NESNELERİN İNTERNETİ VE PATENTLER : NESNELERİN İNTERNETİ PATENT SAVAŞLARINA DOĞRU?
INTERNET OF THINGS AND PATENTS: TOWARDS THE IOT PATENT WARS?
Intellectual property is a key, albeit overlooked, issue when it comes to the Internet of Things (IoT). It is stillunclear, for instance, to what extent trade secrets can be used to prevent the user from controlling their own device(the so-called right to hack) and to hinder interoperability. Likewise, it is still to be fully explored to what extentintellectual property (database rights) can be used to prevent data portability. This paper focuses on patent law and,namely, on computer-implemented inventions by giving account of the approaches followed in Europe, United States,and India. With the IoT patenting activity being over eight times larger than the general worldwide increase in patenting,research on this field appears critical. The occasion of this study is the adoption in 2016 of the final version ofthe Indian guidelines on the examination of computer-related inventions, which have been surprisingly overlooked inthe legal literature. The main idea is that the Internet of Things will lead to a dramatic increase of applications for softwarepatents and if examiners, courts, and legislators will not be careful, there is the concrete risk of a surreptitiousgeneralised grant of patents for computer programs as such (in Europe) and for abstract ideas (in the United States).The clarity provided by the Indian guidelines, following a lively public debate, can constitute good practices that Europe,the United States, as well as the Republic of Turkey, should take into account.With the increase of IoT patents,it is foreseeable the shift from the smartphone wars to the IoT wars, as evidenced by some recent litigation betweenFitbit and Jawbone. The (perhaps cold) war seems impending, due to a number of reasons, such as the complexity ofthe supply chain, the several domains in which the IoT is divided and the composite nature of the IoT devices.
___
- Aggarwal, V. (2015).India’s first Internet of
Things policy to focus on Zero Defect, Zero Effect.
The Economic Times India. Retrieved from articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-04-10/
news/61017670_1_iot-m-sips-draft-policy.
- Amundson, S. (2016). United States: Patent
Disputes Over Wearables May Herald BroaderPatent
Litigation Regarding The Internet Of Things.
Mondaq Business Briefing (4 April).
- Beardwood, J., andBowman, M. (2016).
The internet of things and privacy: when do privacy
laws apply? Comps. & Law, 26(Jun/Jul), 37-40.
- CEN and CENELEC (2016). Standard Essential
Patents and Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory
(FRAND) Commitments (CEN-CENELEC).
- Chathurvedula, S. (2015). Revised guidelines
for software patents put on hold. Live Mint. Retrieved
at www.livemint.com/Industry/XGBbgNllmvuEUhJWs2cWgK/Revised-guidelines-for-software-patents-put-on-hold.html.
- Christie, A.F., Dent, C. &Liddicoat, J. (2016).
The Examination Effect: A Comparison of the Outcome
of Patent Examination in the US, Europe and
Australia, J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 16, 21.
- Comments and recommendations on the
Guidelines for Examination of Computer-Related
Inventions (CRIs) (2015). Retrieved at www.knowledgecommons.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/
- Comments-Recommendations-on-CRI-Guidelines-2015.pdf.
Concerns over the “Guidelines for Examination
of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)” (2015). Retrieved
at sflc.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Letter_CRIGuidelines2015-Prime-Minister.pdf.
- Consumers International (2016). Connection
and Protection in the Digital Age. The Internet of
Things and challenges for consumer protection.
April 2016. Retrieved at http://www.consumersinternational.org/media/1657273/connection-and-protection-the-internet-of-things-and-challenges-for-consumer-protection.pdf
- Crouch, D. (2016). First Amendment Finally
Reaches Patent Law. Retrieved at http://patentlyo.
com/patent/2016/10/amendment-finally-reaches.
html.
- Davis, R. (2016). The Top Patent Cases of 2016:
Midyear Report. Retrieved at http://www.law360.
com/articles/812729/the-top-patent-cases-of-2016-
midyear-report.
- Elvidge, J., Morrison,J., and Bijman, M. (2016).
The IoT: A Look at the IP Landscape of Fitness Wearables.
IP Watchdog (24 August).
- European Patent Office. (2016). Guidelines for
Examination in the European Patent Office, November
2016. Retrieved from http://www.epo.org/
law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/index.
htm.
- European Patent Office. (2013). Patents for software?
European law and practice. Retrieved from
documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/
a0be115260b5ff71c125746d004c51a5/$FILE/patents_for_software_en.pdf.
- Goode, L. (2016). Fitbit wins big in trade ruling
vs. Jawbone. The Verge. Retrieved at http://
www.theverge.com/2016/4/29/11538454/fitbit-wins-trade-patent-ruling-vs-jawbone-ineligible.
- Greenberg, A. (2016). It’s Finally Legal to
Hack Your Own Devices (Even Your Car). The
Wired. Retrieved at https://www.wired.com/2016/10/
hacking-car-pacemaker-toaster-just-became-legal/?mbid=nl_11116_p3&CNDID=32599349.
- Greenough, J. (2014). The ‘Internet of Things’
will be the world’s most massive device market and
save companies billions of dollars. Business Insider
UK (18 November).
- Ho, K. (2016a). United States: Internet Of Things:
Another Industry Patent War? Mondaq Business Briefing
(5 January).
- Ho, K. (2016b). United States: 4 Things
You Need To Know About The ImpendingInternet-Of-Things
Patent Wars. Corporate Counsel (16
May)
- Ho, K. and Huang, H.-Y. (C.) (2016). Internet
Of Things Patents: Tough To Enforce? IoT Central (7
November).
- Ho, K., and Johns, C.C. (2016). Patent the Internet
Of Things, or Not? TechBeacon (18 January).
- Ho, K., and Stein, J.D. (2016). 3 Challenges
for Internet-Of-Things Patents. Law360 (10 June).
- Horbal, P. (2015). Patents and the Internet of
Things. Mondaq Business Briefing (29 July).
Intellectual Property Magazine, Things just got
interesting, I.P.M., Feb, 7-8.
- Intellectual Property Office (2014). Eight great
technologies: The internet of things (UK Intellectual
Property Office).
- Lee, E.A. (2006). Cyber-physical systems – Are
computing foundations adequate? Position Paper for
NSF Workshop on Cyber-Physical Systems: Research
Motivation, Techniques and Roadmap.
- LexInnova (2016). Internet of Things. Patent
Landscape Analysis (WIPO).
- Li, Y. (2016). Chinese Patent Office proposed
revisions to its Examination Guidelines, 16 November
2016. Retrieved at http://trustinip.com/chinese-patent-office-proposed-revisions-to-its-examination-guidelines/.
- Linkomies, L. (2015). Internet of Things market
develops fast but there are privacy concerns. P.L.
& B.U.K.N.,79(May), 1,5-7.
- Lundqvist, B. (2016). Big Data, Open Data,
Privacy Regulations, Intellectual Property and Competition
Law in an Internet of Things World. Faculty
of Law, University of Stockholm Research Paper No. 1.
- Mar, E.Y., andLiaw, W. (2016). IP Law December
Developments: What to Expect in the Future.
FBM (28 December).
- Miglani S., &Kumar, M. (2016). India’s billion-member
biometric database raises privacyfears.
Retrieved atwww.reuters.com/article/us-india-biometrics-idUSKCN0WI14E.
- Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
(2015). Draft Policy on Internet of Things.
Retrieved at https://mygov.in/sites/default/files/
master_image/Revised-Draft-IoT-Policy-2.pdf.
- Ministry of Urban Development (2015), Smart
cities. Statement and Guidelines.
- Modi, N., Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s
speech on 68th Independence Day. Retrieved at http://
indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/
pm-narendra-modis-speech-on-independenceday-2016-here-is-the-full-text/.
- Mohan, V. (2014).Ecologists cheer Modi’s
‘zero defect, zero effect’ slogan. The Times of India.
Retrieved at timesofindia.indiatimes.com/
home/environment/developmental-issues/Ecologists-cheer-Modis-zero-defect-zero-effect-slogan/
articleshow/40312809.cms.
- Nightingale, A. (2016). More Rigorous Patent
Examination in US Than Europe andAustralia?Intellectual
Property Watch, 2 November 2016.
- Nivarra, L. (2011). La proprietà europea tra
controriforma e “rivoluzione passiva”. Europa e diritto
privato, 13(3), 575-624.
- Noto La Diega, G. (2017). Software patents
and the Internet of Things in Europe, the United
States, and India. European Intellectual Property Review,
39(3), 173-184.
- Noto La Diega, G. (2016). Clouds of Things:
Data Protection and Consumer Law at the Intersection
of Cloud Computing and the Internet of Things
in the United Kingdom. Journal of Law & Economic
Regulation, 9(1), 69-93.
- Noto La Diega, G., and Walden, I. (2016).
Contracting for the ‘Internet of Things’: Looking
into the Nest. European Journal of Law & Technology,
II, 1-38.
- Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs
and Trade marks (2016). Guidelines for Examination
of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs).
- Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs
and Trademarks (2013). Draft Guidelines for
Examination of Computer Related Inventions, June
2013.
- Office of Controller General of Patents, Designs
& Trademarks (2011). Manual of Patent Office
Practice and Procedure, v. 1.11.
- Roberts, J.J. (2016). Here’s Why Software Patents
Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling.
Retrieved at http://fortune.com/2016/10/03/
software-patents/.
- Robinson, W.K. (2015). Patent Law Challenges
for the Internet of Things. Wake Forest J. Bus. & Intell.
Prop. L.,15(4) 655.
- Rose, K., Eldridge, S., Chapin, L. (2015). An
Overview Understanding the Issues and Challenges of
a More Connected World (Internet Society).
- Sachs, R.R. (2015). Alice Haunted Federal
Courts and USPTO in October. Retrieved at http://
www.law360.com/articles/724855.
- Trade Secrets Institute (2016). In the Matter
of Certain Activity Tracking Devices, 337-963, U.S.
International Trade Commission (Washington). Retrieved
at http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/cases/matter-certain-activity-tracking-devices-337-963-us-international-trade-commission-washington.
- Trappey, A.J.C., Trappey, C.V., Govindarajan,
U.H., Chuang, A.C., Sun, J.J. (2016). A review of essential
standards and patent landscapes for the Internet
of Things: A key enabler for Industry 4.0. Advanced
Engineering Informatics.
- Weber, R.H. (2015). Internet of Things: privacy
issues revisited. C.L.S. Rev., 31(5), 618-627.
- Wong, J.I. (2016). One company has a big edge
in the fight to dominate the Internet of Things. QZ
(23 May).
- Yeoh, P. (2017). The fourth industrial revolution:
technological impact and privacy and data security
issues. Bus. L.R., 38(1), 9-13.
- Zingales, N. (2015). Of Coffee Pods, Videogames,
and Missed Interoperability: Reflections for
EU Governance of the Internet of Things. TILEC
Discussion Paper No. 2015-026.
- Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8
September 2016. GS Media BV v Sanoma Media Netherlands
BV and Others, C-160/15. EU:C:2016:644.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 1784/06 Classification
method/COMPTEL of 21 September 2012,
EP:BA:2012:T178406.20120921.
- EPO Boards of Appeal T 0531/09 Checkpoint
simulation/ACCENTURE of 3 May 2012,
EP:BA:2012:T053109.20120503.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 1265/09 Call center/IEX
of 24 January 2012, EP:BA:2012:T126509.20120124.
- EPO Enlarged Boards of Appeal, G 3/08 Programs
for computer of 12 May 2010, EP:BA:2010:
G000308.20100512.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 1606/06 DNS determination
of telephone number/HEWLETT-PACKARD
of 17 July 2007, EP:BA:2007:T160606.20070717.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 1227/05 Schaltkreissimulation
I/Infineon Technologies of 13 December
2006, EP:BA:2006:T122705.20061213.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0424/03 Clipboard
formats I/MICROSOFT of 23 February 2006,
EP:BA:2006:T042403.20060223.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0258/03 Auction method/HITACHI
of 21 April 2004, EP:BA:2004:T025803.
20040421.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0125/01 Gerätesteuerung/HENZE
of 11 December 2002,
EP:BA:2002:T012501.20021211.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0641/00 Two identities/COMVIK
of 26 September 2002, EP:BA:2002:
T064100.20020926.
- EPO Boards of Appeal,T 1173/97 Computer
program product/IBM of 1 July 1998,
EP:BA:1998:T117397.19980701.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0190/94 of 26 October
1995, EP:BA:1995:T019094.19951026.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0110/90 Editable
document form of 15 April 1993,
EP:BA:1993:T011090.19930415.
- EPO Boards of Appeal,T 0208/84 Computer-related
invention of 15 July 1986, EP:BA:1986:
T020884.19860715.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0163/85 Colour television
signal of 14 March 1989, EP:BA:1989:T016385.
19890314.
- EPO Boards of Appeal, T 0026/86 Röntgeneinrichtung
of 21 May 1987, EP:BA:1987: T002686.
19870521.
- Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, No. 2015-
5150 (Fed. Circ. 2017).
- Fitbit, Inc. v Aliphcom, et al., No. 15-cv-04073-
EJD (N.D. Cal. 2017).
- Amdocs (Israel) Ltd v Openet Telecom Inc, No.
2015-1180 (Fed. Circ. 2016).
- Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., No.
5:14-cv-05344-BLF (NC) (N.D. Cal. 2016).
- Fairwarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys, Inc., No. 15-
1985 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
- Synopsys v Mentor Graphics Corp, No. 2015-
1599(Fed. Cir. 2016).
- Affinity Labs, LLC v. Amazon.Com Inc. et al, No.
6:2015cv00029 - Document 75 (W.D. Tex. 2016).
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp.,
No. 15-1769 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
- Micro, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc.,
No. 15-1080 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
- Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, No. 15-1763 (Fed. Cir. June 27, 2016).
- ENFISH, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F. 3d 1327
- Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit 2016.
- Jawbone v Fitbit (2016) unpublished.
- Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
- Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV,
LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
- DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S.
__, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
- Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad
Genetics, No. 12-398 (569 U.S. ___ June 13, 2013).
- Accenture Global Servs. GmbH v Guidewire
Software Inc 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
- Mayo v Prometheus, 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012).
- Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
- Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
- Parker v Flook, 437 U. S. 584 (1978).
- O’Reilly v Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) (1853)