Post 29: Food Containers that Respond to Sound and Light

Patent# UD 6796671 shocks the user while he or she is eating. It is the result of the fertile imaginations behind the toy company known as Ruddell Design. The patent for these Contact Activated Sound and Light Generating Novelty Food Containers, covers straws, spoons, and ice pops that use YOU or your food to complete an electrical circuit. It’s kind of like having your cake and being allowed to eat it too (or something like that).

The above illustration doesn’t show much, but it is the only one available with this patent

The process begins when a user drinks through a straw as this liquid provides an electrical path between electrodes. This invention is versatile because it also includes a sound/light-emitting toy that supports a piece of candy. By licking the candy, the user provides an electrical path between the electrodes, which closes a circuit and activates the light source.

Now let’s exam this funny patent. Novel? Maybe, I can’t think anyone else who want to have this crazy idea. The idea sound like someone who has Parkinson is eating his food. Non-obvious? Not for me. The patent surprises me, but not obvious enough for me. Useful? Unless someone wants to buy it and make jokes with his friends, I don’t see how useful the patent is. For those who plan to buy it, watch out for those sneaky electrodes when you eat and drink since they are everywhere! Validity? Yes for using as a fool day toy. But definitely NO for normal use. 

Post 28: No Smoking Sign Ashtray

No matter how you may feel about smoking, this No Smoking Sign Ashtray also known as Patent# US D 500166 is sure to make you smile. The ornamental design for a no smoking sign ashtray, as shown and described. The design patent for this invention came up for review in 2004 two and-a-half weeks before the New York City Council voted to ban cigarette smoking from bars and restaurants. The designer created this ashtray to simulate the sullen, silent outrage of city smokers.

Before we get to judge this silly and funny patent. For the USPTO to issue a patent, the invention must be novel, non-obvious, and useful. Now let us take a look at this patent. When I first looked at it, I was so surprised that it is actually called a patent. Clearly, it is not novel at all for 2004. We have seen so many different kinds of ashtray before, with music, light, and so on. Non-obvious? I doubt it. The patent is kind of boring for me. I wonder if that is because I am not a smoker. While I don’t see any attraction to the consumers at all. Usefulness? Sure. A “normal” ashtray for smokers to collect ash. Validity? Hmmmm. Maybe not for me. I am sure there is someone had this design before, but did not file a patent for it. Apparently, from the news above we know the inventor filed the patent before NY voted for banning smoking from bars and restaurants, so I think it is more like a political show to attract voters’ eyes. I don’t think many people will spend money for this “great idea” patent. 

Post 27: ITC dismisses Motorola patent lawsuit against Apple

On Monday of this week, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) upheld a court ruling that Motorola Mobility’s smartphone sensor patent was invalid, delivering a bow in Google’s patent battle with archrival Apple. ITC only ruled U.S. Patent No. 6246862 on a “sensor controller user interface for portable communication device”. The patent relates to the feature that a touch screen ignores touches if the user if on a phone call and holds the device close to his head.  The technology has been used widely on iPhone and other smartphones. ITC believes that the concept of the patent protection is too obvious.

The latest Verdict states that it is impossible for Apple or Google to give their competitor a fatal blow in the patent litigation. Although such a ruling is a setback for Motorola, Apple does not win completely. Based on what we have seen so far, the patent lawsuit among mobile phone manufacturers will last a long time. What mobile manufacturers saw is not only benefit from the patent but also the market. The configuration standard of smartphones is gradually convergence. Lots of aspects of small differences, such as appearance design, display effect, become essential factors to decide the products’ difference and features. In order to maintain these features and differences and keep the advantage in intellectual property litigation, many smartphone giants start anther invisible competition.

From these ongoing patent lawsuits, we can see the changes in manufacturer’s mind. Their thoughts have changed from just winning the hearts of consumers to take legal action to undermine the competition. I think more and more cases have proved that patents are not innovative, but the stumbling block to impede the innovation of others. The patent lawsuit dispute between Apple and Motorola (Google) will let both companies injured. The patent dispute between the two did not appear to help either side; instead, it losses at both sides as well as damage the while smartphone market. Rather than spending a lot of money and energy for time-consuming sustained action, smartphone manufacturers could use it with regard to research and development or acquisitions to improve the quality of products and services. 

Post 26: HTC and Nokia Patent War: who is the winner?

HTC has raised a lot attention through its New HTC One, which uses MEMS microphone supplied by STMicroelectronics. The Rechtbank Amsterdam(Amsterdam District Court) issued a preliminary injunction on Monday against STMicroelectronics, stopping the supply of microphones to HTC that were meant to be built exclusively for Nokia until March 2014. As of now, in Germany, Nokia has 24 cases against HTC for patent infringement: 2 cases (EP 1329982 and EP 1474750) are still processing due to valid reasons; 3 cases (EP 0812120, EP 1312974 and EP 1581016) have been dismissed by the Court.

According to HTC’s statement to the media, they will not stop the HTC One delivery. In their view, they are just used the parts what are sold by the suppliers. It does not suppose to be HTC’s fault. HTC still do not have any intention to fight with Nokia around although HTC states like that. HTC said that once they use up the purchased STMicroelectronics microphones, they would enable entirely new microphone parts. HTC also states that the injunction Nokia got does not only relate to the new HTC One. From a legal point of view, the injunction only affects both Nokia and STMicroelectronics. It seems like HTC has won the patent case by staying away from the lawsuit. Nevertheless, I think HTC is the biggest loser in this war.

It seems like HTC One is a very important intelligent phone to HTC. I think it will, to a large extent, determine whether HTC can rise successfully or not. However, the injunction Nokia gets has more serious impact on the New HTC One shipment than the patent litigation based on several reasons. First of all, the ban was executed immediately and globally. Thus, when Nokia won the injunction, STMicroelectronics could not sell the product to HTC anymore globally. Second, when HTC changes their design, they will face serious problems in the field of public relations and marketing. After the New One was launched in the market, it attracted lots of consumers because of a number of unique of selling points, which also include its unique dual diaphragm design (one part grab loud radios and another group is in charge o recording requires high sensitivity sound, then combining two parts are to get a clearer and wider range).

It is no problem at all for changing the microphone design for New One, or replacing STMicroelectronics. However, it is hard to find a membrane design in MEMS microphone market that can achieve the effect as New One claimed in their advertisement. If an excellent feature cannot become true because of the injunction, how does HTC explain to its consumers? Does the price need to be fixed? Therefore, I believe the level of anxiety or even panic within HTC certainly has broken the watch.