Comments on: Dual SIM Phones in India – Patent Holder Demands Royalty. Imports Halted

By: ArunDhaJ

ArunDhaJ — Fri, 08 May 2009 10:25:29 +0000

Its indeed a great news. This clearly exposes how an IP brings money.

By: krishika

krishika — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:09:23 +0000

trying to get connect

By: venkat

venkat — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:59:26 +0000

The Madras High Court on Monday restrained mobile phone manufacturers Samsung, Mirc Electronics and Spice Mobile and several retailers
from manufacturing and selling multiple SIM holding mobile phones.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News-by-Industry/Restrain-on-multiple-SIM-phones/articleshow/4306311.cms

By: Ankur Banerjee

Ankur Banerjee — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:40:47 +0000

You don’t need to have a working device but your patent must describe HOW it will work in device – which may or may not exist. Ideas can’t be patented though.

By: Kartik

Kartik — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:12:13 +0000

@Jeet: You are right to a certain extent. Working model is not required as long as the specification (description + drawings)enables a person with reasonable skill in the related technology to practice the invention sought to be patented.

By: Jeet

Jeet — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:23:01 +0000

@Kasi: I agree with you on star-wars dreamer front. But An actual working device is not required at all. It’s true that you would need to demonstrate (in principal) how the apparatus will work, but it’s limited to ‘on paper drawings’. I hope some patent lawyer would respond here.

By: Kasi

Kasi — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:48:16 +0000

@jeet As far i remember it is required. Because ideas as such cannot be patented…you need to demonstrate the idea (if required) ….well…that is to restrict star-wars dreamers to file for patent.

By: Kasi

Kasi — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:40:10 +0000

No. This guy has actually deviced a circuitry for switching on the fly. That is an invention.

I donno about any other prior-art in this field and donno why the PCT application is withdrawn…. A PCT application cost close to 2lac rupees. This guy seems to be genuine. Anyhow we will know in mater of days.

By: Jeet

Jeet — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:32:07 +0000

@Kasi: I don’t think you require a ‘working device’ to get a patent.

By: Kasi

Kasi — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:23:52 +0000

This is going to be an interesting news to follow for the next couple of weeks (or months!!).

The inventor has published more than 6-7 patents in similar field…He perfectly knew what he was doing.

One of the primary requirement to grant a patent is to have working device (even prototype is fine) which the controller should have examined in case required!!!

Hope this is not another Ramar-Pillai story(the petrol from leaves story) and put our Patent Office in trouble .

By: Jeet

Jeet — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:25:21 +0000

That only talks about multiple SIM (UIM in this case) cards and connectivity to CDMA towers specifically. I don’t think this one should affect CDMA+GSM connectivity handset.

Disclaimer: I don’t know much about patents

By: kartik Puttaiah

kartik Puttaiah — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:22:31 +0000

I think we are talking about 1357/CHE/2004 – http://india.bigpatents.org/view/58655/e025303c07c and not 161/MAS/2002 from which the pct application cited by you takes priority.

By: Jeet

Jeet — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 08:41:52 +0000

I see that patent was ‘withdrawn’ – http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?wo=2003075543&IA=IN2003000044&DISPLAY=NATIONAL

What does that mean?

By: rajiv

rajiv — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:02:54 +0000

Well, most of the patents are used for ‘trolling’ purpose only!
after all, how else would you make money of the IP?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:22:06 +0000

Nothing but a classic case of Patent Trolling. Just having a ‘patent’ doesn’t make him a holder of intellectual property. I had personally used a rudimentary Dual-SIM phone on my 10yr old Nokia 3310.. (The one which required to restart the phone to switch to another SIM).. The patent in question was granted just an year ago. Surely the phone manufacturers can fight Mr.Ramkumar in courts on the basis of patenting prior-art.