More than six dozen models of wireless headsets from seven suppliers violate two One-E-Way patents on wireless digital audio systems, alleges a One-E-Way complaint filed Dec. 8 at the International Trade Commission. In the complaint, One-E-Way, based in Pasadena, California, describes itself as a company "engaged in the business of designing and marketing wireless digital audio devices." The complaint names as respondents Beats, Blue Ant Wireless, Creative, Jabra, Jawbone, Sennheiser and Sony. It alleges the seven companies are importing headsets that infringe two of its U.S. patents (No. 7,865,258, issued Jan. 4, 2011, and No. 8,131,391, issued March 6, 2012) for methods of decreasing transmission errors between a transmitter and the receiver in the headset, reducing interference and improving the quality of audio. One-E-Way is asking for a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order banning import and sale of infringing products from each respondent. In a public notice, the ITC is asking for comments by Dec. 22 on public interest issues raised by the complaint.

The FTC is likely to conclude its ongoing study of patent assertion entities’ (PAEs) business practices by the end of 2015, but Congress shouldn’t wait for the FTC’s report to pass legislation aimed at curbing patent litigation abuses, said FTC Commissioner Julie Brill on Wednesday. Brill said during a joint American Antitrust Institute-Computer and Communications Industry Association event that she's “hopeful that Congress will act in the near future” to curb patent abuses. Brill noted the House’s passage of the Innovation Act (HR-3309) and commitments by incoming House Intellectual Property Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., to return to the patent abuse issue in the 114th Congress. Efforts to curb patent litigation abuse stalled in May when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., removed his Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) from the committee’s agenda (see 1405230056). The FTC also won’t wait to curb patent litigation abuses, Brill said, referencing the FTC’s recent settlement with MPHJ Technology Investments, which prohibits the PAE from sending out deceptive patent demand letters from small businesses and other entities (see 1411060044). The FTC would be open to issuing an interim report on its FTC study, but will only do so if there is “definitive” information available for release, Brill said.

Fujitsu Labs developed a technology for embedding and retrieving identification data in light that’s cast onto an object by LEDs, the company said Monday. By embedding data in light in a way that it is not detectable to the naked eye, an object that has been illuminated can convey data to a smartphone or other smart device, it said. "With previous technologies, data could only be conveyed to a user’s area, but with this technology, data can be conveyed at the level of an individual object," it said. "To capture the data, a user only needs to point a camera at the object. This technology enables products in a store, works of art, people, buildings and a variety of other objects to be the source of data transmission." The company plans to showcase the technology at Fujitsu Forum 2014, which opens Wednesday in Munich for a two-day run, it said.

The FTC seeks comment on its proposed settlement with patent assertion entity (PAE) MPHJ Technology Investments. The settlement, announced last week, would prohibit MPHJ and the Farney Daniels law firm from sending out deceptive prelitigation demand letters to entities the PAE claims have violated its patents. The FTC had been investigating MPHJ’s sending of more than 9,000 demand letters over its patent portfolio, which includes multiple patents on scanning documents for attachment to emails (see 1411060044). The FTC will accept comments on the proposed settlement through Dec. 8, the commission said Thursday in the Federal Register.

The FTC deserves praise for reaching a settlement with patent assertion entity (PAE) MPHJ Technology Investments, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Friday. But the settlement also highlights the need for legislation to give the commission “clear authority” to take action against PAEs, she said. The FTC’s settlement with MPHJ, announced Thursday (see 1411060044), bars the PAE from sending out deceptive pre-litigation demand letters to entities it claims have violated its patents. Application Developers Alliance President Jon Potter separately criticized the FTC’s settlement with MPHJ, saying in a statement it “doesn’t even qualify as a slap on the wrist.” The settlement is “further evidence that comprehensive patent legislation -- including demand letter provisions with teeth -- is necessary,” Potter said. McCaskill said in a news release that her Transparency in Assertion of Patents Act (S-2049) would give the FTC more authority to take action against deceptive demand letters by requiring specific information disclosures in the letters. McCaskill chairs the Senate panel on Consumer Protection. Some of the ideas included in S-2049 made it into compromise language for the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720), but the Senate Commerce Committee has not moved to consider S-2049 on its own due to concerns about the bill’s provisions.

The FTC said its members unanimously agreed to a settlement with patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments that will prohibit the PAE and the Farney Daniels law firm from sending out deceptive patent demand letters to small businesses or other entities the PAE claims have violated its patents. The FTC said Thursday the settlement is its first action against a PAE using its consumer protection authority. MPHJ’s patent portfolio includes multiple patents on scanning documents for attachment to emails. The FTC said it had been investigating whether MPHJ’s sending of more than 9,000 demand letters between September 2012 and June 2013 to small businesses constituted “deceptive sales claims and phony legal threats.” That investigation determined that “the senders had no intention -- and did not make preparations -- to initiate lawsuits against the small businesses that did not respond to their letters. No such lawsuits were ever filed.” MPHJ counter-sued the FTC in January (see 1401160076), but that suit was dismissed. MPHJ, Farney Daniels and MPHJ owner Jay Mac Rust agreed not to make deceptive representations when asserting MPHJ’s patent rights and not to misrepresent the likelihood and timeline of possible patent infringement lawsuits in demand letters. Violation of the settlement will result in a $16,000 fine per letter, the FTC said in a consent order adopting the settlement. MPHJ and Farney Daniels said in a joint statement that they “strongly maintain their position that the enforcement letters that were sent were accurate, required by law, and protected by the First Amendment.” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., praised the FTC in a statement, but said “this action alone with not stop abuse of the patent system.” The Patent Transparency and Improvements Act (S-1720) included a demand letter provision that “would have empowered the FTC to seek meaningful monetary penalties from bad actors, which is an important deterrent for misconduct,” Leahy said in his statement. Leahy scuttled the Judiciary Committee’s consideration of S-1720 in May (see 1405230056), which CEA President Gary Shapiro (see 1411050022) and others have blamed on direct pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Shapiro in a statement Thursday hailed the FTC "for focusing on the deception and harm caused by patent trolls," describing them as "extortionists that bleed $80 billion a year from the U.S. economy and who engage in fraudulent conduct." Slapping patent abusers with stiff financial penalties and having them make whole the businesses they deceived "is a step in the right direction," he said. "More important will be the swift passage of patent litigation reform in the next Congress, which will help drive trolls back under the bridge and ensure that our patent system is used to promote -- not suppress -- innovation to create jobs and grow our economy.”

The International Trade Commission is asking for comments on whether it should keep in place six exclusion orders against decades-old toys and arcade games like Rubik’s Cube and Pac-Man. According to the ITC notice, U.S. Customs and Border Protection says the six import bans “may be candidates for rescission” because of changed conditions. “CBP’s preliminary investigation has indicated that the trademarks or trade dress at issue in the exclusion orders are no longer used in commerce or complainant has stopped making required compliance filings,” says the ITC notice. Under examination are exclusion orders issued in 1979 on novelty drinking glasses (337-TA-055); in 1981 on coin-operated arcade games that infringe trademarks held by Midway; in 1982 on other Midway arcade games, including Rally-X and Pac-Man; in 1982 on cube puzzles, including Rubik’s Cube; in 1989 on strip lights; and in 1990 on novelty teleidoscopes, which are a kind of kaleidoscope that have an open view and are used to create kaleidoscopic patterns from outside objects instead of items in the tube itself. More information on each investigation is available in a spreadsheet kept by the ITC on Section 337 investigations begun before 2008 (here). The ITC is asking for comments on the Section 337 cases, on whether the exclusion orders should be terminated based on changed conditions or the public interest. Comments are due by Dec. 22.

As rumors abound that Microsoft soon will bow new wearables with super-long battery life, the Patent and Trademark Office has been studying the company’s radical re-think on the way future batteries will be used. For example, US 2014/0129162, filed in November 2012 by Microsoft and a team of 10 American inventors, has the core idea of incorporating sensing, computing and communication capabilities into "the one common component that a vast number of electronic devices employ -- namely batteries." By integrating these capabilities "into disposable and/or rechargeable batteries," said Microsoft, "new functionality and intelligence can be provided to otherwise stand-alone (‘dumb’) devices." According to the patent, it’s not even necessary "that the host electronic device is aware of the presence or capabilities of the electrical battery apparatus." Electronic intelligence can be built into a battery at the factory or added later by using physically smaller cells in a standard-size case with embedded electronics, the patent said. For example, dumb AAA cells can be inserted in an AA-size case, which has built-in smart electronics, it said. The smartened battery case is then used in a dumb device designed for AA cells, it said. Examples cited in the patent of dumb devices given intelligence by their batteries include: (1) A child’s toy with accelerometer in its battery that builds a usage pattern to tell "if the toy is still being played with, or if it is just sitting around and should be discarded or sold"; (2) A TV remote that will beep when a Wi-Fi sensor detects that it has been taken outside the room; (3) An accelerometer in a tablet that detects rough use of its screen and switches off. Multiple stand-alone dumb devices powered by smart batteries can swarm to create their own "vast" network, and provide "an opportunity for these stand-alone devices to operate collectively," the patent said.