In patent licensing, preparation is the key to success. It is generally understood that this applies to assertive licensing programs but many companies are proactively doing extensive preparations in the expectation that their products will be accused of patent infringement.

• A chip manufacturer proactively searches out a competitor’s patents that disclose technology similar to their, soon to be released product, modifies their design to clearly avoid infringement, and obtains legal and technical non-infringement opinions in advance of the product release.
  
  
• A technology company is planning to release a product in a jurisdiction where they have few patents and an aggressive, direct competitor. They search out and acquire patents related to their competitors products and build their cross licensing case in advance.
  

GIS has the experience and mix of Patent Agents and technical experience to work with our clients to provide the above services professionally and economically.

With the advancement in technology and the high level integration of comprehensive features into a system-on-a chip (SoC) it becomes complex to determine if a “feature of interest” has been implemented or adopted by a system. Let me be more specific with this illustration.

Smart phones, or any battery operated portable devices of today, include many levels of power management. From screen shut-down after so many seconds of use, to increasing available power to a power amplifier when jammer levels have been detected, to shutting down or power gating voltage domains of a chip, complex power management circuitry and software algorithms come into play. No matter which level of power management is of interest to you, if you’re interest is to prove infringement of a patent claim, you will need to show that the product is capable of the power management feature and that it implements or has adopted that power management feature.

Datasheets, programmer’s manuals and white papers are all good places to find information about power management. For example, the ARM documents are quite thorough in providing information on optional power domains and how to control power to the domains.

Excerpt from ARM Cortex-A8 Technical Reference Manual

Despite the availability of literature, at the chip or system level, frequently the power management features that the chip or system is capable of, is not necessarily implemented or adopted by the product – this may be a simple cost saving issue. Particularly, implementing fewer optional features requires less software and integration.

How can you prove that a system or chip has adopted a power management feature? GIS has opted to analyze the product’s Operating System (OS) software (SW). We have found that the OS will include layers of power management functions which can be analyzed and understood.
For example, the SW analysis of the Apple iPhone showed that Apple has chosen to implement the ARM power and clock gating features.

Excerpts from a disassembled OS file

Further, we have learn that Samsung has chosen to implement power gating of various power domains within their cell phone processors

Excerpts from diagnostic messages in a disassembled OS file

Many other features or functions can be analyzed via software. Here we see a jammer detection function, again implemented in a smart phone.

Excerpts from diagnostic messages in a disassembled OS file

Are you curious about this type of analysis? We would be happy to discuss with you in more detail the benefits and advantages of SW analysis to support your infringement claim.

The U.S. Senate recently passed the America Invents Act on March 8, 2011. This major patent reform initiative has been under debate for at least six years and is considered by some people to be the most significant patent reform in 60 years. Of particular interest is a move from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system. Under the new provisions Sections 102 and 103 of the Patent Act would be significantly amended. Particularly, the amendments focus on the patent applicant’s “effective filling date”, with some exceptions, and prior art before that date. Under new section 102(a)(1), prior art would be classified as “printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention” and under section 102(a)(2) as issued patents and applications naming other inventors and effectively filed before the effective filing date (subject to priority claims). New section 102(b) provides exceptions such as 1-year grace period before the effective filing date for disclosures made by the inventor, joint inventor, or a third party who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor.

Changes to the Patent Act such as those described above will have a significant impact on the patenting and licensing in the United States. While some entities in favor of a first-to-file system argue that the amendment will result in a reduction in legal challenges, others argue that a move to such a system is a drawback to small entrepreneurs that may lack the resources to quickly file applications. In addition, the proposed changes do increase the scope of prior art to invalidate a patent. On another note, significant provisions were stripped from the bill prior to passing of the Act. Particularly, the proposed limitations on damages appear to have been dropped leaving the matter to the courts.