A explanation of the patent system from Renentech at the Yahoo board:
post.messages.yahoo.com
Better to say nothing than to say the wrong thing. IDC has far more than 14 US patents in the area of CDMA. Last July, I sold my company - the nation's leading patent service company. Most of my adult life was spent researching or instructing the research of patents for patent attorneys. Sunday evening, I traveled back to the DC area determined to put this IDC v QCOM, MOT, NOK, etc. to rest through careful, hands-on research. Before I arrived, I knew they had more than 14 patents on this subject. Believe me, you can find more reliable information about companies on message boards than through pontificates like Motley Fool because, while on message boards, you are poised to identify fraud and careless research, whereas quality message board posters generally identify their sources. If Yahoo will indulge me, it appears that a brief patent primer is in order.
IDC appears to have, in case you are interested, more than 60 US patents specifically dealing with CDMA. Qualcom has CDMA patents, too. So does Ericsson. So does Motorola. So what? Let's begin with an example. About the dawn of the electric age, an inventor - Person A - invented an iron with electric coils inside. This way, the iron doesn't have to be heated with fire. Heat from an electric coil does the trick conveniently. His patent, then, would exclude anyone from manufacturing or selling an iron with electric coils therein without his permission for a period of 17 years from the date of issue (now 20 years from the date of filing).
About a year later, another person - Person B - was staring at Person A's iron and came up with another great invention. He designed a thermostatic control for an iron having electric coils therein whereby the temperature of the iron may be manually controlled. Would the Patent Office grant Person B a patent? Yes. Will Person B be allowed to manufacture or sell his new, patented invention? No. At least, not until Person A's patent expires. The reason? Because in order for Person B to manufacture and sell his invention, he would have to manufacture Person A's patented invention.
Herein lies the heart of the debate among IDC and others having similar technology. In a word, IDC owns the patent to the electric iron, so to speak. That is to say, IDC was the first to patent a system for mobile or fixed wireless radios that converts an analog signal to digital, compresses the signal, merges the compressed signal with other compressed signals into a single transmit channel bit stream ..., etc. In other words, TDMA. This original patent (no. 4,675,863 to Paneth et al) can be viewed in text format by accessing the Patent Office database at: www.uspto.gov
How do I know this was the first patent? Good question. Glad you asked. (Continued...) When a patent is applied for, it is the responsibility of the applicant to inform the Patent Office (PTO) of all known, relevant prior art. Prior art may include any prior public disclosure of the teaching of the subject. Thus, literature is often cited. Minutes of a previous seminar on a subject can be cited. I understand that a passage in the Bible was once cited as prior art. Typically, though, previously issued patents are cited as prior art.
The PTO does not rely entirely on what was cited by the applicant. A Patent Examiner will search through the known prior art, as well, before determining the novelty, or patentability of an invention. In the case of the above-referenced patent to Paneth et al (the 863 patent), there were eight (8) prior US patents cited.
One of these patents, which I believe was assigned to (or owned by) Motorola was a great reference dealing with the method of digitizing an analog signal, compressing it, then merging it with similarly compressed digital signals in time-division fashion into a single transmit bit stream. As I recall, the signals were digitized on the ground, directed to a satellite, then picked up by ground-bases. It was designed for the television industry. Each compressed signal, therefore, could be separate TV station feeds. The Motorola patent further discloses means for storing data in memory that would be used to essentially sort out the respective compressed signals.
Another good reference, which on the surface might seem comically unrelated, solved the problem of taxi drivers all trying to talk to the dispatcher at the same time by assigning each driver a given increment of time within which to convey his message. There were further means where, if only two (2) of, say, a total of fifteen (15) drivers needed to talk, the third increment of time would be available for the next driver to request a time slot. It sounds complicated, but the most important aspect of this patent, I believe, is that it teaches the use of transmitting radio signals to multiple mobile radios in a time-divided fashion, where each mobile radio receives access on an as-need basis.
Neither of these references, or any of the other six (6) references cited on the 863 patent contained all the elements of the subject invention. However, the Patent Examiner probably argued with IDC that it would be obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the "art" (the specific field of technology defined by the subject invention) could combine the teachings of the Motorola patent with those of the taxi radio system to arrive at IDC's invention. This is how the PTO rejects a patent based on "obviousness". (When Person B applied for his iron with a thermostat, the Patent Examiner probably cited Person A's patent together with another patent showing an electric griddle having a thermostat. If Person B wanted his patent, he had to convince the Patent Examiner that it wouldn't be obvious to combine the two, and/or that new and different results were achieved.). Since the 863 patent did issue, IDC no doubt argued successfully the non-obviousness of combining the two.
So, IDC invented TDMA. But, is(are) their patent(s) any good? (Continued ...)
The most common form of patent research is the preliminary patentability search. This is when a patent attorney requests, on behalf of an inventor, that an invention be researched against prior art to determine whether or not it is original. He does this, of course, so as not to waste the PTO's time and his client's money by filing for an invention that has clearly already been patented or previously revealed in the public domain. Another type of search is a "validity" search. This is often requested by a company, say Company A, because they want to manufacture and sell something that is patented by Company B without having to pay royalties. If Company A can find compelling enough "prior art" to prove that Company B's patent was not original, they can challenge its validity either through litigation, or through a more recent procedure known as ReExamination by the PTO.
In the early 90's Motorola challenged the validity of IDC's most core TDMA patents. One need only glance at the citation page of the decision in this case to see that Motorola left no stone unturned in their effort to invalidate IDC's core TDMA patents. Reports have it that the trial was nasty. In the end, the jury was persuaded that, in light of the additional prior art presented by Motorola, IDC's core patents were invalid, and therefore, Motorola was not guilty of infringement. Most legal scholars familiar with this case - and no doubt Motorola, as well, but don't expect them to admit it - view the jury's decision as a miscarriage of justice. IDC's attorneys appeared to have made some procedural errors during trial that limited their ability to effect a favorable appeal.
The outcome of this trial was fresh on the minds of the Supreme Court Justices when shortly thereafter, they instituted what is known as a Markam hearing which is conducted prior to a complex patent trial, and where the legal interpretation of patent claims is the responsibility of a Master who is appointed by the Judge. No longer will the jury make legal evaluations of patent validity. That's all well and fine, but where does that leave IDC?
IDC made the PTO aware of the prior art that the jury used to base its decision in favor of Motorola and asked them to ReExamine their patents. In the meanwhile, Ericsson challenged IDC, as well, hoping to use the results of the Motorola decision to their favor. The judge and both parties agreed, however, to await the outcome of the ReExamination procedure. In November of last year, the PTO confirmed the validity of their core patents. Thus, Ericsson must now proceed to trial with a court-appointed Master who is expert at intellectual property law, and the reaffirmation of the subject patents, as well as a judge who has shown much patience thus far. Should Ericsson proceed and loose, they would likely have to place the judgement amount into escrow and be enjoined against utilizing any of IDC's technology as they await the results of a most certain appeal.
As far as the US market is concerned, the jury is still out, as they say. A European appeals court upheld IDC's patents, and Nokia in Japan has already aligned with IDC. These are the parts of the world where IDC's technology is utilized anyway. Qualcom's narrow-band CDMA is the predominant technology here in the states.
What does all this mean? And, why am I here anyway? (Conclusion ...)
From an examination of IDC's core TDMA patents (4,675,863; 4,817,089; 4,912,705; 5,022,024; 5,119,375; 5,121,391 and others) one can see that IDC appears to be in an advantaged position in the wireless sector. But, you've heard this before. Why not reserve an hour or so this weekend to research this for yourself. God forbid that you should believe me if I told you that IDC has more than 160 US patents in wireless communications, and that Qualcom has had fewer than 18 issued to them since 1972 - even though this is a fact.
If you wish to commit yourself to doing your own due diligence, and would appreciate a little navigational assistance with the uspto page, please email me: renntech750@yahoo.com.
When I have completed my research, I will post an entire list of Qualcom's and IDC's US patents, as well as European and World applications. European and World applications are laid-open six months after filing. This means one can gain insight into more recently developing technologies that are expected to be patented in the near future.
Renntech
|
