Archive for October, 2013

Standards Sources

October 9, 2013 Comments off

I spend a fair amount of my time reviewing wireless air interface and data communications inventions, and so I often need to reference appropriate related standards and specification documents. Below is a very partial list of wireless and general data communications standards and specifications along with their associated website links. I hope you find these references helpful and that these hasten your standards document searches.

LTE (and LTE-Advanced) air interface (E-UTRA): published by 3GPP:

UMTS/HSPA air interface (UTRA): published by 3GPP:

Wi-Fi (802.11): published by IEEE:

Bluetooth: published by Bluetooth Special Interest Group:

Near Field Communication (NFC): published by NFC Forum:

WiMAX (802.16): published by IEEE:

CDMA2000 (incl. EV-DO, etc.): published by 3GPP2:

Internet communications (e.g., HTTP, SIP, DNS, etc.): published by Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF):

Web application technologies (e.g., HTML, CSS, XML, SOAP, DOM, etc.): published by World Wide Web Consortium (W3C):

SIM/USIM: published by 3GPP:

Mobile device APIs (e.g., device management, M2M, etc.): published by Open Mobile Alliance (OMA):

Published Article: “Three Areas of Intellectual Property You Need to Understand”

October 9, 2013 Comments off

Prior to my attendance and panel participation at the SUITS conference in August 2013, TMC published an interview they did with me titled “Three Areas of Intellectual Property You Need to Understand” — this article is available here: Much of what is published there has been covered in earlier posts on this blog, such as in “Clearance Search Review” and “Invention Disclosure Highlights and Considerations”.

However, there is also additional new perspective pertaining to the biggest misconception in terms of how companies can understand, enforce, and protect their patents and intellectual property. This largest misconception in terms of how companies can understand, enforce, and protect their intellectual property is one held by a large portion of companies’ R&D engineering communities – that is, that an inventor’s novel and non-obvious invention is obvious and one that would have been formulated by any other engineer in a similar situation. This misconception leads to many inventions never being considered for patent protection. The issue can at least partially be overcome by continual inventor training to educate engineers to recognize the features of designed products and services that indicate the desirability of protecting aspects of these designed products and services with patents. This training should include information about patents, their history and intent, patentability rules, and examples of patented solutions within the given company’s technology areas. In particular, patent examples often inspire an “aha moment” within engineers that lead them to become prolific inventors and patent protectors.