The Dolcera Blog

Google Inc., the Internet giant, has signed a $12.5 billion agreement to acquire Motorola Mobility, the legendary mobile phone and set-top box manufacturer. As per the agreement, Google will pay $40 per share in cash, which was a 63% premium to the closing price of Motorola Mobility shares on August 12, 2011.

But what is impressive about the deal is the purpose behind it. After all, Google generates its revenue from searches i.e. it auctions off search words to clients that want to advertise alongside the responses. On the other hand, Motorola Mobility manufactures handsets and set-top boxes that carry TV channels to homes. Interestingly, Motorola Mobility is the No.2 provider of set-top boxes after Cisco.

So why an Internet mogul be interested in acquiring a hardware company?

The key to the story is Android, Google’s OS for mobile devices. At present, Android has surpassed Apple and Nokia smart phones and already has signed deals with 39 handset manufacturers such as Samsung, HTC, LG Electronics, Sony Ericsson, etc. As we can see from this, Google is not just an Internet-based company but is part of the mobile business in full swing. Although Google offers the Android OS for free to handset manufacturers, it is a cynosure when it comes to patent infringement lawsuits. Companies from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle, and Apple have filed multiple lawsuits against Android.

As a result, in a bid to strengthen its patent portfolio, Google has acquired Motorola’s 17,000 patents (Click here for information on Motorola Mobility’s patent portfolio). The acquisition not only eliminates Motorola from being a potential threat in terms of filing a lawsuit but also arms Google so that it can defend itself in lawsuits as well as launch suits of its own.

In a latest turn of events, just last week HTC, the Chinese handset manufacturer, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. As per the appeal, HTC stated that Apple was infringing nine US patents related to wireless communications and mobile phone displays. The interesting bit is that Google had assigned those patents to HTC and some of those patents it had acquired from Motorola Mobility.

The ownership pathway for the nine patents is shown below.

The first five patents were used to strengthen HTC’s Delaware suit against Apply while the other four have been used for a new lawsuit against apple.

Clearly, Google is out to avenge the lawsuits against its adopted child Android and defend itself in any way.

In addition, the other side of the story is the set-top box business, the acquisition of which will facilitate Google becoming a significant supplier of Internet-borne TV content on Android-equipped mobile devices and also generate revenues from TV advertising, which is worth $70 billion.

In all, Google’s deal with Motorola Mobility is not just a defensive action against infringement lawsuits but also a smart move in terms of boosting its ad revenues from Internet-borne TV content.

Author: Charanjeet Singh

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook 

Professors Mark Lemley, Chris Cotropia, and Bhaven Sampat recently released a draft of their new article titled “Do Applicant Patent Citations Matter? Implications for the Presumption of Validity.” [Download Here.]

For the article, the trio analyzed the file histories of 1,500+ utility patents issued in 2007 and compared references used in office action rejections with the list of references cited on the patent cover-pages.  The objective was to figure-out the role of applicant-cited prior-art in the examination process.

Findings: Patent examiners rarely rely on applicant-submitted prior-art when making rejections.  Only 13% of the prior art used in office action rejections was applicant-submitted (despite the fact that 74% of cited references are applicant-submitted). Generally, the study found that examiners “effectively ignored” applicant-submitted prior art regardless of how few or how many references were cited; regardless of the timing of the IDS filing; and regardless of whether the submission included an EPO search reports identifying the references as “X-references.”

Implications: The authors suggest several implications of their findings: (1) That it likely does not make sense to find inequitable conduct when an applicant withholds prior art (since the art would not have been used in a rejection anyway); (2) That the presumption of validity associated with patents may be too strong; and (3) That studies based on patent citations likely lack merit.
There are several rational reasons for examiners to cite their own prior art. Because of the backlog, PCTs, and provisional applications, US examination often begins several years after the application was originally filed.  During that interim, many references become available that were not known at filing.  Thus, it is not surprising that applicants rarely cite 102(e) prior art, but examiners cite loads of it.  There is some reason to think that this “newer” prior art is probably better because of technological developments.  It may also be true that the applicant and examiner references are cited for different purposes — namely, applicants cite references that are generally relevant to the invention while examiners are looking for references that teach each particular element in the filed claims.  A third issue is that applicants tend to modify their claims during prosecution. That modification may make their originally cited art less relevant.

Conclusion: Most of the applicant cited references are ignored by the examiners. So, dont really trust on the citations.

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 

University of Florida professor Michael Moulton thinks copyright law protects the lectures he gives to his students, and he’s headed to court to prove it.

Moulton and his e-textbook publisher are suing Thomas Bean, who runs a company that repackages and sells student notes, arguing that the business is illegal since notes taken during college lectures violate the professor’s copyright.

Faulkner Press filed suit in a Florida court Tuesday against the the owner of Einstein’s Notes, which sells “study kits” for classes, including Professor Michael Moulton’s course on “Wildlife Issues in the New Millennium.”

Those notes are illegal, Faulkner and Moulton contend, since they are derivative works of the professor’s copyrighted lectures.

If successful, the suit (.pdf) could put an end to a lucrative, but ethically murky businesses that have grown up around large universities to profit from students who don’t always want to go to the classes they are paying for.

The suit could also have ramifications for more longstanding businesses such as Cliffs Notes, which summarize copyrighted novels.

Faulkner Press publishes two e-textbooks that Moulton wrote and uses in his classes, and sells its own set of class notes for the course.

But James Sullivan, Faulkner Press’ attorney, says the suit isn’t about money for the professors, it’s about protecting its intellectual property.

Tweet  Delicious  Digg  Facebook