Post 26- Google Doesn't Get Royalties It Originally Demanded from Microsoft

Hello, this week I read an article posted by Mueller of Foss Patents, and it discussed Microsoft and Google's dispute over royalties for Motorola's standard essential patents in the court of the Western District of Washington. The patents owned by Motorola were related to video and wifi capabilities and Motorola initially hoped it would get 4 billion dollars a year in royalties, which would mean that in only 3 years, Google would have made back all of their money they spent on Motorola. Instead, however, the FRAND royalty payment will be about 1.8 million dollars per year from Microsoft to Google, so to get the 12.5 billion dollars, they would need to receive the 1.8 million dollar annual royalty for the next 7,000 years! Additionally, many of those patents will expire shortly anyways, so Google won't be able to collect royalty payments as long as it would have liked. Lastly, initially it seemed as if Microsoft would have to pay Google only 1.2 million dollars, but then the royalty was increased to 1.8 million dollars, but this increase in revenue for Google is so negligable and only a fraction of what goes into the costs of patent litigation that it really is difficult to consider this a victory for Google in any way, shape, or form. BusinessInsider fittingly titled their article,  "Microsoft Slapped Google Around In Court, And It's Becoming Clear Google Overpaid For Motorola," and they appropriately sum up the current state of events for Google. 

Post 25- Microsoft Signs Licensing Agreement with ZTE

Hello, thanks for checking out my blog. Last week, I discussed how Hon Hai, the parent company of Foxconn, which makes 40% of the world’s consumer electronics, signed a worldwide licensing agreement with Microsoft and how that was bad news for Google.

This week I read an article from Foss Patents blog about Microsoft and ZTE just completing a licensing agreement on smartphones and tablets using Android and Chrome Operating Systems. According to Microsoft’s Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel Horacio Gutierrez, "80 percent of Android smartphones sold in the U.S. and a majority of those sold worldwide are covered under agreements with Microsoft." So, this is good news for Microsoft, seeing as they are receiving royalties from so many sales. This is the 21st Android licensing agreement for Microsoft, according to Foss Patents.

This article illustrates how sometimes, licensing agreements can be more effective ways of cooperating with other companies than pursuing them with intellectual property litigation. I will expand on this in my Youtube Blog. 

Post 24- Google and Microsoft in Germany

In recent posts, I have discussed how Google has not been faring well in the smartphone patent war and talked about how their 12.5 billion dollar purchase of Motorola is becoming an increasingly more questionable move given it's been lacking in yielding success for Google. This week, the trend continues, and this time, Google suffered a big blow to Microsoft in German courts. Today, the Mannheim Regional Court announced that despite Google's biggest hopes, an injunction against Microsoft will not be enforced, and furthermore, Google actually owes Microsoft a license.

The patent in question with which Google was trying to enforce an injunction against Microsoft was the famous push notification patent that they purchased from Motorola (diagram included illustrates it). Many of our classmates in Patent Engineering have discussed how Google had success against Apple in Germany over this patent, but unfortunately for Google, they weren't able to win another one. Their Chief Litigator even flew out from Menlo Park for the case, and was predictably disappointed upon losing. Apparently, according to "ManagingIP"magazine, Microsoft has the best IP/licensing team in the world.

Lastly, the article discussed how Microsoft has already won a US import ban and 3 German injunctions against Google's Android phones and will win a 4th one relating to Google maps. Looks like the trend is continuing with Google's bad luck in these patent disputes.

Post 23- Hon Hai To Pay Royalties to Microsoft

Hello, this week I read an article from Foss Patents blog about Hon Hai, the parent company of Foxconn (which manufactures about 40% of the world's consumer electronics), just signed a worldwide licensing agreement  with Microsoft and will agree to pay them royalties for infringing products using the Android and Chrome operating systems.

This is really bad news for Google, because from now on, every product produced by Foxconn or Hon Hai that has Android/Chrome operating systems will pay licensing fees to Microsoft, even though Google itself does not actually believe that they are infringing (despite the fact that Motorola lost a case with Microsoft before Google bought them). The director of IP at Hon Hai said, "we recognize and respect the importance of international efforts that seek to protect intellectual property. The licensing agreement with Microsoft represents those efforts and our continued support of international trade agreements that facilitate implementation of effective patent protection," and he illustrates such an open acceptance of international IP laws compared to Google's tactics of denying infringement. 

Interestingly enough, this is the 20th patent licensing agreement between Microsoft and Hon Hai, and moving forwards there probably will be plenty more. I wonder how this might affect Google in their ability to remain competitive in this industry.

Post 22- Apple vs. Motorola (Google) in South Florida

Hello again. Today, I'll be talking about an article from Foss Patents patents blog about Apple vs. Motorola in South Florida. Lately, things have been looking good for Apple, and this week they just got an injunction against them lifted in Germany, but the article was mostly centered on the recent 4 month delay in the claim construction process in a case between Apple and Motorola or Google.

According to Foss Patents, Apple benefits from the delay whereas Motorola really wants the litigation to end as quickly as possible. This case started in 2010 and still hasn't finished. It was scheduled to conclude in 2014, but now this delay or further ones could push back the end date even further. Once again, we see how long these cases take, and as we discussed in class, Apple, as a multi-billion dollar revenue-making company, can afford to spend a couple billion on litigation if they get such significant gains from stalling their competitors. However,  what I found interesting was that Mueller said Apple really gains from these delays and should do everything possible to continue them, as long as Google appears equally responsible for the delay.

Overall, Google's 12.5 billion dollar purchase  of Motorola, which happened largely because of Motorola's impressive IP portfolio, has yet to yield significant gains in patent litigation against competitors, especially Apple.

Post 21- Apple's Recent Success Against Samsung

Hello everybody, thanks for checking out my blog. This week, I will be writing about an article I read on Foss Patents blog entitled "Apple Defeats Samsung in California Claim Construction Battle on All Patents but One SEP." It discussed how Apple is in its second litigation case with Samsung in California and apparently is already winning in the claim construction stage of the case. According to Mueller, "Claim construction means that the court defines how certain terms appearing in the asserted claims must be properly understood." 

And so far, it's looking like Apple is really on the winning side of these disputes on all patents but one. The patents in question are U.S. Patents 5,666,502; 5,946,647; 7,761,414; and 8,014,760. These patents respectively are related to "graphical user interface using historical lists with field classes," a "system and method for performing an action on a structure  in computer-generated data" (the "data tapping" patent), an "asynchronous data synchronization amongst devices," and lastly, the "missed telephone call management for a portable multifunction device," which clearly is a powerful one. 

Samsung, on the other hand, really only succeeded with one standard essential patent, which was U.S. Patent No. 7,756,087 dealing with a "method and apparatus for performing non-scheduled transmission in a mobile communication system for supporting an enhanced uplink data channel." They tried to also assert their non-SEP's that include U.S. Patent No. 7,577,757 and U.S. Patent No. 5,579,239 which deal with "multimedia synchronization method and device" and a "remote video transmission system," the second of which they asserted against FaceTime.

Will expand more on this in my Youtube blog. 

Post 20- Apple vs Samsung-- Import Bans

Hello again, a few weeks ago, I posted about Samsung versus Apple disputing over a patent dealing with an "apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system,” and at that point in time, it didn't look like the court was too close to making a formal decision,  and one of the biggest issues that remained was determining the scope of an import ban, if granted for Samsung (against Apple), how many products it would injunct against, and what that would mean for Apple's infringing products.

This week, I read an update about this case between Apple and Samsung on Foss Patents, and Samsung, in addition to asserting its IP over the iPhone 4, 3Gs, and older iPads, is actually trying to extend the damages to service providers like AT&T or Verizon who service consumers with these infringing products. 

Foss Patents blog ultimately predicted that a small import ban on specific older models of Apple products will be granted, but by the time it is, it will have very little effect on Apple namely because the only infringing products are the older ones that are for the most part out of stock.

Post 19- Apple's Slide to Unlock Patent in Germany

Hello, thanks for checking out my written blog for patent engineering. Today, I'll be discussing an article from our  favorite patent blog, Foss Patents, about Apple's slide to unlock patent in Germany. According to the article, Google and Samsung have just won a big victory in Germany when this week German courts established that Apple's slide to unlock patent is too broad and that there is no infringement in Google or Samsung phones.

Similar to how the patents relating to rounded edges on smartphones or mobile devices are well known design patents, the slide to unlock patent owened by Apple reminded me again of a patent that   has very little actual effect on functionality, but fundamentally has to do with how you use/unlock the phone. Because its actual purpose does let you actuallyy use the phone, I suppose that this could potentially be considered a utiility patent as well.

Ultimately, Apple's patent will not be valid in Germany, because although they've patented the slide to unlock idea, it doesn't quite encompass every mechanism or manner of unlocking a phone and these other companies are not infringing. Of course, Apple is appealing this decision, as expected, but they most likely won't  have the best luck because of stricter, less broad patent laws in Europe, according to Mueller.