Supreme Court restricts patents on products that utilize pre existing inventions

[David_Levin]

NY Times:
WASHINGTON, April 30 — The Supreme Court, in its most important patent ruling in years, on Monday raised the bar for obtaining patents on new products that combine elements of pre-existing inventions.

If the combination results from nothing more than “ordinary innovation” and “does no more than yield predictable results,” the court said in a unanimous opinion, it is not entitled to the exclusive rights that patent protection conveys. “Were it otherwise,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion, “patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.”
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/01bizcourt.html?th&emc=th

-------------------------------------------------------

What's up with Echostar/TiVo (it's been pretty quiet - perhaps they are talking behind closed doors)?

I wonder if this gives E* more ammunition to fight?
Patent office may get swamped with requests for patent reviews.

 

[tnsprin]

NY Times:
WASHINGTON, April 30 — The Supreme Court, in its most important patent ruling in years, on Monday raised the bar for obtaining patents on new products that combine elements of pre-existing inventions.

If the combination results from nothing more than “ordinary innovation” and “does no more than yield predictable results,” the court said in a unanimous opinion, it is not entitled to the exclusive rights that patent protection conveys. “Were it otherwise,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion, “patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.”
...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/business/01bizcourt.html?th&emc=th

-------------------------------------------------------

What's up with Echostar/TiVo (it's been pretty quiet - perhaps they are talking behind closed doors)?

I wonder if this gives E* more ammunition to fight?
Patent office may get swamped with requests for patent reviews.

And we all know how much Charlie likes court suits. Maybe Tivo better make an agreement with Echostar fast.

 

[Greg Bimson]

I believe this only applies to the combination of two existing patents.

For example, in the case which SCOTUS remanded back to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), which generally runs the appeals for patent cases, the problem is that the patent in question only combined a patented sensor with a patented pedal. The "obviousness" could be defined as pre-existing, as there are patents on both the pedal and the sensor. A simple combination of the two does not require another patent.

That is slightly different than the TiVo patent. The big issue here is the recording of a stream while being able to access that stream or another. TiVo's patents regarding the Echostar case have stood the "obviousness" review.

I, for one, do not believe it is obvious, as it took a massive writing of code and hardware in order to accomplish the "Time Warp" feat that is in question in this case.

Last I saw on the TiVo v. Echostar case, there are arguments standing in front of the CAFC. I believe right now the argument is based upon a lawyer which Echostar had hired years ago, and has since left the firm, stated that Echostar did not infringe upon the patent. However, there are many questions, as it appears there is more than one memo regarding that topic, and it appears that the lawyer in question may have written a memo stating Echostar did infringe on the patent.

That is because of this "willful infringement" clause, which may multiply the damages awared to TiVo by three.

 

[David_Levin]

Thanks Greg. I should always remember things are never simple.

I had been thinking - TV Tuner + HDD + PC Media Streaming = PVR.

 

[Greg Bimson]

Of course, and that makes sense. Except that only saves programs to a PC's hard drive. That doesn't do anything about playing them back while it is still recording.