The Dolcera Blog

The Tech world is buzzing in 2011. Apple, Android, and Patents seems to the most recurring themes conversations converge too. Apple is a great success story, and literally becoming the apple of everyone’s eye by becoming one of the most valuable companies in the world, consistently innovating and generating higher and higher revenues. They recently posted one of their best quarters ever.

Many see Apple’s rise as a challenger to the Open Innovation theories, and positing that in technology a closed system offers you much more strength and sustainable innovation coming up with products which have completely re-shaped markets.

Of course Apple had a visionary in the form of Steve Jobs, but technologies don’t just develop “magically” and systems don’t just fall into “amazing” perfect tandem on their own. So, we at Dolcera decided to look into what exactly are the sources of Apple’s innovation.

Apple being a very secretive company, it was hard to find a lot of inside information. But one of the best sources of “innovation” data is the legal document which one gets for innovating - a patents. We decided to look at the patents of Apple and get an idea of the true sources of Apple’s innovation.

In our opinion, the key sources of Apple’s innovation are :
1. Expenditure on research,
2. Acquisitions, and
3. Patent Deals
Apple definitely has a strong in-house research. But every time Steve Jobs wished to make one of his “visions” a reality, it often required Apple to go out and spot “sources” which can be acquired, or taken the technology from. Some prime examples are acquisition of Fingerworks which developed the Multi-Touch for iPhone, and technology licensing from LiquidMetal which gave Apple products their great aesthetics among many others.

We have tried to provide a basic story flow in the visual below.

We are also conducting web seminars to detail on the findings of our research, and how you too can do the same. For details contact us at - info@dolcera.com

 Author: Pramath Malik

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Media tablets, private cloud computing, and 3D flat-panel TVs and displays are some of the technologies that have moved into the Peak of Inflated Expectations, according to the 2010 Emerging Technologies Hype Cycle by Gartner, Inc.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

The objective and target of any organization is growth at 45 degree on x & Y axis through best products, best services etc… with latest innovations. Ever since recession has hit the western market the economy and jobs are melting like never before, chapter 11 filing cases are increasing. After all to run an organization revenue has to be generated. As newspapers across North America and the globe continue to flood with stories of economic downturn and businesses fighting to survive, organizations this month are placing a renewed focus on innovation and revenue generation.

Revenue generation through patent lawsuits is the new trend. 35 patent lawsuits have been filed just in 5 plus month time during 2009, wonder how many more are there. Surely first half of 2009 is not good for Google in terms of lawsuits, total 14 lawsuit are been battled.

Lawsuit filing cases of 2009:

1. Aloft Media, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. et al
2. Performance Pricing, Inc. v. Google Inc. et al
3. Leader Technologies Inc. v. Facebook Inc.
4. Actus, LLC v. Bank of America Corp. et al
5. Paid Search Engine Tools, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al
6. ESN LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al
7. Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC v. Forest River Inc
8. Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
9. Northeastern University et al v. Google, Inc.,
10. Polaris IP, LLC v. Google Inc. et al
11. Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc. et al
12. Aloft Media, LLC v. Google, Inc.
13. GraphOn Corporation v. Google Inc.
14. Google, Inc. v. EMSAT Advanced Geo-Location Technology, LLC et al
15. Picsel (Research) Ltd. et al v. Apple Inc.
16. Web Tracking Solutions, Inc. et al v. Google, Inc.
17. Association For Molecular Pathology et al v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al
18. Cygnus Systems, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, et al
19. Google Inc. et al v. Egger et al
20. Certicom Corporation et al v. Sony Corporation et al
21. Klausner Technologies Inc v. Verizon Wireless et al
22. Clark v. The Walt Disney Company et al
23. HYPERPHRASE TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. GOOGLE INC.
24. BabyAge..com, Inc. v. Leachco, Inc.
25. IP Innovation LLC et al v. Google, Inc.
26. Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.
27. Bid for Position, LLC v. AOL, LLC et al
28. Soilworks LLC v Midwest Industrial Supply Inc
29. Priest et al v Google Inc.
30. 21 srl v. Apple Inc. et al
31. PACid Group, LLC v. Apple Inc. et al
32. Accolade Systems LLC v. Micron Technology Inc et al
33. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
34. Clear With Computers, LLC v. Bassett Furniture Industries, Inc. et al
35. Motorola Inc v. Research In Motion Limited et al

Posted in Power of Patent. Tags: Apple, bankruptcy, chapter 11, economy downturn, facebook, Google, innovation, intellectual property, IP innovation, Jobs, Lawfirm, microsoft, North America, patent, patent attorney, patent infringement, Patent invalidation, Patent lawsuits, recession, revenue generation, USPTO.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Mumbai, May 18 The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) has received a United States patent on an innovative process to make sevelamer, a generic polymer that treats toxic excess of phosphate in the body caused by chronic renal failure.

The patent is a culmination of work done by CSIR’s constituent lab in Pune, the National Chemical Laboratory, on a mandate initially given by Mumbai-based drug company USV Ltd.

USV had acquired the patent rights from CSIR last year, following which it further undertook the prosecution of the application.

Dr Kulkarni’s team developed the alternative process that received the patent.

As per the agreement, USV had the first right to license the know-how and acquire the patent rights, and USV exercised this option.

USV had approached NCL in mid-2003 to develop an innovative process to manufacture the polymer. NCL developed the process and CSIR filed the patent application in India, and the US.

NCL’s scientists developed a cost-effective process to manufacture sevelamer, the phosphate-absorbing polymer. The process NCL reduces the manufacturing time and the process chemicals requirements and is easy to scale up. USV has made a one time payment, and no further milestone payments are involved, he said, citing confidentiality for not giving details.

This development is significant as a technologically novel process received a US patent and has been found commercially attractive by a pharma company.

The recent patent success comes against the backdrop of the Centre’s efforts to get more public-funded institutions to file patents and work with the industry to commercialise research efforts.

With 128 patents in 2006-2007, the CSIR accounts for about 47 per cent of the total US patents granted to Indians, excluding non-resident Indians and foreign assignees, said Mr R.K. Gupta, Head of CSIR’s IP Management Division.

Final patent

The final patent on the CSIR-developed innovative polymer will be issued by the US Patent Office in approximately four months, said Pharmaceutical Patent Attorneys, LLC, the New Jersey-based firm who prosecuted the patent for its Indian client.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Interesting report by the SMEs Division of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO):

Frances Anderson examines the relationship between IP rights and firm performance in two service industry sectors:  Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Selected Professional Scientific and Technical Services using data from the Statistics Canada’s Survey of Innovation 2003.  It shows the increasing role of services in innovation processes and argues that IP regimes influence firm competitive advantage: firm characteristics, innovative activities, firm strategy, and firm market characteristics.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook