Set micro-grid launch micro-channel IC WeChat public number: 'Daily IC', real-time release of major news, every day IC, every day set of micro-network, micro-into a!
1.Veeco received initial injunction against SGL, semiconductor will be affected;
On November 2, Veeco, a maker of organic metal chemical vapor deposition system (MOCVD) equipment, announced that the New York East District Court agreed Veeco's initial injunction against SGL Carbon, LLC (SGL) , A supplier of wafer carriers to AMEC, according to statistics, at present, the first three domestic LED chip makers purchase machines in this year, Veeco and Semiconductor half each half. Commented that the ban may make a lot of losses.
The ban forbids SGL from selling wafer carriers for baseless metalorganic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) using Veeco's patented technology, including wafer carriers designed for the AMEC MOCVD system.
John R. Peeler, chairman and chief executive officer of Veeco, said: "This ruling confirms the strength of Veeco's intellectual property and its global patent portfolio. Veeco is committed to intellectual property and is firmly committed to safeguarding its significant R & D investment, including Its patents in the United States, Europe and Asia, especially in China.
The decision came into force immediately, prohibiting SGL from shipping wafer carriers using Veeco's patented technology without the express authorization of Veeco, which also means SGL is prohibited from offering wafer carriers for all AMEC MOCVD systems.
The court also ruled that although SGL had contrary contention, there was a good chance that Veeco's claim that 'the Veeco wafer carrier patent for a baseless MOCVD reactor was infringed by SGL and the patent is valid' was highly probable. "SGL argued , Whose wafer carrier is based on AMEC specifications, the ruling shows that AMEC does not respect Veeco's intellectual property.
In the patent case, a preliminary injunction is rare because very strict legal requirements exist for a jury to issue a lock-up order before a patent infringement decision is made, and thus the ruling shows the apparent infringement of Veeco's intellectual property by SGL and AMEC .
Veeco filed a patent infringement lawsuit against SGL Carbon, LLC and SGL Carbon SE in a federal court in the Eastern District of New York on April 12, 2017. SGL manufactures wafer carriers for baseless MOCVD systems In addition to the interim injunctions, Veeco is seeking permanent bans and financial compensation.
In addition, Veeco announced on November 1 a strategic move with ALLOS Semiconductors (ALLOS) to demonstrate the 200mm GaN ingot for blue / green micro-LED production. Has moved its proprietary epitaxial technology to the Propel single-wafer MOCVD system to enable the production of micro-LEDs on existing silicon production lines.
'With the Propel chamber, we have an MOCVD technology that enables high-yield GaN epitaxy to meet all the requirements of micro-LED devices on 200mm silicon production lines,' said Burkhard, CEO of ALLOS Semiconductor Slischka says so.
'In less than a month we have validated our technology at Propel and have obtained a crack-free, non-reflowed wafer with a warpage of less than 30 microns, high crystal quality and excellent thickness uniformity, Wavelength uniformity is less than 1 nanometer. With Veeco, ALLOS is looking forward to furthering the technology in the micro-LED industry. '
Micro-LED display technology from<30x30平方微米的红, 绿和蓝(RGB)无机LED组成, 这些LED被转化为显示屏背板, 以形成亚像素. 与有机LED (OLED) 和液晶显示 (LCD) 相比, 这些高效的LED直接发射功耗更低, 却可以为移动显示器, 电视和可穿戴式计算机提供优异的亮度和对比度. Micro-LED 的制造要求优质, 均匀的外延晶圆, 以满足显示屏的产量和成本控制的要求.
'Veeco's TurboDisc technology provides a larger process window than its competitor's MOCVD platform, so Propel delivers first-class uniformity while still achieving superior film quality,' Veteco Senior Vice President and General Manager, MOCVD Operations Said Dr. Peo Hansson.
'The combination of Veeco's leading MOCVD expertise and ALLOS's Gallium Nitride Epitaxial Wafer Technology enables our customers to develop low-cost micro-LEDs for new applications in new markets.' LED inside
Qualcomm Apple Battle: the patent and anti-monopoly system contest;
If the two sides of the transaction or confrontation are evenly matched Apple and Qualcomm, there will be a more obvious competitive constraint in the market. No one may be as powerful as imagined, so it is usually not a typical scenario that the government needs to intervene on the basis of antitrust law.
It is easy to recall the words 'technical standards, patent infringement, antitrust', etc. The most valuable asset of Qualcomm, the largest patent giant in the field of communications, is being incorporated into the most prevalent technological standards in the world today (3G, 4G, 5G) patent, often referred to as the SEP, because of the inevitable use of the communications industry, which from time to time is also considered to have the market dominance of these patent licensed markets and is licensed worldwide for its licensing While subject to "abuse of market dominance," the antitrust law enforcement questioned.
But recently, Qualcomm filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple against the Beijing Intellectual Property Court, but it is not directly related to the standard essential patents.
In the lawsuit, Qualcomm alleged that Apple allegedly infringed its use of three non-standard essential patents, including power management and Force Touch touch-related technologies used by the iPhone, requesting the court to rule a ban on the iPhone in China.
Patent litigation as a strategic deployment
From a purely legal point of view, the two giants may experience a lengthy litigation process: Apple is likely to challenge the validity of a patent by the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office, and the court will therefore suspend the hearing pending on the validity of the patent As a result, the review committee's decision is likely to be prosecuted and returned to the Beijing Intellectual Property Court for first instance and may be appealed to the Beijing Higher People's Court.
From the procedural point of view, if the final patent is to remain valid, then the Beijing Intellectual Property Court will hear whether the infringement has been established and try it again.
In other words, it is almost impossible to obtain a bargain in a year or two on whether the iPhone will be barred by Qualcomm's lawsuit.
Patent litigation in the communications industry should not be treated as orphans in the isolated lawsuit in the past in Chinese court patent litigation, the main goal is to implement its patent licensing business, urging its use of its standard essential patent communications companies pay licensing fees, such as last year's Qualcomm With Meizu's patent lawsuit, the two parties reached a license agreement and reconciliation ended.This Qualcomm will years of the most important clients to court, revealed a very unusual meaning.
According to Qualcomm, Apple's handsets have been using their baseband chips for nearly a decade, and Apple did not complain about licensing fees in the past. In fact, Qualcomm's patent licenses for Apple's handsets are not reached directly with Apple, but with Apple foundries Signed a license agreement, which is involved in the battle of Apple Qualcomm Foxconn, and Shuo, Wistron and Compal with the intensification of conflicts, these foundries have also stopped to pay royalties to Qualcomm licensing, and Qualcomm in May this year, at The United States filed a lawsuit against this.
In the melee context, Qualcomm's non-standard patent infringement claim against Apple was mainly intended not to license these patents but rather to be a demonstration.
In the previous series of Qualcomm antitrust rulings, behind the projection of Apple's presence, and Qualcomm in launching this wave of 'counter-offensive' seems to have been trying to put up with it.
Qualcomm series antitrust case ruled points
Qualcomm's main business can be divided into two blocks, namely chip and patent licensing business, the former is the product, the latter is technology.
For the communications industry, the establishment of interoperability standards is undoubtedly the basis for the development of the industry in the process of the establishment of technical standards, a large number of Qualcomm patented technology because of its basic and advanced, has been incorporated into the standard and become the standard necessary patents Making the same 'FRANDs' license commitments as other standard essential patent holders constitutes a constraint on future licensing conditions, that is, to claim' unreasonably high prices' or not to be 'unreasonable Discrimination. "Antitrust enforcement in standards-essential patents often revolves around whether the FRANDs promise to be respected.
In February 2015, in addition to a fine of RMB6,088 million fined by China's National Development and Reform Commission for its antitrust administrative penalty against Qualcomm, the reasons for the recognition of Qualcomm's monopolistic behavior deserve attention.
China Development and Reform Commission that Qualcomm in the wireless standard essential patent licenses and baseband chips in both markets have market dominance in the previous market, because each standard essential patents are not substitutable, and therefore constitute a separate market, Qualcomm in each of these related markets have reached 100% market share.
The key point of this decision is that Qualcomm's license fee is too high, not to insist on a higher permit rate, wholesale net wholesale price of the machine as a basis for calculating the necessary royalties for wireless standards.For this designation, Qualcomm Accept the original permit fee of 65% discount as the rectification results, but the billing standard is still the machine price.
In addition, the decision also requires Qualcomm to correct certain practices and conditions in its licensing practice, including providing the licensee with a list of patents and not subjecting the expired patent to licensing fees; it may not compel the licensee to hold non-wireless essential patents Reverse license; shall not force the reverse permit without paying a reasonable price; may not have no reason to tying non-wireless standards essential patent license. In addition, Qualcomm in the sale of baseband chips also do not have the above conditions, nor will be licensed People do not challenge the patent license agreement as a condition of the transaction.
In general, China's National Development and Reform Commission, on the one hand, makes a quantitative judgment on the license price and maintains a more open attitude toward the specific calculation of reasonable expenses. On the other hand, it makes a qualitative judgment on certain special provisions of the license conditions, In addition, there is no more in-depth intervention on the operational model of licensing practices.
At the end of 2016, two FTC-compliant antitrust rulings by the Korea Fair Trade Commission and the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission in Taiwan in 2017 made 1.03 trillion won (5.94 billion yuan) and 23.4 billion yuan (50.96 yuan) 100 million yuan) fine.
Specific analysis, the two rulings and the idea of China's NDRC is not the same, for Qualcomm licensing practice in the object, link and mode made a deep evaluation and intervention.
Both rulings agree that Qualcomm's refusal to grant patent licenses to chipmakers that compete with itself is a violation of FRAND's promises, and Qualcomm's "no license, no chip" policy is a combination of patent licensing and chip sales Binding, using the advantages of chip supply, to avoid the FRAND commitment to force manufacturers to sign and fulfill unfair agreements.
The same is true of the FTC's prosecution of Qualcomm antitrust indictment in January 2017, which is currently pending before the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California.
Antitrust Dispute and Analysis
There are some worthy discussions on the relevant points in the two antitrust rulings in South Korea and Taiwan.
First, the issue of refusing transactions, both of which found Qualcomm's refusal to grant patent licenses to chipmakers violated the FRAND commitment, but this assertion may be simplified in the context of the concrete practice of standard essential patent licenses in the field of communications, Ignore some complicated factors.
The reason why the patentee, including Qualcomm, does not grant the chip manufacturer the patent license is because for a long time the licensing fee collection mode in the industry charges the end product (the whole mobile phone), so it is no longer necessary to provide the intermediate link Chip manufacturers charge.
If from a chip manufacturer's point of view, do not need to pay royalties in their own production processes, leaving the machine manufacturers to worry about, at least do not think this gives them extra competitive transaction costs, South Korea and Taiwan If the monopoly review authority makes this determination for the benefit of the chip maker, there are grounds for scrutiny and perfection on the grounds.
In fact, this problem is the essence of the whole machine manufacturers based on their own interests based on the principle of exhaustion of patent rights, if Qualcomm charges chip manufacturers, then in the same production chain, Qualcomm chip-based patents will not once again to the machine manufacturers Charges The manufacturer wants to be able to calculate the license fee at the chip price (which is much lower than the mobile terminal), thus reducing the overall license fee that the manufacturer needs to bear.This method is called the principle of "minimum salable unit".
Of course, such a calculation may seem wishful thinking.The final level of license fee is not determined by the license fee alone, but simply lowering the benchmark does not necessarily result in a lower overall royalty rate.
The patentee's choice of licensing to the end-product provider may not be entirely for the benefit of royalties, but may be due to operational reasons such as asymmetric information and enforcement costs, for example, when license fees are calculated on a yield basis There will be monitoring costs.
If the patentee is required to supervise the standard implementers at all levels, the cost will be greatly increased, and the choice of the relatively easy downstream manufacturers to monitor as the licensees becomes the mainstream practice of the current patentee's permission. To change this mode of practice, a substantial increase in licensing costs will be transferred to all downstream aspects of standard implementation, resulting in a decline in overall social efficiency.
There may also be scrutiny for Qualcomm's "no license, no chip" policy, which adds a more concrete factual basis. On the face of it, it is the act of 'binding' or 'tying' the chip and the patent license , And both the antitrust review authorities in South Korea and Taiwan agree that Qualcomm uses the dominance of its chip market to obtain more favorable terms on patent licensing.
This conclusion needs to be based on a concrete analysis of Qualcomm's actual behavior, such as what kind of patent is being tucked in. If it is a standard-essential patent, then according to the analysis of China's National Development and Reform Commission, Qualcomm may actually occupy a more dominant position Status, do not need to rely on chip sales to achieve.Moreover, for chip purchasers, if the chip used in the manufacturing process, will inevitably be implemented Qualcomm patents, if you do not purchase the relevant permission will fall into the risk of infringement.
Compared with the ruling of China's National Development and Reform Commission, the two rulings in South Korea and Taiwan quite force the company to fundamentally restructure its licensing model.
Incentive innovation or promote competition?
The antitrust and patent war between Qualcomm and Apple, returning to the origin of the system, is the contradiction and tension between the incentive and innovation represented by the patent system and the promotion of free competition by the antitrust system.
In general, a patent is a legal monopoly created by a legal person, which encourages innovation and promotion of investment by giving innovators a period of exclusive rights, and only through such a legal monopoly may the patentee obtain royalty or self-enforce the patent Higher profit ways to cover and benefit from innovative inputs as well as the cost of risk.
After the combination of patents and standards, the market power of the standard essential patent holder is considered to be further expanded, triggering concerns about the antitrust law, so that the standard essential patent becomes a focus of antitrust scrutiny.
However, excessive restrictions on the rights of the standard necessary patents will make such patents a weaker right and face the risk of 'reverse hijacking', which may result in reluctance of right holders with high-quality patents to participate in the standardization process, Affect the quality of the standard.
In the long run, it may also lead to the suppression of R & D investment in relevant fields, thereby curbing the innovation process in the entire field.
Therefore, to maintain a sophisticated dynamic balance mechanism to prevent excessive intervention, to maintain sufficient incentives for innovation, anti-monopoly reviewer should become the important task to be undertaken.
The purpose of the government intervention in the market is to correct the factors that cause the failure in case of market failure and urge the market players to achieve an efficient arrangement through rational negotiation and cooperation instead of trying to dismantle and reconstruct the market with reasonable factors Existing structure.
Moreover, if the two parties to the transaction or confrontation are evenly matched Apple and Qualcomm, there will be more obvious competitive constraints on the market at this time, and neither will be as powerful as imagined, so it is usually not necessary for the government to intervene on the basis of antitrust law Typical scene
3. Microsoft's new patent: HoloLens accommodate the entire 3D world map;
One of the great features of Microsoft HoloLens is the ability to hold virtual objects in a real space and find that they remain in place as you leave and return.
This impressive ability to make virtual objects persistent also in the real world is because when you first enter the space, HoloLens creates a map of the region's space and uses that data to repair the environment The object object in question. This map is stored on the device and reappears when the area is resumed.
In a 2017 Augmented Reality patent, Microsoft will speed up the scan build process after entering the environment for the first time by storing the results online and then sharing it with other HoloLens, rather than having to wait every time a user enters a new environment Recreate the surface 3D map.
The computer port is configured to receive a plurality of native 3D models of a portion of the real world environment, all generated by different augmented reality devices in a real world The global model generation module is configured to generate a global 3D model in conjunction with a native 3D model and store at least a portion The global 3D model is transmitted to devices far from the real world.The global 3D model represents a larger portion of the real world than any native 3D model.This allows the remote device to remotely explore and augment the virtual version of the real world environment.The enhanced sharing model is configured To receive rendering data from a remote device and transfer the rendering data to an augmented device of the augmented reality device in real world.The rendered data is used to render a virtual object in the augmented reality device in the real world.
The patent does not specify which data is publicly available or remains within an organization, but if the system is very large, globally shared and updated regularly by the new HoloLens owner, the system will be extremely powerful and Useful, accessible to new HoloLens users directly.
The patent also states that rendering virtual objects can also be uploaded to an online server, which is already available in the HoloLens SDK.
Microsoft is currently shipping HoloLens to businesses and more markets around the world, and the new features described in the patents are expected to be implemented in the next generation of HoloLens.
4. Apple's new patent focuses on reducing more damage to the device;
Apple has won a patent number 20170317707. The patent is intended for less potential damage to electronic devices.Of course, we all want iPhone, iPad, or even Mac laptop because if we do not Caution caused by the drop, it can minimize damage.
In particular, this patent and invention disclosure relates to proactive countermeasures and damage mitigation systems that are applicable to a variety of electronic devices including, but not limited to, mobile phones, cell phones, smartphones, tablets, personal computers, personal digital assistants, media players And other electronic devices.
Apple is supported in patent documents and various electronic devices are affected by different environments, including extreme temperature, humidity, physical pollution, and possible loss or damage (including drop, impact, compression) and so on. These effects may be related to portable electronics and mobile device applications where sensitive control and display components may be exposed to the external environment, increasing the risk of damage resulting from an accident or misuse.
Apple said although there are many alternatives to solve these problems, to solve these problems, there is still a need to improve the technology to adapt to advanced consumer electronics products and other digital devices without the limitations of the prior art.
In particular, Apple said users need a more flexible, less damaging and impacting countermeasure system that can be adapted to the ever-wider range of operating environments and scope of modern electronic devices and therefore needs to be designed and developed in full Taking into account a wider range of environmental risk factors, including decline, impact, compression, and other potential adverse effects and so on.
And these two days, we also see the drop test on the iPhone X have come out, although from some tests we see iPhone X stronger than expected, but the iPhone has never been a drop-resistant products.But Apple started It is indeed a good thing to focus on how to make the device more secure, and we also hope that this patent will be used by Apple in the future, which is also a boon to consumers.
5. Hold odd treasure 50 million U shield patent litigation latest progress: the story or will appear reversed ?;
Set micro-grid comprehensive report, Hublot shares with the Beijing Data Systems Co., Ltd. held on the odd '50 million U shield patent litigation' the latest progress according to the State Intellectual Property Office Patent Reexamination Board on November 1, 2017 made The "Decision on Review of Demand for Invalidation Claims" states that the Patent Reexamination Board is invalid against the request made by the invalidation claimor for the above-mentioned patent right (application / patent number: 200510105502.1, name of invention creation: a physical authentication method and an electronic device) Announced the request was reviewed and decided to declare part of the patent invalid.Although it is not the ultimate decision of the Huron shares and the grip U Shield patent lawsuit, but the development of the industry, the "decision" is expected to redefine the U shield patent Infringement and patent enjoyment.
In response, Hublot Shares has submitted to the Beijing Higher People's Court a request that the Beijing Higher People's Court should revoke the civil judgment of Beijing Intellectual Property Court (2015) Jingzhi Min Chu Zi No. 441 in accordance with the law and decide to dismiss the petition At present, the patent cases of holding odd shares and Hengbao shares are under further examination, of course, the "Decision" made by the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office is of course not final.
The plaintiff in the U Shield patent lawsuit was 'Nirvana' and the defendant was 'Hublot.' The plaintiff claimed that it had a patent right to ZL200510105502.1 'a physical authentication method and an electronic device' invention patent, and the defendant manufactured , The sale of a variety of USBKey products fall into the scope of protection of the plaintiff patent claim 16 constitutes an infringing product, at the same time, the defendant using the accused infringing products for online bank transfer transactions involved in the physical authentication method also fell into the patent claim 1 Of the scope of the protection, but also constitute a method of infringement, the defendant's acts have constituted a patent infringement on the plaintiff, and to the plaintiff caused tremendous economic losses, it filed a lawsuit.Required to order the defendant to stop manufacturing, sales, promised sales of allegedly infringing products , And stopped using the accused infringement method; ordering the defendant to compensate the plaintiff for economic losses of 49 million yuan and a reasonable fee of 1 million yuan for litigation expenses.
50 million U shield patent litigation case review
In fact, the information on the 'U Shield Patent Litigation' between the company and the company is the earliest that can be traced back to 2014. According to One Card World Network, in October 2014, the company held a lawsuit against Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court against its shares Patented and requested Hengbao shares to stop infringement and compensation of 1 million yuan and bear the costs of litigation, but on February 18, 2015, the odd move to withdraw.
On February 26, 2015, Nunchie filed a lawsuit again with the Beijing Intellectual Property Court to sue Hublot for infringing its invention patent, saying that the multiple USBKey products manufactured and sold by the defendant Hubble fell into the patent rights of the plaintiff The scope of protection required by 16 constitutes an infringing product. At the same time, the physical authentication method involved in the online bank transfer transaction using the sued infringing product by Hublot also falls within the protection scope of the patent claim 1 and constitutes a method infringement Qi filed a lawsuit, requesting: 1, the defendant Hublot to stop manufacturing, selling, promised to sell the allegedly infringing products, and to stop using the accused infringement method; 2, the defendant Hengbao company indemnity plaintiff economic odd 4900 Million, and a reasonable fee due to litigation costs 1000000 yuan.
On April 7, 2016, Hublot Shares received a proposal from Beijing Intellectual Property Court for "Increasing the Request for Litigation," and Clerk raised the amount of compensation for the litigation claim from RMB1 million to RMB50 million .
On December 8, 2016, Beijing Intellectual Property Court of First Instance handed down the judgment of first instance against Qi Bao Heng Bao shares patent infringement case, and adjudicated that Heng Bao shares compensate the patentee for odd economic loss of 49 million yuan and compensate for the odd legal fees 1000000 yuan.For the determination of the amount of economic loss compensation, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court of the accused infringing product sales volume and the plaintiff patents a reasonable profit make the issue.
It is reported that the actual number of allegedly infringing products sold, involving 329.97 million Bank of China; the number of other banks to buy allegedly infringing products is 619,200; Liaoning Rural Credit Bank, Shaanxi Rural Credit Bank to buy the number of alleged infringement products Is 885,300, pursuant to which Beijing Intellectual Property Court held that 4,814,200 of the alleged infringing products were sold by the defendant Hengbao to 12 banks including Bank of China.
As for the reasonable profit of products, according to the gross profit margin of single-chip second-generation USBKEY products sold by CCB to China Construction Bank in 2014 by 35.61%, the gross profit margin of single-piece second generation USBKEY products sold to Liaoning Rural Credit Cooperatives Is 30.22% .According to the gross profit margin, respectively, multiplied by the two contract price of 30 yuan, 32.5 yuan, resulting in product profits of 10.68 yuan and 9.82 yuan.Keeqi requested 10 yuan as the plaintiff each patented product profit, multiplied by The defendant Hengbao Company actually sold the number of infringing products accused to 481.42 million to 12 banks such as Bank of China and calculated the loss of plaintiff to 48.1424 million yuan and the defendant Hengbao Co. also sold to Bohai Bank and Zhejiang Rural Credit Cooperative The allegedly infringing product was above 2 million yuan in profits, and Gu Court held that the plaintiff was surprised to submit a request for compensation of 49 million yuan of economic losses from the defendant Hengbao Co. It is learned that this is the highest amount that the Beijing Intellectual Property Court since the founding of the hospital.
6. The new patent implies that Google Glass may return to installing miniature LED screens
Google Glass launched in 2013, caused a sensation, but it did not take long to fall in. In recent months, Google AR glasses have somehow returned, but new glasses have been revised to target enterprise users.
AR again looked up, Google may once again invest.In March 2016, Google applied for a patent, from the patent, fully modified hardware may appear again.
The device described in the patent is an eyeglass-framed device that displays AR information to the user using a micro-LED transparent display.
The initial launch of Google Glass had a serious problem: the display was mounted on a glass prism outside the wearer's natural field of view, and the user had to look up to see the information, use it uncomfortably and easily distract.
The device shown in the patent displays the information in front of two eyes instead of one eye, rendering the image deeper, and the patent also suggests that the micro-LED can be switched between transparent and opaque modes for display AR and VR applications. Google's technology can also be used on other devices.
Google is actually using the micro-LED screen, really interesting, because Apple acquired a company called LuxVue, the company is the main micro-LED company. There are rumors that Apple is developing AR glasses, it seems that the two companies in the AR wear architecture Coincides with the smart glasses puzzle has slowly become clearer