Blog 25: Silly Patent-Pillow with retractable umbrella

Silly Patent-Pillow with retractable umbrella 

US 6711769 B1

Abstract: A pillow with a retractable umbrella, comprising a pillow assembly with first and second ends. The first and second ends have a channel extending therebetween. Fixedly secured onto the first end of the pillow assembly is a supporting assembly with third and fourth ends. The supporting assembly has a cavity between the third and fourth ends to store items within, and has a removable end-cap to access the cavity. Extending from the supporting assembly is an umbrella assembly. The umbrella assembly lying within the channel in a stored position. The instant invention having rotating and swivel means for positioning the umbrella assembly while in an erect position. The invention may be stored in a case for easy carrying and in an open position, allows a user to lay his/her head on the pillow while covering their face from sunlight.

In simple terms it is a pillow, with a built-in umbrella to protect the user from the sun. Somehow the idea of having a tanned body and a ghostly white head doesn't appeal to me, but whatever floats your boat.  Although this idea is completely ridiculous it combines two different current products, the pillow and the umbrella, and creates a completely new and non-obvious product. Overall, it got passed because no one had done it before and it was not anticipated. 

More information here: https://www.google.com/patents/US6711769

FIG. 1 represents a front isometric view of the instant invention in the stored position.

FIG. 1A is a top isometric view of the instant invention taken from the line 1A—1A as seen in FIG. 1.

FIG. 2 shows a front isometric view of the instant invention illustrating the swivel means of the instant invention.

FIG. 3 illustrates a side view of the instant invention with the umbrella assembly in the open position.

FIG. 3A illustrates an isometric view of the supporting assembly and the rotating and swivel means of the instant invention.

FIG. 4 is a perspective view of the instant invention in the open position with the umbrella assembly partially covering a user.

Blog 24: Silly Patent-Banana Suitcase

Silly Patent-Banana Suitcase

Durable; easy to manufacture; low cost US 6612440 B1

Abstract: A banana protective device for storing and transporting a banana carefully. The banana protective device includes a container having a first cover member and a second cover member being hingedly attached to the first cover member and being adapted to store a banana therein; and also includes pad members being securely disposed upon the first and second cover members for protecting and cushioning the banana; and further includes fastening members being attached to the first and second cover members for fastenably closing the first and second cover members together.

Read more about it here: http://www.google.com/patents/US6612440

Although it is completely ridiculous to have a protective gear for something like a banana, it still got passed because it was novel and non-obvious.

Blog 23: Silly Patent- Dad Saddle

Silly Patent- Dad Saddle 

US 6345745

Abstract: A support is positioned about an individual's waist in engagement with the individual's hips. A pair of stirrups depend from the support and accommodate the feet of a standing child being carried by the individual.

This Patent gives a deep explanation of its use, background, and provides a claim. Please view more details at: https://www.google.com/patents/US6345745?dq=US6345745.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=doUbVe_UIIfeoASK8IKYCw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA

"A number of devices have been devised for carrying infants and young children. Such devices often are not appropriate or useful for carrying larger children. Nor are known conventional arrangements adapted to support a standing child". This is completely ridiculous because of your child is that big and old enough, he or she should learn how to walk! Or push them around in a stroller or wheel chair so it does not strain your back from carrying them. 

However, this did get accepted because it is non-obvious and novel! No one thought about a a device that allows you to carry a larger person. It has been created for babies and toddlers who need to be carried and cannot walk. But there is nothing for larger kids who technically should be walking! No one had even thought about this idea before. For this reason is accepted and able to be patented. 

FIG. 1 is a rear perspective view of apparatus constructed in accordance with the teachings of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a perspective view illustrating an individual wearing the apparatus and carrying a standing child;

FIG. 3 is an elevational side view of the apparatus and illustrating the apparatus employed to carry objects in the form of pouches; and

FIG. 4 is a frontal elevational view of the apparatus.

Blog 22: Silly Patent- Thong Diaper

Silly Patent #1- Thong Diaper 

US D539422 S1

Please refer to the Patent for all the details: https://www.google.com/patents/USD539422?dq=D539422&ei=TF4bVYr4H4q2oQTCqoHwBg

If you look at the actual patent details you will notice that all the provided were the following images and description of the images. There were no real claims being made. I thought that was interesting since most patents clearly write out every single detail and aspect of their product. However, they only provided the minimal. Although this idea seems completely ridiculous because no one would buy a thong diaper as it would be incredibly uncomfortable and useless, it is still non-obvious and novel! Thus, it was accepted and patented. 

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of the thong diaper in full lines.

FIG. 2 is a top plan view of the thong diaper.

FIG. 3 is a bottom plan view thereof.

FIG. 4 is a left side elevational view thereof.

FIG. 5 is a right side elevational view thereof.

FIG. 6 is a front elevational view thereof; and,

FIG. 7 is a rear elevational view thereof.

Blog 21: Beating Patent Trolls! Case on Life360

After the case I discussed in my last video blog about Life360, the CEO Chris Hulls published an op-ed advising other companies on how to respond to similar patent threats. His advising’s were published on TechCrunch in an article called “I beat a Patent Troll and You Can Too.” Link here: http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/23/i-beat-a-patent-troll-and-you-can-too/

He gave the following 3 suggestions in his article:

1.     Go Nuclear- Refused to play by the rules. He writes that trolls and law firms “hate being called out. ” So call them out!! “They expect that you’ll listen to your lawyers, stay quiet, and pay them to go away. We refused AGIS Inc. and its lawyers…Throughout our battle, we frequently publicized their role in the case with various influencers and media and it really got them. ” Do what the lawyers would not expect! Break the rules and go public!

2.     Share Information- Life360 has open-sourced the prior art it found on AGIS’ patents. Also, Life360 offered free legal support ro any other startups AGIS might sue. He explained that “moves like that send a strong signal that if you sue us, we will not only stick up for ourselves, but make it harder for you to sue others”.

3.     Go with your gut and commit to it- Be Strong and don’t settle for the case! If you know you are right, then keep fighting and stay committed. He explains that “This is about right and wrong, and that will help you sleep better at night…Always remember you are fighting the good fight and while that may sound cheesy, but its really important when things get hard. ”

Overall, he explains that it is possible to beat a troll! You just need to go nuclear, share information, and most importantly stay committed!  

Blog 20: Patent Trolls- Case on Life360

Case study: Life360

Life360 was accused by Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc. for patent infringement.

Life360 is a mobile-based social network aimed at families, that heavily uses location-sharing to help family members stay connected to each other.

During this time, Life360 had just raised $55 million in a third round of funding. The patent in question, U.S. patent 7031728, covers “a cellular PDA communication system for allowing a plurality of cellular phone users to monitor each others’ location and status,” through markers superimposed on a map. The patent also covers the ability to call others by tapping their markers on the map.

-CEO Chris Hulls response to Patent Trolls:

"Dear Piece of Sh*t,

We are currently in the process of retaining counsel and investigating this matter. As a result, we will not be able to meet your Friday deadline. After reviewing this matter with our counsel, we will provide a prompt response.

I will pray tonight that karma is real, and that you are its worthy recipient,

Chris"

In court, the jury returned a verdict of non-infringement on all the claims against Life360: patent troll was defeated!

Life360 won!! They beat the Patent Trolls!

Blog 19: pwc case on patent infringement litigation

During my research I came across the following study: “2014 Patent Litigation Study: As case volume leaps, damages continue general decline” my pwc.

In the study it stated that "In some ways, 2013 appeared to be a moderating year in patent infringement litigation. The “mega” verdicts of prior years (2012 saw three cases that resulted in damages awards of over $1 billion) were missing, with the largest new award falling to just over $200 million.  Four of the ten largest awards from previous years were settled, overturned, modified or remain under appeal in 2013. And the median damages award continued its gradual downward tapering, to $4.3 million in the most recent four-year period. " 

They also listed some key observations in the study such as: 

1. Median damages awards continue to trend down—to $4.3 million in recent years. 

2. Damages awards for NPEs averaged more than triple those for practicing entities over the last four years. 

3. The median jury award amounted to nearly 37.5 times the median bench award between 2010 and 2013.

4. Reasonable royalties remain the predom- inant measure of patent damages, consistently representing around 80% of awards since 2000. However, lost profits showed a surprising resurgence over the last four years, growing to a 37% share of the awards. 

5. NPEs have been successful 25% of the time overall, versus 35% for practicing entities, due to the relative lack of success for NPEs at summary judgment. However, both types of entities win about two-thirds of their trials.

6. The median damages award in the tele- communications industry was the highest, at $22 million over the full study period. Biotechnology/pharmaceutical, medical devices, and computer hardware/elec- tronics also had relatively high median damages awards, at double to triple the overall median across all industries.

7. The top four districts in terms of favorability to patent holders (Virginia Eastern, Delaware, Texas Eastern and Wisconsin Western) remain the same as last year’s study. 


Take a look at the full study here: http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/forensic-services/publications/assets/2014-patent-litigation-study.pdf 

Blog 18: 2013 NPE Litigation Report

During my research I came across the “2013 NPE Litigation Report” created by RPX Corporation. Basically the RPX’s 2013 NPE Litigation Report provides a comprehensive overview of the litigation activities of non-practicing entities (NPEs). This report continues RPX’s efforts to bring transparency to the industry.

According to the report the following are considered NPEs:

1.     Patent assertion entities (PAEs): entities believed to earn revenue predominantly through asserting patents

2.     Universities and research institutions

3.     Individual inventors

4.     Non-competing entities (NCEs): operating companies asserting patents outside their areas of products or services

A lot of interesting facts were presented in the report such as:

1.     NPEs sued over 2,600 different companies in 2013 and filed 3,608 patent infringement cases. These cases resulted in 4,843 total defendants, which was 13% more than 2012.

2.     NPEs filed more than half (63%) of new patent litigation (measured by total defendants). This is the fourth straight year that NPEs were responsible for the majority of all new patent litigation. See Chart 8.

3.     NPEs filed 345 new campaigns in 2013, down slightly from 2011 and 2012, but still up substantially from 2009. New campaigns initiated in 2013 averaged 12 defendants. Total campaign defendants and unique campaign defendants were both lower than their case counterparts, reflecting that defendants are often sued multiple times on the same or related patents.

4.     At the end of 2013, there were fewer active NPE defendants than at the end of 2012. The 2013 decrease interrupts a long-term trend of annual increases and is wholly based on increased terminations (as opposed to a decrease in defendants added). Nonetheless, active NPE defendants was still up 56% from year-end 2009 to year-end 2013

5.     Litigation activity in 2013 does not appear to have been affected by the one-time temporal effects of the AIA. The AIA appears to have caused a one-time increase in activity immediately before enactment in September 2011 followed by artificially depressed levels of activity in early 2012.

Take a look at the full report here: https://www.rpxcorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/RPX-2013-NPE-Litigation-Report.pdf

Blog 17: Differences in NPEs

This blog post discusses the different types of NPEs. Again, A non-practicing entity (NPE) holds a patent for a product or process but has no intentions of developing it. Basically an NPE is any entity that earns or plans to earn the majority of its revenue from the licensing or enforcement of its patents. Every NPE is quite different and have different motivations behind it.

1.    Do not have resources or interest in pursuing ideas!  

Some inventors choose not to pursue the development, manufacturing, and sales of their inventions. They may lack the resources to do so, or the interest, passion, and commitment that such an effort requires. Instead, they may seek to license their inventions to others who can use them to deliver better products and services, often with the assistance of those with experience in this area. Or they may choose to sell the patents outright.

2.    Want return on their investment!

Some companies invest in research, development and commercialization for a number of years, but fail to achieve adequate sales to sustain their business. Facing this, they begin to seek a return on their investment through the licensing of their intellectual property.

3.    Actually buy patents with the express purpose of licensing them aggressively!

During my research I found on PatentFreedom that about 25% of “parent” NPEs tracked by PatentFreedom are enforcing only patents that they had acquired. Another 60% are asserting patents originally assigned to them, and the remaining 15% are asserting a blend of originally assigned and acquired patents. However, if we add in the more than 2,100 subsidiaries and affiliates of these entities and treat them all as standalone entities, we find that 19% of them are originally assignees, and 69% are acquirers, and 12% are blends.

Regardless of the important variations in their origin and behavior, NPEs present a fundamentally different challenge than operating company patent assertions.