Apple’s updated filing includes the Droid Charge, Exhibit 4G, Galaxy Ace, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S, Gravity Smart, Infuse 4G, Nexus S 4G, Replenish, Sidekick 4G, Galaxy Tab 10.1 and the Galaxy S II. To start, the Sidekick 4G, Replenish, and Gravity Smart all sport physical QWERTY keyboards, which is something we have never, nor do I expect we will ever, see on an Apple product. Furthermore, a large part of Apple’s issue has to do with Samsung’s TouchWiz UI, which isn’t even on the Replenish.

Along with tossing some extra devices into the mix, Apple has also decided to add a few extra patents to the case, accusing Samsung of even further infringement. With the addition of the three new patents, Apple is officially filing a complaint against Samsung for infringement on a total of eight utility patents. Two new design patents have also been added, bringing the total to five.

Discovery’s patent is called “Electronic book security and copyright protection system,” and the majority of the claims involve encrypting and delivering e-book contents.  But the patent contains over 170 clauses, most of them citing variations in which the encryption takes place at different points in the distribution.  The patent also explains that a patented book could be distributed over the Internet and on “a wireless telephone network.”  If that weren’t troubling enough for Amazon, the patent also covers most of Kindle’s content management system.

Discovery is not seeking an injunction with their lawsuit, but they are seeking “adequate [damages] to compensate Discovery for Amazon’s infringement.”  The suit also asks the court to impose a royalty agreement.

It is now for the court to decide if Amazon really did infringe on Discovery’s patents, or if these similarities are not guilty of infringement.  But Discovery has nine patents covering e-books in their portfolio, and it may be tough for Amazon to evade all of them.

According to About.com, Callaway filed a new patent infringement lawsuit today and the company claims that the new versions of these golf balls still violate their patents.  As Callaway stated:

We were disappointed to discover that Titleist and Acushnet have again used patented Callaway technology in their Pro V1 golf balls. As long as Titleist – or any competitor – continues to introduce products that we believe infringe our patents, we will continue to seek relief in the courts. We expect to prevail in this second suit as well.

Acushnet (Titleist’s parent company) has also filed a suit today claiming that Callaway’s Tour i and Tour ix balls violate Titleist’s patents.  Their Executive V.P. said:

As the industry leader, we respect the valid intellectual property of others and expect others to respect ours. We believe that disagreements like these are best dealt with between the companies involved and we have repeatedly attempted to resolve these disputes. When these discussions failed, Callaway left us with no other course of action but to move forward with this lawsuit. We are hopeful that these matters can be resolved, but we will continue to protect our intellectual property rights.

It’s unlikely that consumers will have to concern themselves with the purchasing of either Titleist or Callaway golf balls.  Both of these companies will be tied up in court for several years, but of course, many golfers are hoping the two can come to some sort of licensing agreement.

Back in 2007, The Washington Post reported that if the agency shut its doors to catch up on the backlog of applications, it would take their 5,500 examiners at least two years, and countless cups of coffee to catch up.

Keeping up with the demand for patents is critical, as innovation and technological progress drive our economy.  Earlier this year, researchers launched a “peer-to-patent” pilot project.  Some have suggested that the addition of a social networking patent site could make the peer-to-patent program extremely efficient.

Obviously such a site would not mirror MySpace or Facebook, but the idea of a social network for patents could solve the time-consuming process of searching for prior art.  This necessary process can help determine whether or not the claims made in a patent are original, or if they have already entered the public domain.  If the claims of a patent are found quickly in prior art, a patent examiner can promptly move on to the next claim.

While the specifics of such a system would have to be planned out rather carefully, it could vastly improve the amount of time it takes an examiner to search through prior art.  Unfortunately, since the USPTO has yet to make a presence on other social networks, such a change is still nowhere in the foreseeable future.

The post states the potential advantages that could arise from the USPTO using Twitter.  First of all, the office could use Twitter to post news items and other links from its news pages.  Using Twitter would also be an easy avenue to instantaneously distribute critical information to Office stakeholders, who may have Twitter updates sent directly to their mobile phone.  Furthermore, the USPTO could use Twitter to answer questions from the community and provide live updates from important meetings.

Yet, the USPTO may not want to use Twitter because of the stigma that could be associated with social networking.  It may be thought that using systems such as Twitter would lower the reputation of the agency, because it is not an established media outlet.  However, such an opinion may not hold much weight, considering how effectively President Obama utilized Twitter and Facebook during this past election.

Buchanan has stated that he has already established a USPTO account on Twitter, and that he will gladly transfer it to someone from the Office.  He has also started to post items that have been made public by the Office.

Of course if you want in depth patent news, you can always follow DynamicPatents on Twitter!

Konami began selling “Rock Revolution” in October to compete with “Rock Band” by Harmonix, and “Guitar Hero” by Acitivision Blizzard Inc.  Both “Guitar Hero” and “Rock Band” accounted for 16% of video-game sales in December.

As reported on Bloomberg.com, Viacom’s patent was issued on December 2, and it claims it is an improvement of earlier video-game controllers that emulate musical instruments.  It also cites the Beatmania series of games by Konami as an example of older inventions.

This suit is not the first to arise between the two, as Konami sued Harmonix and Viacom last July.  Konami alleged that “Rock Band” infringes two of its patents for simulating musical instruments.  That case is pending, but Cambridge-based Viacom is seeking to move the trial from Texas to Boston.

One such company that is speculated to make a move is Merck, which still hasn’t found a product that equals the amount of revenue generated by Vioxx.  In 2004, Vioxx was withdrawn after concerns that the drug increased the risk of heart attacks.  Chief executive Richard Clark recently said, “I don’t think in today’s world any CEO can categorically rule out any type of transaction.”  Some speculate that Merck could potentially merge with Schering-Plough, after the two forged a successful partnership for the marketing of cholesterol drug, Vytorin.

Another potential merger could involve Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb.  The two recently gained legal protection against any further attacks on their co-marketed drug, Plavix.  But with the patent for Plavix expiring in 2011, both will see a huge loss in earnings.

At the same time, GlaxoSmithKline has made it clear that they are not interested in any mega-merger.  Chief executive Andrew Witty recently said he would “not be distracted by large-scale M&A.”  Some believe that the company’s recent moves into emerging markets supports Witty’s statement.

While merging companies may cut costs, it may only buy time.  The real cure for big pharma is to continue innovating and diversifying their research.

According to Cnet News, the 10,00th patent covers a technology used in computers similar to Microsoft’s Surface that link a real-world object with a set of data or images stored on a computer.  Yet, most of the attention surrounding the patent isn’t on the patent itself, but rather on the milestone it represents.

“Logging the 10,000th patent really is a testament to all of the innovation that has been taking place…Patents really are the currency of innovation in our industry,” said Microsoft chief patent counsel Bart Eppenauer.

Microsoft has definitely done its part to encourage innovation, as it gives workers up to $1,500 each time they apply for a patent as well as a cube with details on the invention.  If the patent is granted, the workers then receive a plaque that includes a copy of the first page of the patent application.  Microsoft currently employs 100 people in its patent group, including more than 40 attorneys, to handle the 2,500 to 3,000 U.S. patent applications it files each year.

The study mentions the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which gave universities control of their own IP that resulted from government funding.  It states that the act was eagerly promoted for the commercialization of university research.  As the study continues:

We have noted for some time that the Bayh-Dole effect in the USA itself has withered away, with a relative decline of university patenting since 2000. However, since our indicators were not sufficiently robust, we have not previously published these results. More recently, Wong &Singh (2007) published data about the numbers of US patents by leading universities as a percentage of all patents in the database of the US Patent and Trade Office (USPTO). This data, and the data made available by the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM, 2007) in their yearly Surveys of US Licensing Activity, corresponded so well with our previous results that we investigated the noted decline of university patenting further.

At the global level university patenting is still gaining momentum, but in the most advanced economies the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 seem to have faded away since the turn of the millennium. In our opinion, the reason for this is structural. More universities are nowadays increasingly ranked in terms of their knowledge output, and patents or spin-offs are usually not part of this ranking (e.g., THES, 2008). The nature of the competition among universities is changing, and the incentive to patent has thus withered. International collaborations and coauthorships, for example, have become more important in research assessment exercises than university-industry relations (Glänzel, 2001; Leydesdorff & Sun, 2009; Persson et al., 2004; Wagner, 2008).

Critics of the study suggest that university patenting could have leveled off due to a variety of other reasons.  First, private investments shifted from technology to real estate after the dot-com crash, and some of this funding comes from university endowments.   Also, less money was available at universities under the Bush Administration than under the Clinton administration, decreasing the amount of capital available for patents.

With a decline in patenting by universities, how can America state that we have the best colleges and inventors in the world?  Perhaps the new administration will put a stop to such decline.

According to Blogging Stocks, Hilco and Gordon now have the rights to Linens N’ Things store-exclusive brands, internet domains, the bridal and gift registry, as well as the company’s brand name.  The two firms plan will be to build on Linens N’ Things existing customer base by expanding into direct-to-retail licensing, wholesale licensing, e-commerce, and retail shop-in-shop.

“We are enthusiastic about the broad demographic appeal of Linens ‘N Things and its highly trafficked website, www.lnt.com.  We believe the licensing program will bring global growth to this premiere home market brand,” said Stephen Miller of Gordon Brothers.

Linens N’ Things is not the first retailer to be rescued by the two, as Hilco and Gordon have also teamed up to buy the rights for Sharper Image and Bombay Co.  If the current recession continues, some have speculated that the shopping list of these two firms may only continue to grow.