Are there patents in 1st Industrial Revolution? (IS INDIA READY FOR 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-PART2)

I raised this query in my bog post dated 19^th February 2018 and VK Varun, Scientist from DSIR, Ministry of Science & Technology commented  

During First Industrial Resolution, As per USPTO, 4695 patents were granted during 01/Jan/1790 to 31/12/1840 and its distribution is as follows:

1790-1800 [117]; 1801-1810 [084]; 1811-1820 [177]; 1821-1830 [595]; and 1831-1840 [3722].

Thank u Varun. There were indeed many patents and this was discussed in the working paper: Patents and the first industrial revolution in

the US,France and Britain, 1700-1850 by Sean Bottomley.

Some interesting aspects:

Between 1660-1760, few patents were awarded in England; it was unusual for more than a dozen to be granted in any one year. number of patents increases rapidly so that in 1800, 96 patents were awarded and in 1850, 513. Out of 72 'superstar' inventors born between 1660 and 1830, 81% obtained at least one patent in the course of their careers. 

Patent agents appeared in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Agents offered an extremely valuable service; by 1849, virtually all inventors employed an agent (even if they resided in the capital). 

International patents: In the 1820s, Britons obtained, at the very least, 170 patents in France (6.3 %) of the total awarded) and in the 1830s, 415 (7%)  of the total awarded. Henry Bessemer worked on the problem of manufacturing cheap steel for ordnance production from 1850 to 1855 when he patented his method. He sold an exclusive licence to the Spanish  for his steel converter for £5,000. 

Patent infringement: Work on patent cases in the Court of Chancery between 1714 and 1758, shows that there were, at the very least, forty one cases instigated by patentees. The Court of Chancery offered patentees a variety of legal remedies – most importantly, injunctions.

Patent licensing : Between 1770 and 1845, around 30 percent of English patents were assigned in full and another 25 percent were either assigned in part and/or licensed as well. Many inventors licensed their patent. By selling a portion of the patent as part of a partnership agreement, inventors could obtain access to manufacturing plant and/or capital. Without sufficient capital, it is difficult to turn an invention to profit.

Many inventors made money : silk-winding machinery patented by Thomas Lombe in 1718 and worked in partnership with his half-brother John and his cousin William. Over the course of the patent term (1718-1732,  Thomas made £80,000, and when he died in 1739, he was able to leave his family £120,000, a colossal fortune by the standards of the day.

All inventors did not make money : there were many inventors during the industrial revolution who failed to reap any rewards from their endeavours and ended their days in poverty – John Kay, James Hargreaves and Richard Trevithick to name but three. Moreover, Kay, Hargreaves and Trevithick all chose to patent their most important inventions (respectively, the flying shuttle, the spinning jenny and the first high-pressure steam locomotive), but to no avail.

Patenting is not a new subject, only we cannot continue to ignore them for 4th industrial revolution too. in Part 3 we will discuss about pitfalls of leap-frogging.

Licences DPI de brevet, commercialisation de la technologie, marketing de l'innovation: Première partie, principes fondamentaux des DPI (French Edition)

Inventor and author Majid EI Bouazzaoui translatied into the French language and adaptation to Moroccan law, the first part " Basic principles of intellectual property rights (Ipr) " of the Indian book " Patent Licensing, commercialization of technology, marketing of Innovation "...

It is a unique book that goes around the topic and presents the basic principles of intellectual property law (Ipr), analyses the weaknesses of the law in the face of accelerated technology and economic development; and Even offers solutions.

This is really a reference book that must exist in every home and be reread as often as possible. I recommend it to students, professors, scientists, Phd students, engineers, inventors, entrepreneurs, policymakers, politicians, etc.

Order on Amazon.

US court rules on royalty for 2G, 3G, 4G SEPs

The court took a firm stand against royalty stacking. The judgement cited one of the key reasons for using top down analysis is that it prevents royalty stacking. The court also found that the results from the ex-standard approach proposed by Ericsson are highly suggestive of royalty stacking and lack fundamental credibility. The court adopted a maximum aggregate royalty rate based on various public announcements made by SEP owners and industry leaders for the top down calculations.
The court relied on the top down approach for determining a fair and reasonable royalty rate. It said: “A top down model aims to value a portfolio of SEPs by determining a fair and reasonable total aggregate royalty for all patents that are essential to a standard.” “It then apportions that royalty to the SEP owners based on the relative value of their portfolio against the value of all patents essential to the standard.”
Rates under FRAND:
4G- 0.45%
3G- 0.30%
2G-0.16%
(source: IP Pro Patents)

IS INDIA READY FOR 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION? (part1)

Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced that the DoT will set up test centre for 5th generation telecom technology with IIT Chennai. As per budget document, the FM has proposed to allocate Rs 134.48 crore for setting up of the "5G connectivity Test Bed".  Further the minister said the government would invest in research in new areas such as machine learning, artificial intelligence, robotics as it looks to prepare the country for the technology of the future. "Technologies such as machine learning, artificial intelligence and others are the technologies of the future and NITI Aayog will establish a national programme to conduct research and development in these areas,".  These new generation technologies are associated with 4^th Industrial revolution. Are we getting ready for the Factories 4 ?

The term Industrial Revolution was first popularized by the English economic historian Arnold Toynbee to describe Britain’s economic development from 1760 to 1840. It witnessed the emergence of mechanization, a process that replaced agriculture with industry as the foundations of the economic structure of society. Mass extraction of coal along with the invention of the steam engine created a new type of energy that thrusted forward all processes thanks to the development of railroads and the acceleration of economic, human and material exchanges. Other major inventions such as forging and new know-how in metal shaping gradually drew up the blueprints for the first factories and cities as we know them today.

The first Industrial Revolution and most technological developments preceding it had little or no scientific base. It created a chemical industry with no chemistry, an iron industry without metallurgy, power machinery without thermodynamics. Engineering, medical technology, and agriculture until 1850 were pragmatic bodies of applied knowledge in which things were known to work, but rarely was it understood why they worked. The second Industrial Revolution accelerated the mutual feedbacks between these two forms of knowledge `science’ and `technology’. Historians have labeled the years from 1870-1914 as the period of the Second Industrial Revolution. While the First Industrial Revolution caused the growth of industries, such as coal, iron, railroads and textiles, the Second Industrial Revolution witnessed the expansion of electricity, petroleum and steel.

The Third Industrial Revolution, or the Digital Revolution, refers to the advancement of technology from analog electronic and mechanical devices to the digital technology available today. The era started during the 1980s and is ongoing.  Advancements during the Third Industrial Revolution include the personal computer, the internet, and information and communications technology (ICT). The first industrial revolution used water and steam to mechanize production, the second used electric energy to create mass production and the third used electronics and information technology to automate production.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution builds on the Digital Revolution, representing new ways in which technology becomes embedded within societies and even the human body. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is marked by emerging technology breakthroughs in a number of fields, including robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, quantum computing, biotechnology, The Internet of Things, 3D printing and autonomous vehicles.

The fourth revolution is unfolding before our eyes. For India, the Fourth Industrial Revolution brings tremendous opportunities to leapfrog many stages of development, hastening its journey towards becoming a developed economy. In many ways, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a leveller. The technologies being used in India will be the same as those in use in the developed world. Robots, AI, IoT are all technologies transforming industry in the West and are ready to do the same in India.

We missed the first and second Industrial revolutions but IT manpower gave us a strong foothold on the global platform in digital era.  Along with lure of opportunity, there exists threat of `premature industrialization’.  De-industrialization sets in for developed economies after they reach high level of economic prosperity.  Manufacturing as a share of total employment peaked at 45% in the UK before World War I, while in the US, it peaked in the range of 25-27% in the 1970s, before dropping off in both cases. But the UK and the US were both prosperous economies at the respective point in times at which this deindustrialization occurred. Harvard economist Dani Rodrik sees what he called “premature deindustrialization” as manufacturing shrinks in poor countries that never industrialized much in the first place. Manufacturing as a share of employment peaked at about 15% for Brazil in the late 1980s, and has been declining ever since. In India, manufacturing peaked at 13% in 2002 and has been in decline since then. We have a thriving service sector but need jobs in manufacturing too.

Analysis by World Economic Forum `Readiness for Future ofProduction’ analyses strengths and weakness of India. Of the 100 countries we are ranked 30 for structure of production but lower at 42 for drivers of production. The focus thus has to be on improving the areas where we are week. Our weakest area is Technology & Innovation. To understand this we need to reflect on Intellectual Property. We will address this in next part- are there patents in 1^st Industrial Revolution?

Life Science clusters in India

The BIRAC Regional Innovation Centre at IKP Knowledge Park prepared a study of select life sciences clusters in India. It maps the knowledge generation capacity, interaction between various stakeholders and gaps that hinder commercialisation of innovations.
Download link: http://www.ikpknowledgepark.com/images/BRIC%20REPORT%202.pdf

Digital Vaccine- war on trademark

Bhargav Sri Prakash, founder of a Silicon Valley based Indian start up FriendsLearn behind the fooya! app is fighting off a trademark bid for “digital vaccines” by Boston based Moderna Therapeutics which has filed for exclusive access to the trademark for “digital vaccines”. 
“Digital vaccines” expand the definition of a standard injected vaccine. “Neurogaming and immersive VR based apps like fooya! induce specific brain activity to trigger habit formation and have been shown in clinical trials to reduce health risks and prevent lifestyle disease. At its core, this is what our digital vaccine embodies,” says Sri Prakash.
Moderna Therapeutics, is a biotechnology startup based in Boston which has attracted nearly $2 billion from investors since its 2010 founding. Among other things it partnered with Merck to develop personalised cancer vaccine.
IT companies have been referring Digital Vaccine as security packages for network systems.

Readiness for the Future of Production Report 2018

The Readiness for the Future of Production Report 2018 is published by the World Economic Forum’s System Initiative on Shaping the Future of Production. The data-driven Readiness for the Future of Production Assessment 2018 analyses how well positioned countries are today to shape and benefit from the changing nature of production in the future. Readiness is generally regarded as the ability to capitalize on future production opportunities, mitigate risks and challenges, and be resilient and agile in responding to unknown future shocks. The assessment is made up of two main components: Structure of Production, or a country’s current baseline of production, and Drivers of Production, or the key enablers that position a country to capitalize on the Fourth Industrial Revolution to transform production systems. Where does India stand?
Of the 100 countries and economies included in the assessment, there are 25 Leading countries, 10 Legacy countries, 7 High-Potential countries/economies and 58 Nascent countries. All Leading countries are high-income countries except for China and Malaysia. Overall, the 25 Leading countries already account for over three quarters of global Manufacturing Value Added today and are poised to do well in the future—which could lead to increased global disparity in production. India is in the Legacy country category, meaning there exists large structure of production but pulled down by unfavourable drivers of production, which is measured by Technology & Innovation, Human Capital, Global trade & investment, demand environment and sustainable resources. Thus India gets 30th rank for structure of production but 44th rank for drivers of production. And in the demand environment it ranks in top 5.

Legacy countries currently have a strong Structure of Production, but display a low level of readiness for the future of production, characterized by weak performance across the Drivers of Production. Historically, many Legacy countries benefited from globalization as more developed economies outsourced lower pieces of the value chain to places with lower labour costs. As a result, Legacy countries received foreign direct investment, increased market access and developed a strong Structure of Production. Whereas Leading countries score very well on Complexity, Legacy countries’ strength within the Structure of Production tends to be on Scale. With rising production costs, Legacy countries risk losing traditional manufacturing share to Nascent countries that can offer even cheaper labour. By underinvesting across drivers, Legacy countries risk not being as prepared as Leading countries to capture advanced manufacturing share in the future. Combined, these risks could lead to premature de-industrialization if they are not managed effectively.

Does this mean India's ride in 4th Industrial Revolution could be bumpy with obsolete manufacturing technology?

FRAND rates in US Judgement

A US judge has handed down a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licence for standard-essential patents (SEPs) in a high-profile quarrel between telecoms company Ericsson and TCL, a China-based smartphone maker.   Royalty rates fixed as under:

A running royalty for End User Terminals Sold beginning January 1, 2018 according to the following schedule:

 For each such product Sold that is compliant with GSM, GPRS, or EDGE (but not compliant with WCDMA, HSPA, and/or 4G), 0.164% of the Net Selling Price if sold in the United States, 0.118% of the Net Selling Price if sold in Europe, and 0.090% of the Net Selling Price if sold anywhere in the world other than the United States or Europe; 

 For each such product Sold that is compliant with WCDMA or HSPA (but not compliant with 4G), 0.300% of the Net Selling Price if sold in the United States, 0.264% of the Net Selling Price if sold in Europe, and 0.224% of the Net Selling Price if sold anywhere in the world other than the United States or Europe;

 For each such product Sold that is compliant with 4G, 0.450% of the Net Selling Price if sold in the United States, and 0.314% of the Net Selling Price if sold anywhere in the world other than the United States. Should TCL purchase TCL End User Terminals from a Third Party claiming to  be licensed or to have pass-through rights under Ericsson Licensed Patents that confer a license covering the End User Terminal, then TCL will receive credit for that pass through license in the royalty rates applied. In particular, with regard to Ericsson Patents that are essential to the WCDMA Standards (“Ericsson WCDMA Licensed Patents”) for the Selling of ASICs, then TCL may have the option of remaining unlicensed by Ericsson under such Ericsson WCDMA Licensed Patents subject to Selling TCL End User Terminals with ASICs that are compliant with the WCDMA Standard. TCL shall then pay a royalty equal to the rate paid for the GSM/GPRS/EDGE and/or LTE Standards as specified in Clause E(3)(a) or Clause E(3)(c) of this Injunction, as applicable, for each such TCL End User Terminal  provided that such TCL End User Terminal is also compliant with any of the GSM/GPRS/EDGE Standards and/or LTE Standards while it is qualified as a WCDMA End User Terminal. For the avoidance of doubt, the Parties acknowledge the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Ericsson confirms that upon the Effective Date it has not provided any licenses with pass-through rights under its 4G patent portfolio to a chipset provider, making, using, importing, selling, or otherwise disposing of 4G compliant chipsets and components. For the avoidance of doubt, TCL shall only be required to pay the highest  prevailing royalty rate under this Injunction for each End User Terminal. For example, the 3G royalty rate for 3G multimode End User Terminal includes the royalty rate also for the 2G part in such End User Terminal.

Source: Judgement

IIIF2017 Report

https://www.slideshare.net/indiainvents/iiif-2017-report

Technology Transfer Evolution

The vision statement of Technology Transfer office now includes `University Economic Engagement'.
University leaders are increasingly responding to the needs of the innovation economy—and in particular their local economies—by including innovation, entrepreneurship, and “economic engagement” programming in their strategic planning processes. As part of this response, university technology transfer offices are evolving, and must continue to evolve, toward participation in a broader scope of efforts—with patents and licensing as one emphasis, and also connecting with and engaging in other efforts that support the learning and discovery missions of the university. In evolving toward broader participation in university economic engagement, technology transfer offices will develop deeper relationships with industry and other community partners; broaden their reach to areas such as education, technology development, and entrepreneurship; and integrate more closely with other supportive administrative functions such as industry contracting. While budget and resource threats to the university research enterprise are creating increased pressure to generate revenue from licensing and innovation activities, university leaders must recognize that successful economic engagement will not be focused on short-term income, but rather on longer-term work on relationship development and ecosystem building. 
Read:http://www.aplu.org/library/technology-transfer-evolution-driving-economic-prosperity/file

EU guidelines on SEP

EU touched on transparency of SEP.

INCREASING TRANSPARENCY ON SEPS EXPOSURE
Information on the existence, scope and relevance of SEPs is vital for fair licensing
negotiations and for allowing potential users of a standard to identify the scale of their
exposure to SEPs and necessary licensing partners. However, currently the only information
on SEPs accessible to users can be found in declaration databases maintained by SDOs which
may lack transparency. This situation makes licensing negotiations and the anticipation of
risks related to SEPs particularly difficult to navigate for start-ups and SMEs. The primary
purpose of declarations is to reassure an SDO and all third parties that the technology will be
accessible to users, typically under a commitment to license under FRAND conditions.
SDO databases may record tens of thousands of SEPs for a single standard, and this trend is
growing9. The declarations are based on a self-assessment by the patent holder, and are not
subject to scrutiny regarding the essentiality of the declared patent, which can evolve in the
course of the standard adoption procedure. In addition, stakeholders report that even in
concrete licensing negotiations licensors fail to substantiate their claims with more precise
information. This is particularly unsatisfactory in the context of IoT where new players with
little experience of SEPs licensing are continually entering the market for connectivity. The
Commission therefore believes that measures, as outlined below, are needed to improve the
information on SEPs.
1.1. IMPROVING QUALITY AND ACCESSIBILITY OF INFORMATION RECORDED IN SDO
DATABASES
The Commission believes that SDOs should provide detailed information in their databases to
support the SEP licensing framework. While SDO databases collect large amounts of
declaration data10, they often do not provide user-friendly accessibility to interested parties,
and lack essential quality features. The Commission therefore takes the view that the quality
and accessibility of the databases should be improved11. First, data should be easily accessible
through user friendly interfaces, both for patent holders, implementers and third parties. All
declared information should be searchable based on the relevant standardisation projects,
which may also require the transformation of historic data into current formats. Quality
processes should eliminate also duplications and other obvious flaws. Finally, there should be
links to patent office databases, including updates of patent status, ownership and its transfer....

Read: https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/26583

Limits of cross-licensing agreement

HTC are the third party beneficiaries of a covenant contained in a 1998 cross-licence agreement between Qualcomm Inc and the Claimant, Philips. The three patents in issue concern High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) and have been declared essential by Philips to the Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) standard developed under the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). HSPA was added to the UMTS standard in 2002 (enabling handsets to download data at high speeds) and in 2004 (for uplink data transfer).  The alleged infringing HTC handsets implement releases 5 and 6 of UMTS, and have HSPA.  HSPA is a hybrid TDMA/CDMA system. 
HTC argued that they are covered by the covenant not to sue, because (i) they have been designated a "CDMA Technically Necessary Patent Beneficiary" in writing by Qualcomm to Philips; (ii) the patents have been declared essential to the UMTS standard; and (iii) the UMTS standard is a "CDMA Wireless Industry Standard".  Philip submitted that the alleged infringements arise from HTC's implementation of high speed packet access (HSPA) which is not an act of infringement of a "CDMA Wireless Industry Standard".

Further reading.

Book Summery

Patent IPR Licensing-

Technology Commercialisation-

Innovation Marketing

This is a guide book for researchers and innovators from IFIA member, Indian Innovators Association. The Author in his long association with innovators noticed that more often benefits from creative endeavor elude the researcher/ engineer. The point of vexation arises when they notice that there are no buyers for their innovation.

One remedy for this heart burning experience is to start preparation for commercialization early in the development phase with clarity on the fundamentals of relevant market. The market is different for Patent license, Technology Commercialization and Innovation. Understanding characteristics of the market you are jumping into is a pre-requisite for non-business savvy innovator. This guide book takes the reader to each of these markets giving a basic view of each market.

Message from Alireza RASTEGAR, IFIA President:

Intellectual Property protection, licensing, commercialization and innovation marketing are the required steps for developing an innovative idea into a marketable product. Having knowledge about these concepts ensured the successful exploitation of the innovative technologies in the industrial sectors.

The community of idea owners needs to know how to prepare a well-drafted patent application, generate wealth from the patent, create physical products to help the brand

thrive and license their patents without the need to write a business plan, develop a marketing strategy, spend money on advertising, or find distribution.

Thanks to the efforts made by the Indian Innovator Association, IFIA Full member and representative in India, such information has become available. The inventors and innovators all around the world are encouraged to benefit from the wealth of knowledge

included in the book "PATENT LICENSING TECHNOLOGY COMMERCIALISATION INNOVATION MARKETING" and become familiar with a variety of new concepts.

The book is available at , Flipkart, Amazon, Kindle, iBook, Google Play etc.

Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order 2017- Notifying Cyber Security Products in furtherance of the Order

The Government has issued Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order 2017 vide the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) Notification No.P-45021/2/2017-B.E.-II dated 15.06.2017 to encourage ‘Make in India’ and to promote manufacturing and production of goods and services in India with a view to enhancing income and employment.
 In furtherance of the Public Procurement (Preference to Make in India) Order 2017 notified vide reference cited above, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) hereby notifies that preference shall be provided by all procuring entities to domestically manufactured/ produced Cyber Security Products as per the aforesaid Order.
For the purpose of this Notification, Cyber Security Product means a product or appliance or software manufactured/ producedfor the purpose of maintaining confidentiality, availability and integrity of Information by protecting computing devices, infrastructure, programs, data from attack, damage, or unauthorized access.
In addition to being an Indian registered / incorporated entity, and supplying products should satisfy the conditions of IP ownership as under:
IP Ownership rights would need to be substantiated by adequate proof, such as (a) adequate documentation evidencing ownership(evidenced by supporting proof such as documentation related to development but not limited to IP assignments, shrink wraps, license agreements, click wraps); OR (b) IP registrations. It may be noted that IP registrations is not a compulsory criteria as it is not necessary to register to exercise copyright in India.

Patent IPR Licensing- Technology Commercialisation – Innovation Marketing : Guide Book for Researchers, Innovators

My new book:
The guide book by Indian Innovators Association will help researchers and innovators to clearly understand the difference between patent licensing, technology commercialization and innovation marketing. Everything is important but each one is different. Intellectual property is a common thread and the reader is taken through the fundamentals of IPR before explaining each of the three. topics.

Available at:
Flipkart
Amazon
infibeam
notionpress

Revised Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions

Government released revised guidelines on June 30th. It replaces guidelines issued in February 2016.
Means plus Function: The claims concerning CRIs are often phrased in means for performing some function such as means for converting digital to analog signal etc. These types of claims are termed as means +function format. The „means‟ mentioned in the claims shall clearly be defined with the help of physical constructional features and their reference numerals to enhance the intelligibility of the claims. The claims in means plus function form shall not be allowed if the structural features of those means are not disclosed in the specification. Further, if the specification supports performing the invention solely by the computer program then in that case means plus function claims shall be rejected as these means are nothing but computer programme per se. Where no structural features of those means are disclosed in the specification and specification supports performing the invention solely by the software then in that case means in the “means plus function” claims are nothing but software.

Technologies for transfer from ISRO

200 technologies available for transfer from ISRO.
http://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/article-files/isro-technology-transfer/technology-offers/ttic-technologies-on-offer-for-know-how-transfer-rev.pdf

Innovators from 30 countries to meet at Visakhapatnam, India

2017 International Innovation Fair, 9-11th September, Visakhapatnam

IP filing trends derived from the Indian IP 2015-16 annual report

An analysis by Invn Tree IP Services.