Blockchain atm patent
Publicly-traded over-the-counter markets technology firm Bots announced that its subsidiary First Bitcoin Capital will take action on alleged intellectual property infringement by Bitcoin ATM operators. According to a Nov. The company claims:. Still, the firm did not reveal any details pertaining to the conditions of the amicable arrangements in question.
We are searching data for your request:
Blockchain atm patent
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
- 20+ companies involved in China’s DC/EP digital currency
- IGT Files Patent for Crypto Transfers to Gaming Accounts
- Please wait while your request is being verified...
- Bank of America Files for Blockchain 'ATM as a Service' Patent
- The Bitcoin ATM Patent
- Blockchain Technologies and Digital Currencies
- Walmart cryptocurrency? Filings reveal plans for a coin, NFTs
- HUGE!!! BTZI WILL LICENSE THEIR BITCOIN ATM PATENTS_PROJECTING_$30_MILLION_ANNUAL_REVS!!!!
- IEEE Blockchain Technical Briefs Editorial Board
- Bitcoin ATM operators to be sued for patent infringement
20+ companies involved in China’s DC/EP digital currency
Historically, financial institutions have relied on trade secrets and first-mover advantages, rather than patents, to protect their inventions. In our study on financial patents, we showed that banks were breaking from past patterns and increasingly seeking patent protection.
We explained that financial institutions were primarily building their patent portfolios as a defensive measure—i. Indeed, the finance industry successfully lobbied Congress to include provisions in the America Invents Act of that made it easier to invalidate financial patents through administrative review. Wells Fargo. This paper explores how the rise of fintech has changed the purpose of patenting among banks, and what a possible fintech patent war would mean for the future of both the financial and patent systems in this country.
When fintech [1] dreams dance in our heads, Satoshi Nakamoto [2] is choreographing a technological revolution that democratizes finance by eliminating legacy firms and unleashing cheap financial services to the masses.
When fintech occupies our nightmares, artificial intelligence controlled by behemoth tech companies takes control, as our savings and investments vanish into cyberspace.
The reality of fintech, very likely, lies somewhere in between these utopian and dystopian imaginations. Or maybe the questionable validity of a patent provides the incentive for accused infringers to fight back instead of taking licenses.
Another possibility is that particularly valuable technologies are worth the cost of war. Truth be told, identifying a single cause of any one of these patent wars is impossible. The question, then, is which industry is most likely headed for battle. Commentators make headlines with speculation about future battle lines in the patent wars.
The automobile industry, for example, is highlighted because of an uptick in patenting among manufacturers of technologies for self-driving and connected cars.
In , Ford Global Technologies, LLC—the intellectual property arm of Ford Motor Company—was granted 2, patents, ranking it fourteenth on the list of issued patents that year. A looming patent war over the internet of things IoT has also generated a good deal of chatter.
Others predict that the next major patent war will surround the rapidly growing cannabis industry. Devices and methods for delivering marijuana products, chemical compounds derived from marijuana, and edible marijuana products are among the new technologies that are potentially subject to patent protection. Most pertinent to this Article is the possibility of a patent war erupting over fintech.
Moreover, the narrative of fintech startups challenging their stodgy bank competitors echoes the classic David versus Goliath struggle. While some fintech firms have successfully challenged banks the success of Quicken Loans is an example , it remains unclear whether fintech firms will truly disrupt the banking industry.
While many fintech startup firms are seeking to develop blockchain applications, banks are not likely to be left behind. Conventional wisdom has been that financial institutions do not rely on patent rights to protect their innovations. Historically, many financial products were not patentable because they were deemed abstract ideas and thus not protectable under certain judicially-created exceptions to 35 U.
What is more, because financial innovation was fast-paced and constantly evolving, the industry was better served by first-mover advantages and trade secrets as opposed to patents, which take more time, effort, and resources to secure. In our study of bank patents, [25] we showed that banks were breaking from past patterns and increasingly seeking patent protection. Our study examined the early experience with CBM proceeding, and here we revisit CBM as the sunset date draws near.
Wells Fargo Bank [26] —may signal a significant shift in the way banks think about and utilize patents. The remainder of this Article proceeds as follows. Part I provides background on the traditional features of financial innovation. Part II explores the relationship between financial innovation and the patent system, with a focus on the creation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, its impact on financial innovation, and the call for reform that culminated in the passage of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act AIA of Parts IV and V turn to the rise of fintech, the increasing importance of patents to the finance industry, and the evolving role of patent litigation in financial innovation, specifically, the implications of USAA v.
Wells Fargo —the first bank-on-bank patent infringement suits. Finally, Part VI considers the possibility of a fintech patent war. It explores the battle lines that could be drawn among the various interested parties, as well as alternative outcomes, which could have lasting implications on the financial industry and the patent system.
Definitions of financial innovation include both the positive and the normative. The positive definition focuses on the creation of something new—a new product, market, technology, or institution. Customers demand more and better products and services, e.
Naturally, while financial innovation can be beneficial it can also be costly if, for example, innovations stifle competition. Financial innovation is often grouped into categories. Others have delineated functional categories: payments, saving, investment, and risk-bearing. No matter the category, finance is in a constant state of change, and many financial innovations coincide with important moments in history.
In , Congress established new national i. Alongside discussions of the purported evils of the financial innovations that contributed to the Financial Crisis are lists of innovations viewed in a more positive light.
Famously, in the wake of the Financial Crisis, Paul Volcker identified the automated teller machine ATM as the most important innovation in twenty years. In short, financial innovation itself is nothing new. What has changed in the past two decades, however, is the nature of innovation in this sector [43] and the way it is protected, exploited, and enforced.
That shift is due not only to technological advances, but to major modifications to our patent system that came about, primarily, as a result of the creation of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Appropriability is a key consideration for innovators, including financial innovators. Traditionally, financial innovations were protected through trade secrets and first-mover advantages as opposed to through patent protection.
Among other things, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of patentable subject matter to include business methods. Morgan for infringement. Since the dawn of the U. As the quantity of granted patents increased, the quality decreased, and so the s reached a low-water mark for patent protection, as federal courts invalidated litigated patents more often than not.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created. Signature Financial Group, Inc. Excel Communications, Inc. The years following State Street saw a substantial rise in the number of business method patents granted by the PTO.
Where the Patent Office issued of these patents in , that number grew to almost 2, a decade later. Indeed, for a variety of reasons, business method patents ended up in litigation more frequently than other types of patents. The increasing litigation surrounding business method patents, together with other factors, ultimately led to a call for patent reform in the mids.
But each comes with various limitations. With respect to IPR proceedings, any type of patent can be challenged, but the grounds are limited to novelty and non-obviousness. Of the three, IPR is by far the most popular, with 9, between September 16, and January 31, CBM Review. During the patent reform effort, stakeholders expended significant time and energy discussing and debating IPR and PGR.
CBM, by contrast, was a late addition to the reform package. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. Myriad Genetics, Inc. Early on, CBM proceedings received relatively little attention. On its face, this definition is unhelpful because it simply mirrors the statutory language in section 18 of the AIA.
Historically speaking, technology was a requirement for patentability, which is why business methods were excluded from patent protection before State Street. Patent No. Generally speaking, agency decisions are subject to judicial review. Yet, it is well-settled that Congress can and does preclude judicial review of certain agency actions. The Versata panel ultimately divided over this question.
Google Inc. Just over a year after it decided Versata , the Federal Circuit revisited the question of what constitutes a CBM patent and, for reasons that are not clear, came to a different conclusion. In Unwired Planet , the patent-in-suit, U. Why the Federal Circuit came to a different conclusion in Unwired Planet and Secure Axcess than it had barely a year earlier in Versata is impossible to know for sure.
The most obvious explanation is that the divergent outcomes are simply a result of a difference in panel compositions; yet, there was actually some overlap in the panels, with Judge Plager serving on all three. In May , the Supreme Court vacated Secure Axcess as moot because the patents were also canceled in a separate IPR proceeding, leaving no live case or controversy between the parties.
Thus, the meaning of this provision remains unclear. From the start, Congress intended for CBM review—unlike the other post-grant proceedings—to be temporary.
After September , when the CBM program is slated to sunset, any remaining patents issued in the late s will have expired. Nevertheless, almost immediately after the AIA became effective, speculation arose that Congress might extend the CBM program beyond September or perhaps even make it permanent.
The number of CBM petitions began to taper off significantly in , with only 52 petitions, and that downward trend continued in when only 33 CBM petitions were filed and again in with only 21 CBM petitions. Despite these dwindling numbers, Congress held hearings in March to consider whether it should extend or make permanent the CBM program. Shortly before the hearings, the GAO produced a report assessing the CBM program based on PTAB trial data from September through September , various PTO documents, and interviews with almost forty stakeholders, including patent owners, patent challengers, attorneys appearing before the PTAB, technology trade groups, public interest groups, legal and academic commentators, and venture capitalists.
An examination of CBMs involving all financial services firms [] does not reveal commanding numbers. Contrast these numbers with those of technology companies: Apple alone filed more CBMs—54—than all the banks put together. Google alone filed 44 CBMs. While these numbers do not appear significant, examination of CBMs may implicate some changes in intra-industry litigation practices. As discussed, it comes as no surprise that financial services firms would take advantage of CBM proceedings as petitioners.
Furthermore, it is not surprising that generally the respondents in such proceedings are not financial institutions. This is surprising given that historically banks and other financial services firms did not patent their innovations and therefore did not have patents to protect in litigation.
This also suggests that the uptick in patent activity that we observed in our study may involve more than defensive patenting. In all of the CBMs in which a financial services firm is a respondent, the petitioner is also a financial services firm.
IGT Files Patent for Crypto Transfers to Gaming Accounts
OTC: BTZI , an emerging innovator of products, technologies, and services for the rapidly growing cyber-security, digital robotics automation and AI for manufacturing industry announced today that it has owns the rights to U. Patent No. Bitcoin ATMs do not require their users to have bank accounts, so customers can simply pay and instantly buy or sell Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. This patent complements our innovation in the field. The Company has already begun negotiations with a major law firm that has a very successful track record in enforcing patent rights when working on a contingency basis. The Company is committed to driving the innovations needed to shape the future of digital robotic automation management through digital technology and decentralized blockchain solutions. Shareholders, potential investors, and others should note that we announce material events and material financial information to our shareholders and the public using our website and the social media addresses listed below, as well as in our SEC filings, press releases, public conference calls, and webcasts.
Please wait while your request is being verified...
According to the patent, "… the instructions cause the gaming establishment component processor to escrow the amount of cryptocurrency, establish a line of credit based on the escrowed amount of cryptocurrency, and modify a balance of a gaming establishment account based on the line of credit. In simple words, this means that, until the time that the actual cryptocurrency transfer takes place between the crypto wallet and the player's account, the gambler will be able to fund his gaming by using a line of credit at the establishment. While it details the operational aspects of the transaction, the patent does not provide detail on associated fees and transaction costs for the transfers. Millennials and those between 18 and 29 years of age comprised a majority of visitors to slot machines in Las Vegas, according to statistics. That should be good news for casinos with this technology because the younger demographic is comfortable with Bitcoin as a concept and its use as a transaction medium. The proliferation of smartphones also means that it should be relatively easy to implement cashless systems for transfer between two accounts. IGT's patent could open up new markets for cryptocurrencies. While there are several Bitcoin ATMs in Las Vegas, casinos have only allowed the use of the cryptocurrency for the purchase of food and drink and shied away from allowing it on the casino floor. The Nevada Gaming Commission decided last year to allow transfers from digital wallets and not bank accounts to gaming accounts.
Bank of America Files for Blockchain 'ATM as a Service' Patent
Chonggang Wang received his Ph. Her research interests include blockchain technology, federated machine learning, healthcare analytics, bioinformatics, and cloud computing. At IBM Research, she leads the initiative on developing blockchain-based solutions for secure collection, management, and sharing of sensitive data in health and biomedical applications, particularly in multi-site clinical trials and IoT. She also leads the collaboration with the Decentralized Information Group at MIT on federated machine learning using linked data.
The Bitcoin ATM Patent
Are there any notable fintech innovation trends of the past year within particular sub-sectors e. Within the last year, and despite the challenges due to the COVID pandemic, both SAMA and CMA have made considerable progress with respect to the development of fintech regulations and experimental licences to allow fintech businesses to flourish. Smartphone payments increased from 4. The fintech payments sector is expected to keep rising, particularly with digital payments and smartphone transactions undergoing a huge surge as a result of COVID, with a majority of consumers going cashless and relying on online digital payments. Crowdfunding is another initiative that has seen major developments in the past year, particularly with SAMA launching its rules pertaining to debt-based crowdfunding in January
Blockchain Technologies and Digital Currencies
This article is written by Debkripa Burman, a student of L L. The reason is obvious as this new technology is not only trying to replace the traditional existing system of currencies i. In this article, I will try to make the readers understand the basics of the Blockchain technology, the working of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and the legal complexities regarding the protection of this technology as well as the crypto-currency. In ancient times, before the invention of any currencies, trade used to happen in the mutual exchange of goods. However, when the trade started happening in the larger community, people realized the existing flaws to that system i.
Walmart cryptocurrency? Filings reveal plans for a coin, NFTs
Fourteen days prior, the organization obtained a patent for conventions supporting the activity of Bitcoin ATMs which it accepts makes it qualified for millions in the month to month sovereignties. The patent was initially documented in The crypto-network has verifiably sentenced the utilization of licenses to confine admittance to advancements, with the U. Antonio is a travel photographer by profession and came across the Crypto world during his profession.
HUGE!!! BTZI WILL LICENSE THEIR BITCOIN ATM PATENTS_PROJECTING_$30_MILLION_ANNUAL_REVS!!!!
RELATED VIDEO: Mastercard Wins Patent for Anonymous Blockchain TransactionsLate last week, BitPay, a major cryptocurrency payment provider, announced the introduction of BitPay Send, a new mass payout service that enables organizations to pay employees, affiliates, customers, vendors, contractors and others with cryptocurrency. Recipients can participate without a bank account, and only need a BitPay ID and cryptocurrency wallet. The press release notes that companies do not need to own or manage cryptocurrency, and that no foreign exchange fees apply. Also last week, Peninsula Visa, a U. Bitcoin payments will only be accepted for select passport services, including renewals and name change. However, additional passport and visa services for which Peninsula will accept bitcoin payment will be rolled out over the next 12 months.
IEEE Blockchain Technical Briefs Editorial Board
Walmart has developed plans that involve the creation of its own cryptoasset, launch collection non-fungible token NFT collections, and yes, you guessed it enter the metaverse , per reports citing filings made with the American Patent and Trademark Office. CNBC reported that Walmart, which was one of the first major retailers to explore the use of blockchain technology in its supply chains , filed a number of trademark applications last month, indicating the firm wants to produce and sell virtual items including electronic devices, toys, sports goods, and grooming products. In the world of business, patents do not always directly equate to business plans. Often firms register patents before they have cemented plans — to ensure that the trademarks and innovations they wish to use have not been cornered by others. Redditors met the move with some skepticism. One wrote :.
Bitcoin ATM operators to be sued for patent infringement
From small cafes to the most sophisticated banks and retailers on the planet, NCR powers the technology that integrates everything—and runs your entire operation. Explore Our Solutions. Solutions that help you RUN better.
I apologize, but could you please describe in a little more detail.