According to Jordan Crook at CrunchGear,
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.
Ray has nearly 20 years experience representing technology companies in the intellectual property area, including strategic counseling, patent and trademark litigation, expert witnessing, and IP licensing portfolio management. He represents domestic and international companies in addition to universities in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical, chemical, software, financial services, telecommunications, Internet, voice over IP (VoIP), and digital industries.
Ray’s extensive technical background in both information-based and life sciences-focused technologies enables him to effectively counsel clients in emerging and converging disciplines, such as bioinformatics, cheminformatics, genomics, pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, nanotechnology, proteomics, and computational analysis.
He represents clients in federal, state, and international intellectual property litigation, mediation, and dispute resolution in patent, trademark, unfair competition, copyright, antitrust, and trade secret cases. He also enforces and litigates intellectual property rights before the U.S. International Trade Commission and U.S. Customs, prepares clients for hearings before the Federal Trade Commission, and advocates intellectual property and regulatory positions before Senators and Representatives, domestic and foreign trade associations, and ambassadors.
Ray counsels clients in a variety of matters, including infringement, validity, freedom to operate, right to use, reissue, reexamination, appeals, artists’ rights counseling, and other patent and trademark opinion work.
His non-legal work in the software industry and during his graduate studies focused on a variety of cross-disciplinary software applications and techniques, including protein and molecular visualization, animation and modeling, computational optimization, graphics, stimulators, and virtual reality for pharmacological, biophysical, and biochemical research with real-time haptic interface with a robotic force-feedback arm (a nanomanipulator); modeling and analysis of steric forces in protein deformations; designing relational databases for complex proteins from X-ray crystallography data; designing enhancements to UNIX C-Shell; signal and image processing and pattern recognition; 3-D texturing; and SPICE modeling semiconductor chip architecture and performance.
University of North Carolina
- J.D., 1990
- President, American Indian Law Student Association
- M.S., Computer Science, 1989
- B.S., Mathematics, summa cum laude, honors
- Minor in Classical Greek, 1985
Wilbur Wright College, Chicago, IL
- AA, with honors
District of Columbia
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
U.S. Supreme Court
USCA – Federal Circuit
USCA – 2d Circuit
USCA – 3rd Circuit
USCA – 4th Circuit
USCA – 5th Circuit
Southern District of New York
Eastern District of New York
District of New Jersey
Northern District of Texas
Eastern District of Texas
District of Columbia
U.S. Court of International Trade
U.S. Court of Federal Claims
Ray is active in a variety of legal and technical organizations, and also teaches at two universities. Chair, Greater Washington, D.C. Chapter of the Licensing Executive Society Chair, Emerging Technology Committee, American Intellectual Property Law Association
Speeches and Publications
Ray is a regular speaker to legal, university, and professional audiences on various technology, intellectual property protection, and litigation issues, both nationally and internationally. His recent presentations analyze Supreme Court cases affecting intellectual property rights, proposed changes and reforms to the U.S. patent system, nanotechnology, software patenting, ethics, International Trade Commission litigation and procedures.
In the first phase of a patent infringement lawsuit Minneapolis medical device giant Medtronic filed against its fellow Twin Cities firm AGA Medical Corp, a San Francisco jury sided with Medtronic in federal district court — although the $57 million is only half the amount Medtronic asked for in the suit.
Medtronic accused AGA of infringing a pair of patents with AGA’s Amplatzer Occluder and vascular plug product lines. The decision also calls for AGA to pay 11% royalties to Medtronic on future U.S. sales of the devices through 2018.
AGA had a different outlook on the ruling. In a press release, AGA stated it looks forward to the second, non-jury phase “dealing with other issues of invalidity and unenforceability of the Medtronic patents”. Further litigation is slated to resume later this year and could affect the final outcome. The Medtronic patents in question cover self‐expanding medical devices using a metal alloy such as Nitinol, a shape memory alloy containing nickel and titanium that expands to its original shape after deployment.
- An expanded Medtronic self-expanding Nitinol stent
The decision is a rare win for device giant Medtronic as recent weeks have brought a string of tough decisions to the company dockets. These include a nearly $180 million judgment against it in a pedicle screw patent dispute with DePuy Spine Inc., the recall of nearly 60,000 insulin infusion sets, its inclusion in a “qui tam” whistleblower lawsuit along with six other firms that stand accused of promoting the off-label use of microwave cardiac ablation products and bilking the Medicare system.
Also in the news, Medtronic made a $400 million settlement payment to Abbott Laboratories, preventing the companies from suing each other over heart stents or delivery systems for at least 10 years. The new agreement follows earlier deals this year resolving heart stent patent disputes with Boston Scientific and Johnson & Johnson, two other stent rivals. Medtronic now believes it has resolved or settled “substantially all” intellectual property litigation surrounding stent design and delivery.
MedicalDevices.com reports that Covidien, a leading provider of healthcare products, was ranked top innovator in the medical devices and services industry.
The Patent Board™, the official patent ratings partner of The Wall Street Journal, ranked 122 companies in the industry by patent portfolio strength. The Scorecard is a tool to recognize that patent portfolios are measurable financial assets that can be market-value drivers.
A Texas jury sided with Toronto’s i4i and their US Patent 5,787,499 and ordered Microsoft to pay $200 million for patent infringement involving its Microsoft Office products.
i4i, a collaborative authoring and document-management software company, filed the case in March 2007. Karen Heater, President “felt vindicated” with the decision.
Demand for antiviral increased in 2004 with the threat of the virulent bird flu, and so all 50 states and many other nations now have large enough stockpiles of the drug for 220 million people. Roche has stated it could ramp up production to 400 million courses a year.
The Obama administration said it would seek $1.5 billion from Congress to combat the threat of a swine flu pandemic and is in talks with Roche about increasing production. Those with high fevers and consistent symptoms within 48 hours of illness are appropriate patients to receive the drug. Other vulnerable populations such as the elderly and home bound are also being considered candidates for the antiviral.
The flu sweeping Mexico and now appearing in several other countries is a strain never seen before by experts; it is a mix of genetic material from humans, birds and pigs. CDC officials told a Senate hearing Tuesday the agency was considering whether to develop a vaccine for just this strain of flu or a combination of flu viruses.
Gilead Sciences, Inc., Foster City, CA, is the patent holder, (Patent #5763483 for oseltamivir) having been assigned it by the five named researchers who invented this particular compound. Gilead Sciences’ patent on oseltamivir will not expire until December 26, 2016. Originally discovered by Gilead, Tamiflu was licensed to Roche for late-phase development and marketing. Roche produces and markets the anti-viral medication oseltamivir (as “Tamiflu®”)
Roche has made 5 million courses of Tamiflu available to the World Health Organization and has licensed other manufacturers to make the drug. Earlier this month, Gilead was denied patent protection for Tamiflu (formally known as oseltamivir) by India’s Patent Protection Office, and so the Indian pharmaceutical maker Cipla Ltd. has since moved its own version of the drug into production.
Similar issues arose with the 2005 avian flu threat, when Taiwan amidst a rising threat and frustrating negotiations with Roche, eventually moved forward with production of a generic version of Tamiflu. As a show of good faith, Taiwan’s National Health Research Institutes did not market the drug and limited it to public use. Arguments were that the NHRI could produce the drug more quickly and at lower cost, and being that negotiations fell apart they moved forward with their generic in the interest of their people. These past and present issues raise concern over the handling of these situations by the pharmaceutical Roche, still trying to strongly enforce patent rights abroad when threats are imminent. Only time will tell but let us hope that all parties involved handle the delicate situation and more delicate threat appropriately.
As if the lawyers for Apple weren’t already busy enough, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC has accused the company of infringing on three patents. The patents are titled “System and method for Communicating Selected Information to an Electronic Device,” “Audio System and Method,” and “Content Delivery System and Method.” According to Ars Technica, Affinity Labs claims that these patents cover buying songs from the iTunes store, and downloading songs from iTunes onto an iPod or iPhone. It is also claimed that these patents cover playing digital audio on an iPod or iPhone with external speakers.
Before reacting to this news, it should be mentioned that the lawsuit was filed in patent infringement-friendly Eastern Texas. Also, the patents seem to be a bit broad, since it seems as if they would apply to every audio device that plays digital audio. Affinity Labs has similar suits pending against car manufacturers, in which the defendants have filed countersuits. Can you say “patent troll?”
Accolade Systems LLC has also named Apple in a lawsuit, after it named Micron and Aptina as defendants as well. Accolade claims that their patent, “Method and Apparatus for Detecting Camera Sensor Intensity Saturation,” is violated by Apple as the iPhone automatically adjusts the brightness of a screen based on surrounding light. Other cellphones and products also have this feature, so it remains unclear as to why the suit is being launched against Apple.
While it seems as if Apple may be able to wiggle its way out of these lawsuits, Apple’s bottom line may be hurt as it still must pay money to defend itself.
As you may or may not know, Congress is currently debating a bill that would overhaul the patent system in the United States. However, some leading Senators have implied that compromise is necessary for the bill to be passed. As reported by Reuters, Senator Orrin Hatch said, “I don’t believe we’re there yet. It entails no one side getting everything it wants. There’s no way we’re going to be able to please everybody with this bill. We all know it.”
Right now, the bill would reduce damages for infringement as well as make it harder for plaintiffs to to find an infringement friendly court. Also, the bill would now require some granted patents to be be reviewed, as requested by the director. However, the issue of reducing damages has been the biggest stumbling block so far.
The reason this issue is such a point of contention is due to the opinions of different industries. High tech companies tend to favor the potential changes of the bill, because it would limit and possibly reduce the amount of litigation. On the other hand, smaller tech firms and big drug companies oppose these changes on the grounds that they will weaken their patent protections and portfolios.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, “Any changes in the patent system could have major unintended consequences.” If nothing else, one can deduce that it may take a while before any significant reform bill is passed.
Is it possible that Apple finally got tired of having third parties make attachable handles for their laptops? Or, is Apple ready to shed its customary “thin and sleek design?” While the former seems a lot more probable than the latter, this debate recently arose with the filing of a new Apple patent.
As reported by Cult of Mac, Apple was recently granted a patent for a handle with an integrated heat pipe. The patent application states that as designs for computers become more compact, “managing thermal loads in integrated circuits becomes more challenging.” Thus, not only will this handle be used to carry the computer, it can help dissipate the heat the builds up inside the computer. It is stated that this solution might actually work better than using a fan, as fans may significantly lower battery life as well as increase the noise level.
An example of an Apple computer that actually contained a handle was the iBook G3 Clamshell. Unfortunately, the handle was removed on later models. However, one must wonder if the handle is used to dissipate generated heat, will their laptop literally be too hot too handle?
It appears as if Apple has been named as a defendant in a recent suit filed by Monec Holding. According to CNET News, Monec accuses Apple of “patent infringement, unfair trade practices, monopolization, and tortuous interference for allegedly treading on its January 2002 patent.” That patent is titled “Electronic device, preferably an electronic book.”
Monec’s claims center around Apple’s reading applications for the iPhone, which make the phone an eBook reader. Supposedly, this violates Monec’s patent filed for a lightweight electronic device with a touchscreen, that can display a page of a book at normal size.
Some have speculated that this lawsuit may have been started by Amazon’s Kindle for iPhone e-book reader software that is now in Apple’s App Store. However, it seems as if Monec’s claims may be a bit too general for this lawsuit to ruled in the plantiff’s favor.