However, this settlement does not resolve Cisco’s appeal of the 2016 verdict, which said that Arista was not liable for damages under U.S. copyright law. A federal appeals court heard arguments relating to those claims in June and will issue a ruling later this year. #telecom #electronics #news #cisco #arista #patents

For decades, under section 28 U.S.C. § 1391, the federal court system permitted the plaintiff to select any judicial district for filing a patent infringement case where the defendant did business, such as sale of accused products. The plaintiff can also file a patent infringement case in the judicial district where the residency of the defendant is present. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b) Venue in General - a civil action may be brought in— (1) a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located; (2) a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or (3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action. (c) Residency - For all venue purposes— (1) a natural person, including an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States, shall be deemed to reside in the judicial district in which that person is domiciled; (2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business; and (3) a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district, and the joinder of such a defendant shall be disregarded in determining where the action may be brought with respect to other defendants. As a result of this prevailing standard, Eastern District of Texas (EDT) became a highly preferred venue for patent cases. On study for example, in 2015 around 2376 cases were filed in Eastern District of Texas, even though most of the defendants in these cases had no significant roots in that district. Most technology companies understandably come out of Silicon Valley and/or are incorporated in Delaware, both miles away from the sleepy judicial towns of Marshall and Tyler in EDT. The following table depicts the patent cases filed in U.S. district courts from 1997-2016. Even though most studies have concluded that statistically EDT juries are at least as much (if not more) likely to deliver a verdict for the defendants as the national average (See http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/), the disparity in filing statistics results from plaintiff-friendly local rules and procedures in the EDT courts that puts more pressure on defendants to settle and therefore allows quick recovery of damages for the plaintiffs. Source The status quo was finally challenged in May 2017, when the United States Supreme Court ruled concerning about the venues in patent infringement lawsuits in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. Kraft Foods filed a case against TC Heartland in 2014 related to one of its low calorie sweeteners. Kraft Foods filed the case in the District of Delaware. TC Heartland filed a motion for transferring the venue to the Southern District of Indiana alleging that since TC Heartland had no business place in Delaware, the venue was improper. TC Heartland cited the Supreme Court decision of Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. 353 U.S. 222 (1957) and 353 U.S. 226 (1957) that for purposes of patent infringement suits, a corporation “resides” in the state it was incorporated in. Both the District Court and the Federal Court rejected TC Heartland’s argument, and fell back to the prevailing 28 U.S.C. § 1391 standard. After that TC Heartland filed a writ to the Supreme Court in September 2016, addressing the interpretation of “resides” in 28 USC 1400 (b) and the writ was granted in December 2016. Supreme Court issued a decision on May 22, 2017 under section 28 USC 1400 (b) which narrowed the forum scope by limiting the venue to the terms provided in this section. 28 U.S. Code § 1400 (b) – Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The impact of the TC Heartland decision was felt almost immediately. EDT not only saw an immediate decline in the number of new cases filed – but also saw a flurry to motions to change venue in the ongoing cases as well. The following shows the impact on case filing trends in various districts. Eastern District of Texas (EDT) In Eastern District of Texas the number of new infringement cases filed reduced more than a half, from 39.61% in 2016 to 15.04% in 2017. District of Delaware (DD) For courts like District of Delaware, a dramatic rise has been noticed i.e. from 12.1% in 2016 to 22.9% in 2017 (mainly due to the fact that most companies are incorporated in Delaware). Delaware District court is also popular for filing the patent cases as most of the companies register themselves in that district. Delaware has some business-friendly tax law. For example, the people having business do not need to pay state corporate income tax. This is an advantage for the companies due to which investors prefer Delaware corporations. Delaware offers greater privacy for small businesses. For example, Delaware corporations do not need to disclose any officer or director names on their incorporation documents. Northern District of California (NDC) Northern District of California (NDC) has also seen a three-fold rise in filing the cases, the percentage increased from 2.3% in 2016 to 6.8% in 2017. After TC Heartland, plaintiffs have been forced towards districts that house technology companies’ headquarters. The Northern District of California, and Silicon Valley in particular, is home to a lot of technology companies. The TC Heartland decision really changed the game for patent litigation, and in particular for non-practicing entities (NPE) who have overwhelmingly preferred EDT as their venue of choice. Years of intense patent litigation in the state has also encouraged a dense concentration of very skilled patent litigators in the state, and in Dallas and Austin in particular, and those skills are difficult to build, discover and procure otherwise. Texas will remain therefore a popular destination for patent attorneys and for patent owners to hire outside counsel - though it would be the "local counsel" stalwarts down in Marshall, TX and Tyler, TX who will ultimately face the biggest downturn in the wake of the decision. References: https://bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/18-0027_BW_FallWinter_2017-IP-Update-Newsletter_RV6.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TC_Heartland_LLC_v._Kraft_Foods_Group_Brands_LLC https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1391 https://harvardlawreview.org/2017/11/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-foods-group-brands-llc/ https://www.mercatus.org/publication/abuse-patent-venue-rules-reaches-record-breaking-level http://matthewsag.com/category/patent/ https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/287677 https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=1942&context=facpubs #patents #judgments

Tesla’s long run with Panasonic’s 18650 cells came to a halt recently with the launch of their new model 3, that packed the next generation 2170 cells (21mm width, 70mm height). According to experts, this new battery pack was no less than an engineering marvel, that contained 30 – 33% more energy when compared with previous generation 18650 cells. In general, the company has always had contrasting ideas to the other big players in the industry, concerning the batteries used in their cars. Most companies when it comes to deciding the parameters for their car batteries, usually go in for hundreds of large format cells. Tesla on the other hand uses cells that are smaller in size, but comparatively more in number. The major advantage of this is reflected in its low price and high energy density of the battery. Also, a single cell malfunctioning would not cause much trouble, as it gets separated from the rest. However, regardless of the size, the concern around battery safety, is something that is shared across the board. Tesla too has had some heating issues in its EVs, and recently came up with a solution to eliminate the issue. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Tesla last week about “High Voltage Electrolysis of Coolant in a Battery Pack”. It was originally filed on May 3, 2018. This battery coolant patent includes a coolant system that uses a mixture of two different liquids as a coolant solution. Apparently, the new liquid formed has different boiling points, as the predetermined ratio changes. This boiling point is about equal to the temperature sufficient to induce a thermal runaway condition for one or more battery modules. A sensor in the system monitors the battery module for a high voltage electrolysis and responds with a remediation system “ to decrease the risk associated with the possible high voltage electrolysis when operated”. What Tesla is trying to aim for here is to limit excessive thermal conditions of individual battery cells and modules. In their patent application they’ve mentioned: “Once the [runaway thermal condition ... chain] reaction starts, it can continue to spread throughout the battery pack or a portion thereof until overheating cells are sufficiently cooled or the entire battery pack or the portion is consumed. A typical battery pack has a high thermal mass, mostly due to the mass of the cells. A failure of an individual cell provides for a relatively low energy release. Also, surrounding battery cells must be heated to as much as 200 degree C or higher before they in turn release energy. These three factors mean that a full reaction that consumes all the cells of a battery pack may take anywhere from tens of minutes to many hours.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastianblanco/2018/09/10/tesla-battery-liquid-cooling-patent-application/#6b5d94f8127a In addition to runway thermal condition, there is another risk factor which troubles the car maker. As a consequence of the chemical reaction of electrolysis, hydrogen gas is generated. Under some circumstances, this hydrogen gas can build up inside the battery pack and become a possible hazard. According to Tesla, a possible solution to this problem is to let the reaction run its course while the car is clear of any passengers or bystanders. Why this may be the best alternative for now is because stopping the thermal reaction itself, is practically very difficult. As of today, Tesla has crossed the 300,000 mark of electric vehicles shipped worldwide, with its fleet reaching a total of 9 billion electric miles on road. These numbers sure tell that their product is loved around the globe. However, with $11 billion dollars in losses, it looks to me they have a lot more miles of their own to cover. #Tesla #automobiles #emergingtech

The key to run a successful business, if you ask the big players, they’ll tell you, resides in how nice and friendly of a work environment you’re able to create for the employees. Well, most of them. Amazon is one company that differs from this methodology completely. The no-retreat no-surrender work culture that it instills in its employees have had the company wrapped up in controversies for the good part of their existence. Bob Olson, a former Amazon Books Marketing employee, said that "nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk." (source) However, the latest news regarding the Company’s intentions to make their employees work in cages, seems drastic even for Amazon standards. In 2016, a patent was granted to Amazon by the U.S Patent Office which hinted on an enclosed structure meant for its employees to work in. The patent shows a cage built for a human working in robot work zones, and is mounted on a robot trolley, similar to the ones used in amazon warehouses to move shelving. Kate Crawford and Vladan Joler were the two Artificial Intelligence researchers that highlighted this patent in a study. In their analysis, they noted “an extraordinary illustration of worker alienation, a stark moment in the relationship between humans and machines.”(source) Here, the worker becomes a part of a machinic ballet, held upright in a cage which dictates and constrains their movement.” (source) As soon as this study was reported by news outlets, it caused a public outburst on the internet. Here’s a tweet by Amazon senior vice president of operations Dave Clark, explaining how this patent was a bad idea, and that they never implemented the technology, nor do they have any plans to do so in the future - Sometimes even bad ideas get submitted for patents. This was never used and we have no plans for usage. We developed a far better solution which is a small vest associates can wear that cause all robotic drive units in their proximity to stop moving. — Dave Clark (@davehclark) September 8, 2018 (source) Originally, this model was designed in order to ensure employee safety when they enter the robot-only zones in Amazon’s highly-automated depots to make repairs, or pick up dropped objects. 750 pound robots frequently scoot around the area, surrounded by high chain-link fences. If an unauthorized human strays into the robot-only zone, an alarm is triggered and the devices are designed to shut down to avoid colliding with the person. Amazon, in its patent, suggested a way that could diminish the boundary between human and robot territory. “There may be circumstances where it is necessary for human operators to traverse, or otherwise go into, an active workspace,” says the patent Lindsay Campbell, an Amazon spokesperson believes that the opinions centering the company’s use of the patent were in fact “misguided”. “Like many companies, we file a number of forward-looking patent applications,” she said. Many don’t see the light of day as finished products, particularly at Amazon, which encourages employees to experiment and invent. Such a cage-like device is not in use in any Amazon fulfillment centers, Campbell said. (source) But this is not the first time Amazon has tried to come up with a rather peculiar business plan. Other amazon patents that managed to create some buzz around, include wristbands to track workers’ hand movements, drones that can drop packages from 25 feet in the air, or ones that could link themselves up to form a kind of floating warehouse. Be that as it may, Amazon’s business methods may be harsh on its employees but they sure are effective. With its annual revenue increased by 27 percent, and the latest quarter fetching them a record setting $2.5 billion in profit, they prove that it’s not always the warm and fuzzy methods that help bring in the surplus. #amazon #patents #ecommerce

In retrospect of the innumerous lawsuits Facebook has been combating since the past decade, it seems that they should buckle up even further, for the ride’s about to get bumpier. Facebook, along with its subsidiary Instagram, and two other social media companies namely Snap inc. and Foursquares Lab inc. will be facing a lawsuit on grounds of patent infringement. The plaintiff Corrino Holdings LLC, is a non practicing entity with connections to IP Valuation Partners. After forming the company in December, Corrino holdings had acquired the asserted patents from Intellectual Ventures in June. The Patents in question describes technology that revolves around Global Positioning System and its applications in social media platforms. The suits primarily focus on how these social networks help notify users of nearby services, or enable search within a geographical location. For instance, the complaint includes a U.S Patent 7,847,685 which describes a system in which a user’s query shall be addressed via a system that locates and directs the information related to the user’s location. This method helps narrow down the search results by confining them to the user’s location, which otherwise would have been a tussle for him, going through a thousand random hits on a conventional search engine. Hence, valuable time is saved on the user’s front. The lawsuits for each of the companies were filed separately at the U.S district court for the central district of California on Thursday, October 4. Common attorneys have been assigned to all the companies involved, and assert subsets of the same patents. The allegations against Facebook and Instagram state that the patent infringement seems to have occurred in the apps that are offered by the two companies. However, for Snap inc., the claim points out that the location targeting feature, which helps determine the location of the user for the local advertisers (or vice versa), is what infringes the patent. As of now, no counsel has made appearances for Facebook, but usually for patent infringement, it's the Cooley partners that handle the cases for the company. Facebook and Snap have already been in a bit of commotion this past year, in view of the patent claims filed by Blackberry Inc. against them. It’ll be interesting to see how they go about this newly spawned issue. #facebook #GPS #socialnetworks #news