Google to Become Offensively-Minded

In an attempt to deter frivolous lawsuits, Google Inc. had decided to change its legal strategy.  Instead of taking a defensive approach to any litigation brought against the company, Google is now going on the offensive to fight patent claims.  As reported by Bloomberg.com, the number of patent challenges against Google increased to 14 last year, after 11 in 2007 and three in 2006.

Google currently has 24 cases pending and didn’t settle any patent challenges last year, although Google has settled cases in each of the last four years.  Hilary Ware, Google’s managing litigation counsel, said that Google still isn’t opposed to settling when its warranted.  Still, Google does not want to be seen as an easy target.

Some have criticized Google’s new approach, as it will lead to more litigation.  Alan Fisch, a patent lawyer at Kate Scholer, agreed that how this hard-line approach can actually be quite risky.  “If you’re going to take a hard-line approach, you’d better back it up with victories,” he said.

USPTO Rejects Claims Asserted by Motorola

In 2007, Motorola asserted four patents against Aruba Networks, a maker of wireless LANs and secure mobility solutions.  Aruba soon filed a counter suit alleging that Motorola infringed on two of their own patents, while also requesting the USPTO re-examine all four patents based on prior art.  Earlier today, Aruba announced that the USPTO had issued a preliminary re-examination report that rejected one of the patents asserted by Motorola in 2007.

According to CNNMoney.com, requests for re-examination are often successful in having the patent either changed or completely revoked.  The rejected patent was actually owned by a Motorola subsidiary, Wireless Valley, and Aruba claimed that Wireless Valley’s user manual predated its patent application by over twelve months.  Wireless Valley failed to provide this manual in full to the USPTO, and apparently this was enough for the patent to become invalidated.  The three other re-examinations are still pending.

As for the countersuit, Aruba is seeking a permanent injunction against use of its patented technologies, as well as monetary damages.  The first patent in question was assumed by Aruba as part of its acquisition of AirWave Wireless, while the second was issued to Aruba in May of 2008.

Stroock’s NYC Intellectual Property Group Adds Four Attorneys

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP announced today the addition of a four-attorney team to its Intellectual Property Practice group.  The law firm, which also has offices Los Angeles and Miami, announced the lawyers will join its New York City branch immediately.

According to a press release, the team will include Joseph Diamante, who said, “I used to work with Stroock’s Brian Rothery at Pennie & Edmonds and the growth of Brian’s practice, together with the quality and support that was offered by Stroock’s IP Group, encouraged us to move to Stroock.”  Other members of the team will include Ronald M. Daignault, Kenneth L. Stein and Richard H. An.  All are former partners of Jenner & Block LLP in New York City.  Before joining Jenner & Block, all four worked together at Jones Day and the former IP boutique, Pennie & Edmonds.

Steven Pokotilow, co-chairman of Stroock’s Intellectual Property Practice Group, said “I have known Joe for over 20 years.  Stroock is very fortunate to have attracted such an accomplished, terrific group of litigators.  The specialties that this group brings, plus their high energy, will make their practice a great fit with our IP group.”

USPTO Overturns Virtual Subdomains Patent

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected 20 patent claims on an Internet subdomain patent.  According to Ars Technica, the patent in question was originally submitted to the USPTO in 1999 by a company named Ideaflood, and it was approved in 2004.  However, the recent ruling by the USPTO concluded that the concepts in question were obvious and were not patentable material.

The patent became questionable after the Electronic Frontier Foundation called it a “bogus software patent” that stifled both creativity and innovation.  In fact, the Ideaflood patent made the EFF’s top ten in their “Patent Busting Project.”

To explain that patent a little more, it basically describes virtual subdomains with the idea that it would be impractical for companies with a large number of domains to create news DNS records for each subdomain.  The solution would be to use virtual subdomains that put a wildcard in the DNS record, and it would resolve to a single IP address.  The webserver at that IP address would then read the host request and parse it so that it pointed to the specific public HTTP folder residing somewhere on the server.

In EFF’s patent reexamination request, it states that this capability was already being used early in 1998 – before the patent application was filed by Ideaflood.  Additionally, EFF argued that the techniques in the patent were already integral features of the Apache web server at the time of filing. 

To EFF’s delight, the USPTO noted that the patent stated previous knowledge of a way to supply a wildcard character for a subdomain in order to implement virtual subdomains, and the concepts were not patentable.  Thus, the USPTO rejected all 20 claims in the Ideaflood patent.

Mercedes-Benz USA Subject of Patent Infringement

For those who were unaware, WorldLogic Corporation is currently suing Mercedes-Benz USA for patent infringement.  The patent in question is titled “Data Entry for Personal Computer Devices,” and it involves a car navigation system used in 2007, 2008 and 2009 Mercedes-Benz models.  But, a recent decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office may influence the case.

According to a press release, the USPTO has put WorldLogic’s second patent pending in a position of allowance.  WorldLogic considers this development very significant because it can increase the value of the company, and it may play a role in the settlement of the case with Mercedes-Benz.

WorldLogic Corporation is a technology company that delivers predictive interface solutions for computer devices.  WorldLogic’s Presidnt and CEO, Frank Evanshen, said, “Needless to say this is a precedent setting case that may impact other companies and the royalty stream from these patents will generate significant revenue in years to come.  Our patent pending portfolio consists of 9 patents pending, of which 4 are in active office action with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

WorldLogic is seeking an injunction and damages from Mercedes-Benz.  In particular, WorldLogic wants 8.6% royalties of the sales of the infringing product that sells for approximately $3,000 to $5,000 per car.

President Obama and the USPTO

On Inauguration Day, it is only fitting that we take time to examine the potential changes that President Barack Obama may make to the USPTO.  Although it is definitely not his top priority, Obama has shared sentiments that would lead one to believe that reforming the patent system will at least be on his “to do” list.  One such quote is when he said, “If we really want our children to become the great inventors and problem-solvers of tomorrow, our schools shouldn’t stifle innovation, they should let it thrive.”

According to his website, Obama will appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer (CTO).  Yet, that’s not the only change that the USPTO might see under Obama’s Administration.  As Obama remarked during his campaign:

Giving the USPTO the resources to improve patent quality and opening up the patent process to citizen review will reduce the uncertainty and wasteful litigation that is currently a significant drag on innovation. With better informational resources, the USPTO could offer patent applicants who know they have significant inventions the option of a rigorous and public peer review that would produce a “gold-plated” patent much less vulnerable to court challenge. Where dubious patents are being asserted, the USPTO could conduct low-cost, timely administrative proceedings to determine patent validity.

Will the sheer volume of patent applications allow for peer review?  Also, while peer review may be effective in granting legitimate patents, will it lengthen the waiting period before a patent is finally issued?  Would a peer review system even be efficient?  What do you think?

Over 20 Companies Sued over OS Patent

Microsoft, Symantec, and 20 other companies have been named in a patent infringement lawsuit by a small Texas firm.  Information Protection and Authentication of Texas (IPAT) was granted two patents in the mid-90’s over systems for governing application and data permissions, and ensuring application integrity.  IPAT is looking for an injunction against the named companies as well as damages, reports Ars Technica.

The patent in question was granted in May 1995, and was a continuation of a previous patent filed in May 1994.  The former patent is titled “Computer system security method and apparatus having program authorization information data structures,” and it describes a system of authorization and permissions when executing applications and processing user data.  As the patent describes:

[A system monitor] limits the ability of a program about to be executed to the use of predefined resources.  The system monitor builds a data structure including a set of authorities defining that which a program is permitted to do and/or that which the program is precluded from doing.

IPAT purchased these patents from their listed inventor, Addison M. Fischer.  The complaint was originally filed on December 30, 2008, and a response from the defendants is still forthcoming.

Oprah’s Book Club Sued

Illinois Computer Research (ICR) is suing Oprah Winfrey’s production company for allegedly infringing on software linked with the Oprah Book Club.  The company, Harpo Productions Inc., is named in the suit, along with Sony Corporation of America, and Sony Electrionics Inc., reports CBS 2 Chicago.  Oprah Winfrey is not personally named in the suit.

ICR claims that it currently owns rights to a U.S. patent that allows the reviewing of excerpts from a digital book prior to purchase.  But, the patent also prevents the reader from obtaining and reviewing the entire book prior to purchase.  The suit states that Harpo Productions infringed on this patent by encouraging customers to buy and use products. 

ICR claims that Sony also infringed on the patent through its Sony Bookreader product.  More particularly, Sony used the software through its website to reach potential customers.

While Oprah’s company is being sued, some critics believe this is hardly a matter Oprah should be worried about.  Since the patent covers posting a book online, it would make more sense to name Amazon as the defendant in the case, as ICR’s patent seems to cover Amazon’s “look inside” feature.  Others contend that displaying a book online may not really be patentable material.

RPX Throws Itself Into Patent Infringement Lawsuit

San Francisco-based RPX Corp. has thrown a curveball into a patent lawsuit between Acacia Research Corp. and 20 defendants.  As Law.com reported, Acacia announced on Friday that a subsidiary called Light Valve Solutions reached a licensing agreement with RPX, a company the buys and licenses patents for its paying members.

RPX markets itself as a defensive patent pool, which buys and licenses patents for its members.  The company also promises not to sue for patent infringement.  RPX involved itself in the lawsuit by announcing that the defendants who sign up with RPX get a license to the Acacia patent, letting them out of the suit.  “If they don’t sign up with us, they’re still being sued.  If they get access to this portfolio through us, they’re not just getting access to this portfolio, they’re getting access to everything we have,” said John Amster, a co-founder of RPX.

Many patent lawyers have commented how it’s the first time they’ve ever seen something like this occur.  “I’ve never seen patent rights acquired mid-litigation like this,” said Michael Dorfman, who represents Sanyo, Eiki Internation Inc., and Christie Digital Systems USA Inc.  “I think it presents an interesting business option for companies interested in settling.  It’s a third option that wasn’t available before.”

Will joining a defensive patent pool amid litigation become a common practice?  Maybe not, but in this case it might save companies a great deal of money.

Guardian Media Files Suit Against 32 Companies

Guardian Media Technologies recently filed a lawsuit in a California district court against a number of well known companies.  Guardian alleges that these companies have infringed on two of their patents, and they are seeking damages, reports the IT Examiner.

The first patent in question involves a selective video playing system, which is connected to parental control features in DVD players that the defendants are offering, or have offered for sale.  The other patent was issued in May 1990 for “automatic censorship of video programs,” and covers parental control on televisions.

The following is the full list of companies Guardian has named in the lawsuit: Coby Electronics, Acer, Amazon, Apple, Bang and Olufsen, Best Buy, Bose, Cisco, Costco, Dell, Direct TV, Echostar Fujitsu, Imation, Lenovo, Lite on, Memorex, Microsoft, Motorola, Nintendo, Onkyo, Overstock.com, Radio Shack, Robert Bosch, Scientific-Atlanta, Sears Roebuck, Sherwood America, Sound Around, Target Corp, Tivo, TTE Technology, Walmart, Viewsonic and Yamaha.

It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to sue companies that merely sell the products that infringe on the patents.  Are stores supposed to research the patent history of every product they sell, or patents they may infringe?  It would make more sense for Guardian to name only the makers of the products that allegedly infringe on the patents.

Next Page »