LG Electronics sues Chinese TV company

LG Electronics has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese TV company Hisense. Hisense is a major TV company in China that ranked fourth in sales volume in the first half of this year in the global TV market and is expanding its business by starting its business in the US market. LG Electronics has attracted attention by filing aggressive lawsuits, including not only Hisense's Chinese subsidiary but also its US subsidiary.

pixabay.com

Patent infringement issued

According to LG Electronics, Hisense infringed four patents. They’ve already sent warnings of infringement and asked for negotiations and settlements, but Hisense has remained in insincere attitude. After all, LG Electronics has filed a lawsuit to solve the problem.

A choice to hold a Chinese supplier in check

It is reported that LG Electronics filed a lawsuit against Chinese TV companies for 12 years after 2007. Industry officials commented on LG's lawsuit as an option to curb the growth of Chinese TV companies and correct the market order. China's TCL, which filed a lawsuit in 2007, surpassed LG Electronics in the North American market, making it the second-largest sales company. LG Electronics seemed to have needed to take the action on this Chinese company.

flickr.com ©LG Electronic booth

LG Electronics conducts aggressive management

Recently, LG Electronics has been implementing an aggressive management approach that is different from the previous policy. In last September, a lawsuit was filed against three companies in Germany, and a few years ago, they fought with Samsung Electronics over a marketing campaign. Mr. Jeon Saeng-Gyu, vice president of the patent center of LG Electronics, said they will respond strongly to the protection of intellectual property rights.

[WIPSTUDY #12] Trial Docket and PTAB Reference (PGR, CBM)

In the #12 issue,
as mentioned in the last issue, we're going to review the documents of Trial/Appeal and PTAB references with the cases of PGR and CBM.

Trial Reference - PGR (Post Grant Review) and
                           CBM (Covered Business Method)

< search n analysis database : WIPS Global >

To remind;

PGR (Post Grant Review) is ...

   a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent on any ground that could be raised under §282(b)(2) or (3). Post grant review process begins with a 3rd party filing a petition on or prior to the date that is 9 months after the grant of the patent or issuance of a reissue patent. (USPTO)


⧭ PGR2017-00043
Textron Inc. v. Nivel Parts & Manufacturing Co., LLC

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-PGR search

• Petitioner : Textron Inc.
• Patent Owner : Nivel Parts & Manufacturing Co., LLC
• Claims challenged : 1-7
• PTAB status : Settled
• PTAB outcome : No claims invalidated/ Cancelled
• Patent No. : USP 9481265 (Nov. 1, 2016 granted)

This trial between Textron and Nivel Parts & Manufacturing is on US patent 9481265, which is entitled 'Convertible golf cart seat assembly'. It was filed on Aug. 1, 2017 and closed in Feb, 2018 by the settlement of the two parties.

Grant date of the corresponding patent is Nov. 1, 2016 and the PGR petition was requested Aug. 1, 2017 which is 9 month since the grant date.

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-PGR search

⏬(below) Petition for Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 9,481,265

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-PGR search > Docket

🔻(below) Post Grant Review PTAB citation reference

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-PGR search > View Detail

🔻(below) Post Grant Review PTAB non-patent reference

By these PTAB patent/ non-patent references which were cited and used for trial decision, this case won't be able to be issued again.

wipsglobal.com > patent search > View Detail-Evaluation grade

◀ USP 9481265 is evaluated  AAA grade in the aspect of Rights, Technology and Usability.
. Rights - AAA
. Technology- AAA
. Usability - AAA







Now we can take a look at CBM case.

To remind;
CBM (Covered Business Method) ...
  a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.(USPTO)

Unlike IPR or PGR, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) regulations defines a CBM patent as a patent having claims: (1) used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, and (2) that do not claim a "technological invention."


⧭ CBM2017-00035
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta v. Bozeman Financial LLC.

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-CBM search

• Petitioner : Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
• Patent Owner : Bozeman Financial LLC
• Claims challenged : 1-26
• Claims instituted : 1-26
• PTAB outcome : All instituted claims invalidated/ Cancelled 
• Patent No. : USP 6754640

This trial between Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and Bozeman Financial is on US patent 6754640, entitled 'Universal positive pay match, authentication, authorization, settlement and clearing system'. It was filed on Jan. 31, 2017. This trial is closed since 1 year since instituted. All of the instituted claims are invalidated.

🔻 The docket information of the trial.

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-CBM search

⏬(below) CBM docket of the petition for Petition for Covered Business Method Review of Claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent no. 6754640.

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-CBM search > Docket

🔻 Checking the patent's trial record,
trial is dated Jan. 31, 2017 as below.

wipsglobal.com > patent search > View detail-trial/appeal tap

🔻 Checking the patent's litigation record,
its litigation is dated Feb. 1, 2017 as below.

wipsglobal.com > patent search > View detail-litigation tap

The Petitioner has filed the trial and litigation at the almost same time.


🔻(Below) CBM Review PTAB references

wipsglobal.com > Trial/Appeal-CBM search > View Detail

PTAB patent Citation reference and PTAB other (non-patent) references, which are journals referred to the trial decision.

wipsglobal.com > patent search > View Detail-Evaluation grade

◀ USP 6754640 is evaluated  AA grade in the aspect of Rights, Technology and Usability.
. Rights - AAA
. Technology- AA
. Usability - A








⧭The patent evaluation grade provides the evaluation grade of the Patent Analysis Evaluation System (SMART3) of the KIPA (Korea Invention Promotion Association) SMART3

* Rights : the likelihood of the patent to be maintaining its exclusive status in a patent dispute with a third party.
* Technology : The extent to which the patent to be evaluated coincides with and leads technical trends.
* Usability : The extent to which the patent to be evaluated will be used in business and the probability of the patent being used in business.

Continued...>>

Approaching the climax, SK Innovation VS LG Chem

Endless battery war

There is no sign of ending the battery war between SK Innovation and LG Chem. Since SK Innovation's lawsuit against LG Chem on battery-related patent infringement in the US federal court, the two companies have not been backed down. As patent disputes between two companies continues inside and outside Korea, the battery disputes draws attention not only in Korea but also abroad.

pixabay.com

A dispute becoming fight

The disputes between the two companies seem to be moving emotional fighting beyond just patent disputes.

The media reports on the positions of both companies, and recently, SK Innovation has unveiled the original text of the agreement signed with LG Chem. As LG Chem argues back, the emotional battle between the two companies is running to an extreme.

Open agreement and refute

The original text of the agreement disclosed by SK Innovation is an agreement related to a patent litigation in 2014, and according to SK Innovation, the agreement is about that the both companies wouldn’t have patent disputes in Korea and foreign countries. LG Chem insisted that the patent was a Korean patent, and the patent in the issue now is a US patent, which is irrelevant because it’s a separate patent with a different registered country and a different scope of rights.

pixabay.com

Difficult to settle disputes

Not long ago, the heads of the two companies met in full force for agreement, but it was informed that they did not agree. In recent years, they have continued to stick to their guns on each other and eventually drive to reach extreme conditions. Refuting and refuting back, a lot of news coming out, with this current situation it seems hard to end.

[WIPSTUDY #11] Trial Docket and PTAB Reference

In the #11 issue,
we're going to review the documents of Trial/ Appeal and PTAB references through the case of Inter Partes Review.

 

• Trial Reference -  IPR (Inter Partes Review) documents

< search n analysis database : WIPS Global >

IPR (Inter Partes Review) is ...
  a trial proceeding conducted at the Board to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent only on a ground that could be raised under §§102 (novelty) or 103 (non abviousness), and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications (USPTO)


< 1 >
IPR2014-01178
Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc. v. Enova Technology Corporations. (TW)

wipsglobal.com > IPR trial/Appeal search

• Petitioner : Seagate Technology (US) Holdings, Inc.
• Patent Owner : Enova Technology Corp.(TW)
• Claims Challenged : 1-32 
• Claims Instituted : 1-32
• Invalidated Cancelled Claims : 1-32
• PTAB Outcome : All instituted claims have been invalidated/cancelled

this trial between Seagate technology and Enova technology is on US patent 790057, which is about a cryptographic serial ATA, entitled 'A Cryptographic serial ATA apparatus and method'.

The trial was filed on Jul. 17th, 2014 and closed Dec. 18th, 2015.
Institution decision was made on Feb. 5th, 2015 which took less than 10 months.

We can take a look at the IPR petition document ▼

wipsglobal.com > IPR trial/Appeal search

1) wipsglobal.com > Docket 'Petition for Interpartes Review' in the View Detail page

 

2) wipsglobal.com > Docket 'Petition for Interpartes Review' in the View Detail page

Below, the final written decision of this trial ▼

3) wipsglobal.com > Docket 'Final Written Decision' in the View Detail page

We can check the patent citation references which PTAB referred in the trial ▼

wipsglobal.com > View Detail > PTAB citation reference

Also, non-patent literature is listed ▼

wipsglobal.com > View Detail > PTAB other reference

⧭ IPR Estoppel : may not request or maintain a proceeding before the Office with respect to that claim on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that inter partes review 35 U.S. Code 315(e).


< 2 >
Target Patent : USP 7900057
Let's find the US patent which has been invalidated in this trial ▼

wipsglobal.com > View Detail > Legal info.

In the legal information of this patent '057,
The status of the invalidated patent, 'active' is confirmed by the result of IPR trial decision.

< 3 >
Reason of inactive

wipsglobal.com > View Detail > Legal status

Legal status says, 'expired due to failure to pay maintenance fee'.
Patent owner decided not to keep this patent after the trial and didn't pay the maintenance fee.

< 4 >
Inter Partes Review certified that the claims are cancelled.
The certificate by IPR trial decision ▼

Continued...>>