Wealth of Ideas Blog

IoT (Internet of Things) Patents Are Hot!

patentadmin — Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:34:29 +0000

IoT (Internet of Things) Patents Are Hot!

In case you are not familiar with this acronym, IoT stand for the “Internet of Things.” IoT is the connection of multiple and various “things” (everyday devices, equipment and other objects) via the Internet to keep people informed about what is going on. A key element in the Internet of Things is that the monitoring and reporting back on these “things” over the “Internet” is done automatically and passively while we go about our dreary lives. Looking up a local restaurant on your smart phone, or finding the locations of the local gas stations and if they are still open, are typical applications for IoT. A critical growth area for Internet of Things is in the gas and electric utilities sector as these companies need to communicate with everything from substations to customer meters.

The “Internet of Things” is generally sourced to Kevin Ashton of MIT who supposed that “If we had computers that knew everything there was to know about things – using data they gathered without any help from us – we would be able to track and count everything and greatly reduce waste, loss and cost.”

And since the Internet of Things is hot, IoT patents are hot, too. Softbank just paid $32 billion for ARM Holdings, the UK-based chip designer, primarily to acquire its Internet of Things patents. Both Qualcomm and Intel have been building portfolios of Internet of Things patents. Each company has been granted over 500 Internet of Things patents.

One of Qualcomm’s newest IoT properties is U.S. Patent No. 9,413,827 for a “Context Aware Actions Among Heterogeneous Internet of Things (IOT) Devices.” IBM was just assigned U.S. Patent No. 9,372,886 for “Data Filtering in the Internet of Things.”

patentadmin Sat, 01/07/2017 - 10:34

OTT (Over the Top) Patents Are Just as Hot!

patentadmin — Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:13:43 +0000

OTT (Over the Top) Patents Are Just as Hot!

OTT is the acronym for “Over the Top.” There has been significant increase in sales of, and applications for, OTT products and services. So, naturally, there has also been significant activity in patents covering different aspects of Over-the-Top technology. OTT is past the stage of being an emerging technology. It is here, and it is affecting our lives each and every day, so OTT patents are hot!

OTT or Over the Top is the delivery of video or audio content over the Internet using a multiple-system operator to control or distribute the content. The term “over the top” refers to how it bypasses conventional channels for the distribution of video and audio content, and goes over the top of all the conventional services. OTT is not pay television or video-on-demand, but content provided by a third party in IP packets. Over-the-Top messaging provides instant messaging as an alternative to the text messaging services provided by the cell phone network operators. WhatsApp and Skype are OTT providers. Telecomm industry analyst Dean Bubley is generally credited with coming up with the term way back in 2011.

How hot are Over the Top Patents? Disney just signed an agreement to license the portfolio of the Kudelski Group, many of which are OTT-related patents. In 2015, Akamai paid a pretty penny ($107 million, to be exact) to acquire Codemate so it could acquire the Over the Top patent portfolio of its subsidiary, Octoshape!

Among the interesting OTT patents assigned to aoiTV is U.S. Patent No. 8,869,207 for a “Method and System for Delivering Video Content from Multiple Platforms to Subscribers.” Among the patents that Akamai acquired from Octoshape is U.S. Patent No. 7,865,811 for a “Distribution Method, Preferably Applied in a Streaming System.”

patentadmin Sat, 01/07/2017 - 10:13

Trying a Patent Infringement Lawsuit Yourself Is the Equivalent of Do-It-Yourself Brain Surgery

patentadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2016 04:36:07 +0000

Trying a Patent Infringement Lawsuit Yourself Is the Equivalent of Do-It-Yourself Brain Surgery

Back in 2010, Aleksandr Yufa filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Rees Scientific claiming infringement of his portfolio of particle-measuring patents. He lost in U.S. District Court, and just lost his appeal. Worse yet, the Federal Circuit appointed a receiver to take title to Mr. Yufa’s patents to sell them to pay $166,365 in attorney’s fees charged to Mr. Yufa by the court for filing a “baseless” patent lawsuit.

The lesson here is one we have written about before in this space. If Mr. Yufa did not have a valid claim of infringement, he had no business in court. If he did, he should have found a responsible and reputable patent enforcement firm to manage and finance the litigation for him.

patentadmin Fri, 11/18/2016 - 23:36

Boston Band Founder Loses Trademark Claim against Ex-Guitarist

patentadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:40:56 +0000

Boston Band Founder Loses Trademark Claim against Ex-Guitarist

It’s always the drummer who gets the girl. In this case, the issue is with the guitarist. It seems that the founder of a band known as “Boston,” one Tom Scholz, sued a former guitarist for the band, one Barry Goudreau, for trademark infringement. Goudreau left Boston and formed a new group called “Ernie and the Automatics.”

We cannot get our head around this case. The U.S. District Court jury hearing the case – coincidentally in Boston – apparently could not either, since it rejected Mr. Sholz’s trademark infringement claim and also rejected the counterclaim for breach of contract filed by Mr. Goudreau.

Let the music play.

patentadmin Fri, 11/18/2016 - 21:40

Splenda Sues Dunkin' Donuts for Trademark Infringement

patentadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:40:13 +0000

Splenda Sues Dunkin' Donuts for Trademark Infringement

The plaintiff in this case gets no sympathy from the writer of this blog because I drink my coffee as the good Lord intended: Black. No milk, no cream, no Half & Half, no sugar, no sweetener, no nothin’. Straight from the coffee pot. I even drink iced coffee that way. Yeah!

OK. Back to the story. Heartland Consumer Products, maker of the popular (although we sure cannot figure out why) artificial sweetener, Splenda, sued Dunkin’ Donuts (have you tried their Big ‘N Toasted breakfast sandwich?) for trademark infringement. Heartland claims that Dunkin’ Donuts is deceiving its customers by promoting the Splenda brand of artificial sweetener, but actually supplying its customers with a Chinese-made knockoff artificial sweetener.

Our Suggestion: Dunkin’ Donuts should tell its customers to “man up” and drink their excellent coffee straight up and without any sweetener. Problem solved and case dismissed.

patentadmin Fri, 11/18/2016 - 21:40

World Chess Files Piracy Lawsuit over Players’ Moves

patentadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:37:51 +0000

World Chess Files Piracy Lawsuit over Players’ Moves

World Chess Events, and its subsidiary, World Chess U.S., own the commercial rights to this year’s World Chess Championship. In a bold move (Sorry. It was too easy.), World Chess has filed a lawsuit against two chess websites, claiming that they “pirated” chess plays that are the intellectual property of World Chess Events and World Chess U.S. World Chess & Company is seeking $4.5 million in damages and asking the U.S. District Court hearing the case to block both websites from publishing chess plays from an upcoming championship match.

The key issue in this case will be (we are NOT attorneys and we are NOT giving legal advice) if chess moves are considered intellectual property, so we will follow this and keep you informed. We say they are, but our opinion does not count except in the minds of our loyal readers and sycophants.

patentadmin Fri, 11/18/2016 - 21:37

Sometimes You Win, Sometimes You Lose, Sometimes You Manage to Do Both

patentadmin — Sat, 19 Nov 2016 02:37:15 +0000

Sometimes You Win, Sometimes You Lose, Sometimes You Manage to Do Both

We are reminded of the line in Carol King’s Sweet Seasons: “Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes the blues just get a hold of you.” Selee, a manufacturer of foam-based filtration equipment, sued McDanel Advanced Ceramics Technology, a manufacturer of ceramic tubes and components, for infringement of its “Engineered Ceramics” trademark. We can only assume that the plaintiff or its lawyers just made a bad impression on the jury, because the jury found that McDanel had indeed infringed Selee’s trademark, but it awarded Selee $1. Ouch!

patentadmin Fri, 11/18/2016 - 21:37

Law Firm Sued for Bad Trademark Advice

patentadmin — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:52:54 +0000

Law Firm Sued for Bad Trademark Advice

Taking on a trademark involves more than just filing a form with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and hoping to receive back a favorable response. Most companies buy a website domain to match their hoped-for trademark, and they mark up all of their products and services with the hoped-for trademark to start building the brand. If the trademark applicant does not receive a registered trademark for the brand it wanted to use, or the name turns out to be infringing someone else’s trademark, that company just spent a ton of time, money, resources, talent and buzz to promote a brand it now cannot use!

And that is exactly what happened to Reserve Media. The start-up restaurant reservations and services company was advised by its law firm, Barnes & Thornburg, that it could use the “Reserve” trademark without infringing anyone else’s trademark. So the company jumped in with both feet, acquired the www.reserve.com website domain, marked up its services with the “Reserve” brand, and conscientiously marked it with a “™” to protect their hoped-for brand.

Reserve Media just filed a $1 million lawsuit against the law firm claiming that it got bad advice when it learned that it cannot use “Reserve” without infringing existing trademarks, and it spent a ton of time, money, talent, resources and buzz promoting the “Reserve” brand.

Here is what we find really interesting. This May (just six months ago), banking giant JPMorgan Chase filed for a trademark for “Reserve” for “Credit Card Services, Namely, Credit Card Transaction Processing Services and Credit Card Payment Processing Services.” This is a clearly a different service than restaurant reservations, and the same trademark can be applied to different products. Will JPMorgan Chase get their trademark? Check back in this space.

patentadmin Wed, 10/19/2016 - 21:52

God Is NOT Dead, but the Lawsuit Is

patentadmin — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:52:08 +0000

God Is NOT Dead, but the Lawsuit Is

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche made the controversial statement back in 1882 that "God is dead." Pure Flix Entertainment took a totally different approach with its 2014 independent film, “God’s Not Dead.” Based on the success of the film: Nietzsche 0, God 1.

Two screenwriters, Kelly Kullberg and Michael Landon Jr. (son of the Michael Landon from Bonanza, Little House on the Prairie and Highway to Heaven), filed a $100 million copyright infringement lawsuit against Pure Flix Entertainment claiming the movie production company ripped of a screenplay of theirs titled “Rise.” The judge overseeing the case threw out Kullberg and Landon’s claim on the basis that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the two scripts were substantially similar.

We have no comments on the case or the motives of any of the parties. And we think Michael Landon was a great guy. Most important, we firmly believe that there is a God.

patentadmin Wed, 10/19/2016 - 21:52

May the Force Be with You – But Not the Trademarks

patentadmin — Thu, 20 Oct 2016 01:50:55 +0000

May the Force Be with You – But Not the Trademarks

A Michael Brown of Okland, California, is in hot water. While we admire his entrepreneurship, we cannot understand what he does not understand about trademarks. Mr. Brown set up two businesses, “New York Jedi” and “Lightsaber Academy,” to provide training for use of the fictional weapons made part of the culture by the Star Wars movies.

Lucasfilm, the company founded by George Lucas, the creator and owner of the Star Wars franchise (and now a unit of Disney), is suing Mr. Brown for trademark infringement.

Questions: Did Mr. Brown actually think that he could blatantly infringe these trademarks? Even more curious, what is a “New York Jedi?” And are there Chicago and Dallas Jedi?

patentadmin Wed, 10/19/2016 - 21:50