Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel

RECENTLY

#1. Intellectual Ventures deals with Nest Labs, help avoid Honeywell

Jeff John Roberts, at GigaOM, reports on a deal released last Wednesday between patent behemoth Intellectual Ventures, and a maker of home thermostats, Nest Labs. While the details of the deal are not yet public, it seems likely that the deal included the sale of some patents and the licensing of others. It looks like Nest Labs is seeking refuge from the Honeywell litigation rainstorm beneath the Intellectual Ventures umbrella. Likely the deal gives Nest Labs some weapons to use against larger Honeywell in future litigation.

#2. NUEDEXTA Capsules litigation comes to an end

Wockhardt (BSE & NSE) and Avanir Pharmaceutifcals (AVNR) have reached an agreement, ending their litigation over marketing and selling of NEUDEXTA capsules. The settlement agreement grants Wockhardt the right to begin selling a generic version of NUEDEXTA on July 30, 2026, or earlier under certain circumstances.

#3. Ministry of Sound v. Spotify

Stuart Dredge, for The Guardian, reports that Ministry of Sound is suing Spotify for infringment. The dance music group, Ministry of Sound alleges that Spotify is infringing several copyrights because Spotify has failed to remove users playlists. Ministry of Sound argues that some playlists on the streaming music service mirror the group’s dance compilations. A major issue is the contribution of ordering and arranging the songs in a playlist. Spotify has the rights to stream all the tracks on the playlists in question, but the issue here is whether the compilation structure – the order of the songs – can be copyrighted.

#4. Santa Clara Professor to joins Whitehouse  Office of S&T

Colleen Chien, Associate Professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, will serve in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as senior advisor for intellectual property and innovation to Todd Park.  Professor Chien has been published extensively on patent assertion entities (she coined the term), and the secondary market for patents.

 

PENDING

#1. Google going for noise in eBooks.

Victoria Slind-Flor, at Bloomberg, reports that Google is seeking a patent covering what it calls “triggered sounds.” "Existing e-book readers don’t take 'full advantage' of their capabilities to immerse a reader, Google says. The technology covered by the patent would allow certain trigger points in the text to call forth prerecorded sounds related to the contents of the book.

Publication Number: 20130209981

Application Number: 13/397,658

 

COOL TECH

#1. Interplanetary Internet?!

Reports out of the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) carry news of the first steps in creating an interplanetary internet. Phil Larson and Mike Gazarik reported that on September 6, NASA launched the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission to study the thin atmosphere around the moon. However, the satellite will also be testing a new technology, the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration. This technology is supposed to allow much faster data transmission between objects in space and ground control on Earth.

 

UPCOMING EVENTS

• Intellectual Property Symposium – Oct. 4 – University of Missouri School of Law –  Columbia, MO

“Resolving IP Disputes: Calling for an Alternative Paradigm,” hosted by the Center for Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri School of Law. The Keynote Address will be delivered by Greg Gorder, the founder and vice chairman of Intellectual Ventures.

Links:

 

• Supreme Court IP Review Conference – Sep. 26 – Chicago-Kent

The Supreme Court IP Review (SCIPR) is a conference designed to provide intellectual property practitioners, jurists, legal academics and law students with a review of IP cases from the U.S. Supreme Court's 2012 Term, a preview of cases on the docket for the 2013 Term, and a discussion of cert. petitions to watch.

  • The Honorable Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will deliver the keynote address at SCIPR 2013
  • Register online for SCIPR 2013 by 12:00 pm (CST), September 23, 2013.

 

Fair Use and Copyright Clearance for Creative Clients: A Review of Recent Case Law and Practice – 9/24

ABA section of Intellectual of Property Webinar/Teleconference

 

 

JOBS

#1. IP Attorney (Electrical Engineering / Computer Sciences) – Law Firm – McLean, Va.

  • Roberts Mlotkowski Safran & Cole, P.C. (RMSC), an  Intellectual Property Law Firm (RMSC) located in prestigious Tysons Corner, Virginia seeks a Patent Attorney with 2-5 years experience having an electrical engineering or computer sciences degree. 

 

#2. Patent Attorney / Patent Agent – Law Firm – Syracuse, N.Y.

  • Burr & Brown, a Syracuse, New York Law Firm seeks experienced patent attorneys or patent agents to handle foreign-based patent prosecution. Candidates must have substantial experience prosecuting cases before the USPTO.

 

 

Please email me at jon.hummel@patently.com with any leads for future Bits & Bytes

32 thoughts on “Bits & Bytes from Jonathan Hummel

  1. You have no idea because you have not even attempted to come up to speed by reading the series of articles I have provided links to, nor the GAO report.

    Your little circle of ‘most people’ is merely more spin from you, as most people concerned with this topic have come up to speed and do realize that the foundation of Prof. Chien’s work is based on bogus numbers and assumptions.

    Neither the possibility that she still believes in her work, or that she has aggressively pursued an agenda based on that work changes the FACT that her work has a foundation built on shifting sand – and that the tide had come in.

    That you call being informed ‘nonsense’ is no surprise at all. There is nonsense afoot alright, but in typical fashion it is you that is nonsensical at the very moment you level that accusation at others.

    Quite clearly, the accuse-others stale script of yours is your ‘best’ and most highly coveted specialty.

  2. Pretty sure that your ‘sniff’ of the art field is vastly insufficient to make any intelligent comment.

    Nice try, though, Malcolm. Keep up the vacuous posts!

    @ta boy

  3. As opposed to the drool on your chin? – oh, that’s right, you are way past being concerned with the drool (or whatever else may be on) your chin.

  4. The same proprietary dataset in which those avowed anti-patent forces merely said “These are the results – trust us” ?

    LOL

    (and yes, the archives have this same message when the ‘result’ was first trotted out – and yes, there was no response to that valid point when it was first raised)

  5. You did not bother looking prior to my asking (elsewise you would have posted the claim in your QQ in the first instance.

    Sherlock Jr rides again with his amazing deductive reasonsing! Super impressive stuff.

    Also wrong.

    What a fn t 0 0 l.

  6. Classic Malcolm maturity

    That’s cute of you to run to Gramp’s assistance, Tr0 llb0y. Don’t forget to wipe the drool off his chin.

  7. without knowing anything about the art field.

    Pretty sure just about everybody on earth knows something about using computers to send information upon request.

    Nice try, though, Tr0 llb0y. Keep fluffing!

  8. The ubiquitous Chien has made a lot of hay out of the proprietary RPX dataset and road trip presenting the same superficial presentations over and over again at every government forum she could get herself invited to.

    And while you are all having a love fest, please note that the term patent assertion entity was created by the Federal Trade Commission as a concession to the university community who didn’t like being dumped into the same non-practicing entity classification as other trolls. Given the latest patent assertion moves by both Carnegie Mellon and BU, that call was probably a bit premature.

  9. Wake up Malcolm.

    There is a world of difference between defending claims (which I have not said a word about) and merely pointing out that your ‘analysis’ is just the typical h@lf _$$ed g@rb@ge you spew without knowing anything about the art field.

  10. “Did you even bother…”

      Yes I did. “

    BZZZZT – blatant 1ie. You did not bother looking prior to my asking (elsewise you would have posted the claim in your QQ in the first instance.

    Typical Malcolm FAIL.

  11. put together a good 102 and 103 argument and submit it to the patent office.

    Why? Google knows that claim is pure j*nk. It’s going nowhere.

    This business of looking at stuff and saying it is no good —- is no good.

    Whatever, Gramps. Don’t like reading it? Go someplace else.

  12. Flash of Genius was kicked out by Congress in 1952

    That’s nice. The claim is still incredibly obvious j*nk. But of course you’re here to defend it. Why? Because you’ve never seen a computer-implemented claim you didn’t want to fluff. Congrats.

  13. Well, then put together a good 102 and 103 argument and submit it to the patent office. This business of looking at stuff and saying it is no good —- is no good.

  14. Perhaps the next Flash of Genius will let us know.

    Oh wait, Flash of Genius was kicked out by Congress in 1952.

    Aw shucks.

  15. Even better, the claimed method doesn’t even result in a sound being “triggered”. It’s just information being transmitted, upon request … using a computer!

    Amazing. What will these brilliant kids come up with next?

  16. Did you even bother looking at the application? at the claims?

    Yes I did. Now everyone can look at the latest j*nk claim that you have chosen to fluff:

    1. A computer-implemented method of triggering sounds in an eBook, comprising:

    receiving a request for trigger point information for an eBook from a client;

    determining trigger point information for the eBook, the trigger point information including location information identifying a location of a trigger point in the eBook and sound information indicating a sound to play at the trigger point; and

    transmitting the determined trigger point information for the eBook to the client in response to the request.

    J*nk doesn’t much j*nkier than that. Triggering sounds … using a computer! Wow. What will the geniuses at Google think up next? Really awesome “technology” there.

  17. I’m not trying to be funny, TB. Like most people, I have no idea what you are talking about. “Largely dismiss the foundaiton of her legacy”? What?

    Where do you come up with this nonsense?

  18. LOL – like pieces of a KSR puzzle: academics, policy, lobbying, the judiciary…

    And here I thought patent law was designated to the Legislative Branch to write.

  19. ‘Smell’ is about the level of legal thinking you put forth into simply bashing what you don’t like.

    Did you even bother looking at the application? at the claims?

  20. The technology covered by the patent would allow certain trigger points in the text to call forth prerecorded sounds related to the contents of the book.

    More like old conventional technology used to do something that, at best, is incredibly obvious. And that’s ignoring the reams of computer-implemented “text triggers sound” processes in the prior art. Google really does file an incredible amount of ridiculous j*nk. Why?

    Just let me know when I can watch smell-o-vision in my personal flying robocar.

  21. I wonder what her take is on the series run at IPWatchdog and the GAO report that serves to largely dismiss the foundation of her legacy.

    Huh?

  22. Although, I do think that Prof. Chien is right that rather than big reforms what we need to do is just practice the current laws better.

    To your evidence standard: I don’t think that J. Lourie’s opinions hold up to that. If a claim is abstract, then it should be easy to find many systems that infringe the claim and that are not enabled.

  23. “Evidence to back up your argument” you say. But, isn’t the real problem the lack of evidence in the making of the arguments of Prof. Chien? Shouldn’t one be responsible for providing evidence to support their argument and not take positions and hold those positions unless someone comes up with counter evidence.

  24. is most swayed when presented with strong evidence that backs up your argument.

    I wonder what her take is on the series run at IPWatchdog and the GAO report that serves to largely dismiss the foundation of her legacy.

    “Swaying” implies a mind open – as can be seen by the lack of acknowledgment of valid points made (the CRP-run away-and CRP again syndrome), I have yet to see evidence of the ‘mind open’ requirement.

  25. Colleen Chien wrote the below quote. The part “mindful of the equities” is ridiculous.

    Based on my research regarding what has been tried, what has worked, and what has failed, quite a lot. History teaches away from broad based legislative reform and towards, narrowly tailored, incremental reform. For example rather than trying to enact an independent invention defense, patent reformers could try to get courts and others to be mindful of the equities in suits that are brought against innocent users of products that have little to do with the patent system except for their use of modern technology. Rather than pushing for new changes to the law, patent targets could pool information and prior art and capture economies of scale in taking advantage of the multiple ways a patent can be challenged after issuance.

  26. Professor Chien has written several items for Patently- O and is and has been a thoughtful and practical contributor to the discussions surrounding patent law policy. In general, I have found that Professor Chien is open to arguments and concerns from all sides of any IP issue, but is most swayed when presented with strong evidence that backs up your argument.

Comments are closed.