Israel Patent Office Publishes Report on 2010 Activity

July 29, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has just published a report covering its activity in 2010.

The report, in Hebrew, is available from here: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6ACFC67-FFF0-4D16-A8C3-DCFD0154D82E/0/2010.pdf

There are 45 pages of statistical data that contains few surprises, bound in a blue cover with a slightly corny lightbulb image.

Much of the comparative material, showing how the IPO compares with patent offices in other jurisdictions, and the number of patents filed per GDP and per population are found in the OECD report, on WIPO’s website, and in a paper I wrote together with Jeremy Ben David and which was published in WIPR a couple of months ago. Nevertheless, the report is comprehensive and compares favorably to the odd table or graph that the patent office has traditionally published.

There is some data on oppositions that has never been presented before and also comprehensive ranking tables showing where incoming filings originate.

The document carries two introductions, one from newly installed commissioner, Adv. Asa Kling, and one from his predecessor Dr Meir Noam. We weren’t surprised to see that each commissioner has lauded his predecessor / successor. However, since the document relates to the end of Dr Noam’s tenure, and before Adv. Kling took over as commissioner, this seems appropriate, if a little tiresome. Actually to be fair, 2010 was a good year for Dr Noam, whose achievements were many.

Of note, there is apparently on going consultation between the patent office and the Ministry of Justice regarding a Design Law to replace the 1924 Ordinance inherited from the British mandate, which is still in force.

We were surprised to learn that Brazil is a major filer or design registrations in Israel. Indeed 109 of the 423 design registrations originating from abroad came from Brazil, ahead of everywhere else including the US. Apparently, this is due almost exclusively to H Stern, a Brazilian jewelry firm with many outlets in Israel. Apart from jewelry, Israel design registrations were filed mostly for clothing, building materials, ornaments and food containers. In total, 1622 design applications were filed, which is, however, less than in any of the years 2005-2009.

There were a total of 8017 trademark applications filed into Israel in 2010, which is less than any of the years 2005-2009 and nearly 2500 less than 2008.

Protocol Madrid for the multi-national registration of trademarks came into force in Israel in September 2010, and in the last quarter of the year, some 463 filings were made into Israel via the protocol, and 37 international applications originating in Israel were filed.

In total, some 7266 patent applications were filed in Israel in 2010, which is up from 6780 in 2009, but still below the 2006-2008 levels which peaked, in 20o7, at 8064.  Most of these applications were Paris/PCT filings or divisional applications, claiming priority from earlier applications. The number of new applications first filed in Israel was 1044, which is the smallest number for a decade. It seems that more and more Israeli applicants are first filing in the US, either as regular applications, or are filing US provisional applications.

There was a lot of patents examined and allowed, but problems in publication delayed them issuing and probably contributed to the low number of oppositions filed, which, at 22, is up from 2009 when only 20 were filed, and from 2001 when 21 were filed, but much lower than the other years of this millennium.  We suspect however, that a number of cases examined in 2010 only published in 2011 and there will be some additional oppositions (indeed, I am handling one such case together with Adv Lewin from our office).

Some 41% of patent filings into Israel are computer/electronics related. 31% are chemistry (mostly pharmaceuticals), 17% biotech and 11% mechanical or telecommunications related. (I am not sure why telecommunications is related to mechanical and not to computer/electronics. I suspect it is an anomaly dating back to the mechanical telegraph or to the telephone made of two cups connected by a taut string). The Israel Patent Office receives a disproportionate amount of high-tech and pharmaceutical patent filings compared to those in traditional industries. This seems to reflect the fields where Israeli industries are perceived by competitors as being a threat.

In the end of 2009, Dr Noam initiated a fast track for ‘green’ patent applications. Some 22 attempts to have applications recognized as green were made during the year, and of these, 16 were accepted for the fast track, and 6 were refused. In the pie-chart summarizing this information, the 262 degree slice was coloured green, and the remaining 98 degrees was coloured orange. The significance of this colour was not apparent.Israel is a noticeable user of the PCT system in absolute terms, and is the largest user in terms of population. I suspect that this is because of the small local market, and Israel’s favorable trade relations with the US, Europe and the far East.

It seems that IP activity in Israel, both from local entities and from foreign applicants was down in 2010 in patents, designs and trademarks. This does not come as a surprise,  as we’ve felt the drop in work. It is little comfort to know that Israel weathered the recession better than many other economies, and that patent, design and trademark filings are down everywhere, except for China.

However, we note that the patent office has been aggressively attacking backlogs and examination pendencies are down as well.

We hope that the 2011 data will be more positive!


Finjan – developer turned troll?

July 16, 2010

Israel based software company Finjan has sued five rival security companies, including Symantec and McAfee, Webroot Software, Websense and Sophos.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in the U.S. District Court of Delaware, Finjan, claims that products of the defendants including McAfee’s Web Gateway and VirusScan software, Symantec’s Brightmail Gateway and Norton Antivirus all infringe core technology patents for antivirus products and security services that are held by Finjan.

Formerly a technology vendor, Finjan has sold out to M86, another security company, but still owns a patent portfolio, of about a dozen patents that are related to computer security. The company is now trying to claim royalties from these patents.

In 2008, Finjan won a jury verdict of 9.2 million dollars against Secure Computing which is now owned by McAfee.Having demonstrated that Secure Computing’s software packages Webwasher and CyberGuard TSP were infringed, A federal judge then increased the damages awarded to $13.8 million.

The company has asked the court to award unspecified financial damages and an injunction preventing the companies from selling their products.

COMMENT

Since the company no longer manufacturers, there is no longer the mutual destruction arrangement favoured by the high-tech world as an in-built mechanism to prevent companies going after injunctions. That said, it is clear that as they no-longer have a market share, Finjan have no interest in preventing others from using their patents. They simply want a reasonable royalty. It seems to me that it is not non-practicing entities that are the problem , but that there is no simple means to calculate fair royalties and to ensure that alleged infringers swiftly identify if they do indeed infringe, and, if so, that they enter into licensing negotiations in good faith.

I think that the cost of litigation in the US is the real problem, not that entities enforce their patents. Identifying and buying up patents to enforce (trolling) is not morally different from a litigating law firm working such cases on a percentage, or a university – which is typically a non-profit organization that benefits from the tax-payer and from philanthropic donations – from filing and then licensing its patents. These business models are acceptable in a free market.  Patents are not licenses to manufacture. They merely provide exclusion rights and using them for that purpose is legitimate. Trading in patents is based on the exclusion right being enforceable.  The ownersof this patent, if they manage to collect royalties, will no-doubt invest the money back into the economy. Transferrring patent rights to those that need it by licensing, and reinvesting resources is the basis of business. Good luck to them. Shame I don’t have shares.


Israel’s Emblaze Accuses Apple of Patent Infringement

December 7, 2009

 Israeli technology company Emblaze Ltd. has accused Apple Inc. of patent infringement. the allegations concern a live video-streaming application that the technology giant plans to provide for its iPhone and iPod Touch.

It is not clear which application is intended, but Apple approved an application last week called “Knocking”, that is the first to allow live video streaming, on the 3G network, directly from one device to another.

Meanwhile, Emblaze recently announced its own mobile platform, known as ELSE, that will allegedly integrate the patented technology for streaming video between devices. Emblaze has announced that it is open to licensing its technology to Apple but has set a deadline at December 15th for the iPhone maker to respond.


Israeli Company Red Bend sues Google over Chrome

November 1, 2009

Israeli start-up Red Bend Software Inc. has filed suite against Google Inc. for patent infringement over Google’s Chrome browser, with the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Boston.

Red Bend develops software for remote updating mobile content and managing connectivity between devices. The Israeli company claims that Chrome includes an algorithm that, for some reason beyond me, is called Courgette, that enables Google to distribute partial software updates. Courgette allegedly infringes a Red Bend patent registered in April 2003, on technology which enables wireless carriers to efficiently distribute updates for mobile-phone software. Red Bend is claiming willful infringement and thus triple damages.

Disclaimer:  I have no first hand knowledge or opinion as to whether Chrome infringes Red Bend’s software. For the record, I also have no opinion regarding Chrome, although as a Materials Scientist, prefer the more formal Chromium. As to Courgettes (zucchini), personally I prefer them to the light green kishu that is more commonly available in Israel.


Finjan get’s injunction against McAfee and $13.7 million in damages

August 23, 2009

In a 2006 lawsuit, Finjan accused Secure Computing of infringing patents for thwarting hostile downloads. In March 2008, a federal jury in Delaware awarded Finjan $9 million in damages. Secure Computing was bought in November 2008 by McAfee, which reported sales of $1.6 billion in 2008. 

The jury ruled that patents owned by Finjan, a company based in Netanya, Israel, were intentionally infringed, and according to an opinion by U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet, Finjan has suffered irreparable harm and deserves Read the rest of this entry »


EU Parliament Rejects Draconian Sanctions for Illegal Downloads via Internet

May 7, 2009

On Wednesday, the assembly of the European Parliament voted 407 to 57 to reject attempts by constituent governments to crack down on consumers who illegally download copyright material like music, television programs and films Read the rest of this entry »


Copyright in Chess Move sequences?

March 17, 2009

The Bulgarian Chess Federation banned ChessBase, the world’s biggest online chess portal, from broadcasting a match live, citing copyright infringement.

This raises fascinating issues.

Generally, sports broadcasting has been copyright protected – see, for example, Israeli Supreme Court’s Tele-Event decision. Usually, some creativity on the part of the cameraman or editor is used as justification for awarding protection.

In this instance, ChessBase was steaming the  moves using a text format notation and thus did not have any creative input whatsoever. If the moves themselves are considered copyright, then the rights are presumably property of the player and not the federation hostig a championship.

One assumes that noone is serious advocating that a move first played by someone cannot be played by another player until the creator has been dead for seventy years? 

It does seem unlikely that a braodcaster requires the federation’s permission. On the other hand, why shouldn’t a hosting organization be able to maintain at least short term braodcasting rights of the moves?

 ”They issued a cease and desist, and we complied,” stated ChessBase co-founder Frederic Friedel. “It is too expensive, time-wise, to get involved in protracted lawsuits with Bulgarians, and there is little to gain, monetarily, from a victory.” Is this simply a case of copyright abuse?


So it was Grey and not Bell who invented the telephone

December 30, 2007

Seth Shulman claims there is “little doubt” that Bell stole his initial telephone  Read the rest of this entry »


Federal Judge finds Qualcomm misled industry

August 9, 2007

A federal judge has ruled that by deliberately concealing patents from an industry standard-setting group, Qualcomm Inc. has waived its rights to enforce Read the rest of this entry »


US Music Artists Call for Royalties for Radio Broadcasts

June 22, 2007

More than 100 artists launched musicFIRST last week. MusicFIRST is a lobbying group with the single agenda of trying to get Congress to enact copyright legislation to force radio stations to pay royalties when broadcasting music.

Under current US legislation, Read the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers