Barnes & Noble has 21 pending patent applications, and 5 issued design patents.  All of these patent applications and patents are related to its e-reader technology.  Below are exemplary images from its design patents, which focus primarily on cases, covers, and stands for e-readers:

The pending patent applications relate to various aspects of e-reader technology, from user interfaces and displays, to content distribution, back-end management, and fulfillment systems.

Two interesting filings, US 20120179753 and US 20120239758, relate to a consumer-to-consumer lending system that enables users who have purchased digital content (i.e., e-books) to lend that content to other users.

US 20120144308 describes a system for recommending digital content in which users employ their contact list to recommend digital content.  On a similar note, US 20120197976 relates to organizing a user’s address book contacts in a cloud-based system that aggregates similar contacts across multiple address books/devices.

US 20110206023 describes a system that provides controlled access to digital content for free while the wireless device is accessing the content in a specified location, e.g., a retail location.

The remaining filings relate to user interfaces, displays, formatting digital content based on form-factors, and buying/acquiring digital content from remote sources.

Microsoft certainly has its own technology for mobile computing and digital content distribution, and Barnes & Noble’s pending patent applications will likely complement Microsoft’s existing technology well.  The pending applications give some insight into how Nook technology may evolve to enhance and improve the customer experience, and add features that incorporate social aspects, such as sharing, lending, and suggesting digital content.

However, since the only issued patents related to the Nook product line are design patents, it remains to be seen if the pending patent applications will actually issue and be commercialized.

The post Microsoft Would Not Acquire Significant IP From Barnes & Noble appeared first on Envision IP.

While there has been much debate on the value, nuisance, and ethics surrounding patent holding companies, Envision IP reviewed the stock performance of various publicly traded companies in this space to understand how this niche industry has fared compared to the broader market. Our purpose is not to weigh in on the ethics of these entities, but rather to empirically focus on their business model.

In our analysis, one pattern is certainly clear – these entities live, and die, by each specific patent litigation case. Balance sheets show exceptionally high costs for litigation.  In years where no jury decision or settlement is reached, these companies often report negative net income in the tens of millions. However, when a favorable outcome is obtained, a company’s stock price can easily double or triple.

Our analysis includes the following companies: Acacia Research Group (ACTG), Asure Software Inc. (ASUR), Network-1 Security Solutions Inc. (NSSI), Opti Inc. (OPTI). Rambus Inc. (RMBS), VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC), Vringo Inc. (VRNG), Universal Display Corp. (PANL), Document Security Systems Inc. (DSS), Worlds Inc. (WDDD), Democrasoft Inc. (DEMO), Pendrell Corporation (PCO), Parkervision Inc. (PRKR), and Unwired Planet Inc. (UPIP).

The year-to-year gains and losses for these companies fluctuated widely, which is not surprising given that patent litigation is very specific to each case, company, product, and patent.  Thus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to correlate one company’s success as an indicator for another company’s patent monetization efforts.

From 2008 through 2012, the S&P 500 has produced a total return of 15.26%. As a whole, the group of 14 companies above returned a combined return of 33.85% during this same period.  However, only half of the 14 companies we analyzed had an overall positive return, with 2 of these companies showing triple digit returns, and five companies exhibiting double digit negative declines.

VirnetX had a total return of 334.27% from 2008 to 2012.  The stock performance has been quite volatile, with a -70% return in 2008, 97.8% in 2009, and 448% in 2010.  The percent returns, while impressive, have been declining in recent years, with a 68% return in 2011, and a 17.2% return in 2012.  To date in 2013, VirnetX has returned -31.2% for investors.  In 2010, VirnetX obtained a $200 million settlement from Microsoft after winning a jury verdict related to virtual private network technology. The company was also awarded $368 million in damages from Apple in November 2012. Yet, as a sign of the high volatility in this industry, just last month VirnetX lost a case against Cisco. That decision dropped VirnetX’s share price by almost 30%, leading to an immediate market cap loss of over $500 million.

Acacia Research Group had a total return of 296.24% from 2008 to 2012.  As with VirnetX, Acacia has experienced significant volatility during this period, with a -60% return in 2008 swinging to a 200% return in 2009.  The yearly return dropped from 184% in 2010 to 41% in 2011, and subsequently fell to -30% in 2012.  To date in 2013, Acacia Research Group has returned 15%.

Other positive, double-digit performers during 2008 to 2012 include Universal Display Corp. (93.01); Vringo (27.60%); Unwired Planet (25.12%); Asure Software (20.87%); and Network-1 Security Solutions (16.54%).

While the companies beating the S&P 500 did so in an impressive fashion, the companies that lagged behind the S&P 500 did so with high double digit losses, with the exceptions of Unwired Planet (-0.97%) and Opti Inc. (-7.69%).

As a group, publicly-traded patent holding companies have provided investors with exceptional returns over the last five years.  However, year-to-year volatility is extremely high for many of these companies, with double and triple digit swings.

For example, Parkervision had a yearly return of 136% in 2012, and has already returned 104.92% year to date in 2013 for investors.  However, from 2008 to 2010, the company had negative yearly returns of -77.28%, -25.91%, and -74.86%, respectively. Its rise in recent months may be attributed to a favorable Markman Order in its suit against Qualcomm, showing that individual court rulings can have tremendous impact on these stocks’ movements.

With the increased scrutiny and negative sentiment in recent months surrounding patent holding companies, it will be interesting to see if the US government passes legislation and imposes regulations to limit the ability of non-practicing entities to enforce patents.

For now, investors may cautiously hope for continued returns as there appears to be no slowdown in patent litigation, and specifically, in assertions by patent holding companies.

The post Publicly Traded Patent Trolls Yield Impressive Returns With Significant Risk appeared first on Envision IP.

Envision IP analyzed Dell’s US patent holdings to determine what technologies the company has focused its research and development efforts on.  We identified 2,647 in-force US patents assigned to Dell, and the patented technologies appear to closely mirror Dell’s business focus on various aspects of desktop and notebook computing.

Computing hardware-related patents make up about 21% of Dell’s US patent portfolio. These patents cover casings, connectors, fixtures, and circuitry for desktop, notebook, and mobile computing devices.

Battery and power management technology-related patents are the next largest group, making up 15% of the patent portfolio. These patents relate to power optimization, power adapters and plugs, and power backup systems.

Hard drive and storage systems make up about 9%, followed by displays at about 6.5%.

The following categories each make up between 3.4% to 5.5% of the patent portfolio: networking technologies (routing, switches, and related software and hardware), input devices, multimedia technologies, server technologies (racks, hardware, blades, and management software), and cooling systems for both servers and computers.

Wireless patents make up 3% of the patent portfolio.  These patents relate to RF and other short-range wireless protocols, antenna/base communication technologies, and wireless network access.  Dell does not appear to own any LTE-related patents based on the patents that we reviewed.

The remaining patents cover internet access and usability technologies, peripheral devices and connectivity, supply chain technologies (related to its built-to order, warehouse, and CRM systems), security and data access, and printing systems.

We did not uncover any exact figures related to Dell’s historical patent licensing revenues.  However, it appears that Dell’s main focus over the years has been to obtain patent protection on technologies it plans to commercialize.

Dell certainly understands the importance of IP, as evidenced by its business-focused patent portfolio, and its membership with patent aggregation firm RPX.  Dell’s patent portfolio has an average remaining term of 9.4 years, giving the company ample time to maximize the value of its patents.

Given Dell’s buyout and transition into a private company, it will be interesting to see if Dell will focus increasing attention on licensing or otherwise monetizing its patent portfolio.

The post Dell’s Patent Portfolio Could be Leveraged After Buyout appeared first on Envision IP.

This trend appears to contradict Apple’s historical approach to intellectual property.  Apple traditionally filed for and obtained patents for its own innovations, be it on ground-breaking technologies or incremental improvements on existing inventions.  Interestingly, since 2008, Apple has shown year-over-year increases in patent acquisitions, including its well-known participation in the Rockstar Bidco acquisition of the Nortel Networks patent portfolio in 2011.

Envision IP analyzed Apple’s patent acquisitions over the last few years to determine what types of technologies the company has acquired, and whether these acquisitions complement Apple’s product line, or if they serve to provide Apple with patents for strategic litigation purposes.

Starting in 2008, Apple acquired 16 patents, with 12 being acquired from Nike, Inc.  These patents relate to activity monitors that incorporate accelerometers, GPS, and movement sensors, as well as technology that syncs a user’s activity to multimedia experiences.

In 2009, Apple acquired 73 patents.  64 of these patents were acquired from PA Semi, Inc., and are related to various integrated circuit and microprocessor technologies.  Another 9 patents related to displays were acquired from Planar Systems, Inc.

In 2010, Apple acquired 291 patents.  180 of these patents were acquired from Object Technology Licensing Corporation and are related to operating system technologies.  Another 79 patents are related to microprocessor technologies and were acquired from Intrinsity, Inc.  That same year, 22 patents were acquired from Hon Hai Precision Co. Ltd. related to cable and connector hardware.

In 2011, Apple acquired 304 patents.  177 of these patents were acquired from Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. and are primarily related to wireless communication technologies.  Apple also acquired 35 patents from CVON Innovations Limited that are related to data transmission, messaging, and payment technologies for networked environments.  The remaining patents were acquired from a number of companies including Colwood Technology LLC, Delphi Technologies Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, and Walker Digital LLC.

In 2012, Apple had the most patent acquisitions in its history, largely due to the 810 mobile hardware, networking, and wireless related patents it acquired from Nortel Networks via Rockstar Bidco.  However, Apple had another 454 patent acquisitions that year, including 259 patents from Elipda Memory, Inc.  It is reported that Elipda Memory supplies Apple with DRAM chips, and many of these acquired patents relate to semiconductor-based memory technologies.  Apple also acquired 124 patents from CPTN Holdings LLC related to network security, authentication, and access control technologies.  Other notable acquisitions in 2012 are 51 patents from Anobit Technologies related to memory technologies, and 2 patents from Intellectual Ventures related to pre-loading web pages.

In total, Apple acquired 1,264 patents in 2012. To date in 2013, Apple has acquired 4 patents, all from Excem SAS related to wireless technologies.

Apple’s patent acquisitions in recent years complement its products and technologies well, and we believe these acquisitions were primarily driven by the need to protect and develop various aspects of its processing hardware, displays, iOS, and remote data transfer systems.

While the Nortel Networks patent acquisition includes many wireless and mobile device related technologies, it appears that Apple’s main motivation in acquiring these patents was to own fundamental IP in the mobile space that it could use strategically, rather than to commercialize these patents.

Another interesting trend is that Apple’s patent acquisitions have increased year-over-year since 2008, while its US patent application filing has been staggered, as shown below.  Patent applications are published 18 months from filing, so we do not have access to 2012 and 2013 filing data.

The post Apple Patent Acquisitions Fueled by Product Development appeared first on Envision IP.

Last November, I/P Engine obtained a favorable judgement against AOL, Google, IAC, Gannett, and Target over these same patents.  The jury awarded I/P Engine approximately $30 million, as well as a 3.5% running royalty applicable to the defendant’s search-based advertising revenue through the remaining term of the patents, which are set to expire in 2016.

Last August, Vringo acquired about 500 patents from Nokia for $22 million.  The deal also includes a 35% royalty to Nokia for any revenues generated by Vringo in excess of $22 million from these patents.

In addition, Nokia and Microsoft are strategic partners, where Microsoft provides operating system technology to Nokia, and where Nokia uses Microsoft search and ad services in its devices.  In return, Nokia receives $250 million in quarterly “platform support” payments from Microsoft.

I/P Engine’s lawsuit against Microsoft pits Nokia in the middle of a patent battle between two of its friendly partners.  It will be interesting to see what influence, if any, Nokia’s involvement with each of these companies will have on the pending lawsuit and any possible settlement.

On one hand, the patents asserted by I/P Engine against Microsoft were not acquired from Nokia (they were originally owned by Lycos).  On the other hand, Nokia certainly has an interest in the success of Vringo’s licensing/litigation business model, due to its potential 35% stake in any revenues generated from the patents acquired from Nokia.

The post Patent Deals Put Nokia in the Middle of Vringo’s Lawsuit Against Microsoft appeared first on Envision IP.

Over the last year, however, Zynga’s push to acquire patents has been impressive, and the company currently has 89 US patents, and 36 pending US patent applications.

The increase in Zynga’s patent holdings is partly attributable to its acquisition of 38 patents from Walker Digital, LLC.  Of these, 33 patents relate to casino gaming and gambling technologies.

For example, US 7559838 is directed to a game of chance allowing users to place wagers.  US 6843724 is directed to a gaming device connected to a slot machine server.  Also, US 6503146 is directed to team play within a casino slot club, and making payouts based on predefined payout rules.

Shown below is Figure 3B from US 7559838 which depicts a gaming device and menu:

The patents acquired from Walker Digital relate to software and methods for facilitating multi-player casino-style gaming, and for processing various casino-style wagering and payout schemes.  While the patents appear directed towards a physical casino environment, the claims of these patents are not specifically restricted to an in-person setting.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported that Zynga had filed for a gaming license with the Nevada Gaming Control Board.  In October, TechCrunch reported that Zynga had entered into a partnership with bwin.party, a Gibraltar-based online gambling company, to offer real money online poker and casino games in the United Kingdom.

The Walker Digital patent acquisition certainly seems in line with Zynga’s announced foray into the online gambling and casino business, as these patents may help Zynga build and protect its online gambling assets.

Zynga’s remaining 51 patents appear to have been developed internally (with the exception of US 6884172, originally assigned to nGame Limited).  These patents include technology for virtual currency management and gifting, interactive multi-user online gaming, remote software updating, and social networking features.

The post Zynga’s Online Gambling Ambitions Bolstered by its Patent Portfolio appeared first on Envision IP.

The venture was estimated to bring revenues of 1 billion euros in 2012.  However, in September, ALU announced that it was re-evaluating its partnership with RPX after the deal had failed to deliver any significant revenues.

There is little clarity as to why the deal may have fell short of expectations.  One possibility is the lack of companies willing to pay for licenses on ALU’s wireless-related patents, which make up about 25% of ALU’s total US patent portfolio.

A major incentive to acquiring wireless-related patents, given the highly litigious telecom space, is the ability to offensively enforce them against others.  Under the RPX model, its members cannot enforce patents outright, but can only use licensed patents as a counterclaim against any non-members who initiate litigation.

According to a report by Tangible IP, RPX has over 100 members, a full list that they identified can be found here.  Out of its members, we identified Broadcom, Cisco, Google, Intel, IBM, LG, Qualcomm, Samsung, Verizon, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Nokia, NEC, and Ericsson as the most likely licensees of ALU’s patents.

Of these companies, Google is fresh on the heels of its 2011 acquisition of Motorola Mobility’s immense patent portfolio that contained significant wireless technologies.

Microsoft, RIM, Sony, and Ericsson were part of the Rockstar Bidco consortium which acquired Nortel’s patents, also in 2011.

Nokia and NEC are part of a 2008 patent pool with ALU that includes LTE /3G-related patents.

Thus, out of its members who we believe may have been the most likely licensees, Google, Microsoft, RIM, Sony, Ericsson, Nokia, and NEC already have shored up their wireless patent holdings, or are already part of a patent pool which may afford them similar rights as any potential ALU-RPX license deal would.

The same thinking applies to Apple and EMC, other members of the Rockstar Bidco, as well as NextWave Wireless and Siemens, members of the 2008 ALU LTE/3G patent pool.

In October, Via Licensing assembled a LTE patent pool which includes AT&T, Bosch, Clearwire, Deutsche Telecom, DirecTV, KKDI, NTT DoCoMo, Panasonic, Philips, SK Telecom, Telecom Italia, Telefonica, and ZTE.  A full list of the Via Licensing patent pool members can be found here.  In addition, the Via Licensing patent pool includes RPX members Hewlett-Packard, LG, Samsung, Ericsson, Nokia, NEC, Microsoft, and Sony.

The diagram below shows the relationships among major telecom players involved in wireless-specific patent pools, RPX membership, and Rockstar Bidco:

The RPX approach to patent management is certainly innovative and has its benefits. Yet the significant overlaps among patent pools which provide joint-licenses to their members, as well as membership in RPX, might limit the desire for these companies to enter into additional defensive licenses for the ALU patents.

ALU now faces increasing pressure to generate patent-based revenue. One possible avenue for ALU may be to increase its enforcement efforts, and target potential infringers as licensees, rather than blindly offer licenses through RPX.  In the event that settlement/licensing deals are not struck,  ALU would have to sue these potential infringers and seek damages in court.

Earlier this week, ALU announced a $2.1 billion financing package from Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse.  This financing may help ALU buy time; time that could be used to assert its patents in courts.

While litigation is an often exhaustive, expensive exercise, the very situation that RPX membership seeks to avoid, recent patent litigation awards and settlements have shown that such a route can be fairly lucrative, and a few significant litigation victories could jump-start future licensing deals for ALU.

The post Alcatel-Lucent Should Consider More Aggressive Patent Monetization Strategies appeared first on Envision IP.

Envision IP analyzed the patents that HTC was able to carve out of the settlement to understand what technology is covered, and how it may affect Apple and other device manufacturers going forward.

While the financial terms of Apple and HTC’s settlement are unclear, it appears that HTC was able to maintain exclusive rights to some of its more important patents, all of which were assigned to it by Google in 2011. Four of these patents were originally acquired by Motorola and have relatively high forward citations, indicating that these patents may be fairly fundamental technologies. Also, Apple’s iOS appears to use some of the technology claimed in HTC’s patents related to user interfaces.

Below is our analysis of each patent.

(1) US 7,289,772 – “Technique allowing a status bar user response on a portable device graphic user interface”

The ’772 patent was originally assigned to Palmsource, Inc., which was a Palm OS development company spun-off from Palm Computing, Inc. The patent was subsequently transferred to Google, Inc. in 2010 by Palmsource’s parent company, Access Co., Ltd. Approximately one year later, the ’772 patent was assigned to HTC by Google.

The ’772 patent covers a mobile device interface that allows “the user to answer or reject an incoming call, without interruption of applications already operating on the device during the call…the user is able to view caller ID information, in an information window, while using another application.” A screenshot of an embodiment of the invention is shown below in Figure 7:

The ’772 claims are directed to displaying an incoming caller ID, or any other type of status message, and allowing a user to respond to the incoming message, while continuing to use another application on the same interface.

As far as how Apple and others may be affected, this patent may preclude them from showing a notification (SMS, incoming call, or otherwise) on a screen, and allowing the user to both respond to the notification and concurrently use a running application. For example, in Apple’s iOS, a SMS alert pops up over a running application, and the user can either select the alert to view the new message, or ignore the message and continue to use the running application. Users are not able to access the message and continue to use the running application simultaneously. However, this may be a practical feature that Apple may want to offer in the future. The ’772 patent will expire on November 8, 2024.

(2) US 6,868,283 – “Technique allowing a status bar user response on a portable device graphic user interface”

The ’283 patent has a similar history at the ’772 patent described above, as it was originally assigned to Palm, Inc. The’283 patent claims an interface with a “status bar changing in response to an incoming call from said wireless telephone circuit” and “enabling a user selectable response to said incoming call independent of the operation of said application, said application and said status bar operating independently.”

The scope of the ’283 patent is similar to that of the ’772 patent, however the ’283 patent claims are limited specifically to the display of an incoming phone call, and are not as broad as the ’772 patent claims. The ’283 patent will expire on June 8, 2022.

(3) US 7,020,849 – “Dynamic display for communication devices”

The ’849 patent was originally assigned to Openwave Systems, Inc., which was once a developer of software for mobile email and multimedia messaging technology. The patent was transferred to Purple Labs SA in 2008, as part of Purple Labs’ acquisition of Openwave’s mobile phone software business, and subsequently transferred to Myriad France SAS when it acquired Purple Labs. Google acquired the ’849 patent in 2010, and approximately one year later, the ’849 patent was assigned to HTC by Google.

The ’849 patent is directed to, as its title suggest, a dynamic interface where objects are selectively placed on a screen, instead of static area where certain objects are always displayed. The ’849 patent claims, for example, “logically dividing said display into first and second display-portions when said determining determines to display said first data”, and also determining whether soft keys or content should be displayed in particular portions of the screen.

In a practical application, the ’849 patent covers the ability of a mobile interface to optimally display objects and data on a small mobile interface. As far as how Apple and others may be affected, this patent may limit the ability to have a dynamic touch-screen keyboard and a content portion, both of which change orientation, size, and placement as the mobile device is manipulated. The ’849 patent will expire on January 18, 2024.

(4) US 6,708,214 – “Hypermedia identifier input mode for a mobile communication device”

The ’214 patent has a similar history as the ’849 patent above, as it was originally assigned to Openwave Systems, Inc.

The ’214 patent is directed to a mobile interface that allows users “to more easily input hypermedia identifiers, such as Uniform Resource Locators”. The ’214 patent claims a mobile interface that displays a “hypermedia identifier input mode, separate from the number input mode and the alphabetic input mode, in which the user is enabled to input a hypermedia identifier using the set of input keys.” A screenshot of an embodiment of the invention is shown below in Figure 5:

This patent covers quick keys that allow a user to enter the text, for example, “http://” or “.com” with a single touch or selection. As far as how Apple and other may be affected, this patent may limit the ability to display a quick key menu as shown in Figure 5 of the ’214 patent. However, Apple already appears to be using similar technology in its iOS, as shown below. The ’214 patent will expire on April 21, 2020.

(5) US 6,473,006 – “Method and apparatus for zoomed display of characters entered from a telephone keypad”

The ’006 patent was also originally assigned to Phone.com, Inc., which later become Openwave Systems, Inc., and it has a similar history as the ’849 patent above.

The ’006 patent is directed to enlarging characters on a screen to provide visual feedback so that the user can discern and distinguish the enlarged portion from other text on the screen.

The ’006 patent appears fairly broad, and it claims displaying “characters in a highlighting window, thereby causing each of said characters to be displayed in a contrasting format from previously entered data that is displayed, the contrasting format at least comprising an enlargement of the character or characters.” A screenshot of an embodiment of the invention is shown below in Figure 3B:

As far as Apple and other may be affected, this patent may cover the general ability to highlight and enlarge portions of text on a mobile screen. For example, Apple’s iOS already allows zooming of selected text, as shown below. The ’006 patent will expire on December 11, 2015.

(6) US 5,630,152 – “Communication protocol between master and slave device with register information sharing”

The ’152 patent was originally assigned to Motorola, Inc., and subsequently acquired by Google during its acquisition of Motorola Mobility, Inc. In 2011, along with the other nine patents analyzed here, Google assigned the ’152 patent to HTC.

The ’152 patent is direct to a rapid method of data transferring between a slave device and a master device. The patent relates to communication of data between components within a computing device, such as a smartphone or a tablet. The patent has a high number of forward citations (38).

Without understanding how Apple and others currently handle internal signal processing, it is difficult to understand how the ’152 patent will affect HTC’s competitors. The ’152 patent will expire on May 13, 2014.

(7) US 5,630,159 – “Method and apparatus for personal attribute selection having delay management method and apparatus for preference establishment when preferences in a donor device are unavailable”

The ’159 patent was originally assigned to Motorola, Inc., and was acquired by Tudor Empire, LLC. Tudor Empire owned patents related to browser technologies, and was once owned by patent holding company Allied Security Trust. Google acquired the ’159 patent from Tudor Empire in 2010, and subsequently sold assigned the patent to HTC less than a year later.

The ’159 patent is directed to remote software installations and upgrades, where a remote controller accesses preferences stored on a user’s device during an installation or upgrade. If the user preferences are not available, the remote controller utilizes default preferences. The ’159 patent also has a high number of forward citations (33)

The ’159 patent may affect Apple and others ability to provide customized software and application settings during installations and upgrades. Such technology appears to be used currently by iTunes and the Android Marketplace. For example, when either of those applications are updated, the new versions typically include the previous settings, such as search history, previously downloaded content, user settings, playlists, etc. The ’159 patent will expire on December 29, 2014.

(8) US 5,418,524 – “Method and apparatus for over-the-air upgrading of radio modem application software”

The ’524 patent was also originally assigned to Motorola, Inc., and was subsequently acquired by Google during its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Google assigned the ’152 patent to HTC in 2011.

The ’524 patent is directed to over-the-air application upgrades using a radio modem. The claims of the ’524 patent are fairly broad, as shown by Claim 1 below:

“(a) receiving upgrade information comprising upgrade installation software and upgrade data;

(b) loading the upgrade installation software into the processor;

(c) upgrading the application software in accordance with the upgrade installation software and in response to the upgrade data; and

(d) deleting the upgrade installation software and the upgrade data.”

This patent appears to generally cover upgrading a software application using a smartphone, tablet, or other portable device, using wireless or cellular communications. The ’524 patent also has a high number of forward citations (42).

The ’524 patent expired on July 31, 2012, however, HTC may be able to enforce its patent rights for past infringement that occurred prior to expiration, up to six years prior to the filing of a complaint. Apple and others who offer over-the-air upgrades may be at risk for past damages.

(9) US 5,302,947 – “Method and apparatus for loading a software program from a radio modem into an external computer”

The ’947 was also originally assigned to Motorola, Inc., and was subsequently acquired by Google during its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. Google assigned the ’152 patent to HTC in 2011.

The ’947 patent is similar in scope to the ’524 patent, and is directed to updating software drivers from a remote location, and it has 57 forward citations.

The ’947 patent also expired on July 31, 2012, but with the ’524 patent. Apple and others may be at risk for past damages since if they offer software driver updates via mobile application.

The post HTC Retains Significant Patent Rights in Apple Settlement appeared first on Envision IP.

Envision IP analyzed the patent portfolios of former telecom titans Ericsson, Nokia, RIM, and Alcatel-Lucent to understand how the patents of these companies stack up against each other, in terms of volume, innovation, and strength.

Amongst these companies, Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia have the largest US patent portfolios, with about 16,000 patents each.  Ericsson owns almost 11,000 US patents, while RIM owns a fraction of its competitors US patent holdings with roughly 3,500 patents.

Within these patent portfolios, about 25% of Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia’s patents have claims focused on various wireless technologies.  Both Ericsson and RIM’s patent portfolios are more heavily focused on wireless technologies, with approximately 50% of their patents having claims focused on the same.

Furthermore, while Ericsson claims to own 25% of standards-essential LTE patents, Alcatel-Lucent owns more than double the number of LTE-related US patents than Ericsson.  Nokia also has a significant number of LTE-related US patents with 1280, not too far behind Ericsson’s 1664 US patents.  RIM, with only 269 LTE-related US patents, has by far the least of the group.

In addition to the volume of US patents, we also analyzed the forward and reverse citations to understand how fundamental and strong (from a litigation perspective) these patent portfolios are.  Ericsson and RIM’s US patents have the highest number of average reverse citations per patent, with 48 and 58, respectively.  While certainly not conclusive, this data suggests that Ericsson and RIM’s US patents stand a higher chance of surviving an invalidity challenge, and thus, are stronger on average than Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia’s US patents.

Ericsson’s US patent portfolio also has the highest number of average forward citations, with 45 citations per patent.  Alcatel-Lucent has the next highest number of forward citations with an average of 21 per patent.

While Ericsson does not have as many US patents as Alcatel-Lucent and Nokia, it appears to have very fundamental patents that may also be stronger than its competitors patents.  This data supports Ericsson’s assertion that is owns 25% of all standards essential LTE patents, as its US patent portfolio as a whole appears to be more fundamental to the technology than those of its peers.

Furthermore, Ericsson’s latest patent infringement suit against Samsung may indicate a future trend amongst these former telecom giants, each with patent portfolios having unique advantages (RIM – strength, Ericsson – innovation; ALU & Nokia – volume), as they look towards their patents to drive new revenue from existing technologies.

The post Lacking Market Share, These Telecom Giants May Flex Their Patent Muscle appeared first on Envision IP.

Apple appears to have struck the first blow against Samsung, and in recent days it entered into a 10-year licensing deal with HTC that involves some of Apple’s design patents.  However, Samsung owns more than 5 times the number of US design patents than Apple related to mobile devices, smartphones, and tablets.  Forbes reported yesterday that Samsung is not following in HTC’s footsteps, and Samsung “does not plan to hold talks with Apple on settling their multi-jurisdictional patent war.”  Given its extensive patent portfolio, Samsung may be well positioned to launch design patent infringement claims of its own.

It is worth noting that LG also owns more US design patents in this area than Apple.

While design patents traditionally have not garnered much attention as compared to utility patents, the number of design patents issued to the major mobile device manufacturers doubled from 215 in 2006 to 487 in 2007.  This number drastically increased again the following year with 706 design patents issued in 2008.  Since 2009 however, the number of design patents issued has stabilized year over year between 350 and 450 for these mobile device manufacturers.  We expect this number to rise going forward given the recent focus of design patents in the courtroom.

Apple’s win and recent licensing deal suggest that while its has fewer design patents covering its products than Samsung and LG, Apple’s patented designs may be more unique and novel that those of its competitors.  It will be interesting to see how Samsung, LG, and others such as Sony, RIM, Nokia, and Google (via its Motorola patent acquisition) will leverage their own mobile device design patents either offensively or defensively as the smartphone patent battles continue to escalate.

The post Smartphone Design Patents: Samsung’s Quantity versus Apple’s Novelty appeared first on Envision IP.