The ’167 patent discloses a catheter-based system for capturing and removing occlusions (e.g., blood clots) from a blood vessel.  The claimed system uses a wire made of a shape memory alloy which converts from a straight configuration to a coiled configuration upon applying heat to the wire.

According to its website, Reverse Medical is a privately-held company “focused on expanding the endovascular management of acute stroke and neurovascular disease.”  While the company markets its ReCruit™ microcatheter for “retrieval of intravascular foreign objects,” the retrieval element of the marketed product looks quite different from that of the ’167 patent.  It may be that the ’167 patent describes a configuration planned for future products, or a configuration that the company sought to patent to keep its competitors from using.

During prosecution of a patent application through the USPTO, it is common for the claims of the application to be modified in response to the arguments raised by the USPTO examiner in rejecting the claims.  These modifications are geared towards overcoming these rejections, typically by narrowing the scope of the claims so that they no longer read on the references cited by the examiner.  Of course, such narrowing also reduces the scope of protection provided by the resulting patent, so applicants generally seek to make only those amendments that are needed to steer clear of the prior art, and to keep the claims as broad as possible.  Any such amendments, however, must be based on descriptions found in the application as originally filed, otherwise they are considered to be adding new matter to the application, which is forbidden.

The ’167 patent provides an example of such an evolution of the claims during prosecution.  When the application was originally filed, the retrieval element (called the “obstructive material engaging structure”) of Claim 1 was described broadly as being “transitionable from a collapsed configuration [that is] substantially linear … to an expanded configuration [that] will engage the obstructive material.”  However, in view of the arguments that the Examiner made to reject Claim 1, Applicants narrowed the scope of Claim 1 to avoid the prior art references being cited by the Examiner.  When it eventually issued, Claim 1 of the ’167 patent was narrowed to recite that the “obstructive material engaging structure” comprises “a shape memory wire comprising a proximal coil segment and a distal coil segment,” that each of these segments is ”transitionable, in response to energy delivered thereto, from a collapsed, straight configuration to an expanded, coiled configuration,” and that the source of energy is operable “to i) selectively cause one of the proximal and distal coil segments to expand while the other does not or ii) cause the proximal and distal coil segments to expand at different expansion rates” (emphasis added).  Undoubtedly, Reverse Medical sought to make only those amendments that were perceived as overcoming the rejections being made in the various office actions without unduly narrowing the claims and without adding new matter to the application.

Because claim amendments must be based on the application as originally filed, it is generally good practice to prepare the patent application to include as much description of the various permutations or versions of the invention as can practicably be included within the time and budget constraints.  There are other good reasons for such a full “fleshing out” of the invention, but since the basis of rejections by the USPTO cannot be reliably predicted, at least for this reason it’s preferable to have as much “ammunition” in the application as originally filed as possible to be able to strategically select what modifications to make to preserve as much breadth in the claims as possible.

One major change is that the “prior art” universe is expanding on March 16, 2013.  “Prior art” is the term used for references or activities that can be cited against the patentability of a patent application or the validity of an issued patent.  Under current law, for a sale, offer for sale, or public use of a product to qualify as “prior art,” this activity had to (i) occur in the U.S. and (ii) be earlier than one year before the patent application’s filing date.  Under the new law, being on sale or in public use anywhere in the world can be cited.

In addition, under current law, for a foreign patent application to qualify as “prior art” against your U.S. patent application, it has to satisfy at least one of the following conditions:

1. published before your conception date,
2. published more than one year before your filing date, or
3. filed before your conception date as an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“a PCT application”), that was published in English, designated the U.S., and resulted in a granted patent.

Under the new law, conditions (1) and (3) of the current law disappear since the conception date no longer matters (as discussed below).  Condition (2) of the current law excludes all foreign patent applications that published less than one year before your filing date, but under the new law, condition (2) is modified to only exclude foreign patent applications by the inventors (or obtained from the inventors) that are published less than one year before your filing date. 

A second major change in U.S. patent law, receiving the bulk of the buzz regarding the new law, is that the U.S. is changing from a “first to invent” standard to a “first to file” standard.  It’s always been beneficial to file patent applications as soon as possible, but under the old “first to invent” standard, even if you filed your patent application after someone else did for the same invention, you could be awarded the patent instead of them by proving that you were the “first to invent,” i.e., you invented the claimed invention before they did.  However, under the new “first to file” standard, the first party filing their patent application is awarded the patent, regardless of who was the “first to invent.”  

(Rigorously speaking, the new law is actually a ”first inventor to file” standard, since it prevents someone from obtaining the invention from the inventors, and then racing to the patent office to file an application first for something this someone didn’t actually invent.)

It’s rare that two entities separately conceive and file patent applications for the same invention.  But this change to a “first to file” standard makes an important contribution that further expands the “prior art” universe.  Under the current “first to invent” standard, the date that you conceived of the claimed invention could be used to exclude a certain category of references that were available to the public before your filing date from being considered “prior art” against your patent application.  But under the “first to file” standard, applicants can no longer rely on their earlier date of conceiving the claimed invention to overcome any cited references.  In other words, conception date will no longer matter; only the application’s filing date will control.

Besides expanding the “prior art” universe, the new law also introduces a new “post-grant review” (PGR) mechanism for challenging the validity of U.S. patents within nine months of issuance before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  This mechanism became available to challenge so-called “business method” patents in September 2012, but on March 16, 2013, it will be available to challenge all U.S. patents with filing dates after this date.  In conjunction with the other mechanisms for challenging issued patents (e.g., ex parte reexamination and inter partes review), each with its own requirements and pros and cons, PGR opens up a new way for competitors to invalidate your patent.

Finally, the new law includes language that has not yet been interpreted by the federal courts, so the full effects of the new law are uncertain at present. 

For one example, with regard to the activities anywhere in the world being “prior art,” as discussed above, the new law states that the application can be rejected if the claimed invention is ”in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public” before the application’s filing date.  So does “otherwise available to the public” mean that a private sale of the invention would not qualify as “prior art” under the new law?  Under existing law, any sale or offer for sale in the U.S.would qualify as “prior art,” public or private.  Until the courts weigh in, it’s probably prudent to make the conservative assumption that any sales or offers for sale, public or private, would qualify as “prior art” and to strive to not enter into such activity unless a patent application is already on file.

For another example, the new law excludes “disclosures” made by the inventors (or obtained from the inventors) within one year before the application’s filing date from being considered as “prior art” against the application.  But are being ”on sale” or “in public use” considered to be ”disclosures” under the new law?  Under existing law, sales, offers for sale, and public uses are excluded from being “prior art” if within one year before the application’s filing date.  Here, until the courts weigh in, the conservative assumption to make is that this one-year grace period does not apply to these activities.  In other words, don’t do anything that might be considered to be a disclosure of the invention until you first have a patent application filed.

In summary, under the new regime of the AIA, patent applications filed after March 16, 2013 will have to overcome a larger universe of “prior art” references to be granted as a U.S. patent, there will be more options for competitors to challenge the validity of such patents, and there will be uncertainty in how the law applies to various situations.  Therefore, potential applicants should consider filing their patent applications before March 16, 2013, to avoid this new regime.

(Cross-posted from www.PhotonicsPatents.com)

Orange County entities were awarded 2945 U.S. patents in 2012 (about 9% of which were design patents), which represent about  1% of the total number of U.S. patents awarded in the past year.  These U.S. patents were distributed among about 500 entities. 

Once again, Broadcom far and away leads OC companies in the number of U.S. patents.  The next two OC companies, Western Digital and Allergan, each received about a factor of 10 fewer U.S. patents than did Broadcom.  The following list provides the numbers of U.S. patents and percentages (as compared to their 2011 results) for the top 10 OC companies:  

• Broadcom: 1146; +6.7%
• Western Digital: 116; +35%
• Allergan: 111; -16.5%
• AMO: 55; -26.7%
• Beckman Coulter: 38; +31%
• Applied Medical Resources: 37; +68%
• Edwards Lifesciences: 30; -25%
• BSH Home Appliance: 29; +26%
• Quest Software: 27; +35%
• Masimo: 26; -28%

The medical device and pharmaceutical sector in Orange County only saw a 0.5% increase of U.S. patents in 2012 over 2011.  The patents in this sector were distributed among about 110 entities in 2012, as compared to about 100 entities in 2011.  As evidenced by the “top 10″ list, some companies in this sector saw large increases, while others saw large decreases in 2012 compared to 2011.

The electronics, optics, and semiconductor sector experienced a 3.3% increase, but when the results for Broadcom are removed, this sector shows a decrease of 3.8%.  The patents in this sector were distributed among about 125 entities in 2012, as compared to about 120 entities in 2011.

The software and business method sector saw the largest increase (+45%) in 2012 over 2011 levels, with an increase in the number of entities receiving these patents (about 100 in 2012, about 80 in 2011).  

The mechanical and fluids sector saw a 25% increase over 2011 levels, with an increase in the number of entities receiving these patents (about 165 in 2012, about 135 in 2011).

Custom Building Products markets SimpleMat® tile setting mats, which it touts as being “the quickest, easiest, cleanest way to install tile on backsplashes, countertops and shower walls.”  On one side, each mat has a first adhesive that sticks to the underlying surface, and on the other side, a second adhesive that the sticks to the tiles.  The mats replace the mortar that is typically used to hold tiles in place, and because the adhesive doesn’t have to set, as does mortar, the tile can be grouted immediately after being placed onto the mats.  A video shows the SimpleMat® system in action, describing it as an ”innovative, patent pending, double-sided adhesive mat” that has been featured on the Today Show and Fox News.

When pursuing patent protection, it is highly advisable to keep non-essential features out of the claims, since such non-essential features unduly narrow the scope of protection and give your competitors a way to avoid infringement.  The claims define the systems and/or methods protected by the patent (i.e., the systems and/or methods that the patent owner can exclude others from making, using, selling, or offering for sale).  A claim is infringed if a competitor’s product or service includes each and every feature of the claim.  For example, if a claim recites a device having the features A, B, and C, and the competitor’s device includes A and B and C, then the competitor’s device infringes the claim.  Note that even if the competitor’s device also includes one or more additional features (e.g., feature D), then the competitor’s device still infringes since it still includes A, B, and C.  Assuming that there are no problems with the claim’s validity, the only way that the competitor can avoid having its device infringe the claim is to have its device avoid having at least one of A, B, and C.  For example, a device having only A and C, but not B, would not infringe the claim.  The process of designing a product to avoid infringing patents owned by another is called “designing around the patent.”

When a claim includes only essential features (i.e., features which are needed to make the device work or to be desirable for use), designing around the claim would result in an inferior device, perhaps one that would not operate or that consumers would not want to purchase when the claimed device is available.  However, when a claim includes a non-essential feature, a competitor can market its device without worrying about infringement by avoiding use of the non-essential feature.  Since the operability or desirability of a device missing a non-essential feature is presumably not adversely impacted by the omission, the competitor’s effort to design around the claim results in a product that can compete in the marketplace with the patented device. 

I’ll use the ’366 patent to illustrate what I mean.  Each claim of the ’366 patent recites that the adhesive mats are “generally planar.”  It’s true that the SimpleMat® system includes flat, planar mats, but is the feature of being generally planar essential to a marketable device?  What if a competitor sold its products in a rolled-up form, would that “design around” the claims of the ’366 patent?  Would mats that are installed on curved surfaces still infringe the claims?  At least at first glance, it appears that these hypothetical situations give a competitor some possible ways to design around the claims of the ’366 patent to produce an operable and marketable product.  I’m not saying that these efforts would definitely be successful to avoid infringement, since the rolled-up mats would typically be flattened out for installation, and the curved surface installation is probably only a fraction of the total number of installations.  But why needlessly give your competitors a potential avenue for designing around your claims?

When drafting patent applications, I work with the inventors to purge non-essential elements out of the claims.  This effort can take multiple drafts that hone the claim language, but the end result is a claim that is more robust to the designing-around efforts of competitors.     

Air-Paq’s ’910 patent discloses a packing material to be wrapped around fragile items to protect them during shipping.  The packing material comprises multiple air-filled bladders with check valves for filling the bladders with air and keeping them filled.

Looking at the prosecution history of the ’910 patent, we can determine why it took so long to get the patent to issue.  (The “prosecution history,” also called the “file history,” is a publicly-available written record of all the rejections put forth by the USPTO and the arguments and claim amendments put forth by the applicant to show patentability leading up to issuance.)

The prosecution history of the ’910 patent shows that its nine-year pendency at the USPTO was primarily due to efforts made by Air-Paq to show that its invention was patentable over an earlier patent: U.S. Pat. No. 5,469,966 issued in 1995 to Boyer:

Over the course of nine years, Air-Paq had to refute a dozen Office Actions and amended the claims many, many times to find language that the examiner would agree defined their invention so as to be patentable over the Boyer patent.  These amendments and the accompanying arguments by Air-Paq primarily focused on the claim language’s description of the structure of Air-Paq’s check valves, and in particular, the features of this structure that create a patentable distinction over the one-way, self-sealing valves of Boyer.

Since it defines the scope of protection given by a patent, the claim language is the key focus in analyzing patentability, as well as analyzing infringement if the patent is ever asserted against a competitor.  To be patentable, the claimed invention has to be (i) novel and (ii) not obvious in view of the prior references.  This analysis hinges on the inclusion, deletion, and meaning of the words used in a claim as they compare to the cited references.  In determining whether an accused product infringes the patent, the amendments and arguments of the prosecution history will be scrutinized  in an infringement lawsuit to determine whether the applicant made any assertions or acquiesced in any way regarding how the claim should be interpreted.

Clearly, Air-Paq thought that the potential protection to be obtained was worth the nine years it took to get the ’910 patent to issue.  But this long pendency comes at a cost.  There is of course the general delay in Air-Paq getting a patent.  But in addition, because the term of a patent extends only 20 years from its earliest priority date, the ’910 patent will only have a patent term of eleven years remaining, expiring in 2023.

Sometimes, it can be worthwhile for an applicant to make the claims more narrow earlier in the process, so that the USPTO issues the patent earlier.  While such a patent will have a narrower scope of protection, it may still be worthwhile to own even if it does not cover everything sought to be covered.  Meanwhile, a continuation application can be filed and used to pursue the desired broader scope of protection by continuing the back-and-forth with the USPTO.  Since the eventual second patent will have the same priority date as the first, it will have the same patent term, but in this way, the applicant at least has the first patent in hand for potentially asserting against competitors while the battle for broader claims is ongoing.

In normal patent examination, when an application eventually reaches the top of the examiner’s queue, the examiner reviews the application, focusing on the claims, and performs a search of the existing prior art to find references relevant to the claim’s patentability.  The examiner then applies these references and the standards of patentability to the claims, including novelty and non-obviousness, and decides whether the claims are patentable or unpatentable.  The examiner’s conclusions are then sent to the applicant, who then has a chance to rebut the examiner’s reasoning or to modify the claims.

However, using the AE procedure, instead of the examiner performing the prior art search, the applicant does the searching (the search can’t be half-hearted; it has to satisfy certain requirements) and submits the results for the examiner along with the filed application.  In addition, the applicant must also provide the initial analysis to the examiner by submitting an “accelerated examination support document” (AESD) which explains the relevance of the key references to the claims, and provides a rationale for why the claims are patentable in view of these references.  Basically, the applicant has to do much of the work that is normally done by the examiner.  In exchange for lightening the load on the examiner, the USPTO puts such applications on a fast track through the USPTO.  

One contributing factor to the speed of getting the examination done quickly is that the AE program requires that an interview be conducted with the examiner before he/she writes up the first office action.  During this interview, both the examiner and the applicant try to resolve potential impediments to allowance of the application.  I discussed the power of such interviews in my previous blogpost.

Since the applicant must make statements on the record regarding the claims and the various prior art references, even those not yet cited by the examiner, the added potential of making characterizations or admissions may give some applicants pause in using the AE program.  In addition, it can be rather expensive, since performing the search and preparing the AESD can take considerable attorney time.  This factor is mitigated somewhat though because the rapid examination avoids multiple back-and-forths with the examiner, and the corresponding costs.  However, given the other avenues available for expedited examination (particularly the new “Prioritized Patent Examination” program I described in a previous blogpost), the attractiveness to the AE program is now muted.

I was reminded of this concept when I recently attended Tech Coast Venture Network‘s seventh annual “Survivor” business pitch competition for Southern California entrepreneurs, held this year at Chapman University’s Beckman Hall.  Thirty contestant entepreneurs each gave a thirty-second pitch to a panel of judges, who chose 10 semi-finalists who had two minutes each to further describe their business.  Five finalists, chosen by the audience, then each fielded questions from the panel of judges for five minutes, who then picked the winner.

A crowd favorite among the contestants was 11-year-old Victoria Walker and her mobile app company “RodeDog,” which has developed a social web and mobile app that monitors whether a driver is potentially texting while driving. Basically, as Victoria explains in this video, the app sends “barks” or other sounds to the texting driver until the phone is turned off.

Victoria developed her idea in collaboration with David Grau, a creative director and designer at WLDG Agency in Santa Ana, and her idea has garnered some buzz since September when she won $20,000 at AT&T’s “It Can Wait” Hackathon for systems to discourage texting-while-driving.  While she didn’t win the TCVN “Survivor” competition, she came in third which is extremely impressive for such a young innovator.

A search of the USPTO database didn’t find any patents yet granted to Victoria for her invention, but it’s possible that she has a patent application on file that is not yet available to the public.  Any such U.S. patent application would need to have been filed at least one year before the date that the invention was first made publicly available.

In addition, her U.S. patent application would have to do more than merely try to patent “an app that prevents texting-while-driving.”  Instead, the patent application would need to be directed to the combined detailed steps of the method or the combined components of the system that Victoria envisions using to achieve the goal of discouraging texting-while-driving.

For example, there are already a number of U.S. patents for inventions that seek to stop texting-while-driving (e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,295,854, 8,290,480, 8,270,933, and 8,258,919, each of which have issued in the last few months).  However, each of these patents describes a different technique to achieve the goal.  With the understanding that patents are directed to specific solutions, and not to the general goal being achieved, there is no inconsistency in having these different patents coexisting, along with any patent that Victoria is pursuing.

If Victoria seeks to patent her invention, she will have to convince the USPTO that her way of achieving the goal is new and not obvious in view of what is publicly known.  Best of luck, Victoria!

According to the ’123 patent, skis for packed snow “typically include sidecuts to facilitate turning” while skis for deep powder snow have convex sidewalls or reverse sidecuts for maneuverability.  Use of conventional skis designed for one environment can be difficult to use on the other.  The ’123 patent discloses a ski “adapted for skiing on powder snow that also handles well on hard snow” by having concave sidewalls which “enable a skier to use the edge of the ski to turn on hard snow” while they “do not detract significantly from the performance of ths ski in powder.”

 The ’123 patent is a continuation of U.S. Pat. No. 7,690,674 issued to Armada back in April 2010.  Later that year, Armada sent “cease-and-desist” (C&D) letters to a number of its competitors, including Skis Rossignol S.A.S., alleging that their skis infringed the ’674 patent and insisting that these competitors “immediately cease selling such skis or others that fall within the patent.” 

If the recipient of such a C&D letter is not interested in settlement, it is fairly common for it to respond to the implicit threat of a patent infringement lawsuit by filing a declaratory judgment (DJ) lawsuit in federal district court.  In a DJ lawsuit, the plaintiff (the alleged infringer that received the C&D letter) seeks a court ruling or judgment that “declares” either the plaintiff has not infringed the defendant’s patent or the defendant’s patent is invalid.  A DJ lawsuit is similar to a patent infringment lawsuit in that the issues to be resolved are the same, but the identities of the plaintiff and defendant in a DJ lawsuit are reversed from those in a patent infringement lawsuit.  There can be a tactical advantage to being the plaintiff, but the patent owner might make the strategic decision to decline this advantage and to send the C&D letter in an attempt to first come to a settlement with the alleged infringer, rather than rushing to file an infringement lawsuit. 

Doing so though leaves open the possibility that the alleged infringer will file a DJ lawsuit so that it, not the patent owner, is the plaintiff.  A DJ lawsuit can only be filed if there is an actual controversy existing between the plaintiff and the defendant, but in practice, this requirement is a fairly low bar.  Therefore, a patent owner sending out a C&D letter should be prepared for the likelihood that the recipient will file a DJ lawsuit.

If the patent owner is hesitant to have the matter escalate into litigation, it might try to word its C&D letter so as to avoid triggering the actual controversy requirement, but there cannot be any guarantee that this effort will be successful.  Before sending out the letter, the patent owner should do some investigation regarding how the recipient has responded to C&D letters in the past to gauge whether the recipient is prone to such action.  

Rossignol responded to Armada’s C&D letter by filing a DJ lawsuit in the federal district court of Utah.  In addition, Rossignol utilized another tactic used by entities accused of infringement.  It pulled out one of its own U.S. patents, and accused Armada of infringing this patent.  As a result, besides asserting its own patent, Armada was then in the position of also defending itself against accusations of patent infringement.  Presumably, the DJ lawsuit had the desired effect for Rossignol since, according to the civil docket for this lawsuit, it was voluntarily dismissed by Rossignol about four months after it was filed, but details of any settlement between Rossignol and Armada, if one occurred, are unavailable.

Most of the communication between the USPTO and patent applicants is done in written form: the application itself (both text and figures), the written “office actions” laying out the USPTO’s evaluations regarding the patentability of the invention (typically based on prior art publications), and the applicant’s written responses to the USPTO’s evaluations, which can include arguments and/or claim amendments to refute rejections of the claims. 

Having all of these communications done in written form (called the “file history” or “prosecution history”) provides documentation of both the USPTO’s positions and the applicant’s positions regarding what the application and its claims cover and what the prior art publications disclose.  If the patent is ever the subject of litigation or a post-grant proceeding, this file history can be informative, and even dispositive in some circumstances, regarding the scope of the patent and its validity.  Therefore, any patent attorney worth his/her salt tries to keep the file history as “clean” as possible, not making any unneeded assertions or concessions regarding claim terms or prior art disclosures.

But doing everything in written form can be frustrating, and at times, inefficient.  For example, the office actions sent out by the USPTO are often not paragons of clarity, so it can be difficult to discern by reading the office action exactly what issues the examiner sees with the claims.  In addition, having the sword of “file history” hanging over the patent attorney’s head can result in some arguments being presented in ways that are less than crystal clear.  It’s also often true that explaining some nuanced distinction between the application and the cited prior art publications can be done more easily verbally than in written form. 

Recognizing the inherent limitations of operating soley in written form, the USPTO gives applicants the opportunity to speak with their patent examiners, either by telephone or by in-person interviews.  These discussions can provide a way for the examiner and the patent attorney to have a conversation about the application and the prior art references without the overhead of every single word being written down in the file history.  While a summary of the discussion is placed in the file history, this summary typically only lists the claims and prior art references that were discussed, and whether agreement was reached or not regarding the issue at hand. 

On the personal level, I find such interviews are helpful just by giving the examiner a human face to associate with the application.  Examiners seem to be less inclined to put forward flimsy or off-the-wall rejections once they’ve met me face-to-face (but my friendly visage is not infallible; some examiners put forward such rejections regardless). 

At times, it can be especially helpful to bring the inventor along for the interview.  When the technology is complex, or we have a persuasive story regarding how the invention was conceived or the problem being solved, having the inventor speak directly with the examiner can go a long way towards issuance.  Examiners are typically glad to meet the inventor, since from the examiner’s viewpoint, the invention is more important or interesting than a run-of-the-mill application for which the inventor did not take the time to meet with him.  Also, it can give an examiner a good feeling that his/her work actually has an impact in the development of a technology.

While interviews have long been permissible, historically they have only been available, upon request by the applicant, after the examiner has mailed out the first office action.  However, the USPTO has begun making interviews available even earlier in the process.  Under its “First Action Interview Pilot Program,” if an applicant requests an interview prior to the first office action (no fee required), the examiner will conduct a prior art search and will provide a condensed pre-interview communication that cites the relevant prior art publications and any proposed rejections of the claims.  The applicant then has 30 days to schedule the interview and to submit proposed amendments and/or arguments.  If agreement is reached during the interview regarding patentability, the examiner will mail out a Notice of Allowance.  If agreement is not reached, then the examiner will mail out a first office action, and prosecution proceeds normally.   

Under an earlier version of this program which was only open to applications in certain technologies, about 41% of the applications received a Notice of Allowance right after the interview (i.e., without an office action being mailed out).   The program is currently scheduled to expire November 16, 2012, but based on its success, I expect that it will be extended by another year, or even made permanent. 

To help the USPTO meet its goals for reduced pendency and faster prosecution, the USPTO is also encouraging its examiners to conduct, or even initiate, interviews where the examiner thinks that it would advance prosecution of the application.  In this way, the USPTO is acknowledging the power of a simple conversation that can be had via an interview.

An active magnetic bearing (AMB) uses electromagnets positioned around a rotor to hold or suspend the rotor so that it can spin without physically contacting the AMB.  Since AMBs can avoid using liquid lubricants and can support extremely fast rotations, they are useful in various industrial settings such as vacuum pumps and electric generators.  AMBs can be heteropolar (magnetic polarity around the rotor at a particular axial position that varies) or can be homopolar (magnetic polarity stays the same all around the rotor at any given axial position).  According to the ’118 patent, homopolar configurations can provide low rotational losses and can use permanent magnets which reduce power consumption, but their aspect ratios are generally small and not easily changed.  Aspect ratio of an actuator (length divided by the difference between outer diameter and inner diameter of the actuator) is important in the dynamics of the rotor, so the constrained aspect ratios of conventional homopolar configurations have limited their use.  The ’118 patent discloses a high-aspect-ratio homopolar magnetic actuator configuration that alternates the pole polarity “in the  axial direction, while preserving the homopolar structure in the tangential direction with associated low rotational losses.”

In a June press release, the company described the ’118 patent as disclosing “homopolar permanent-biased magnetic bearings that could be used as direct replacements of the heteropolar EM-biased actuators in the existing machines, offering a significant performance improvement for the existing users of machines on magnetic bearings.”

According to its website, Calnetix “designs, develops, and manufactures high-speed permanent magnet motor generators, magnetic bearings systems and power electronics” for a wide variety of industries.  In December 2011, the company relocated its headquarters, engineering and manufacturing facility to Cerritos, CA.

The company touts its IP portfolio as “driv[ing] innovations in multiple industries for generations to come.”  According to the USPTO database, the company has been granted ten U.S. patents, three of which have issued in 2012.