1 / 19

Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity

Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity. Dr. Tal Lavian http://cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian tlavian@cs.berkeley.edu UC Berkeley Engineering, CET. Last Week: Types of Patents. Patent Infringement – Basics. 7. What does it mean to infringe a patent?

chance
Download Presentation

Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Patenting Wireless Technology: Infringement and Invalidity Dr. Tal Lavian http://cs.berkeley.edu/~tlavian tlavian@cs.berkeley.edu UC Berkeley Engineering, CET

  2. Last Week: Types of Patents

  3. Patent Infringement – Basics 7 • What does it mean to infringe a patent? • Manufacture, import, sell, or offer to sell patented technology • Courts’ test for infringement has two steps: • Analyze the claims to construe their meaning (a.k.a. “claim construction”) • Attempt to apply the claims to the accused infringing product (a.k.a. seeing if the claims “read on” the product’s features)

  4. Patent Infringement–Doctrine of Equivalents 8 • Doctrine of Equivalents (DoE) – a product may still infringe a patent without directly infringing its claims if it • performs substantially the same function • in substantially the same way • to yield substantially the same result

  5. Patent Infringement–Doctrine of Equivalents (cont.) 9 • Purpose of DoE is to prevent potential infringers from making insignificant changes to a patented product in order to circumvent the claims • Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents • Essentially, even if a product directly infringes on a patent’s claims, if it does so in a substantially different way to achieve a substantially different result, then it doesn’t infringe • Example: you invent a method of curing cancer using Edison’s light bulb  would not infringe • This defense is very rare

  6. Patent Infringement 2 • Most of the time: • Scenario: • Company A thinks Company’s B’s product infringes, sues B • B’s legal counsel perform due diligence; counsel says, “You’ll probably lose.” • B agrees to settle with A and either • Stops producing the infringing product • License A’s patent in order to continue infringing • Sometimes: • Scenario: • Same as above, but B decides to go to court to defend their product

  7. (Direct) Patent Infringement–Options 3 • A sues B. B decides to take the case to trial. What are B’s options?

  8. Patent Infringement–Defense: Patent Invalidity 4 • Argue for patent invalidity: • Perform prior art search to find prior art that invalidates the patent claims • Can show that A shouldn’t have gotten patent in the first place • Use claim construction to determine the breadth of the claims • Argue that claims are too broad, invalid • Demonstrate inequitable conduct on A’s behalf by providing evidence for clear intent to deceive the Patent Office • Show that A’s patent has expired

  9. Patent Infringement–Defense: Non-infringing Use 5 • Methods of demonstrating non-infringing use: • Perform an infringement analysis comparing A’s patent claims to B’s product features • If not every element of one of A’s patent’s claims found in B’s product, then B is not infringing • Prove that B already had a license for A’s patent • Perhaps B already licensing A’s technology from C, in which case there’s no infringement

  10. Patent Infringement–Uncommon Defenses 6 • Prior user defense • Applies only to business method patents • If B can prove use of the patented process at least one year before its application was filed, B is not infringing • Must be an “innocent infringer” i.e., did not know of the patent • Laches • A is not allowed to assert patent rights if it can be shown A delayed enforcement to increase potential damages from B

  11. Patent Infringement – Slide-to-Unlock Hypothetical 10 • Assume Apple sued Samsung for infringing the slide-to-unlock patent with its Galaxy Tab. • First, the court would construe the claim language in a Markman hearing to determine the meaning of key terms • Second, the court would use a claim chart to analyze the degree to which the slide-to-unlock patent’s claim read on the Galaxy Tab’s unlock system

  12. Slide-to-Unlock Patent –Claim Chart 12 • Element-by-element breakdown of a patent’s claims compared to an allegedly infringing product • Often used by prosecution for infringement analysis • Very useful for visualizing which aspects of the claims are read upon by potentially infringing devices

  13. US# 8046721— Slide to Unlock — Claim 1 1. (1.0) A method of unlocking a hand-held electronic device, the device including a touch-sensitive display, the method comprising: (1.1) detecting a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image; (1.2) continuously moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display (1.2.1) in accordance with movement of the contact (1.2.2) while continuous contact with the touch screen is maintained, (1.2.3) wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object (1.2.3.1) with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and  (1.3) unlocking the hand-held electronic device if the moving the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display results in movement of the unlock image from the first predefined location to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

  14. Slide-to-Unlock Hypothetical (cont.) 12 • The claim chart must clearly indicate that the Galaxy Tab infringes Apple’s patent • What can Samsung do to defend itself?

  15. Slide-to-Unlock Patent–Prior Art 16 • Prior art listed as other patents under “References Cited” • However, other undiscovered or undisclosed prior art is often revealed in court • Example: if Apple sued for slide-to-unlock infringement in the U.S., defendant might cite Neonode N1m (early smartphone released in 2005) as prior art in an attempt to invalidate patent

  16. Slide-to-Unlock Patent –Prior Art (cont.) 17 Slide-to-unlock function four minutes in

  17. Patent Infringement – Hypothetical Samsung Defense 13 • Samsung could: • Try to invalidate the patent with prior art, such as the Neonode N1m’s unlocking system • Argue that the patent’s claims are too broad • Look for evidence of inequitable conduct on Apple’s behalf while filing for the slide-to-unlock patent • Argue that the Galaxy Tab doesn’t include every element of the claims • What do you think would be the result of this case?

  18. Summary • Infringments: DoE vs Reverse DoE • Defense of patent infringement: • Invalidity: prior art, claims, inequitable conduct • Non-infringment: infringement analysis, licensing, prior use, Laches

More Related