Nokia Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. on October 22, 2009 in Federal District Court in Delaware, for Apple’s infringement of Nokia’s ten patents for Global System for Mobile communications (GSM), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) or Third Generation Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (3G WCDMA), and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) 802.11 for wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) standards.

In the patent suit, Nokia claimed that they have made various offers to Apple for the fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions of a license agreement under which each of the patents-in-suit could be licensed either individually or together with other Nokia essential patents.  However, Apple has rejected Nokia’s offers for the FRAND terms and conditions both on portfolio and on a per-patent basis and thereby refused to compensate Nokia on FRAND terms for its use of Nokia’s patent technologies, including each of the patents-in-suit.

Ilkka Rahnasto, Nokia vice-president for legal and intellectual property said that Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.

The patents-in-suit cover wireless data, speech coding, security, and encryption.  Please click the patents in the table below for more information.

U.S. Patents Title of the Invention Groups
5,802,465 Data Transmission in a Radio Telephone Network Wireless Data patents
6,359,904 Mobile Telephone Network
6,694,135 Measurement Report Transmission in a Telecommunication System
6,775,548 Access Channel for Reduced Access Delay in a Telecommunications System
7,092,672 Reporting Cell Measurement Results in a Cellular Communication System
5,862,178 Method and Apparatus for Speech Transmission in a Mobile Communications System Speech Coding patents
5,946,651 Speech Synthesizer Employing Post-Processing for Enhancing the Quality of the Synthesized Speech
6,882,727 Method of Ciphering Data Transmission in a Radio System Security and Encryption patents
7,009,940 Integrity Check in a Communication System
7,403,621 System for Ensuring Encrypted Communication After Handover

Law firms do not wast any time living up to the “bill, bill, bill” system.  Partners expect you to bill the targeted billable hours (ranging between 1800 hours – 2400 hours).  Sounds innocent enough, right?  If you translate the targeted billable hours a year to billable hours a week, you would have to actually work longer to meet the billable hours.

According to the survey, it consistently shows that an associate must spend three hours in the office for every two hours of billable work.  Associates can’t simply bill time.  They strives to record, in their daily timesheet, each telephone call, mail and firm memos they have to read and respond, go to meetings, read legal publications, draft agreement, and eat lunch.  The result is relentless time-keeping from arrival to departure each day, and often at home again at night.

Being on the billing treadmill is exhausted.  In truth, most of the associates I know don’t like the billable hour.

Not necessary all your recorded billable hours consider billable.  Assume you work 2,520 hours and bill 1,800 hours.  If, for example, your  30 billable hours recorded in the timesheet are canceled by the partner for some reason, you would have to work 48 hours more ( 2,520 + 48 = 2,568 hours) and meet the targeted billable 1800 hours.

To help you understand the impact that a law firm’s billable hour expectations will have on your lifestyle, please click on the these following images.

The Claims and Continuations Final Rule (“Final Rule”) has finally come to an end.

In October 8, 2009, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) has reached agreement with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) to join the USPTO’s motion to dismiss its litigation over the Final Rule.  The USPTO is withdrawing all Final Rule regulations under dispute.  The withdrawal of the Final Regulations means that the patent system that had been in place before this litigation will remain in place.  The USPTO is revising the rules of practice in this final rule to remove the changes in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.

[For those readers who are interested in the background of the suit and the definition of the Final Rules (obviously the rules are HISTORY), please click the following link.  Otherwise, you can skip the link and proceed to the next post.]

continue reading “Final Rule.”

Henry Blair of Glen Ross in the county of Montgomery, and the State of Maryland, received a utility patent on October 14 1834 issued by the U.S. Patent office on a corn seed planter.  Blair was identified in the Patent Office records as “a colored man.”   The corn seed planter allows farmers to plan more corn seed faster with less labor, was assigned 8447X .

Henry Blair signed his patent with an “X” because he could not write.  Henry Blair was born in 1807 and died in 1860.

corn seed planter

Continue reading “Corn Seed Planter.”

Today, Pitney Bowes announced that it has filed a lawsuit in California Central District Court against Zumbox, alleging that Zumbox’s paperless mail service infringes on its U.S. patents: No. 7,478,140; No. 7,058,586; and No. 6,690,773.  Pitney Bowes said the lawsuit seeks to enjoin Zumbox from further infringement, among other things.

Though known for traditional mail services, Pitney Bowes has expanded its capabilities into online communications, with more than $200 million invested in research and development in 2008, mostly in software products.   Recently, Pitney Bowes was ranked #107, in Software Magazine’s Software 500, with software revenue of $400 million.

USPTO publishes US issued patents every TUESDAY and US publication patent applications every THURSDAY.

Similarly, PCT publishes patent applications every FRIDAY.

For more information, please goto IP resources.

A question confronting every manager or engineer who handles intellectual property (IP) issues, or the attorney working with this person, is: What is the most appropriate IP protection for a particular technology, concept, or idea?

Although this protection question can, and should, be answered by your company’s IP department or counsel, they are generally not in a position initially to identify and analyze the IP opportunities.  As a practical matter, the IP department or counsel cannot actively and continuously search the company’s engineering and marketing departments for technological innovations and ideas warranting IP protection.

The managers and engineers who are valuable contributors to the company’s overall profitability identify IP opportunities that a company can obtain and commercialize.  They use an analytical framework for approaching each IP situation to determine the appropriate type of IP protection for the particular technology, concept, or idea.  For more information about this framework, please click The Protection Analysis Model.