1. Huawei and Samsung's latest patent warfare: Huawei's patents involved in the case were found valid!
According to a report by the China Intellectual Property News, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court recently concluded that the plaintiffs Samsung and the defendant State Intellectual Property Office Patent Reexamination Board and third-party Huawei Technologies, Huizhou Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Tianjin Samsung Communications Technology Co., Ltd. The invalidation of the invention of the patent right requested the administrative dispute case, and the maintenance of Huawei's patent right (patent number: ZL201010104157.0) was effective.
In fact, the patent dispute between Huawei and Samsung has to be traced back to 2016. On May 25, 2016, Huawei filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Samsung in the United States and China, including the Northern California Federal Court and Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. Huawei The indictment claims that Samsung infringed on 11 US patents. Most of the 11 patents are related to LTE (4G) technology and also to 2G/3G technology.
On June 27, 2016, Huawei sued Samsung and other companies to the Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court, claiming Samsung's latest Samsung Galaxy S7 (G9300) totaling 16 Samsung mobile phone products infringing on patent infringement and claiming 80.5 million yuan (including reasonable expenses). 500,000 yuan) ;
On July 22, 2016, Samsung sued Beijing Hengtongda Department Store Co., Ltd. in Beijing Intellectual Property Court. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. infringed on its patents. In two of the cases, it claimed compensation for economic losses and reasonable expenses of 80.5 million yuan. 1.61 billion yuan;
On April 6, 2017, Quanzhou Intermediate People's Court found that the Samsung product had a total of 22 products that constituted patent infringement and ruled that Samsung would stop manufacturing, license sales, and sell terminal equipment equipped with competing patent technologies, including 22 Galaxy series mobile phones. At the same time, Samsung is required to compensate Huawei for the economic loss of 80 million yuan and the reasonable cost of 500,000 yuan to stop the infringement;
On July 18th, Samsung filed an invalidation request with the Patent Reexamination Board on the patent involved. The result was obvious. The Patent Reexamination Board rejected Samsung's request.
In the previous patent litigation, Samsung not only sold more than 20 intelligent terminal products but also faced high compensation. In the administrative litigation for invalidation of patent right claims, Samsung lost another game.
In this regard, Wang Yanhui, the secretary general of the Mobile China Alliance, said that in the past two years, it was not Ericsson that had provoked the mobile phone patent war in the Chinese market. Nokia, but Huawei, targeted not only Samsung, but also many domestic mobile phone brands. I believe this year The trend will intensify.
2. No fear of third-party challenges: Heraeus successfully defended its basic patents;
The micro-network news was reviewed by the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office of China. Heraeus, a German technology group, successfully defended two patents concerning electrolytic capacitor production methods—CN101263568B and CN101263569B.
'Heraeus is very grateful to the State Intellectual Property Office of China for making a correct decision. We firmly oppose other parties infringing on our patents and support Heraeus customers in cracking down on counterfeit capacitor products.' Bernd Stenger, senior vice president of Heraeus, said firmly.
As a technology leader in the field of conductive polymers, Heraeus has more than 50 patent families to protect its important inventions in solid-state capacitors, conductive coatings and other organic electronics related fields.
Heraeus's CLEVIOS K, a water-based conductive polymer product based on polyethylene dioxythiophene (PEDOT), offers more possibilities for the innovative design of tantalum capacitors and aluminum capacitors. Over the past ten years, even in poor conditions Under environmental conditions, the capacitor's capacitance, series resistance, and high stability performance can also remain stable. At the same time, the capacitor's production process is also constantly optimized to further help customers increase output.
Recently, two in China authorized Heraeus basic patent was challenged by a third party. These two patents related to the production method using a particle size of the conductive polymer electrolytic capacitor 1-100 nm dispersion. China State Intellectual Property The Patent Reexamination Board rejected the third party's lawsuit challenging the validity of Heraeus' patents and ruled that the original authorization of the patent remains valid.
3. Sogou, Baidu input method patent dust settled! Sogou lost 14 games in a row;
According to the micro-network news, recently, the Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled on the last batch of Baidu and Sogou 'Internet Patent First Case' cases. The litigation initiator Sogou ended in a 14-game losing streak, which also means that China’s Internet industry has been the largest ever The size of a patent lawsuit has settled.
It is understood that since October 2015, Sogou has filed a patent infringement litigation request for two consecutive rounds, alleging that Baidu infringed the patent rights enjoyed by it. The case involved a total of 17 related patents, and the total amount claimed was as high as 260 million yuan. Due to the large number of cases and the huge amount of claims, the industry has been called 'the first case of Internet patents'.
A method and system for retrieving a candidate word sequence in a Chinese input method, a method for inputting a network resource address, an input method system, and a system for retrieving a candidate word sequence in a Chinese input method for the highly anticipated 'a system and method for updating a Chinese word database.' In the case, the court pronounced: 'Reject all claims of the plaintiff Beijing Sogou Technology Development Co., Ltd., Baidu's input law does not exist infringement', and the litigation initiator Sogou lost 14 games in a row, decimating the closing of 11 patents.
Among them, the most well-known is the 'Method and System for Entering Word Art or Graphics into Applications' (Patent No. 200610127154.2) Patent Litigation - Since the amount of a single patent claim amounted to 100 million yuan, the lawsuit was also called '000 yuan price patent case'.
In the face of Sogou's prosecution, Baidu filed a patent invalidation request with the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office according to law.
According to the Chinese patent law, when there is a dispute over a patent right, the parties have the right to file a patent invalidation request with the Patent Reexamination Board, requesting the review of the validity of the patent involved. If the patent is found to be inconsistent with the patent law and its implementation details The conditions for granting a patent right may be declared invalid after review by the Patent Reexamination Board and all legal rights lost to the patent right are lost.
After the Patent Reexamination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office has successively conducted public hearings and judgments, of the 17 patents sued by Sogou in all of Baidu’s lawsuits, 11 patents were declared invalid or partially invalid, including the aforementioned “100 million yuan patent price” case. Afterwards, Sogou withdrew 10 other lawsuits including the 'Yuan Million Dollar Case', setting a record of '14 consecutive defeats'.
4. Apple's latest VR patent exposure makes the self-driving car ride more enjoyable;
In recent weeks, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has published many of Apple’s patents on virtual reality technology, but the latest one has attracted the most attention.
In the patent, Apple described a set of VR systems designed for self-driving cars. It can dramatically change the interior of the car and the environment inside the car, bringing more fun to the occupants.
Although the main purpose of this system is to alleviate the symptoms of motion sickness, it also shows Apple's paralysis of VR and self-driving cars from the side. Apple believes that the future car can have no windows, and can use the internal display and VR helmet to show the real Or virtual environment.
For example, a mini car can use this system to 'expand' its own interior space or become a completely different type of car. VR scenes can be combined with moving seats and motion sensors to make real car movements Into the virtual experience.
In addition, the user can also perform other activities through this VR system, such as letting the author read for you, attending virtual conferences, or loading car games or movie scenes. Since driving is entirely the responsibility of the car itself, passengers can take the real thing. The environment is replaced with the streetscape of different cities, making the journey more interesting.
Three years ago, it was reported that Apple was developing a self-driving car, code-named Project Titan, and several executives later confirmed the news vaguely. Although their focus has shifted from all-electric vehicles to autonomous driving systems, Apple still continues to test self-driving cars and is conducting related technology research and development. However, before the patent was exposed, we did not know that Apple had plans to develop a VR system. Tencent Digital
5. Apple suffers patent litigation again Plaintiff seeks to ban Apple Watch
According to reports from foreign media, Omni MedSci, a US health technology start-up company, said in a patent petition submitted to the court a few days ago that Apple is learning about Dr. Mohammed N. Islam, founder and chief technology officer of Omni. After the patent application, the related infringement technology was still implanted in its Apple Watch heart rate sensor, so the court sought the patent litigation.
According to reports, in Omni MedSci's lawsuit filed against the Eastern Texas District Court, the company mainly mentioned four patents related to optical technology in wearable devices. These patents can help the device measure and monitor the user's Physiological characteristics.
Specifically, these patents describe methods for measuring different components of a user's blood using LED-based sensor technology. Each patent description covers a wearable device that utilizes specific light sources and receivers such as infrared LED arrays. The module can measure user blood in a non-intrusive manner. At the same time, Apple's Apple Watch also uses similar technology to obtain user heart rate data.
These technologies were originally invented by Islamic Islam. The patent ownership belongs to Omni MedSci, and the registered patent numbers are No. 9651533 and No. 9757040 respectively.
In response, Islamabad demanded that Apple compensate for infringement, litigation costs, and seek an initial or permanent ban on the infringement of a patented product, that is, Apple Watch in this case.
The question remains
According to the contents of the litigation documents, Islamabad had joined Dr. Michael O'Relly, an expert in medical technology, and Apple's hardware manager, McCreary Hillman, as early as June 2014 and earlier that year. MichaelHillman) had a meeting and discussed related patent applications.
Three months later, Apple released Apple Watch in September 2014. Subsequently, Hillman invited Islam to visit Apple's other team in February 2015. At that time, it was less than two months from opening Apple Watch. In the two weeks after this visit, Islamabad modified the patent application he was still applying for and added words such as wearable devices and LED optical sensors.
The litigation documents further pointed out that Greg Joswiak, vice president of product marketing for Apple, had sent an e-mail sent on July 14, 2016 inviting Islam and the Apple team to discuss patent technologies that are still in the application stage. During the meeting on July 18th, Islamabad shared these patents with Apple employees. Moreover, Islamabad continued to discuss its patent applications with unnamed Apple personnel after the meeting.
In December last year, Islamem sent e-mails to Apple executives Raleigh asking them to 'identify' patents 9651533 and 9757040, and wished to clarify whether these patented technologies had been adopted by Apple Watch.
After that, Raleigh replied Islam's email saying: 'We (Apple) do not want to receive any information about your intellectual property.'
However, the timeline given by Islam in the litigation was questionable because Apple had completed the development of the Apple Watch heart rate sensor before its first meeting with Apple executives in 2014 and the way this sensor works. The details of Apple's reliance on OmniMedSci's patent are doubtful. On the contrary, after the meeting with the Apple team, Islam’s modification of intellectual property seems more worthy of doubt.
Although Apple has not commented on this matter yet, the fact that the company is willing to meet with the founder of this startup suggests that Apple will further study more advanced sensor technologies. As Islamic Islam described in all his patents, the laser will be Traditional LED collects blood signals more effectively.
It should be pointed out that this is not the first time that Apple has been sued by the startup for patent issues. Late last year, Israeli startup Corefotonics sued Apple for using its dual camera with the iPhone 7 Plus and iPhone 8 Plus. Patent related to camera technology and hiring Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, one of Samsung's Queen's law firms, to file a lawsuit with Apple.
As of now, there is no more news out of this patent litigation. Tencent Technology