Submitted By:

Submitted To:
Sachin Raizada, 20IB333 Prof. Arunaditya Sahay
Patent:

A“patent is an intellectual property (IP) right for a technical

invention. It allows patenter to prevent others from using his/her
invention for commercial purposes for up to 20 years. The Patenter
decides who will be allowed to produce, sell or import his/her
invention in those countries in which Patenter own a valid patent.
Patenter can also trade his/her patent, e.g. sell it or licence the use of
his/her invention. Patenter can patent products (e.g. heated ski boots)
and processes (e.g. a method for freeze drying coffee). However, the
invention must solve a problem in a new, non-obvious and technical
way. In the example of the ski boots, the problem of cold feet while
skiing is solved by fitting self-regulating heating elements to the
boots.”
Validity and enforcing a patent:

Patents“only protect inventions that are novel and inventive at the

time of applying for patent protection. However, these two
requirements are not checked during the
Swiss patent granting procedure. A patent is granted without a
guarantee and can therefore be challenged by third parties. For this
reason, it is essential that patenter must clarify the novelty of your
invention yourself via searches either before or after applying for a
patent. Patents are territorial rights. In general, the exclusive rights
are only applicable in the country or region in which a patent has
been filed and granted, in accordance with the law of that country
or”region.
What is Invention?:
Inventions“are the bedrock of innovation. An invention is a new
solution to a technical problem and can be protected through
patents. Patents protect the interests of inventors whose
technologies are truly groundbreaking and commercially
successful, by ensuring that an inventor can control the commercial
use of their invention.
An individual or company that holds a patent has the right to prevent
others from making, selling, retailing, or importing that technology.
This creates opportunities for inventors to sell, trade or license their
patented technologies with others who may want to use them.
The criteria that need to be satisfied to obtain a patent are set IP laws
that may differ country to country. But generally, to obtain a patent
an inventor needs to demonstrate that their technology is new
(novel), useful and not obvious to someone working in the related
field. To do this, they are required to describe how their technology
works and what it can do.
A patent can last up to 20 years, but the patent holder usually has to
pay certain fees periodically throughout that 20-year period for the
patent to remain valid. In practice, this means that if a technology
has limited commercial value, the patent holder may decide to
abandon the patent, at which point the technology falls into the public
domain and may be freely”used.

How patent can support inventors?:

1. Patents“recognise and reward inventors for their
commercially-successful inventions. As such they serve as
an incentive for inventors to invent. With a patent, an
inventor or small business knows there is a good chance that
they will get a return on the time, effort and money they
invested in developing a technology. In sum, it means they
can earn a living from their work.
2. When a new technology comes onto the market, society as a
whole stands to benefit – both directly, because it may
enable us to do something that was previously not possible,
and indirectly in terms of the economic opportunities
 (business development and employment) that can flow from
it.
3. The revenues generated from commercially successful patent-
protected technologies make it possible to finance further
technological research and development (R&D), thereby
improving the chances of even better technology becoming
available in the future.
4. A patent effectively turns an inventors know-how into a
commercially tradable asset, opening up opportunities for
business growth and job creation through licensing and joint
ventures, for example.
5. Holding a patent also makes a small business more attractive to
investors who play a key role in enabling the commercialization
of a technology. 6. The technical information and business
intelligence generated by the patenting process can spark new
ideas and promote new inventions from which we can all benefit
and which may, in turn, qualify for patent protection.
7. Patent information can be mapped, offering policy makers useful
insights about where technology R&D is taking place and by
whom. This information can be useful in shaping policy and
regulatory environment that allows innovation to thrive.
8. A patent can help stop unscrupulous third parties from free
riding on the efforts of the”inventor.

International Patent System:

A“patent is a private right that is granted by a government
authority. It only has a legal effect in the country (or region) in
which it is granted. So inventors or companies that want to
protect their technology in foreign markets need to seek patent
protection for their new technologies in those countries.
WIPOs Patent Coorporation Treaty(PCT) is designed to make the
process of obtaining patent protection in up to 152 different
countries is easier and less costly. Within a year of filing for patent
protection in their own country, inventors can set in motion the
process of obtaining patent protection in each of the markets in
which they wish to sell their technology by filing a single
international application via the PCT. This offers many potential
advantages:
• Any rights granted using the PCT flow from the initial
filing date of the national patent application.
• Users benefit from a common set of rules and regulations
which have been agreed upon and are followed by all 152
members of the Treaty. This means there is a high level of
legal certainty and no nasty surprises.
• The full cost of obtaining patents in multiple countries –
which can be quite high – are deferred by up to 18 months.
This means that applicants have an opportunity to test the
market or to attract new business partners.
• Users of the PCT automatically benefit from an assessment
which gives informal (non-binding) feedback on the
patentability of their technology. This can be very helpful in
shaping a companys patenting strategy.”

History:
The“origin of the concept of patents for invention is an obscure one.
There is reasonable evidence to suggest something similar to a
patent system was used among some ancient Greek cities, although
it is generally acknowledged by historians that the first informal
system originated in Renaissance Italy in 1474. The first recorded
modern patent was granted by the city-state of Florence in 1421 to
Filippo Brunelleschi, famous for engineering the dome of the
Florence cathedral. Brunelleschis patent was for inventing a means
of conveying heavy loads
(specifically, large slabs of marble) up the Arno River for the
construction of the Florence cathedral. The boat design was
christened Il Badalone. The grant provided Brunelleschi the right
to exclude all new means of transport on the Arno River for three
years. The Venetian Senate later passed the first patent law,
introducing a Venetian Statute in 1474 that protected new and
inventive devices in return for disclosure to the Venetian Republic.
This initiative has been judged by historians to be the result of an
attempt to invigorate the Republic and re-inject initiative and
innovation at a time of economic decline.”
The first English patent was granted in 1449
The“first English patent for invention was granted in 1449 to
John of Utynam, a Flemish-born stained glass manufacturer, by
King Henry IV. John of Utynam was granted a 20 years
monopoly for a glass-making process that was unknown of in
England at that time. The stained glass produced would be used
to complete the windows of Eton College.
This marked the beginning of a great tradition under the Tudors of
the granting of Letters Patent (meaning open letter) by the English
Crown. The Crown granted monopolies for trades and
manufacturers, including patents for invention. Elizabeth I granted
about 50 patents from 1561 to 1590, allowing the recipients to
exercise monopolies in the sale and manufacture of goods such as
soap, leather, glass, salt, sailcloth, iron and paper.
However, under the reign of Elizabeth I and her successor James
I, the power of granting monopolies became increasingly
abused. Monopolies were granted for inventions and trades that
were not novel, often to Royal favourites as a means to replenish
Royal coffers and raise money for the Crown. Subsequently, the
Court began to limit situations in which monopolies could be
granted. In 1610, James I,
under increasing judicial criticism and public outcry, was forced to
revoke all previous patents, by declaring them "contrary to our laws"
in his Book of Bounty. An exception to this ban was allowed for
"projects of new invention". This was incorporated into Englands
first patent law, the Statute of Monopolies, in 1624. In Section 6 of
the Statute, Parliament rendered illegal all monopolies except those
for a limited term of 14 years or under, granted to true inventors.
In the 200 years following the Statute of Monopolies, the patent
system was progressed with lawyers and judges in courts and not
with government legislation. It was during the reign of Queen Anne
that conditions of grant were changed. Law officers of the Crown
established that the conditions of grant meant a patentee was
required to provide a written description of the invention to be
patented and the manner in which it was to be performed – and thus
the need for a patent specification was introduced.
The 1718 machine gun patent by James Puckle was one of the first to
be required to provide a specification. Further, in 1785 the patent for
Arkwrights famous spinning machines became void due to the lack
of an adequate specification; this was after the patent had existed for
10 years!”

In the mid-19th century patent applications were complicated,

expensive and in need of reform
The“complicated patent system of the mid-19th century required the
patentee to visit seven different offices and obtain the Kings
signature twice in order to obtain a patent, plus the compulsion of
paying expensive fees at each stage of the process. Despite
providing adequate service where dramatic technological changes
were commonplace during the Industrial Revolution of 1760–1830,
by the mid-19th century the patent system was in great need of
reform, and this was exposed by The Great Exhibition of 1851
which accelerated reformation demands.”

Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852

Following“a period of institutional reform, the Patent Law

Amendment Act of 1852 established the modern day Patent Office in
October 1852. This resulted in a complete overhaul of the previously
inefficient and aging British patent system and provided a simplified
procedure for obtaining a patent. The Patent Office required a
description of the invention be filed with the application and
introduced the publication of applications. Moreover, separate
patents for each of the countries in the UK were replaced with the
issuing of a single UK patent, and significantly reduced legal fees by
roughly three quarters.”
The“Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Act of 1883 brought into
being the office of Comptroller General of Patents and a staff of
patent examiners who were able to carry out limited examination on
patent applications. The examination was predominantly to ensure
an accurate description of the invention was provided by the
specification, but no investigation into novelty was carried out.
The Patents Act of 1902 marked an important milestone in the
development of the modern-day patent system. This Act introduced
an investigation into the novelty of an invention prior to grant for all
UK specifications published within 50 years of the application date.
Despite investigatory limitations, extra preparatory work required a
major reorganisation of the Patent Office which included the
recruitment of an additional 190 examiners to assist the existing 70
examiners.”

The Patents Act of 1977

The“current legislation is the Patents Act of 1977. The Act was
designed to accommodate modern technology and allow the
adaptation to future technological changes such as advances in the
pharmaceutical industry. During the 1980s, supra national patent
issuing authorities were developed such as the European Patent Office
(EPO) and the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO). These
authorities allow for the simultaneous filing of patent applications in
several countries from a single application.”

Apple and Qualcomm lawsuit:

Apple:
Apple“Inc., (NASDAQ: AAPL) formerly Apple Computer Inc., is an
American multinational corporation that designs and manufactures
consumer electronics and software products. The companys best-
known hardware products include Macintosh computers, the iPod
and the iPhone. Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating
system, the iTunes media browser, the iLife suite of multimedia and
creativity software, the iWork suite of productivity software, and
Final Cut Studio, a suite of professional audio and film-industry
software products. The company operates several hundred retail
stores in a number of countries as well as the online online store and
iTunes Store. Established in Cupertino, California on April 1, 1976,
co founded by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, the company was
called Apple Computer, Inc. for its first 30 years, but dropped the
word Computer on January 9, 2007 to reflect the companys ongoing
expansion into the consumer electronics market. Through its
philosophy of comprehensive aesthetic design and its distinctive
advertising campaigns, Apple Inc. has established a unique reputation
in the consumer electronics industry. Apple has attracted a customer
base that is devoted to the company and its brand, particularly in the
United States.”

The main products of Apple are:

• iPhone
• iPod
• iPad
• Macbook Pro and Air
• Apple TV.
Qualcomm:

Qualcomm“is an American multinational corporation headquartered

in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware.[3] It creates
semiconductors, software, and services related to wireless
technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G, CDMA2000, TD-
SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standards.
Qualcomm was established in 1985 by Irwin M. Jacobs and six other
co-founders. Its early research into CDMA wireless cell phone
technology was funded by selling a two-way mobile digital satellite
communications system known as Omnitracs. After a heated debate
in the wireless industry, the 2G standard was adopted with
Qualcomms CDMA patents incorporated. Afterwards there was a
series of legal disputes about pricing for licensing patents required by
the standard.
Over the years, Qualcomm has expanded into selling semiconductor
products in a predominantly fabless manufacturing model. It also
developed semiconductor components or software for vehicles,
watches, laptops, wi-fi, smartphones, and other devices.”

About the Case:

Apple and Qualcomm are engaged in what will likely be a long and
epic legal battle. Apple has disputed Qualcomms legal right to charge
heightened royalties for use of its tech, while Qualcomm is trying to
uphold its requirement that Apple pay a percentage of the iPhones
revenue in return for the use of Qualcomm patents. As a result,
lawsuits from both sides have been filed in multiple countries. In the
United States, Apple is suing Qualcomm for a hefty $1 billion — but
it has also filed a lawsuit in China against the company for $145
million, and it has another suit pending in the United Kingdom.
Qualcomm has followed with its own countersuits in Germany and
China.

Qualcomm“used to supply modems for Apples devices. Previously,

Apple had accused Qualcomm of charging unreasonable fees for
patent royalties and for declining to sell chips to companies that
refused to license the patents. Apple had an issue with Qualcomms
licensing fees, and this might be the reason why; While some
companies license their patents individually, Qualcomm licenses all
of its patents collectively as a group.
Therefore, for a specified fee (which is typically based on the retail
price of the end product, usually a phone), the device maker can
then utilize all of Qualcomms technology.
This licensing tactic isnt unusual for the mobile industry; many
companies, including Ericsson, Huawei, and Samsung, also
command licensing fees that are based on the entire device.
In conclusion, any company that makes a device that connects to a
mobile network must pay Qualcomm a licensing fee, regardless of
whether or not it uses Qualcomms chips.
So lets take a look at Qualcomms licensing fees. We will use the
iPhone XS as an example. The cost of the device is $999, and the
value of a chip is around $20. The Federal Trade Commission and
Qualcomm conflict exposed the licensing fees that Apple paid.
Apple paid Qualcomm a fee which they believed to be five times
higher than what it thought was a fair price. Apple wanted to pay
$1.50 per device (based on a 5 percent fee for the cost of each $30
modem that connected iPhones to mobile networks). Apple actually
paid $7.50 per phone. This $7.50 per device rate was still lower than
what Qualcomm wanted from the contract manufacturers ($12-$20
per device) so Apple agreed.”
The End of the Apple and Qualcomm Lawsuit:

The“Apple and Qualcomm lawsuit over patent licensing ended in

April 2019, and all worldwide litigation ceased. The two companies
had been battling against each other in courts in the US, China,
Germany, and other countries for two years. In the United States,
Apple initially sued Qualcomm for $1 billion, in China, it was for
$145 million. During the period of legal action, Apple used Intels
modems to build the iPhone XS.
According to a joint statement, Apple will make an undisclosed
payment to Qualcomm, the companies also reached a six-year
licensing deal that includes an option to extend for a further two
years and a multiyear chipset supply agreement. The agreement
went into effect on April 1, 2019.”
The“reason behind Apple settling with Qualcomm is believed to be
due to its need for 5G chips. A Nikkei report suggested that Apple
was testing Qualcomms 5G chips during the settlement stage of the
Apple and Qualcomm lawsuit. Soon after the settlement was
announced, Intel, who also supplied to Apple, said it was leaving the
5G phone modem business.”

Making“peace with Qualcomm seemed to have solved a short-

term dilemma for Apple, there was bad blood between the two
companies and, lets be honest, Qualcomm was never going to
be Apples exclusive modem supplier. For Apple to develop its
own chips for its own modems, it must hold the related patents
for the technology, therefore, by incorporating the modem
technology of Intel, Apple can source more parts for its
associated devices in-house rather than outsourcing to vendors
like Qualcomm.”
As“per the settlement with Apple, Qualcomm will get a licensing fee
and by the looks of it, will proceed to sell modems for as long as they
are better than what Apple can build in-house, so the decision need
not cause heartache for Qualcomm.”

Intel And Apple:

Apple“started buying Intel modems back in 2016 for the iPhone; this
move happened around the same time as the patent royalties dispute
with Qualcomm. Intel started to lose favor with its modem business,
which in turn led to severe difficulties maintaining its Apple account
and creating the 5G modem for the iPhones of 2020. This is when
Apple made up with Qualcomm and said that it would be supplying
the modems for its 2020 iPhones.
Various online sources speculated that one of the mains reasons
why Apple initially involved itself with Intel was to ultimately co-
develop a modem that could be combined with an Apple system-
on-a-chip (SOC).
By building the modem onto the Apple SOC they will be able to tune
the software more efficiently and improve battery performance.
Regardless of whether or not this”
will“ever transpire, with the acquisition of Intels modem business,
Apple will own the intellectual property and the people-power it
requires to do this on its own. Apple has always needed to develop its
own modem. After all, it has always designed its own processors for
the iPhone and iPad, allowing it to optimize them for its own devices,
thus having a performance-related competitive edge over Android,
which typically incorporates Qualcomm chips. However, Apples
current chip design expertise only has so much mileage in the modem
business. Apple doesnt want to rely on the licenses of other
companies.”
Its“highly likely that Apple will keep on using Qualcomm modems
for its first generation of 5G phones, but bringing smartphone
modem production in-house will offer significant benefits when it
builds the future 5G iPhones.
Intel also claimed that Qualcomms anti-competitive licensing
tactics had a hand to play in the company leaving the smartphone
modem business and the resulting acquisition.”

Conclusion:

It“could take a long time before the acquisition pays dividends, Apple
has a lot of work to do to transform Intels technology into a
remarkable 5G modem. After all, Samsung and Huawei took around
a decade to source competitive modems, and while the acquisition
gives Apple a head start, Apple doesnt make any networking gear.
Apple has acquired a modem business that was struggling to join the
5G era. So there we have part one of the Apple, Intel, and Qualcomm
story, which included the Apple and Qualcomm lawsuit. Stay tuned
for part two of the Apple, Intel, and Qualcomm tale where we will
take a look at some of the acquired Intel patents with Patent cloud.”