July 2019

24 Jul

Computer Networks Ranks as the #9 Technology Area in the 2019 Patent 300™ Report

Patent Analytics Patent 300, patent analytics, Rocky Berndsen

By Rocky Berndsen

The 2019 Patent 300™ Report details the top 300 companies, organizations, and universities obtaining patents in the United States. Data from the report shows that nearly 70% of the U.S. patents obtained in 2018 were for electrical, software, or computer-related technologies. The top 10 technology areas, which represent 49% of the 167,164 U.S. patents obtained by Patent 300 companies in 2018, are dominated by electrical technologies.

As is shown in Chart 1, the Computer Networks technology area is the 9^th largest technology area in 2018 with over 4,540 patents issued for Patent 300 companies in the U.S. The Computer Networks technology area covers United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) technology classifications related to electrical computer or digital data processing system or corresponding data processing method including apparatus or steps for transferring data or instruction information between a plurality of computers wherein the computers employ the data or instructions before or after transferring and the employing affects said transfer of data or instruction information.

Chart 1 – Top 10 Technology Areas for Patent 300 (2018 U.S. Patents)

Rank	Patent 300 Technology Area	2018 U.S. Patents	Percentage of Total 2018 U.S. Patents
1	Semiconductors/Memory	15,153	9%
2	Electrical Circuits and Systems	13,215	8%
3	Multiplex and VoIP	9,875	6%
4	Optics	9,003	5%
5	Printing/Measuring and Testing	8,641	5%
6	Thermal & Combustion Technology, Motive & Fluid Power Systems	7,017	4%
7	Selective Visual Display Systems	4,855	3%
8	Telecommunications: Analog Radio Telephone; Satellite and Power Control; Transceivers, Measuring and Testing; Bluetooth; Receivers and Transmitters; Equipment Details	4,761	3%
9	Computer Networks	4,544	3%
10	Cryptography and Security	4,311	3%

When you look at the top 20 companies obtaining patents in the Computer Networks technology area, shown in Chart 2, all of the companies are large global technology companies such as IBM (#1), Amazon (#2), Alphabet (#5), and Facebook (#8). IBM ranks #1 on the list having obtained 845 U.S. patents in the Computer Networks technology area, which is a 5% increase over 2017. 9% of IBM’s U.S. patents obtained in 2018 are classified in the Computer Networks technology area. Samsung (#7) has the largest year over year increase in Computer Networks patents at 33%, while Nokia (#17) had the largest decrease at -62%. While the companies in the top 20 are all large global technology companies, they cover a range of industries including enterprise IT, social media, telecommunications, consumer electronics, and more.

Chart 2 – Top 20 Companies by U.S. Patents in Computer Networks

Patent 300 Company Name	Patent 300 Rank in Computer Networks	Computer Networks Patents 2018	% of Company’s 2018 U.S. Patents	Computer Networks Patents 2017	Change from 2017 Patents
IBM	1	845	9%	806	5%
Amazon	2	307	14%	250	19%
Dell	3	276	13%	216	22%
Microsoft	4	271	11%	294	-8%
Alphabet	5	211	8%	280	-33%
Cisco	6	156	18%	178	-14%
Samsung	7	153	2%	103	33%
Facebook	8	134	18%	181	-35%
Oracle	9	118	16%	114	3%
AT&T	10	107	8%	132	-23%
Huawei	11	107	5%	102	5%
Verizon	12	100	15%	100	0%
Ericsson	13	79	6%	110	-39%
Tencent	14	71	22%	90	-27%
Intel	15	62	2%	75	-21%
Sony	16	59	3%	53	10%
Nokia	17	52	6%	84	-62%
HPE	18	47	9%	34	28%
Red Hat	19	47	15%	52	-11%
Qualcomm	20	46	2%	72	-57%

For more detailed information about this technology area, or any other data related to the 2019 Patent 300™ Report, please visit harrityllp.com/patent300/ or contact Rocky Berndsen directly via email at rberndsen@harrityllp.com.

22 Jul

Technical Details are Needed to Avoid Patent Eligibility Issues for Patent Applications

Harrity & Harrity

Articles, Case Summary 101, Kenneth Hartmann, patent preparation, subject matter eligibility

By Kenneth Hartmann, Associate

Many patent practitioners have likely found success in overcoming and/or avoiding 35 USC §101 rejections since the USPTO’s Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance was released last January. However, the Federal Circuit (“the court”) recently made it clear that continued attention and care should be given when drafting patent applications focused on payment systems and/or payment processing.

In Innovation Sciences, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. 2018-1495 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 2, 2019) (“Innovation Sciences v. Amazon”) the court determined that a claim to an “online method for a payment server to support online buying over the Internet” in U.S. Reissue Patent No. 46,140 (the ’140 patent) was ineligible under Step 2 of Alice. More specifically, the court agreed with the district court that the claim was directed to the abstract idea of “securely processing a credit card transaction with a payment server” and that the claim lacked an inventive step, stating that the transmission of credit card payment information through the completion of a purchase are the same as those used in a “conventional Internet transaction system having adequate credit card information security” as admitted in the specification of the ’140 patent.

While Innovation Sciences argued that a “wherein” clause indicating the process involved a switch from a server with less security to a server with more security, the court held that that claim is directed to the abstract idea of “switching.” The court further mentioned that the claim seeks to capture the broad concept of switching to a more secure server, rather than a “specific way of doing so.” For Step 1 of the Alice test, the court indicated that the claim may have avoided being directed to an abstract idea if the claim and/or specification had indicated a specific way of carrying out the switch from a less secure server to a more secure server.

Patent applications directed to payments or other financial related processes will likely continue to receive the highest level of scrutiny with respect to patent eligibility due to the Alice decision being based on a financial/business method patent application. The fact is, many of these patent applications and/or patents likely involve novel technical features, communications, and/or processes that were overlooked and/or not considered when the patent application was drafted. In Innovation Sciences v. Amazon, the court specifically referred to a lack of detail with respect to switching between a less secure server and a more secure server. In fact, the word “switched” is mentioned only ONCE in the specification and ONCE in a flowchart. It is no wonder that the court found Innovation Science’s arguments regarding the switch between servers to be futile.

The ’140 patent claims priority to a patent application filed back in April 2000. That was obviously a different era of patent preparation and prosecution. Today, patent practitioners should consider and outline the technical aspects of processes (especially business method processes) without taking for granted that one or more steps of the process are inventive, in and of, themselves. Clearly, the switch between servers, considered to be one step in the overall process for performing an online method for a payment server, involved its own processes and/or steps. How/when was the decision made to switch the servers? What parameters were used to select the new server? How were those parameters analyzed to make the selection? What types of communications (and/or how many) were needed to perform the switch? Again, it was a different era of drafting patent applications in 2000. However, if the patent application drafter was able to predict the future, those are just a few example questions that, if answered in the claim and/or specification, would have improved Innovation Sciences’ case for patent eligibility. Moreover, to have the best chances of success, patent drafters should continue to discuss the technical problems solved by these processes (and/or by the steps of the processes) and any corresponding technical benefits.

17 Jul

https://soundcloud.com/clause-8/episode-12-gilbert-hyatt

Gil Hyatt – Clause 8 – Episode 12

Harrity & Harrity

Clause 8 Clause 8, Eli Mazour, Gil Hyatt

Eli Mazour recently interviewed the inventor of the microprocessor – Gil Hyatt – on the latest episode of the Clause 8 Podcast. Gil talks about devoting his life to innovation, licensing patents for hundreds of millions of dollars, and getting stuck in USPTO’s Sensitive Applications Warning System (SAWS) program. #IntellectualProperty #Patents #Podcast

15 Jul

How to Protect Your Client’s Reputation While Also Protecting Their Intellectual Property (IP)

Harrity & Harrity

Articles Josh Falkiewicz, patent preparation

By Joseph “Josh” Falkiewicz, Associate

An attorney that drafts a patent application must consider a multitude of issues to provide strong protection for a client’s IP. The patent application should be accurate from a technical standpoint while also satisfying statutory requirements of patentability (e.g., 35 USC §101, §102, §103, & §112). At the same time, the drafting attorney must also consider how the publication of the patent application or patent may impact the client’s reputation.

Journalists often misinterpret the publication of a patent as a statement by the client regarding its current actions or future intentions. This can cause problems with how people perceive the client if statements within the patent mischaracterize the client’s approach to sensitive issues, such as privacy. Therefore, the drafting attorney should write the patent application in a way that positively reflects – or at least avoids negative reflection – on the client.

For example, a patent describing steps for obtaining and storing personal information of individuals might raise a variety of privacy concerns. Therefore, the drafting attorney should also include, as part of the written description, statements explaining that implementations described in the patent are compliant with privacy laws of one or more jurisdictions, that the personal information is collected only after obtaining consent, that encryption is used to protect the security and/or integrity of the personal information, and/or the like. To provide a more specific example, if the disclosed subject matter involves capturing images or video of a particular area (e.g., a loading dock, an office, a home, and/or the like), the drafting attorney should include an example in the specification that illustrates how an individual would consent to being monitored, an example showing how the image data or video data is encrypted before being transmitted over a network, and/or the like.

Furthermore, the drafting attorney may want to include, in the written description, one or more additional examples that describe how the disclosed subject matter handles situations involving non-consenting individuals. For example, a camera or a drone may capture an image of a loading dock to verify whether a product has been delivered. What happens if an image of the loading dock also includes an image of a non-consenting individual that was walking by? By providing a thorough description of these situations in the patent application, the drafting attorney can help create a positive reputation of the client by illustrating that the client cares about privacy of its customers. This approach also reduces the likelihood of a skeptical or an antagonistic reader promoting negative press about the client based on the patent.