Week 13 - Final Video - Experience in the Class

Week 13 - Final Video - Learning Experience

Final Post - Learning Experience

Throughout IEOR 190G, we used various tools that were new to me and tools that most classes on this campus do not utilize. We kept a blog, which I thought was the most useful part of the course. Through reading articles and writing subsequent summaries or opinions on the subject matter, I really felt that I started understanding the course material better. Also, reading the blog of other students in the class allowed me to gain perspectives from all different angles. In addition, making the YouTube videos was a great way of being able to present my points in a more structured and direct manner. I do think the blog was more effective in general because in the videos it was easy to lose track of the main argument by the end of the video.

One thing that Professor Lavian said early in the semester definitely stuck with me. He said that nowadays it is not as feasible to get all the possible knowledge and learn strictly from textbooks and professors. It is most beneficial to learn from your peers, because with the combination of everyone's perspectives, it is easier to get a full picture of the subject matter. I think that many classes would benefit from this structure. In addition, keeping a blog and making YouTube videos allows people from all around the world to benefit from this knowledge as well. I would encourage the continued usage of these methods in future semesters. 

Final Post - Experience in the Class

I took IEOR 190G this semester to learn more about patents, and the process of getting a patent filed and approved. I really enjoyed this semester, and I believe Professor Lavian used an approach that is very effective for the goals of the class. I would definitely recommend the course to people of all majors who are looking to take a practical course that they can use throughout their life.

In the class, we began by discussing what the benefits of a patent are to the inventor. A utility patent protects intellectual property for any technological innovation. Individuals and businesses can use patents to protect their idea and sue other entities if they infringe on the patent. There are 4 requirements for patentability:

1) Patentable subject matter - basically means the idea must fall under the given categories for patentability
2) Novel - some part of the invention must be new based on prior art
3) Non-obvious - Based on combinations of prior art, the invention cannot be obvious to someone of normal skill in the art
4) Useful - must have some purpose and use

Next we discussed the 3 aspects of wireless mobile devices that make it unique, which are listed below:

1) Wireless - there is limited bandwidth, but can be utilized over longer distances than wired communications
2) Mobility - this relates to the dynamic nature of the user and terminal locations
3) Portability - small dimensions, but limited battery capcity, computing and storage

Then we combined both patents and wireless mobile devices by discussing the smartphone war. Many major companies, including Samsung and Apple, are consistent players in patent litigation.

Finally, for the last few weeks, we deconstructed various patents and patent lawsuits. This included Supreme Court cases as well as silly patents. I found this portion of the course to be most useful, as it really made concrete many of the concepts we discussed in class. I would like to thank Professor Lavian and Arezu for helping me throughout the course and again would like to recommend the course to any future students that may be reading this.

Week 12 - Silly Patents - Baby Bottom Art

Week 12 - Silly Patents - Don Saddle

Silly Patents - Optical Illusion Wear

US Patent 7107621 was granted for optical illusion wear, which is basically a suit for females that has a pattern conducive to thinking they are skinnier than they actually are. Although perhaps there would be some market acceptance for such a product, it is unlikely that the patent should have been granted based on the requirements for patentability. 

1) In terms of novelty, it is not the first article of clothing that has attempted at making people look skinnier, even if it is the first that uses the design.

2) The biggest question here is whether the suit is useful by the standards of patents. In my opinion, this should not pass the test for usefulness. 

If anything, I believe that this should have been granted a design patent instead of a utility patent.

(Information obtained from http://www.patentlysilly.com/patent.php?patID=7107621)

Silly Patents - Cross USB Drive

US patent D533179 was issued for a Cross shaped USB Drive. The fact that the USB drive is shaped in the form of a cross pulls upon many different forms of art that also uses a cross. In fact, the only reason someone would specifically want this specific form would be if they were devout Christians who wanted a cross as the shape for such a device. I am surprised that this was granted a patent because it seems that the "invention" didn't really meet the criteria for patentability.

1) The novelty of the device - based on prior art, there is no way that the cross shaped USB should have been granted the patent.

2) Obviousness - this criteria is not really applicable here since the invention is not really a combination of multiple elements in prior art.

Since we did not discuss design patents this semester, does anyone know if this patent follows the requirements specific for design patents as opposed to utility patents? Is it possible for practically any design to receive a patent?


(Information obtained from http://www.patentlysilly.com/patent.php?patID=D533179)

Week 10 - Overview of Obviousness

Week 10 - Titanium Metals Corporation of America vs. Banner

United States vs. Adams

A famous court decision in the area of obviousness came in United States vs. Adams, which took place in 1966. The patent under consideration was related to a electrical battery that was composed of a magnesium electrode and a cuprous chloride electrode. Adams and his team stated that this was a unique battery because it did not utilize dangerous acids or other harmful chemicals. Also this was a battery that could be used in dry conditions without the addition of water, which separated it from other batteries at the time. The US wanted to review this patent that was validated and infringed upon. Adams and his team actually first charged the Government with infringement and the Government responded by challenging the validity of the patent in the first case.

The Government at the time signed contracts with multiple large firms to make the battery without letting Adams or any members of his team know. The US challenged the validity of the patent based on obviousness, which related to the fact that using chemical reactions as a source of electricity was a well known strategy. The only difference was that Adams used magnesium instead of zinc and cuprous chloride instead of silver chloride.

However, unlike many of the famous obviousness cases, Adams and his team came out victorious due to the key concept that the battery did not require water to function. This case was cited in many subsequent cases including the famous KSR vs. Teleflex, as a patent that did satisfy the requirement for nonobviousness, even with the combination of known elements.

As evidence by this case, it is possible to combine two or more elements of prior art, while still remaining innovative. Although it becomes a little tougher to prove your patent was truly innovative, the main point is to ensure that you have one key selling point that differentiates you from anything that the related prior art could solve alone.

Anderson's-Black Rock Incorporated vs. Pavement Salvage Company

Not many cases in history can claim to have changed the legal standards in patent law. One such case that did was Anderson's-Black Rock Incorporated vs. Pavement Salvage Company, which took place in 1969. The issued patent claimed to solve the problem that exists at the junction between old and new sections of asphalt roads. The invention combined previously used elements, the machine chassis the spreading and shaping equipment, and the heat burner.

The District Court decided that the only thing the inventor did was combine already known and widely used elements into one apparatus. Because of this, they invalidated the patent. Next, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, which brought the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ended up siding with the District Court and stated, "The combination of putting the burner together with the other elements in one machine, though perhaps a matter of great convenience, did not produce a new or different function." This case was one of the first landmark cases that addressed the idea of the unpatentability of inventions that combined old elements in an obvious manner.

This is an important historical case, as many inventions utilize elements from various other inventions that are already in use. The main idea here is that the combination has to provide some sort of utility that was not provided by the elements individually. Although this is a slightly subjective concept, it does restrict patents getting approved for the combinations of already used inventions that don't really benefit anyone. I was interested here to see that the court conceded the fact that the combination of the elements into the one apparatus did provide great convenience, which in some courts may have been enough to hold the patent as valid. The result from this case has since been used in major cases regarding obviousness such as KSR vs. Teflex.

(Information obtained from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/396/57/)

Extra Credit Post - Sinclair and Carrol vs. Interchemical Corporation

In 1945, Sinclair and Carrol vs. Interchemical Corporation was a US Supreme Court case that involved obviousness. In this case, Interchemical Corporation sued Sinclair and Carrol for infringing upon patents for inks. The patent specifically belonged to Albert Gessler, who was a member of Interchemical Corporation. Basically this patent involved inks that had the ability to dry when heat was applied, but did not readily dry in room temperatures. At the time, this was considered a very valuable patent due to the fact that the ink could be utilized on different types of papers.

When taken to the Supreme Court, the court claimed that the said patent was not valid because "subject matter must display invention, more ingenuity than the work of a mechanic skilled in the art." Although this is rather insulting to an inventor who likely spent much time on this invention, the court was clear that the patent was "not the product of long and difficult experimentation and that reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is not more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put into the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle."

What I found particularly interesting in this case was that it stated that many had previously tried to make an ink with the specifications of that made by Gessler. This likely means that the court heavily exaggerated the analogy to a jig-saw puzzle, and used too much hindsight bias. With the knowledge I have about this case, I likely would have been in favor of keeping the patent as valid, due to the fact that clearly there was a market pressure for such an ink. The case went through three levels of courts, with the District Court invalidating the patent, the Circuit Court validating the patent, and finally the Supreme Court invalidating the patent again. 

A portion of claim 3 in the patent is shown below:

"A printing ink which is substantially non-drying at ordinary temperatures and dries instantly on heating of the printed matter, consisting of coloring matter dispersed in an organic viscous vehicle consisting of a liquid component and a solid component..."

(Information obtained from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/325/327/)

Extra Credit Post - Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood

The first case in the US Supreme Court that addressed the concept of non-obviousness as a patentability requirement was Hotchkiss vs. Greenwood, which took place in 1850. Hotchkiss was suing the defendant Greenwood for infringing a patent for new doorknobs that utilized clay as opposed to metal, which was the norm at the time. During the trial, the judge gave a groundbreaking instruction to the jury, which was to invalidate the patent if the only difference between the Hotchkiss doorknobs and the normal ones was the material. If all other components were the same, the jury was instructed to rule against the plaintiff. Because the patent was invalidated, the trial was not further continued.

Although a case of this simplicity is unlikely nowadays, this case shows the historical roots for this requirement, which is now the basis for many patent lawsuits and revoked patents. Although the judge perhaps went too far by essentially telling the jury how to rule in this case, I believe that the judge really affected the course of patent history in a positive way. This case set the precedent that patents will not be approved if there is an obvious lack of ingenuity and has too much obviousness.

Below is an actual excerpt from the approved patent:

"A new and useful improvement in making door and other knobs of all kinds of clay used in pottery, and of porcelain by having the cavity in which the screw or shank is inserted by which they are fastened largest at the bottom of its depth, in form of a dovetail, and a screw formed therein by pouring in metal in a fused state."

(Information obtained from http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/52/248/)

Week 8 - Arguments Pertaining to Nonobviousness

Week 8 - Defining Obviousness

Graham Factors

When handling cases involving nonobviousness, there is a set of factors known as the Graham factors that are examined. This originated from the Supreme Court case Graham vs. John Deere in 1996. Below are the list of the 4 commonly used Graham factors. I will also give some background information or input on each one:

1) Prior art - this is the most important factor when looking at nonobviousness - typically an examiner will put together a list of citations or references of all the elements of prior art used in the invention

2) Ordinary skill in the art - defines a certain category of people who identify with the subject area of the said invention - these will end up being critical people to understand what levels of knowledge would have been capable of easily thinking of the invention

3) Claimed invention vs. Prior art - this area will be crucial in terms of how the inventor will set up their argument of why their invention is not simply contained in prior art - for more information on this, see this week's videos

4) Objective evidence of nonobviousness - tests such as the TSM can be applied here, which adds to the objectivity in a naturally subjective concept

          -Commercial success - even if a invention may seem obvious, if it proves commercial success there is a likely a desire that it meets that wasn't previously met by prior art

          -Long felt but unsolved needs - even if people have felt the need for a certain invention, if it has gone unsolved until the said invention, it is likely the patent will be approved

          -Failure of others - even if others have tried it, if they have failed, it is likely due to a lack of expertise or the lack of a necessary element either contained in a prior art or a newly synthesized element

TSM Test

One of the major knocks against the requirement of nonobviousness for a patent to be approved is the lack of tangible ways for one to prove nonobviousness. However, there are concrete ways to prove this. One such method is referred to as the TSM test, or Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation test. This test is widely applied to cases that involve nonobviousness, and is useful for eliminating the inevitable hindsight bias, especially in an increasingly innovative technology landscape.

In the case Winner International Royalty Corporation vs. Wang, it was stated that there must be a suggestion or teaching in the prior art to combine elements shown in the prior are in order to find a patent obvious. Nowadays, this concept has evolved to be known as the TSM test. It is helpful for judges so that they don't have to speculate on whether someone "skilled" in the art would have easily thought of this. Although it doesn't completely eliminate gray areas, it definitely narrows them.

However, the test has also been criticized as not concrete enough, as it has been applied slightly different across patent litigation cases. The people that are against TSM have said that the nature of the test should require explicit evidence that there was a teaching or suggestion to combine the elements. But, when it has actually been applied to cases, the federal government has made it clear that an implicit connection is enough. I see both sides of the argument. On one hand, if an implicit connection is enough, then does it really narrow the gray areas in these cases? But on the other hand, there are not many suggestions that are going to be found as explicit.

It is clear that there is no foolproof way of handling nonobviousness, but the TSM test is a step in the right direction.

Week 6 - Taking Advantage of your Resources

Week 6 - Deconstructing Patents

File-history of a Patent

This week in class, we discussed the concept of a file history, which is an extremely important part of the patent application and approval process. Basically, the file history is all communications between the inventor and the patent examiner regarding the patent in question. This keeps transparency high and allows both sides to prove everything that they have claimed, if it ever had to be retrieved. This aspect is extremely helpful in court cases. The concept of a file history is one I had not heard of, but is clearly a useful tool provided by the USPTO to all parties involved.

The file history becomes extremely important if someone charges infringement on a certain patent. If a review of simply the patent does not prove infringement, often the examiner will next go through the file history to review the scope of the claims in the patent. Statements made by the inventor can go a long way in interpreting this. Especially when patents can be granted to overarching concepts that can be applied to various fields, it is important to truly narrow down the intended scope when the inventor initially filed for his/her patent. The file history can be the difference of millions of dollars for either side, or the difference between the ownership or rejection of a patent.

Update on Apple vs. Samsung

A huge decision was layed down yesterday in probably the largest ongoing patent war between Apple and Samsung. Federal judge Lucy Koh, who has been overseeing much of the San Francisco-based parts of the trial rejected Apple's request to ban certain Samsung smartphones and tablets. These were devices that he been determined to infringe on various Apple patents. The same judge had previously ordered that Samsung pay damages to Apple amounting to $929 million, which is orders of magnitudes higher than most damages paid by smaller firms in similar cases. In this order, however, the judge concluded that the consumer demand was not driven by the infringing elements, which was the crux of Samsung's argument. Because of the fast-moving nature of the smartphone and tablet industries, the devices at question in the case are actually not even being sold anymore.

What I find interesting here, is that Apple tried to go in for the kill by requesting an injunction on sales for Samsung's phones and tablets. This came even though, as stated above, the devices in question would probably not even be on the market by the conclusion of the trial. I would have thought Apple would have been satisfied with the nearly $1 billion in damages that Samsung has to pay. However, I think this has to do with more than finances for both companies. Apple is trying to assert its dominance in the space, by employing expensive and aggressive litigation tactics. Although the result for this case wasn't detrimental to profits from sales, it was a huge win for Samsung in terms of morale and realizing that they can in fact survive the onslaught of Apple's litigation.

(Information obtained from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-apple-samsung-injunction-idUSBREA251JM20140306)

Week 5 - Industry Response to Executive Action

Week 5 - Patent Trolling

Spring is Patent Conference Time

This week has been a busy week in the patent world. Typically, springtime is when many of the major patent intellectual property law conferences. This past Monday, the University of California Hastings College of the Law, Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, and Hogan Lovells hosted a one day summit on "Law in the Global Marketplace: Intellectual Property and Related Issues." Speakers for the summit included various judges and patent counsel members. Today and Friday, the Northwestern Journal of Intellectual Property is hosting its annual symposium that typically attracts a large audience due to its high profile speakers and action-packed agenda.

The fact that conferences like these happen fairly reasonably occur across the country, shows that people understand that intellectual property needs to be continuously evaluated in a fast-changing technological economy. Especially in light of recent high-profile courtroom cases, it is nice to see judges and patent counsel members as keynote speakers, to enlighten the general population on patent litigation. Another positive feature of both conferences is their dedication to keeping a globally sensitive perspective. Intellectual property has become a huge deal in many countries around the world, and being able to analyze the similarities and differences of various countries is important.

(Information obtained from http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/02/upcoming-conferences-next.html)

Industry Urges European Union Against Patent Trolls

Although they are involved in the most patent litigation around the world, Apple and Samsung can agree on one thing: patent trolls are not doing their part to increase innovation in the technology landscape. And for both companies, this is not just lip service for the majority of the tech community that is getting fed up with patent trolls. They were both involved in an impressive list of companies that were signatories on a letter to European policy-makers, warning against the dangers in creating a landscape in which patent trolls can thrive. In the letter, the companies expressed the importance of an effective and balanced unified patent system. This likely came partially in response to a growing number of patent troll cases in the United States in recent times.

Personally, I think this is a great step for technology innovation around the world. Although it is just a letter and not policy change quite yet, the fact that it is backed by some of the largest technology firms in the world will increase the validity and attention given to the request. Based on sources, there is about an even split in the European Commission when it comes to those that want to see patent reform and those that want to see an increase in patent litigation. If policy change does end up happening, it will be a great step in the right direction. And even further, if this shows positive results, the changes will be a great example for countries around the world that face similar issues.

(Information obtained from http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/growing-industry-coalition-urges-eu.html)

Week 4 - Executive Action - Future Steps

Week 4 - Executive Action - Progress to Date

Apple and Samsung...Yet Again

After presiding over multiple patent litigation cases between these two tech giants, Judge Lucy Koh became informed that the CEO's of both companies would actually come together with a mediator and try to come to settlements on their own. This came after Koh's court actually asked that these companies try to reach a settlement before their next major trial on March 31 in San Jose.

Early media reports actually stated that these companies did in fact meet but that the CEO's were unable to reach a settlement after their first session, probably an outcome that most could have predicted. However, the lines of communication have apparently not been cut. The companies actually are continuing to talk (with a mediator of course). Both companies have made statements that they are willing to do this for however long it takes.

What makes this difficult, is the fact that this is not just a state matter, but a global dispute. Each company has a plan for a certain geographic area and it becomes hard to generalize an overarching plan for all different areas. Therefore, it appears that the companies will require even more guidance from courts, which tells us that we should not expect an agreement in the near future. It is likely that the March lawsuit, and possibly subsequent lawsuits, will indeed occur. Nonetheless, if the companies can come up with a settlement anytime in the next 5 years, both companies will be spared precious time and money as the smartphone industry reaches new heights.

(Information obtained from http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/apple-samsung-confirm-failure-of.html)

Microsoft Announces Newest Licensee

Over the last month, Microsoft has announced four royalty-bearing license agreements that will likely increase their profits significantly. Three of the four deals actually settled pending patent litigation issues, which allows both companies to save the money that would normally be spent paying lawyers over the course of the lawsuit. The terms of all the agreements are currently confidential but statements did say that the licensees will receive more broad coverage protected under Microsoft's vast patent portfolio, allowing them the freedom to sell these specific products without fear of being sued in the near future.

The latest company to sign on as a licensee with Microsoft is Voxx electronics, which is a popular consumer electronics producer. Not only is this a beneficial move for both companies to some degree, it is a worldwide agreement, which increases the freedom even further. Both these companies actually have a history together, which made the deal more smooth and natural. Microsoft has become known for its various licensing agreements and, with the fact that they are still a high-profit company, it seems like these deals they have been making have been paying off.

It is a breath of fresh air to see companies come together to form these deals rather than try and troll each other in patent litigation. Agreements like these allow both companies to innovate and sell their products freely, both which end up benefiting the consumer.

(Information obtained from http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/microsoft-announces-its-21st-android.html)

Week 3 - Eastern District of Texas

Week 3 - Google and Motorola

Google Sells Motorola Mobility

On January 29, 2014, after just a year and a half of working together, Google announced that it was going to sell the Motorola Mobility smartphone division to Chinese manufacturer Lenovo for nearly $10 billion less than they purchased the unit for. Since the acquisition was so short lived, it is worth looking into why exactly Google would buy and sell this division so quickly. This is Google we are talking about. They always seem to have some master plan that ends up with them increasing their profits.

Although it was enticing for Google to have a specific hardware division to go along with their world-class software development, their main goal for purchasing the Motorola Mobility division was to gain leverage on companies such as Apple and Microsoft in the patent litigation cases. From that standpoint, although they "lost" $10 billion in the sale, they gained an equally or more valuable patent portfolio that will allow them to hold their own in these lawsuits.

On another note, Google CEO Larry Page realized that the smartphone market exceeded the competitiveness that Google wanted to partake in, if they were to continue manufacturing phones. The move will allow Google to make huge ripples in the Android ecosystem with more flexibility and freedom, something that has been at the heart of Google's expertise for years now. To prove that the $10 billion "loss" was in fact a gain, Google's shares actually rose 2% immediately following the deal.

Google Acquires Microsoft Mobility

In May 2012, Google revealed that they were going to acquire Motorola Mobility, which was previously based in Illinois. Because this was a deal between two of the larger tech companies, it did cause people to question the benefits and motives of the deal for both sides. When the deal was struck, Google came out with a statement about why they purchased this specific division of Motorola. With the power of two large companies with seemingly infinite manpower and resources, they would be able to increase the rate of innovation, which would allow their customers to receive quality mobile phones for cheaper and cheaper prices. In addition, Motorola had a patent portfolio that was very enticing to Google due to the sharp increase in patent litigation cases in the smartphone landscape. This portfolio would grant higher levels of protection for the Androids on the market.

While the deal did make sense, one may ask why specifically Motorola as opposed to the 5-10 other large mobile developing companies? Because Motorola was fully committed to Android, it was a great fit for both sides and the transition would be more seamless. In addition, both companies were not as strong in their counterpart's major area of expertise. Motorola had expertise in devices, while Google had the expertise in developing software for these devices. For all of these reasons, the acquisition seemed like a no-brainer for both companies and went through without much resistance from either side. 

Week 2 - Example of an ongoing smartphone patent war

Week 1 - Introduction

HTC vs. Nokia (UK)

In December 2013, the court of appeal in the United Kingdom allowed HTC to avoid a sales ban for some of their best-selling phones. This came after the court halted an injunction which was brought to the table by Nokia regarding what they believed to be patent infringement. However, the arguably bigger decision is still yet to come. If the court decides that the patent in question is in fact valid, then HTC may end up having to pay Nokia millions of dollars for products they have sold in Europe. The decision will likely come in the next year. For now, HTC is trying to design their new products so that they don't infringe upon Nokia's patents and have to face similar lawsuits in the future.

This decision is crucial, as Europe has become the major market for both companies following their recent struggles in the United States. Although this is only one of many court battles over Nokia's patents, each one has become very important. For HTC, they need to keep their handset sales high to keep sustainable levels of market share. But, according to Nokia, these handsets are allowing HTC "to benefit from its unauthorised and uncompensated use of Nokia inventions." This decision could change the trajectory for both companies, specifically in their European markets.

Rockstar vs. Google

A very interesting onslaught of patent lawsuits were launched against Google and related Android partners in November 2013. As opposed to the "conventional" lawsuit of one company facing off against another company, a team of tech giants consisting of Microsoft, Apple, Blackberry, Sony, and Ericsson decided to come together to try and take down Google. They named themselves Rockstar. The lawsuits touch upon a portfolio of more than 6,000 patents that span a wide range of technologies from search engines to 4G communication. The decision on this lawsuit could be huge for the smartphone landscape as Google and its partners have been doing quite well as of late. 

Because the global mobile market is expected to be worth over $340 billion dollars in 2015, with smartphones being the majority of the market share, the decision on this string of lawsuits could define the company that succeeds most over the next 5-10 years. It is interesting that these giant companies are willing to band together to take down a fellow giant, regardless of partnerships in other areas. After the patent lawsuit waters became relatively calm in 2009, this has reinvigorated the smartphone patent warfare.

Why did I take IEOR 190G?

I decided to take this class to fulfill part of my Center for Entrepreneurship and Technology Certificate. I had heard from friends and seen on ninjacourses that it was a very practical course. Even if I never end up patenting anything in my life, I am interested in the process and the various lawsuits that come up on a seemingly more regular basis. I was especially excited when I heard that we would have the opportunity to visit a courtroom and witness an actual lawsuit. I enjoy reading various technology and entrepreneurship articles so it would be nice to fully understand all the litigation issues surrounding different companies and devices.

Introduction

My name is Roshan Panchanathan. I was born in Ottawa, Canada and raised in Gilbert, Arizona. I am a 3rd year Bioengineering major at UC Berkeley with a concentration in medical devices. I love to watch/play sports. My favorite teams are the Phoenix Suns, Arizona Cardinals, Arizona Diamondbacks, and Phoenix Coyotes. I also have a passion for music. Growing up, I learned western classical guitar and joined an A Cappella group in college. In my spare time, I like to hang out with friends/family, watch Shark Tank, and go to the gym.