Stronger Chinese Patent Laws Also Help U.S. Companies - WSJ:
China is blasting past the USA in the patent world. They have already been the most busy patent office in the world for several years.
But now they are the office with the most issued patents: 359,000 issues, up 45% from 2014. WoW!
And we, in the USA are down 1% to below 300k.
Interesting that they pay up to $4,500 (30,000 yuan) for patents. That's probably more than full reimbursement for the full patent costs in China. People could make money by taking patent applications elsewhere (non PCT) and file them in China. And, that's apparently what people did. It seems that the motive to get paid the government subsidies for issued patents would incentivate a nice bribery market.
China first stepped into the world of intellectual property in 1985 when joining the World Trade Organization.
Many foreign companies are able to sue, successfully, in China. But, of course, they would only sue once they knew they have a clear-cut case and inspected the political landscape.
I still think that part of the massive move to China for IP is to help cut off the infringers at both ends of the product pirating pipeline from China to USA/EU/Japan: manufacture, distributor/exporter, retailer, and seller.
"Serious obstacles" of IP in China for foreign companies by the State Department is, by all measures an understatement. However, there seems to be progress.
Note that this article is more complete than the one printed in the paper.
'via Blog this'
Friday, July 22, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
ARM Holdings is giving up their "holding" to Sprint/SoftBank
ARM Holdings, the maker of chips and chip making technology has week a favorite here at IPZine. They are basically an IP company holding lots of patents on lots of stuff. They specialize in energy-efficient, reduced instruction set (RISC) chip technology; build it and then license it out to chip makers.
They have really taken off into the work of the Internet of Things.
Today SoftBank (parent of Sprint) has offered to by ARMH in an all cash bid. The stock is up 50% today. Even at this elevated price, the price-to-earnings ratio is 70!. Compare that to Intel (INTC) with a paltry PE of 15. Profit margin of 35% vs 20% for INTC.
ARM has remained independent and resisted the various take-over pressures. Until now. This changes somewhat the ARM dynamic of licensing tech to multiple players and making lots of money from licensing revenues (nearly pure profit). ARM has focused on tools and R&D and left the heavy work of manufacturing, distribution, etc. to their clients.
This is probably a good time to start getting out of the stock; SoftBand (Sprint) is not nearly the same type of investment. Sprint is more of a utility play, not R&D.
The drop in British Pound has made ARMH a far better deal to acquire. (ARMH is UK based.)
On a separate note, SoftBank's interests in buying up chip makers might become more complicated with ARM Holdings, in the company's holdings.
In the end, the independence of ARM Holdings didn't hold.
They have really taken off into the work of the Internet of Things.
Today SoftBank (parent of Sprint) has offered to by ARMH in an all cash bid. The stock is up 50% today. Even at this elevated price, the price-to-earnings ratio is 70!. Compare that to Intel (INTC) with a paltry PE of 15. Profit margin of 35% vs 20% for INTC.
ARM has remained independent and resisted the various take-over pressures. Until now. This changes somewhat the ARM dynamic of licensing tech to multiple players and making lots of money from licensing revenues (nearly pure profit). ARM has focused on tools and R&D and left the heavy work of manufacturing, distribution, etc. to their clients.
This is probably a good time to start getting out of the stock; SoftBand (Sprint) is not nearly the same type of investment. Sprint is more of a utility play, not R&D.
The drop in British Pound has made ARMH a far better deal to acquire. (ARMH is UK based.)
On a separate note, SoftBank's interests in buying up chip makers might become more complicated with ARM Holdings, in the company's holdings.
In the end, the independence of ARM Holdings didn't hold.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Supreme Court Brings back Treble Damages - WSJ
Supreme Court Makes It Easier for Patent Holders to Win More in Damages - WSJ:
The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court brings back the serious damages -- up to 3 times -- for willful patent infringement. Recent lower court rulings were making it virtually impossible to go after big, treble-the-losses, damages. That is the BIG STICK in patent infringement cases. Some companies strategy is to just keep infringing and simply let the lawyers do the heavy lifting. Smaller companies often do not have the resources to fight, especially if it becomes long and protracted.
The threat of treble damages, kind of keeps every honest, usually. Take that away and infringement becomes much less risky.
One of the first options for a patent holder is to enjoin the infringer from producing and selling. This can take some time; the patent claims are always contested, etc., etc. Fortunately, the USPTO has improved this process of patent review so that the strength and quality of the patent can be established early on.
Of course, one end result of infringement is a licencing agreement. However, someone who will infringe your patent, might also go to great lengths to avoid giving an accurate count of the units sold and the royalties payable.
During all this time, the infringing company is trying to develop a work-around so that they can continue selling the products but avoid the infringement. Market build, product established.
If the patent has not yet been issued, the game is even more convoluted.
On the flip side of treble damages is the patent troll (NPE). One would hope that judges would evaluate the case of a troll company that simply sits on a pile of patents with no intentions of producing any actual products and takes a toll off of any and all commerce in the industries/products where their patented technologies apply.
*** Update below on June 17, 2016. ***
An excellent Legal-centric focus of this ruling comes form Dennis Crouch at Patently-O. He also discusses "willful" and suggests that "egregious infringement" might be the new standard going forward.
From a more business perspective, Joff Wild at IAM-media offered some interesting insights about the Halo ruling. He noted that Justice Roberts gave us the first official definition of "Patent Trolls", there s also a discussion of "efficient infringer", and this ruling obviously is a great step forward for patent owners, but a small, first-step.
'via Blog this'
The unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court brings back the serious damages -- up to 3 times -- for willful patent infringement. Recent lower court rulings were making it virtually impossible to go after big, treble-the-losses, damages. That is the BIG STICK in patent infringement cases. Some companies strategy is to just keep infringing and simply let the lawyers do the heavy lifting. Smaller companies often do not have the resources to fight, especially if it becomes long and protracted.
The threat of treble damages, kind of keeps every honest, usually. Take that away and infringement becomes much less risky.
One of the first options for a patent holder is to enjoin the infringer from producing and selling. This can take some time; the patent claims are always contested, etc., etc. Fortunately, the USPTO has improved this process of patent review so that the strength and quality of the patent can be established early on.
Of course, one end result of infringement is a licencing agreement. However, someone who will infringe your patent, might also go to great lengths to avoid giving an accurate count of the units sold and the royalties payable.
During all this time, the infringing company is trying to develop a work-around so that they can continue selling the products but avoid the infringement. Market build, product established.
If the patent has not yet been issued, the game is even more convoluted.
On the flip side of treble damages is the patent troll (NPE). One would hope that judges would evaluate the case of a troll company that simply sits on a pile of patents with no intentions of producing any actual products and takes a toll off of any and all commerce in the industries/products where their patented technologies apply.
*** Update below on June 17, 2016. ***
An excellent Legal-centric focus of this ruling comes form Dennis Crouch at Patently-O. He also discusses "willful" and suggests that "egregious infringement" might be the new standard going forward.
From a more business perspective, Joff Wild at IAM-media offered some interesting insights about the Halo ruling. He noted that Justice Roberts gave us the first official definition of "Patent Trolls", there s also a discussion of "efficient infringer", and this ruling obviously is a great step forward for patent owners, but a small, first-step.
'via Blog this'
Friday, May 13, 2016
A closer look at the PTAB’s new post-issuance review procedures - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business
A closer look at the PTAB’s new post-issuance review procedures - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business:
Once a patent has been issued, there are Big, BIG changes as to the review process.
Here is the most comprehensive take on these changes you will find anywhere.
It is rather readable. It is rather detailed. And it is a critical-to-know follow on to anyone involved in the patent pipeline.
Now the question, you want answered, does this new (additional) process help to mend a broken patent system?
See what you think?
'via Blog this'
Once a patent has been issued, there are Big, BIG changes as to the review process.
Here is the most comprehensive take on these changes you will find anywhere.
It is rather readable. It is rather detailed. And it is a critical-to-know follow on to anyone involved in the patent pipeline.
Now the question, you want answered, does this new (additional) process help to mend a broken patent system?
See what you think?
'via Blog this'
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Tech is here. Improving faster.
Romm discusses the changes in solar, wind, EE, and batteries that keep beating expectations. Note the charts on estimates that have been consistently low.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/05/12/3776728/climate-change-solutions/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cptop3&utm_term=1&utm_content=22
Friday, May 6, 2016
A single round (1 round) Delphi study. How can that be? – Scenario Plans (
A single round (1 round) Delphi study. How can that be? – Scenario Plans (:
Give a look at the two blogs related to Scenario plans and Delphi studies related to the 2007 research by Dr. Cheryl Lentz. Notice how Delphi-type research can be used for all kinds of studies.
These are two blog posts. One on the actual Delphi research doing two things that make it a modified Delphi: 1 round, and quantitative.
The second post is
'via Blog this'
Give a look at the two blogs related to Scenario plans and Delphi studies related to the 2007 research by Dr. Cheryl Lentz. Notice how Delphi-type research can be used for all kinds of studies.
These are two blog posts. One on the actual Delphi research doing two things that make it a modified Delphi: 1 round, and quantitative.
The second post is
We love Delphi for scenario planning and a mechanism for innovation.
See what you think?
Keywords, Scenario Plans, Horizon Planning, innovation, Delphi, Future, innovation, perpetual innovation,
Keywords, Scenario Plans, Horizon Planning, innovation, Delphi, Future, innovation, perpetual innovation,
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Busted, or not busted, our patent system
One of the most revered, trusted and enduring of America's industrial and technological advantages is our patent system. Except that, it isn't anymore. Patents are included in the US Constitution, proof positive that the Foundering Fathers considered them critically important to the future of the country. That was then, this is now and you'll understand when you go to www.wired.com/2015/01/fixing-broken-patent-system. It was written by Jay Walker,the founder of Priceline in the late 1990s.
Here is an insightful chronology of how much the patent system benefited the country up until the last several decades. The system is now too cumbersome and costly such that 95% (Walker's data) of inventions are not available to small and medium size businesses. Only the mega corporations have the human, financial and technological resources to fully utilize the system. A study is cited stating that liberating the patent system from litigation-based costs and risks would create $200B/yr in increased economic output.
Although Hall & Hinkelman (2015) in the Patent Primer 3.0 boast of Intellectual Property, mainly patents, as one of "the great equalizers of our lifetime", not all companies who use patents are equally able to capitalize on them.
References
Here is an insightful chronology of how much the patent system benefited the country up until the last several decades. The system is now too cumbersome and costly such that 95% (Walker's data) of inventions are not available to small and medium size businesses. Only the mega corporations have the human, financial and technological resources to fully utilize the system. A study is cited stating that liberating the patent system from litigation-based costs and risks would create $200B/yr in increased economic output.
Although Hall & Hinkelman (2015) in the Patent Primer 3.0 boast of Intellectual Property, mainly patents, as one of "the great equalizers of our lifetime", not all companies who use patents are equally able to capitalize on them.
References
Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
for inventors and entrepreneurs.
Morrisville, NC: LuLu Press. ISBN: 978-1-329-17833-5 Retrieved from: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/SBPlan
Hall, E. B. & Hinkelman, R. M. (2015). Perpetual Innovation™: Patent primer 3.0e:
Patents, the great equalizer of our time! An overview of intellectual property
with patenting cost estimates for inventors and entrepreneurs. [Amazon Kindle eBook]. ASIN: B010ISU7ZG
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)