Latest news with #patent
The Verge
2 days ago
- Business
- The Verge
Court throws out Apple's $300 million patent loss and sends it back for a new trial.
The dispute between Apple and Optis Wireless Technology is headed for its third trial after an appeals court threw out a 2021 jury verdict due to faulty jury instructions, Reuters reports. The case is based on Optis' accusation that Apple infringed on its patents for LTE standard-essential technology. The damages award has already been retried once after a judge said the jury that awarded $506 million to Optis hadn't considered the reasonableness of the amount.
Reuters
3 days ago
- Business
- Reuters
Apple wins appeal to overturn $300 mln US patent verdict
June 17 (Reuters) - Apple (AAPL.O), opens new tab has convinced a U.S. appeals court to throw out a $300 million verdict by a jury that found it infringed wireless standard-essential patents owned by IP management company Optis Wireless Technology. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday sent Optis' case back, opens new tab to Texas for a new trial after determining that the jury instructions in the previous trial were flawed. The decision marks the second time that a nine-figure U.S. patent verdict for Optis has been overturned in the case. Attorneys and spokespeople for Optis and Apple did not immediately respond on Tuesday to requests for comment on the Federal Circuit ruling. Plano, Texas-based Optis and its affiliates sued Apple in 2019 in Marshall, Texas federal court, arguing that the tech giant's iPhones and other products violated their patent rights in technology related to the LTE wireless standard. A jury found in 2020 that Apple owed $506 million for infringing Optis' patents. U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a new trial on damages in 2021 after finding the award may not have been in line with Optis' responsibility to license the standard-essential patents on fair and reasonable terms. A new jury awarded Optis $300 million in damages after the retrial later that year. The Federal Circuit on Monday overturned the award and remanded the case for a new trial on both infringement and damages. A three-judge panel said Gilstrap improperly worded the jury verdict form by combining all of the patents at issue into a single infringement question. "The problem with the district court's single infringement question is that it deprived Apple of its right to a unanimous verdict on each legal claim against it," the appeals court said. A UK court separately ruled last month that Apple owes Optis $502 million for infringing Optis' UK wireless patents. Apple has said that it plans to appeal the ruling. The case is Optis Cellular Technology LLC v. Apple Inc, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 22-1925. For Optis: Willy Jay of Goodwin Procter For Apple: Mark Fleming of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr Read more: Apple socked with $506 million patent verdict in East Texas Apple wins new damages trial in $506 million patent loss Apple hit with $300 million patent verdict after new Optis trial
Forbes
13-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Rethinking The Patent Office
Entrepreneurs tend to have a lot of things that they want to patent, trademark, or copyright. That means going through some government bureaucracy to get things done. Is it exasperating? Yes. Confusing? Obnoxiously so. Does it have to be that way? No, not at all. When you're an entrepreneur like me, you tend to have a lot of things that you want to patent, trademark, or copyright, and that means I have to go through some government bureaucracy to get things done. Is it exasperating? Yes. Confusing? Obnoxiously so. Does it have to be that way? No, not at all. In fact, it turns out it wasn't that way until relatively recently—in my lifetime, even. So to find out more, I spoke to a gentleman whom I know very well. His name is Steven Thrasher, and he's an entrepreneurial intellectual property attorney. He has decades of experience dealing with patents as well as helping people like me out with our own United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issues, so he knows his stuff. And, after we talked the other day, he had a few ideas on how to change the system—and other government agencies—to actually function well instead of impeding creation. The USPTO, in its modern form, was established in 1952. Back then, filing a patent or trademark was a fairly simple process. Few people worked at the organization overall, and they knew the steps by heart. Those folks knew all of the goals and systems involved, so if you came in there to file a patent, it was easy. This was a simple system, with most inventors only ever paying one small fee. Have you ever heard of Gall's Law? Steven introduced me to the idea. Put simply, it is this: A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that worked. A complex system designed from scratch never works, and cannot be patched up to make it work. You have to start over with a working, simple system. This, in a nutshell, is what happened to the Patent Office. In 1952, it was simple. Then, over the years, things got more complicated, and yet for decades it was OK. 'Your old guard that were around when these new processes were introduced,' Steven explained,' they still had the ability when they're in the system to nudge things to their proper place and get processes done. As they retired, you had a typically bureaucratic class replace them. They have good intentions, but they just don't understand how the processes fit together, and they have different, often process-counting, goals.' A simple system becomes very, very complicated, and that one simple fee becomes hundreds of complex fees for every conceivable micro-step in the process. 'So it started with an expert class,' he said. 'Now you have a bureaucratic class that values the procedure over the original outcome-oriented goal of protecting intellectual property.' If you wanted to work with the USPTO when it started, you could read a book called The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. Steven was able to get his hands on a copy of the earliest one from decades ago. 'My earliest mentor, a guy named Harry Post, had a book—The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure—that was about 250 pages long. He got it when he started back in the late 1950s,' Steven said. 'Today, that same manual is over 3,000 pages long.' In the course of doing my due diligence, I did some research. You can find The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure online—they have PDFs dating back to 1948. So I pulled the one from July 1958, the latest copy you can get that Harry might have had. Sure enough, it's 259 pages. Today's version is much, much longer. What this all boils down to is that today, if you need to get a patent or trademark on something, not only are the fees prohibitive, but the entire process is opaque and complex. Steve told me about a client who needed help getting through it, and in the end, was sent a letter because they didn't pay enough. It didn't say how much was owed or what fees were owed. But how much should they cough up? 'So my assistants and I called the patent office,' Steve said. 'We had three different answers for the fees we needed to pay. It took my assistant nearly 12 hours, took me nearly five hours, and the response papers were 16 pages of long documentation and copies to pay a $206 fee, which we're not even confident is the correct amount or type of fee that is owed. To be safe, we just paid the highest fee that was quoted.' This is why people get frustrated with government agencies. I could go on and on about all of the complications here with the system, but ultimately, what does this mean for the future? Steve believes that, based on the fiscal pressures the country is under, we will see a simplification of the process, and part of that is based on the need for inter- and intra-agency communication. 'Right now everybody has their own silo,' Steve told me. 'Bureaucrats love their own silo because that gives them control over their defined responsibility, and in a sense power in that silo.' This leads to a lack of communication between the people inside the agency. Outside the agency? Forget about it. Rarely happens. The solution is simplification and communication. We need to get people talking, sharing data between each other, and breaking down these complex systems and ideas. It doesn't have to be this difficult.
South China Morning Post
12-06-2025
- South China Morning Post
Chinese man impresses many by building own lift to reach 5th-floor home, costing US$1,100
An elderly resident in northeastern China has earned the nickname 'Iron Man of his residential complex' for creating a unique lift that he has used for the past five years. However, after his ingenious invention gained attention online and captivated many internet users, local authorities in Huludao, Liaoning province, along with the residential committee, urged him to dismantle it, as reported by the Liaoshen Evening News. 01:46 Tired of stairs, Chinese man builds DIY lift but is later forced to remove it Tired of stairs, Chinese man builds DIY lift but is later forced to remove it The silver-haired innovator, known as Wang, constructed his lift – a design reminiscent of a cable car – in 2020 when he could no longer tolerate climbing up the stairs to reach his fifth-floor home. Wang dedicated an entire year to the preparation of this project, conducting research online and purchasing materials, which amounted to a total cost of 8,000 yuan (US$1,100). He designed, welded, and assembled the entire system entirely by himself. This compact lift is small enough to accommodate only a chair, with a cable connecting Wang's window to a lamp post located on the street near his residential block. This compact lift is designed to accommodate only a chair, featuring a cable that connects Wang's window to a lamp post situated on the street near his residential block. Photo: Baidu In a noteworthy achievement, Wang applied for and successfully obtained a patent for his invention from the China National Intellectual Property Administration in October 2020.
National Post
11-06-2025
- Business
- National Post
edatanetworks Inc. Granted USPTO Patent for Disaster Relief Through Digital Commerce
Article content EDMONTON, Alberta — edatanetworks Inc. announced today its strengthened philanthropy-centric patent portfolio with the recent approval of patent 17/714,059 from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Article content In an ecosystem where consumers and merchants come together to generate contributions for local communities, patent 17/714,059 enables the system to redirect contributions to relief organizations in time of disaster. Typically, the system analyses rich transaction data for purchases between consumers and merchants and allocates a contribution from the merchants to local non-profits selected by the consumer. During times of emergency, the 'switch' can be activated to direct a portion (or all) of the contributions generated to support relief efforts (e.g. locally, regionally, nationally). Article content Article content 'This patent is a welcome addition to our intellectual property portfolio. It further solidifies the core principles of our IP's DNA in which contributions are 100% merchant-defined and 100% pass-through – at no cost to the consumer,' said Terry Tietzen, Chief Executive Officer of edatanetworks. 'Through the system defined in this patent, the goodwill that is generated by merchant contributions provides notable positive and accountable impact on communities in their time of need.' Article content Article content Article content Article content Article content
