A New Tool in the Battle Against Patent Trolls: Shame

With a federal crackdown on “patent trolls” stalled, startups and small companies are turning to a low-cost tactic to combat frivolous patent claims: shame.

Some entrepreneurs and business owners who receive letters from patent-holding entities that demand costly licensing fees, or threatening legal action, are posting the letters online.

They say the move is meant to embarrass the patent holders, whose claims can be vaguely worded and often far-fetched – such as claims over the use of technology in a standard office fax machine or the transfer of data by emails.

From http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-538741/

Patents and Prior Art explained

Some frequently asked questions about Prior Art.

What exactly is the process to obtain a patent?

The patent process differs from land to land, but usually consists of a patent application, an overview of the application by that nation’s patent office and granting or refusal of the patent. While this basic procedure might sound like a piece of cake, it is in essence, often complicated and very expensive. It could take, say, between a couple of months to a year to draft a complex patent application and, in the United States, it can take 2-5 years for the patent office to grant or deny a patent.

What is Prior Art?

Prior art is one of the key concepts in patent applications and litigation. Prior art encompasses all information that has been disclosed to the publicly, in any form, anywhere in the world, about an invention before a given date, usually the filing date of the particular patent. Prior art includes not only previous patents, but also any other published materials, including scientific papers (in patent lingo, any publications/journals unearthed in a prior art search that aren’t patents are called non-patent literature or NPL).

If an invention was described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid. Therefore, patent applications must include relevant prior art and prove that the prior art does not apply directly to the pending invention. Likewise, someone trying to prove that a specific patent is invalid can do so by finding prior art -- a mention of the invention in any publication -- from before the patent was filed/submitted.

What are the types of Prior Art Searches?

Prior art searches are undertaken for a variety of reasons. Here are the main types of prior art searches:

Patentability/Novelty: A search conducted to determine whether an invention is novel i.e. new and therefore, patentable. These types of searches aim to determine if important elements of a new technology have previously been disclosed in any publication. They are generally performed when an inventor or company is deciding to submit an application for a patent and by patent office personnel while reviewing patent applications.

Validity/Invalidity Searches: A search conducted after a patent has been issued, to ascertain whether or not the patent office overlooked existing prior art, which could invalidate the said patent. These searches are conducted by businesses accused of infringing on a patent. If they can prove the patent invalid, there is nothing to infringe on. They are also undertaken by businesses with a financial risk in a patent (contemplating buying or licensing it).

Clearance or Freedom to Operate Search: A search of issued patents to see whether an idea infringes on any existing patents. If it does, the inventor may make an effort to invalidate those patents, design a work-around or even abandon the idea altogether. Also, a clearance/freedom to operate search may reveal that an idea is covered by patents in certain nations around the world, but not others, and enable} an inventor to act accordingly.

State of the Art: A search that aims to establish the overall “state of the art” for a particular invention or field, such as patent and non-patent literature. Generally, organizations perform these sorts of searches to understand the present situation in a given field and their place within it. They are able to identify the latest technology, see what competitors are upto and create their plan for moving forward.

Patent Landscape: These searches are comprehensive analysis of all the patents related to a certain technology/technological innovation. They generally start with a state of the art search to find the relevant patents and then include further evaluation of the patents involved. Patent landscape searches generally include graphical representation of information regarding the patents. 

TT Consultants offer the most exhaustive prior art searches in India. In our 7 years of being in the IP field, we have helped several US and Asian companies save huge litigation costs by uncovering highly useful prior arts. We have Mandarin, Japanese and Korea native searching capability. We are a preferred choice for companies involved in complex patent litigation and have represented many Joint Defense Groups (JDGs) in such cases to identify relevant prior art for invalidating potentially dangerous patents.

Samsung should let Japanese court rule on discovery request against Apple, before U.S. court assists

Magistrate decide Paul S. Grewal, United Nations agency assists decide Lucy Koh in a very few Apple v. Samsung lawsuits unfinished within the Northern District of California, issued a ruling on Wednesday evening denying, for the present, a call for participation by Samsung to conduct sure discovery of Apple in California so as to use the created material and obtained data against sure infringement claims brought by Apple in Japan. Samsung will bring this request once more within the u.  s., however the California-based court does not wish to interfere with the Japanese court. If the Japanese court problems a ruling indicating that it'd take into account this discovery effort helpful, it seems that Samsung are going to be in pretty good condition to finally prevail on its motion. however as long because the Japanese court doesn't offer any indication that it's interested, Samsung's motion is doomed to fail.

Basically, Samsung hopes that it will prove associate Apple patent invalid by showing that the proprietary invention was obvious over practicality enforced in associate early version of the iPhone Apple http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=6115018545486080676#editor/target=post;postID=8845390693956133782discharged in 2007. At the time, U.S. jurisprudence had a grace amount (which was abolished by the 2011 America Invents Act), permitting the filing of patent applications up to a year when initial publication, however the remainder of the globe (at least the jurisdictions I know) followed the first-to-file (not first-to-invent) rule. that is why Samsung wouldn't be ready to create this same argument in a very U.S. court. however it desires to learn from the further-reaching discovery that may be conducted below U.S. rules so as to capture proof that will prove useful in Japan. On specific, Samsung needs to get the subsequent material:

    All documents that proof, mirror or confer with the sale, transfer, lease, or supply available of any iPhone to someone or entity before June 29, 2007;

    Physical exemplars of any iPhone that was created on the market available, transfer, lease, or supply available to someone or entity before June 29, 2007;

    A physical example of the iPhone that was utilized in the presentation by Steve Jobs at Mac-world 2007 on Jan nine, 2007; and

    A physical example of the iPhone that was utilized in the video "iPhone target-hunting tour" announce to Apple's web site on June twenty two, 2007.

Apart from the word "all" within the initial item, this request appeared moderately specific to the court. however the court exercised its discretion to deny this request (without prejudice, since the case will change), with the outcome-determinative issue having been Samsung's failure to prove that the Japanese court goes to be receptive to the invention requested. Apple didn't prove that the Japanese court will not be receptive -- however it's Samsung United Nations agency desires one thing here, and decide Grewal thought it a lot of applicable to let the Japanese court rule on the corresponding discovery request. decide Grewal's order "notes that Samsung’s failure to hunt discovery earlier within the foreign judicature suggests that Samsung could also be making an attempt to avoid or cross cut the wants of the Japanese court". The U.S. court does not wish to "undermine the Tokyo court's management of this case".

You may also be interested in :
AIA Services
XLPATPatent Monitoring
Samsung V/S apple battle goes on with new apple I phone 5 and Samsung Galaxy S III 
What Steps to follow for patent application?
How can you check to see if your invention is new
What are ‘invention promotion’ companies?

Why Proper Translation is necessary?

Legal Cases That Reveal the Need for Expert Translators

An improper translation submitted to the USPTO might narrow the scope of the patent claim, because the mistranslation are going to specify an amendment to the patent document. we’ll look at two more court cases that emphasize the consequences of utilizing low-quality translations for lawful purposes. You may risk having your translation rejected during the court case due to a poor translation method or even questionable translator qualifications.You may also risk the invalidation of the patent claims due to the insufficient translation of a large chunk of prior art.

A vital claim in your patent might be invalidated because of an inadequate translation of a particular sentence in a sheet of prior art. For instance, in case of Mitsubishi Chem. Organization, et al. v Barr Laboratories, Incorporation and Pliva-Hrvatska D.O.O., the interpretation of the translation for a single sentence from a piece of prior art determined the validity of contested statements. A patent translation is more likely to be found reliable by the court if a documented quality process is followed to create the translation. In Mitsubishi case, the court just rejected the translations provided by the defendant due to errors that took place during the translation method.

A A court might reject a patent translation that isn’t created by a fully qualified translator with demonstrated credentials. In the case of On Demand Machine Corporation v. Ingram Businesses, et al. the court states that in order for the Japan application to be considered as prior art evidence by the court, it has got to be translated by a verifiably competent translator.

You may also be interested in :

What are invention promotion Companies

Precisely what is considered as patent Discovery

Best of the best patent resources

Facebook acquires AOL patents

Ten apple patents