• An Informative Read from Carlos Lee, Director General at EPIC


• http://www.epic-assoc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/EPIC-IP-Workshop-GJE-Coventry-UK-2016.pdf


• Published on January 20, 2017

In October EPIC organized two IP workshops in the UK (Coventry) and Germany (Berlin). In a follow-up interview with Senior Associate European Patent Attorney Ruth Walker from GJE (Ruth.Walker@gje.com) we provide some short statements as food for thought for small photonic companies. Any questions? Please enter them in the comments section or email the authors. Or email marketing@gje.com if you'd like to receive the IP newsletter.

1/ Trade secrets versus patenting, what are some features/benefits of each?

The trade-off you make when filing a patent application, to potentially obtain up to 20 years of monopoly rights to exclude others from practicing your invention, is that details of that invention will be published around 18 months from filing. That means your competitors have the information needed to build on your innovation, often before you have a clear indication of whether your patent application will be granted. It is therefore necessary to think through the pros and cons before deciding whether to apply for patent protection.

If you think it’s possible to keep your invention secret (i.e. if it can’t be reverse engineered), then putting in place strict policies and procedures to keep it that way may be the best strategy. Some investors are keen to see that patents have been filed, but if you can explain you’ve made an active decision to keep your innovation secret, and put in place measures to secure your intellectual property that way, you will give them confidence in your IP strategy.

Of course, if you do have a patent granted, you then have the legal rights to pursue anyone using your invention for license royalties, or obtain an injunction against further use, amongst other remedies. You should consider however whether you are likely to have sufficient cashflow to fund such actions if they become necessary. Will you have exited via sale to a company with deeper pockets by then? IP litigation insurance should be considered both for defending your own rights, and the possibility that you might unwittingly infringe those of others. In the meantime, a pending patent application can have some value as a means of warning off competitors. It’s also a way of clarifying what IP you bring to the table when entering into collaborative ventures and investment rounds.

2/ What options does a small company have if a large multinational infringes its patents?

Obtain specialist advice as soon as possible; effective negotiation is key in these situations, and contacting the potential infringer (or their customers) yourself could mean falling foul of unjustified threats prohibitions. But don’t panic – you may be looking at a new revenue stream through licensing royalties if a settlement can be reached, or even the corporate buy-out you may have dreamed of. Even after a dispute has arisen, IP litigation insurance is available so if you really have to go to court, it doesn’t necessarily have to wipe out your bottom line.

3/ At what stage does the company need to develop its IP strategy?

IP strategy should form part of the business plan for any innovative company right from the start. Processes for identifying and logging when IP is created, and seeking advice on protecting it where necessary, should be built into the way you operate as early as possible. This can include capturing patentable inventions, trade secrets, database rights, industrial designs, trademarks, and copyright-protected material such as software code and product literature.

As the business grows, the IP strategy should be regularly reviewed and staff given appropriate training to ensure it is complied with. When you get to a significant funding round, investors will want to see that you’ve taken steps to make the most of the myriad kinds of IP any technology business produces, and also that you know when to cut your losses when it comes to protection that’s no longer cost effective as your business plan evolves. They’ll also want to know what steps you’ve taken to check that you have freedom to operate with respect to third party rights, to avoid any nasty surprises when it’s too late to turn back.

4/ How much effort/money should be spent?

There is no one size fits all approach to IP budgeting. It’s certainly worth investing in an initial meeting with a specialist at an early stage to ensure you’ve thought of all the angles. How much you should ultimately spend will depend on your business plan and how crucial protecting your IP is to securing a leading position in the market. IP spend won’t always result in positive gains, but you should consider whether failing to allocate a sufficient budget could result in devaluation of your company.

5/ Possible pitfalls for start-ups?

1. 
   Missing opportunities to patent. This can be due to staff not being trained to understand that any public disclosure can jeopardise your potential patent rights, or due to a lack of a designated gatekeeper for innovations.


2. 
   Failing to check you have freedom to operate with respect to third party rights. Even if you have your own patent rights, this doesn’t protect you if someone else has rights over another aspect of what you’re doing, or has a patent on the base technology.


3. 
   Complicating patent ownership by involving third parties before an application has been filed. Dealing with a dispute is much more expensive than ensuring you’re clear on who owns what before a collaboration begins.


4. 
   Continuing to spend on patents and applications that no longer have commercial utility. Getting a patent application granted usually takes several years. Even after grant, renewal fees must still be paid to keep patents alive. Keep notes on the products/processes your patents relate to so you can consider whether it’s worth continuing to spend money on them if and when they are superseded.

Prism Awards Information  http://www.photonicsprismaward.com/Index.aspx

It is interesting to read about Luxmux from their website..... http://www.luxmux.com/about-luxmux-2

" In addition to this new application surrounding emission detection and reduction, we are furthering our commercialization efforts through global distribution networks. Luxmux has identified the best options and is finalizing distribution contracts on a country-by-country basis. For example, we have just completed a European distribution tour and established relationships with some of Europe’s largest photonics distributors.

'Europe is just a start. We are only in preliminary stages, but according to several distribution networks, our technologies fill a void in their product offerings. Distributors tell us our products are highly sought after, and that we have many networks to choose from. One of the larger distributors expects such a high demand for our technologies that it is prepared to hire a dedicated specialist to exclusively represent Luxmux products."

(**this sounds good for Poet as their supplier and strategic partner)

"After completion of R&D and commercialization related to our lasers and light sources, Luxmux will continue to develop its instant analysis solutions. Once our technologies are adopted by smartphones, we will finally accomplish our ultimate goal…"

Maybe thats why the TRAB disbanded....... ;)

Rickface did post a link to pictures taken at the Denselight Presentation/Tour for the EPIC Delegation/Lux Consortium Event in early January 2017.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/epic-photonics/albums/72157679104645875/page2

You can see Thomas Mika is there.

**Here's another OFC Session of interest. Makes me wonder about the Poet Timeline for commercialisation in 2018 - that would appear to be a disruptive timeframe?

https://www.ofcconference.org/en-us/home/program-speakers/workshops/processors-and-switches-with-integrated-optical/

Monday, March 20, 2017
9:00 AM - 12:00 PMEvent type: Workshop

Room number: 403A

Organizer:

Dominic Goodwill, Huawei Technologies Canada Co Ltd, Canada; Ken Morito, Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd., Japan; Sam Palermo, Texas A&M University, USA; Thomas Schrans, Rockley Photonics, USA
  

Description:

On-board optics or optics-in-packaging - which integration strategy will happen on a large scale in data center and HPC systems? Or indeed will both types of integration co-exist? On-board optics is currently fashionable, but many researchers propose including photonics inside the chip package to increase data rates and decrease energy per bit. Large scale integration reduces cost for many technologies, but yield and other constraints may set practical limits. What are the challenges and benefits of these two approaches? Will cost-driven data center systems and performance-driven engineered systems have radically different solutions? This workshop covers views and expectations from systems builders, perspectives from photonic module suppliers, and assessments from technologists in packaging, high speed circuits and signal integrity, to explore the true benefits and costs.

Speakers:
Frank Flens, Finisar, USA
Ali Ghiasi, Ghiasi Quantum, USA
Ichiro Ogura, Photonics Electronics Technology Research Association, Japan
Marco Romagnoli, CNIT, Italy
Katharine Schmidtke, Facebook, USA
Marc Taubenblatt, IBM, USA

**This "Rump Session" at OFC in mid March 2017 looks really interesting. Too bad SV isn't on the panel, maybe we should suggest he be in the audience for discussions! :)

https://www.ofcconference.org/en-us/home/program-speakers/rump-session/

Sub $0.25/Gbps Optics; How and When will Fiber Finally Kill Copper Cable Interconnects in the Data Center (DC)?

Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 19:30-21:30
Room 409AB

Organizers:  Chris Cole, Finisar Corp.; Dan Kuchta, IBM TJ Watson Research Center
 
Provocateurs:  Andreas Bechtolsheim, Arista Networks; Mitch Fields, Broadcom Ltd.; Tad Hofmeister, Google; Benny Koren, Mellanox Technologies; Brian Kirk, Amphenol Corp.; Ashok Krishnamoorthy, Oracle Corp.; Beck Mason, Oclaro Inc.; Brian Welch, Luxtera Inc.

In the DC, switch interconnects are exclusively fiber-based, but copper cables stubbornly hang on as server interconnects at ~$0.50/Gbps per link. Optical transceivers inside active cables or modules will have to be $0.25/Gbps to match cost. The high volume potential of this application can drive development of disruptive technologies and lower the cost of all DC optics. Yet our industry is moving away from common optics. Previously, focus on a few standard types like SR and LR created a huge 10G common market. Today, Operator and System OEM emphasis on optimizing their individual applications is leading to the proliferation of architectures, rates, link specifications, and form factors, fragmenting the volume of all optics types. This is accompanied by stringent port density and power requirements, making simultaneous optics low cost even more difficult to achieve, prolonging the lifespan of copper cables.
                                      
Questions for Discussion:

• What technologies are required to get to sub $0.25/Gbps optical transceivers?


• What happened to the $1/Gbps optics cost target for switch interconnects? Doesn’t industry have to hit it first before $0.25/Gbps for server interconnects?


• Are technologies for $0.25/Gbps optics and $1/Gbps optics synergistic or unrelated? Does 0dB loss budget cost less than 4dB loss budget?  


• What’s the trend in switch-to-server architectures; move them apart as in end-of-row switch topologies or move them closer together as in multiple servers and switch on a card? Is there even a common switch-to-server topology to create a high volume optics market?


• Are optical transceivers inside active cables lower cost compared to inside modules? Are there operational costs that negate this?


• Does matching today’s copper cable cost even matter for connecting servers? If in a few lane rate generations, copper cables cannot support useful reaches, won’t DC Operators just have to pay more?


• How does the industry get to high volume for any optics type with the current trend of fragmentation of requirements and applications?


• Cloud DC Operators insist on low cost and bleeding edge performance on day one. If they have to make a choice, will they stay at lower cost for lower rate or pay higher cost to move to higher rate?


• Cloud DC Operators have identified power as their most critical requirement yet are restricting technical solutions, for example to SMF only. Are low-power technical solutions like VCSELs being arbitrarily excluded?


• Is Silicon Photonics the answer to sub $0.25/Gbps or $1/Gbps optics?

Format:

• Short introductory presentations by session organizers.


• One slide presentations from diverse group of industry provocateurs.


• Vigorous audience participation after each presentation, with organizers facilitating open discussion.


• Attendees come prepared with tough questions and insightful comments.

Speakers:

• Andreas Bechtolsheim, Arista Networks, USA
  


• Chris Cole, Finisar Corporation, USA
  


• Mitch H. Fields, Broadcom, USA
  


• Tad Hofmeister, Google, USA
  


• Brian Kirk, Amphenol, USA
  


• Benny Koren, Mellanox, USA
  


• Ashok Krishnamoorthy, Oracle Corporation, USA
  


• Dan Kuchta, IBM TJ Watson Research Center, USA
  


• Beck Mason, Oclaro, Inc., USA
  


• Brian Welch, Luxtera, Inc., USA
  

• I'm looking forward to the introduction of Poet LIDAR products in 2017 as stated in the news release from late November 2016. Maybe that will put us "on the radar" in the Laser World....