What I Learned in IEOR 190G

I took this class because I wanted to learn more about patents because I hope to own one of my own someday. I didn't know that there were various elements that go into making a patent, and the process that goes into getting it approved. 

I particularly liked the subjects of obviousness and prior art in this class. Having homework assignments specifically related to these topics also helped reinforce the material in my mind. Additionally, I liked how we focused mostly on patent cases relating specifically to smartphones (like Apple vs Samsung lawsuits).

I'm an aspiring entrepreneur, and the knowledge I gained from this class will definitely be very useful for me in the future when launching products and such. I really enjoyed this class, and I will definitely encourage other students to take it in the future.

Social Media as a Learning Tool

Throughout the semester, we used social media exclusively to complete our homework assignments. I particularly liked this because it is very different from most classes that I have taken. It forced us to get out of our comfort zones and talk in front of a camera about topics, with our own input as well.

The YouTube videos improved my speaking abilities and how I organize my thoughts. It's like giving mini speeches but in front of a camera. I liked how they were supposed to be short and succinct, because that is a good rule of thumb for giving speeches in life.Commenting on others blog posts and videos also allowed us to learn from each other by forcing us to read other peoples' findings and opinions. Finally, tweeting was a nice small assignment where we could share 1 sentence thoughts with everybody.

Overall, I liked the use of social media in this course, and definitely think it should be continued in future years.

Smartphone Patent Case: Microsoft vs Kyocera

In March 2015, Microsoft alleged that the Japanese tech company, Kyocera, infringed on patents related to cell phones. In addition to seeking damages, the Washington-based tech firm sought a ban on U.S. sales of Kyocera products, including its Hydro, Duraforce, and Brigadier lines.

Microsoft named seven patents related to a number of mobile device patents -- relating to text messaging, battery life, motion sensing, location sensing, and power savings. These all relate to devices that can sense changes in the user's environment and linking computers and mobile devices.

Kyocera's phones run on Google's Android operating system, and Microsoft established a licensing agreement with Google, earning a good amount of revenue from its patents that are used in the operating system.

However, in July 2015, the two companies came to a resolution suit and simultaneously signed an expanded patent-licensing arrangement. However, more details were not released.

Smartphone Patent Case: Apple vs HTC (2010)

In March 2, 2010, Apple filed suit against HTC, alleging that the company infringed 20 patents "related to the iPhone's user interface, underlying architecture, and hardware." Steve Jobs even released this statement:

We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own original technology, not steal ours.

The 20 patents in litigation were:

Patent #7,362,331: Time-Based, Non-Constant Translation Of User Interface Objects Between States
Patent #7,479,949: Touch Screen Device, Method, And Graphical User Interface For Determining Commands By Applying Heuristics

Patent #7,657,849: Unlocking A Device By Performing Gestures On An Unlock Image
Patent #7,469,381: List Scrolling And Document Translation, Scaling, And Rotation On A Touch-Screen Display

Patent #5,920,726: System And Method For Managing Power Conditions Within A Digital Camera Device

Patent #7,633,076: Automated Response To And Sensing Of User Activity In Portable Devices

Patent #5,848,105: GMSK Signal Processors For Improved Communications Capacity And Quality
Patent #7,383,453: Conserving Power By Reducing Voltage Supplied To An Instruction-Processing Portion Of A Processor

Patent #5,455,599: Object-Oriented Graphic System

Patent #6,424,354: Object-Oriented Event Notification System With Listener Registration Of Both Interests And Methods

Patent #5,481,721: Method for providing automatic and dynamic translation of object oriented programming language-based message passing into operation system message passing using proxy objects

Patents #5,519,867 and #6,275,983: Object Oriented Multitasking System and Object-Oriented Operating System

Patent #5,566,337: Method and apparatus for distributing events in an operating system 

Patent #5,929,852: Encapsulated network entity reference of a network component system

Patent 5,946,647: System and method for performing an action on a structure in computer-generated data

Patent #5,969,705: Message protocol for controlling a user interface from an inactive application program 

Patent #6,343,263: Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data

Patent #5,915,131: Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O service

Patent #RE39,486: Extensible, replaceable network component system 

Apple filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and a complaint against HTC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, D.C. Apple even requested the U.S. International Trade Commission to block imports of HTC's patents. The ITC rejected all but one of Apple's claims, ruling for Apple on a single claim related to data tapping. HTC motioned the Delaware court for a change of venue to the Northern District of California, arguing against Apple's desire to consolidate the case with the similar cases brought by Nokia against Apple,[202] alleging insubstantial overlap between those cases and Apple's complaint, but Judge Gregory M. Sleetdenied HTC's motion for a venue change, ruling that Apple's choice of forum would prevail.

Silly Patent: Hands Free Towel Carrying System

Patent 6,718,554 titled "Hands free towel carrying system" was issued in 2003. As you can see from the picture above, this really is just a towel with a neck loop -- almost like a towel-bib. The first two claims are as follows:

1. A hands free towel carrying system for coupling a towel to a user to prevent loss, theft or contamination comprising, combination:

a towel of a generally rectangular configuration comprised of an absorbent material of a color of the user's choosing, having a loose end, a parallel coupling end and a pair of side edges therebetween, the side edges being between about 15 percent and 25 percent greater than the length of the loose and coupling ends, the coupling end being formed from the folding over of a top end and coupling the top end to an intermediate portion of the towel through stitching thereby forming a tunnel in the coupling end, the region of the towel forming the tunnel being shirred with inner regions and outer regions adapted to expand and contract to allow enlargement and reduction of the size of the tunnel;

a neck loop of a generally cylindrical configuration and being comprised of an elastomeric material, the neck loop being adapted to be stretched around a user's head without messing up the user's hair and glasses and being adapted to rest around the user's neck, the neck loop forming a base around which the tunnel of the coupling end of the towel can be formed for enlargement and reduction in size thereby retaining the towel in a convenient enlarged position during donning by the user and reduced configuration during wearing by the user;

a pocket positioned on the towel and having a resealable coupling selected from the class of resealable couplings including snaps, buttons, zippers and hook and loop fasteners, preferably a snap, with the pocket being adapted to hold loose objects the user desires to keep in safe proximity; and indicia positioned on the towel, the indicia being selected from the class of indicia including monograms, advertisement, and sports logos.

2. A hands free towel carrying system comprising: a towel of a generally rectangular configuration comprised of an absorbent material having a loose end, a parallel coupling end formed from the folding over of a top end and coupling the top end to an intermediate portion of the towel through stitching thereby forming a tunnel in the coupling end, the region of the towel forming the tunnel being shirred with inner regions and outer regions adapted to expand and contract to allow enlargement and reduction of the size of the tunnel, and a pair of side edges there between; and a generally cylindrical neck loop comprised of an elastomeric material.

Basically, that was a really convoluted way of saying this is a towel with a neck loop, and a small pocket to keep things in. Since the bib for babies has been around for a while, I really don't see how this is a unique, creative invention. Furthermore, I think this patent is fairly obvious because usually people just let the towel hang around the neck if they wanted a hands-free towel. And that act alone would infringe on, probably, 70% of this patent. 

I would definitely use this product when shaving my face, but I don't think it warrants an issued patent. That is why I think this patent is pretty "silly". 

Silly Patent: Virtual Gift

Patent 7,970,657 has been awarded to Facebook for "giving gifts via a social network and displaying icons representing assets that have been acquired via the social network". There are 52 claims to the patent, but like with most software patents, claim 1 sums up the patent pretty well (the other claims are details):

1. A method for representing ownership of an asset in a social network environment, the method comprising: receiving a request from a first user of the social network environment to purchase the asset for a second user; recording information about a purchase of the asset from a vendor; associating, by a server for the social networking environment, the purchased asset with a profile of the second user; sending for display to a viewing user an association between the purchased asset and the second user on a feed display page; sending for display to the viewing user, in connection with the association between the purchased asset and the second user, information indicating that a third user, with whom the viewing user has established a connection in the social network, owns the asset, and information including a name of the first user who gave the asset to the second user, on the feed display page.

The reason why I think this patent is silly is because this concept is nothing new, nor invented. For example, there have existed online games and communities where you can gift other players certain items or abilities. For example, if Player X gifts player Y 10 gold coins, the game would display "Player X gifted Player Y 10 gold coins!" and that would infringe on this patent. The only real differentiation here is that this patent specifies a "social network", but one could argue that an online game in which a user plays with other real players is also a social network since you can have friends and connections.

Because I believe this concept has already existed for many years, I believe this really is a "silly" patent.

Patent Obviousness: Prometheus Labs Inc. vs Roxane Labs Inc.

In the patent case between Prometheus Laboratories and Roxane Laboratories, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the finding from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey of patent invalidity on the basis of obviousness.

The contested patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,284,770, is in regards to Prometheus’ medication used to treat irritable bowel syndrome. The medication is called Lotronex. Prometheus sued Roxane on the basis of infringement of multiple claims of the patent. Roxane challenged the validity of the patent under theories of obviousness and obviousness-type double patenting in view of another patent owned by Prometheus and the state of the prior art of treating IBS. The claims in dispute are:

5. A method for treating a diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient,while excluding those with predominant constipation, said method comprising:
       assessing whether said diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient has experienced symptoms for at least six months; and
       administering an effective amount of alosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof to said patient who has experienced symptoms for at least six months, wherein said effective amount is dependent on the condition of the patient and is at the discretion of the attendant physician.
6. The method for treating according to claim 5, further comprising assessing whether said female IBS patient has experienced at least moderate pain prior to administration of alosetron.
7. A method for treating a diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient, while excluding those with predominant constipation, said method comprising:
       assessing whether said diarrhea-predominant female IBS patient has experienced symptoms for at least six months;
       assessing whether said nonconstipated female IBS patient experiences at least moderate base- line pain from IBS; and
       administering an effective amount of alosetron or a pharmaceutically acceptable derivative thereof to said patient who has experienced symptoms for at least six months and who experiences at least moderate baseline pain from IBS, wherein said effective amount is dependent on the condition of the patient and is at the discretion of the attendant physician.

The court related this case to another case between AbbVie Inc. and Mathilda and Terrence Kennedy Institute of Technology. As a result, it held that

1. The patent was obvious
2. Secondary considerations did not support a conclusion that the patent was not obvious

Basically, the court did not find significant differences between the prior art and the limitations mentioned in the patent. As a result, the patent was deemed invalid.

Patent Obviousness: KSR International Co. vs Teleflex Inc.

In 2007, Teleflex, Inc. sued KSR international claiming that one of KSR's products infringed Teleflex's patent on connecting an adjustable vehicle control pedal to an electronic throttle control. KSR argued that the combination of the two elements was obvious, and the claim was therefore not patentable.

The district court ruled in favor of KSR, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed it in January 2005. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court, where it unanimously reversed the judgment of the Federal Circuit in 2007. It held that the disputed claim 4 of the patent was obvious under the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 103 and that in rejecting the District Court's rulings, the Court of Appeals analyzed the issue in a narrow, rigid manner inconsistent with 103 and the precedents'.

When generally describing the obviousness test, the Court was largely controversial:

In determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under §103. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims.

The contested patent was Patent No. 6, 237, 565 B1, entitled "Adjustable Pedal Assembly With Electronic Throttle Control". Claim 4 of the patent describes a mechanism for combining an electronic sensor with an adjustable automobile pedal so the pedal's position can be transmitted to a computer that controls the throttle in the vehicle's engine. When Teleflex accused ksr of infringing on this patent by adding an electronic sensor to one of KSR's previously designed pedals, KSR countered that claim 4 was invalid because its subject matter was obvious.