p: 206.217.2200 | e: info@aeonlaw.com
Early jurisprudence of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the patent appellate court, suggests that the court was attempting to lower the bars to obtain a patent, including an expansion of what could be considered eligible patent subject matter; i.e., the threshold determination of what ‘things’ can or cannot be considered as patentable.
China led the world in domestic patents issued in 2012, with 1.26 million granted by China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO).
“Chinese copy” is a phrase that can be found in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary. The 
definition: “an exact imitation or duplicate that includes defects as well as desired qualities.” For years, China had a reputation for slavishly copying the West. “Made in China” meant a cheap copy. China’s reputation has improved a little in recent years as leading manufacturers such as Apple have moved production there. But China is still known for making things, not for inventing things.
Google (and its Motorola Mobility subsidiary) have been engaged in a long-standi
ng “patent war” with Apple over smartphone technology. A UK judge has recently invalidated one of Motorola’s patents that could have been “ammunition” in the patent fight. Will this make a difference?
Apple won a billion dollar patent lawsuit victory over Samsung back in August. We usually think such jaw-dropping judgments are the realm of the biggest of high-tech companies, but a university has recently joined the billion-dollar patent win league.