Part III: Patent protection issues in the Internet of Things (IoT)space (continued)

Parts I and Part II of this series included discussions related to obtaining and enforcing patent protection issues in the IoT space, and examples of how to structure claims to avoid Alice rejections.  In Part III of this series, we will look into the current landscape and major players in the IoT space, with particular emphasis on autonomous vehicles, in an effort to illustrate opportunities for intellectual property protection.  Specifically, we look at new developments in the IoT space related to licensing opportunities for IoT-based technologies.
            As mentioned in Part I of this series, a major aspect in the IoT space involves vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communication and/or vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication.  As a specific example Gartner Research has recently forecast that new vehicles equipped with data connectivity will increase from 6.9 million per year in 2015 to a total cumulative shipment of automobiles equipped with data connectivity to 250 million by 2020.  However, such enthusiastic estimates may need to be tempered slightly due to changes in the U.S. political landscape.
At the end of 2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation issued a proposed rule that would require automakers to include V2V technologies in all new light-duty vehicles by 2020.  As an all-seeing network of intercommunicating vehicles is required for full vehicle autonomy, such a rule would have accelerated the path towards autonomous vehicles.  However, an executive order signed Jan. 30th, 2017 now makes it unlikely the legislation will be enacted. 
In the absence of such legislation, it may be expected that the road toward autonomous vehicles may be stymied.  However, even without the legislation, it appears likely that many automakers will follow the lead of General Motors, which just recently started shipping 2017 Cadillac CTS sedans, making them the first vehicles in the U.S. market to include V2V communications technology.  In other words, it appears automakers are likely to proceed with equipping vehicles with V2V communications technology in anticipation of deploying autonomous vehicles by 2020, regardless of the political legislation. 
Thus, it is imperative that in order to compete in the connected car revolution, companies establish patent portfolios that will ensure protection in the near future, and ensure establishment of competitive positions in the marketplace.  In Parts I and II of this series, we discussed some strategies for obtaining patent protection in the IoT space.  Another option, is licensing of technologies related to connected cars.
As an example, earlier this year Microsoft agreed to license its patents related to Internet-connected cars to Toyota.  Such a collaboration serves to emphasize that the connected car is, at its core, a software challenge.  Further, the deal between Microsoft and Toyota may signal to other automakers of the willingness of Microsoft to partner with others.  For example, although Toyota is the first to obtain such licenses, Microsoft has worked with other automakers and related companies for years, including Ford, Kia, Nissan, Volvo, BMW, Harman, etc.  Thus, the new patent initiative may indicate that Microsoft and other tech companies may become more willing in the near future to licensing agreements.  Consistent with that idea, at a recent Connected Car Detroit conference, VW of America’s Frank Weith stated that “It’s a whole different set of players that are now engaged in the auto industry”. 
Thus, the take-home message is that the connected car is quickly becoming a reality, and one option in terms of establishing competitive market position may come from licensing agreements with tech giants such as Microsoft and others.

Popular posts from this blog

Surprising Uses for Oobleck

Image
Oobleck is a common name for a non-Newtonian fluid comprising cornstarch and water. Named after a substance humorously described in Dr. Seuss’s classic children’s story, Bartholomew and the Ooblek, the cornstarch and water concoction is frequently used in children’s science classes as a fun way to learn about fluid mechanics. You may have fond memories, yourself, of playing with oobleck as a youth. Oobleck behaves as a fluid when touched gently, but becomes hard as a solid when hit with great velocity. For example, a person could run across a swimming pool of oobleck without getting their feet wet. However, if a person stood still on the oobleck, then they would slowly sink. Because oobleck is a children’s plaything and because of its simple recipe (cornstarch and water), one may be surprised to learn that inventors have attempted to patent serious industrial uses for the material. As an example, one current patent application, US 2015/0016885 (now abandoned), is for a system of fi
Read more

Dispensing with the Formalities: Ex Parte Quayle Actions

Image
Checking my email after work one day, I was greeted with some unfortunate news: the application I was prosecuting had received yet another Office action.   Frustrated, I couldn’t resist skimming the substance of the rejection.   After all, like any patent practitioner, I thought my arguments were pretty irrefutable.   The news only got worse… or so it appeared.   The Office action was something called an “ Ex Parte Quayle action.”   Having never received one of these actions, I started mentally preparing myself to pull out the MPEP and research some arcane rejection. To my surprise, I didn’t find myself knee-deep in case law the following day.   Ex Parte Quayle actions, while somewhat inconvenient, are far from insurmountable.   In short, an Ex Parte Quayle action or “Quayle action” is issued when an application has objections remaining as to formal matters, but is otherwise allowable.   Accordingly, the mailing of these actions closes prosecution on the merits of the appl
Read more

Adaptive Headlight IP

Image
The recent Infrastructure bill signed into law by President Biden affects many things, but one aspect that affects the automotive world is adaptive headlights.  As noted by Jalopnik puts it somewhat crudely, this means “our headlights will suck way less” (link to https://jalopnik.com/finally-our-headlights-will-suck-way-less-1848067412 ). But with this sudden change, adaptive headlights in the US may be in for a particular messy IP situation since many companies may have considered it was not necessary to protect their adaptive headlight innovations in the US because of the 50-year old rule preventing such technology. Recent patents in the field from applicants such as Lumileds and Arex indicate that smaller players and startups may be able to break into the market which is expected to explode in the next few years once the final rules are implemented.  For those in the industry that have typically avoided US patent filings in the adaptive headlamp area, they may want to rethink th
Read more