Story first appeared on Slashgear.com
NVIDIA has partnered with Intellectual Ventures in order to acquire roughly 500 patents owned by IPWireless. All the patents revolve around wireless technologies, including 3G, LTE, and LTE-Advanced, according to San Diego Patents Lawyer. The acquisition closed on April 30th, but the terms of the deal weren’t disclosed. IPWireless will retain access to the patents royalty-free, with the portfolio split between NVIDIA and Intellectual Ventures.
NVIDIA is naturally interested in the patents now that the company is taking the mobile business seriously, hoping to incorporate an SoC with a compatible LTE modem next year. The deal could be related to that effort, but NVIDIA remained vague in the press release, saying: These patents, acquired in collaboration with Intellectual Ventures, will help support our rapidly expanding efforts in the mobile business.
Intellectual Ventures, meanwhile, views the acquisition of the patents as strategic, stating that they helped NVIDIA achieve its goal thanks to a quick deal. They worked with NVIDIA to develop a customized structure to complete this deal in a relatively short period of time, while also helping NVIDIA to meet its strategic goals. This investment provides efficient access to important inventions and standards-essential patents and reinforces the leadership role in building an active market for invention.
It was revealed last week that NVIDIA’s LTE solution wouldn’t be available until next year, something which had previously been on track for the end of this year. The lack of a compatible LTE modem is what’s stopping the Tegra 3 SoC from being used in American handsets. The AT&T HTC One X, for example, uses a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 processor instead of the Tegra 3 chip found in the European One X.
For more technology and electronics related news, visit the Electronics America blog.
For national and worldwide related business news, visit the Peak News Room blog.
For local and Michigan business related news, visit the Michigan Business News blog.
For healthcare and medical related news, visit the Healthcare and Medical
blog.
For law related news, visit the Nation
of Law blog.
For real estate and home related news, visit the Commercial and
Residential Real Estate blog.
For organic SEO and web optimization related news, visit the SEO Done Right blog.
Showing posts with label patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patents. Show all posts
Monday, May 14, 2012
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Co-Founder Of Microsoft Drives Patent Dispute
They make up the common features of the Internet experience: instant NYSE updates, recommended news stories, supplemental videos along the side of your navigation bar.
Now taking a claim on these popular tech widgets is Microsoft's co-founder Paul Allen. He says he owns the intellectual property behind all these innovations, and he's demanding that some of the world's top Web companies pay it forward to use them.
Allen, a 57-year-old software mastermind, sued a sea of Silicon Valley companies on Friday. He targeted Internet giants such as Google Inc., Facebook Inc. and eBay Inc. based on having created their businesses around what he claims is his technology.
Paul Allen's legal action asserts that those three companies as well as eight others are utilizing patented technology developed over 10 years ago at his former Silicon Valley development center. The computer software pioneer did not actually develop any of the technology himself however owns the patents.
His Silicon Valley targets do not plan to go down so lightly. "This lawsuit against some of America's most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace," a Google spokesman said.
Patent litigation as a whole is on the rise, in what is evolving into a lucrative endeavor. Ocean Tomo, a merchantile bank in Chicago that monitors the intellectual-property market, values the licensing market at up to $500 billion.
Allen's lawsuit comes at the heels of firms such as NTP Inc., which regulates and enforces non-tangible patents, and by many critics, have been coined "patent trolls". Courts have tried to make a presence in patent litigation, however with mixed results.
The four intellectual property patents addressed in the suit were created at Interval Research Corporation of Palo Alto, California. Allen financed the tech lab during the Internet bubble with roughly $100 million, however since a decade ago, the lab no longer exists.
Mr. Allen was unavailable for comment, according to spokesman David Postman, who said Mr. Allen's facility developed the technology that he claims to be his own. "We recognize that innovation has a value, and patents are the way to protect that," said Postman.
Mr. Postman also commented that the timing of the lawsuit was in no way related to the status of Allen's health or personal finance. Mr. Allen recently offered to donate the majority of his fortune. Last year, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, but has successfully completed treatments and has no current problems.
"It sounds like the classic patent-troll case," said a Stanford Law School professor, who also has experience as a Nashville intellectual property. He mentioned that claims filed by owners of aged patents over technology, especially tech patents that are used so widespread, can be difficult to win.
Paul Allen's attorneys said a group has been reviewing his patent portfolio for years, evaluating what is relevant to the market while tightening the loose ends to complete the patent process. During that time, some of Mr. Allen's patents were sold or licensed.
Ron Laurie, a former intellectual property lawyer who now counsels businesses on patent licensing strategy, claimed Mr. Allen and the companies he owns have typically avoided the litigation process. "He's not been thought of as being in the troll community at all," said Mr. Laurie, who in the past has represented Mr. Allen in other concerns.
Legal professionals claim that an emergence in large settlements for patent holders in recent years have motivated owners to file infringement suits, rather than sell intellectual property, even when patents are several years old.
A perfect example occurred in July when NTP sued Microsoft, Apple Inc. and four other organizations over intellectual property patents involving the wireless transmission of email to PDAs and cellphones. Research In Motion Ltd., the maker of BlackBerry, paid NTP $612.5 million to settle the claim.
Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer of Microsoft, has put a stamp on thousands of patents valued at over hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Myhrvold patents some of his inventions through his firm Intellectual Ventures in Seattle, but also invests in patents to license. A critical ingredient to successful patenting requires consulting with an experienced Nashville intellectual property law firm who can manage the legal complexities.
The companies named in Paul Allen's lawsuit are Google, Facebook, eBay, Apple, Yahoo Inc., AOL Inc., Netflix, Office Depot Inc., OfficeMax Inc., Staples Inc. and YouTube, a subsidiary of Google.
Noteworthy organizations not present in the defendants' list are Microsoft and Amazon.com Inc. Both companies Mr. Allen has personal and financial ties to. Mr. Postman denied comment on the list of defendants.
EBay said it was currently analyzing the claim and is planning an aggressive defense. "We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously." a Facebook spokesman added.
Mr. Allen's lawsuit outlines violations of four IP patents for technology that are considered to be essential components of e-commerce and Internet search companies, in addition to being critical to the operations of the companies that use them.
One patent's technology enables a website to provide relevant suggestions to consumers for items related to what they currently have on their screen. The same technology allows social-networking websites to relate online activities and interests of its users.
A second key component involved in the dispute allows news readers to quickly pinpoint related stories to a particular topic. The other two patents enable ads, news updates or video images to flash on a user's computer screen, aside from their main activity.
Mr. Allen was the primary source of funds for Interval Research. During the companies prime, the facility employed over 110 professionals, "and was at the forefront in designing next-generation science and technology," the suit says. David Liddle, Interval Research's co-founder and a former Xerox Corp. researcher, could not be reached for comment.
The research pioneer was invested in a number of projects, with objectives to develop technology applicable to Mr. Allen's ventures in cable television and telecommunications. The company also focused on creating technology that could be licensed to investors and other companies.
According to Mr. Allen's lawsuit, in 1998 Interval Research was found listed in Google's "credits" site as an external collaborator and one of many sources of research funding for the founder's research that resulted in Google.com.
The creations of Interval Research extended from motion-detection technology used in video games to technology used for cellular voice-processing. The company dissolved shortly after its plans to commercialize its technology failed to resolve out as planned.
Monday, May 17, 2010
HTC Fires Back, Sues Apple
PC World
Taiwanese phone maker says Apple has violated five patents, asks to ban sales of the iPhone, iPad, and iPod.
This isn't even slightly surprising: HTC is suing Apple. The Taiwanese phone giant says that the iPhone maker has violated five HTC patents, and it's therefore asking the U.S. International Trade Commission to prevent the iPhone, iPad, and iPod from being imported into the U.S. and sold.
Last month, Apple sued HTC, seeking to ban that company from selling phones in the U.S. Apple is also suing Nokia, which is itself suing Apple. Twice.
(Extremely unlikely but perversely satisfying potential scenario: All three companies win all their lawsuits, preventing all of them from selling any products whatsoever and driving them all out of business. At least it might dissuade other businesses from doing battle in the courtroom rather than the marketplace...)
Microsoft, meanwhile, isn't suing HTC-it's collecting royalties whenever HTC sells an Android phone. But the unspoken message of its pact with HTC appears to be "Strike a similar deal with us, makers of Android phones, or we might sue you."
HTC doesn't seem to have disclosed which patents it thinks Apple is violating, but its portfolio includes hundreds of ones relating to mobile gadgets. Just for fun, here's a drawing from one HTC patent that probably isn't involved-the clever one covering the phone that became the AT&T Tilt. (Come to think of it, I'd be interested in buying an iPhone based on this patent-too bad Apple never violated it...)
Last month, Apple sued HTC, seeking to ban that company from selling phones in the U.S. Apple is also suing Nokia, which is itself suing Apple. Twice.
(Extremely unlikely but perversely satisfying potential scenario: All three companies win all their lawsuits, preventing all of them from selling any products whatsoever and driving them all out of business. At least it might dissuade other businesses from doing battle in the courtroom rather than the marketplace...)
Microsoft, meanwhile, isn't suing HTC-it's collecting royalties whenever HTC sells an Android phone. But the unspoken message of its pact with HTC appears to be "Strike a similar deal with us, makers of Android phones, or we might sue you."
HTC doesn't seem to have disclosed which patents it thinks Apple is violating, but its portfolio includes hundreds of ones relating to mobile gadgets. Just for fun, here's a drawing from one HTC patent that probably isn't involved-the clever one covering the phone that became the AT&T Tilt. (Come to think of it, I'd be interested in buying an iPhone based on this patent-too bad Apple never violated it...)
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Nokia Launches another Patent Complaint against Apple
USA Today
NEW YORK — Finnish cellphone maker Nokia (NOK) said Friday that it has extended its patent-infringement claims against Apple (AAPL) to include the new iPad.
The latest complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisc., follows other lawsuits by Nokia claiming a broad swath of Apple products violate Nokia patents.
Nokia says the disputed technologies help reduce the size and cost of electronic gadgets. Apple had already responded with its own infringement claims against Nokia.
Lawsuits over patent rights are common in the technology industry. They can take years to resolve and often end with some kind of licensing agreement.
Apple has sued Taiwan's HTC Corp., one of the leading producers of cellphones that run on Google 's Android software, a potential challenger to Apple's popular iPhone. Apple says HTC's Android phones violate iPhone patents.
The legal disputes come amid increasing competition in the fast-growing market for smart phones. Tech companies are scrambling to win over the growing number of consumers buying cellphones that come with e-mail, Web surfing and scores of apps for checking weather, updating Facebook and other tasks.
Nokia is the world's biggest cellphone maker, though it is more dominant in Asia and Europe. In the U.S., it faces intense competition from the iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerrys.
Nokia's latest lawsuit targets the iPhone and the iPad 3G, the version of the device that can connect to the Web using cellphone networks. Nokia said the gadgets infringe five patents related to technology that makes voice and data communications more efficient, which allows the devices to be more compact.
"We have taken this step to protect the results of our pioneering development and to put an end to continued unlawful use of Nokia's innovation," Nokia executive Paul Melin said.
Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on the new case but said the company had already filed a countersuit in December to earlier claims by Nokia. Apple claims Nokia is infringing 13 of its patents, saying the company chose to "copy the iPhone" in order to recapture its share of the high-end phone market.
The latest complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in Madison, Wisc., follows other lawsuits by Nokia claiming a broad swath of Apple products violate Nokia patents.
Nokia says the disputed technologies help reduce the size and cost of electronic gadgets. Apple had already responded with its own infringement claims against Nokia.
Lawsuits over patent rights are common in the technology industry. They can take years to resolve and often end with some kind of licensing agreement.
Apple has sued Taiwan's HTC Corp., one of the leading producers of cellphones that run on Google 's Android software, a potential challenger to Apple's popular iPhone. Apple says HTC's Android phones violate iPhone patents.
The legal disputes come amid increasing competition in the fast-growing market for smart phones. Tech companies are scrambling to win over the growing number of consumers buying cellphones that come with e-mail, Web surfing and scores of apps for checking weather, updating Facebook and other tasks.
Nokia is the world's biggest cellphone maker, though it is more dominant in Asia and Europe. In the U.S., it faces intense competition from the iPhone and Research in Motion's BlackBerrys.
Nokia's latest lawsuit targets the iPhone and the iPad 3G, the version of the device that can connect to the Web using cellphone networks. Nokia said the gadgets infringe five patents related to technology that makes voice and data communications more efficient, which allows the devices to be more compact.
"We have taken this step to protect the results of our pioneering development and to put an end to continued unlawful use of Nokia's innovation," Nokia executive Paul Melin said.
Apple spokesman Steve Dowling declined to comment on the new case but said the company had already filed a countersuit in December to earlier claims by Nokia. Apple claims Nokia is infringing 13 of its patents, saying the company chose to "copy the iPhone" in order to recapture its share of the high-end phone market.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Jury Decides for Red Hat, Novell in Software Patent Lawsuit
eWeek
One by one, intellectual property lawsuits against companies who use open source software in their products are falling by the wayside.
A jury in East Texas May 3 declared that user-interface patent infringement claims filed against Red Hat and Novell by IP Innovation LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. and Technology Licensing Corp., were "invalid and worthless."
IP Innovation originally filed the litigation against Novell and Red Hat in 2007. Northbrook, Ill.-based IP Innovation claimed that the two companies had infringed on three patents that described technologies for sharing workloads among remotely located computers.
Only a month ago, a Salt Lake City jury threw out virtually all claims by Unix server maker SCO Group against Novell, confirming that the licensing rights to the Unix operating system belong to Novell.
SCO Group also had claimed that pieces of the Unix operating system had been incorporated into Linux, several flavors of which -- including Red Hat and Novell SUSE -- are now among the most pervasive server operating systems in the world.
That 7-year-old IP lawsuit in now in its final days as final legal details are put to rest.
IP Innovation is known in the open source community for being one of several shell companies representing Newport Beach, Calif.-based Acacia, which describes itself in this way on its Web site:
Acacia Research's subsidiaries partner with inventors and patent owners, license the patents to corporate users, and share the revenue. Our partners are primarily individual inventors and small companies with limited resources to deal with unauthorized users but include some large companies wanting to generate revenues from their patented technologies.
A so-called 'patent-hoarder'?
The open source community has long considered Acacia Research a patent-hoarder whose main business is suing companies who use open source software to create new products for enterprise data centers, a patent attorney who asked not to be identified for this story told eWEEK.
In the 2007 complaint, IP Innovations claimed that Red Hat Linux and Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop and Enterprise Server all use versions of the software it said it owns.
But the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, Texas -- where a large number if IT licensing and IP cases are heard -- came to the decision that IP Innovation did not provide sufficient evidence to support its ownership claim.
"This is the result we expected, and we are gratified that the jury recognized the tremendous innovative value of open source software," Michael Cunningham, Executive Vice President at Red Hat, said in a statement.
"The jury knocked out three invalid patents that were masquerading as new and important inventions, when they were not."
An Acacia spokeswoman did not immediately return a phone call for comment from eWEEK.
A jury in East Texas May 3 declared that user-interface patent infringement claims filed against Red Hat and Novell by IP Innovation LLC, a subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. and Technology Licensing Corp., were "invalid and worthless."
IP Innovation originally filed the litigation against Novell and Red Hat in 2007. Northbrook, Ill.-based IP Innovation claimed that the two companies had infringed on three patents that described technologies for sharing workloads among remotely located computers.
Only a month ago, a Salt Lake City jury threw out virtually all claims by Unix server maker SCO Group against Novell, confirming that the licensing rights to the Unix operating system belong to Novell.
SCO Group also had claimed that pieces of the Unix operating system had been incorporated into Linux, several flavors of which -- including Red Hat and Novell SUSE -- are now among the most pervasive server operating systems in the world.
That 7-year-old IP lawsuit in now in its final days as final legal details are put to rest.
IP Innovation is known in the open source community for being one of several shell companies representing Newport Beach, Calif.-based Acacia, which describes itself in this way on its Web site:
Acacia Research's subsidiaries partner with inventors and patent owners, license the patents to corporate users, and share the revenue. Our partners are primarily individual inventors and small companies with limited resources to deal with unauthorized users but include some large companies wanting to generate revenues from their patented technologies.
A so-called 'patent-hoarder'?
The open source community has long considered Acacia Research a patent-hoarder whose main business is suing companies who use open source software to create new products for enterprise data centers, a patent attorney who asked not to be identified for this story told eWEEK.
In the 2007 complaint, IP Innovations claimed that Red Hat Linux and Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop and Enterprise Server all use versions of the software it said it owns.
But the jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, Texas -- where a large number if IT licensing and IP cases are heard -- came to the decision that IP Innovation did not provide sufficient evidence to support its ownership claim.
"This is the result we expected, and we are gratified that the jury recognized the tremendous innovative value of open source software," Michael Cunningham, Executive Vice President at Red Hat, said in a statement.
"The jury knocked out three invalid patents that were masquerading as new and important inventions, when they were not."
An Acacia spokeswoman did not immediately return a phone call for comment from eWEEK.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
VirnetX Files Second Lawsuit Against Microsoft
cNet News
After scoring big in one court case against Microsoft this week, VirnetX is hoping for seconds.
VirnetX announced on Thursday that it has launched another lawsuit against Microsoft, this time claiming that the same patent violations found in Windows XP and Vista from the first suit also exist in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.
On Tuesday, a Texas jury ruled against Microsoft attorneys in a patent infringement case initiated by VirnetX in 2007. VirnetX, which develops software to secure instant messaging and VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) communications, alleged that Microsoft had violated two of its patents concerning virtual private network (VPN) technology.
After finding that Microsoft willfully violated the patents in question, the jury awarded VirnetX damages of $105.75 million.
In addition to charging Microsoft with patent violations in XP and Vista, the first suit also targeted Microsoft Live Communications Server and Office Communications Server. The initial suit did not cover Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2 because it was launched before those two products hit the marketplace.
Initiating a new lawsuit so quickly after winning the first one is part of VirnetX's strategy.
"This is a tactical and procedural post-trial action to ensure and protect our property rights, as we proceed to final resolution with Microsoft," VirnetX President and CEO Kendall Larsen said in a statement.
In response to the new lawsuit, Kevin Kutz, Microsoft's director of public affairs, issued the following statement: "While we can't comment specifically about the new complaint because we have not been served, Microsoft respects intellectual property, and we believe our products do not infringe the patents involved. Moreover, we believe those patents are invalid. We will challenge VirnetX's claims."
VirnetX's lawsuit claims that Microsoft violated its U.S. patents 6,502,135 and 7,188,180. Both patents cover specific ways of better securing IP-based communications through VPNs and other technologies.
After finding that Microsoft willfully violated the patents in question, the jury awarded VirnetX damages of $105.75 million.
In addition to charging Microsoft with patent violations in XP and Vista, the first suit also targeted Microsoft Live Communications Server and Office Communications Server. The initial suit did not cover Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008 R2 because it was launched before those two products hit the marketplace.
Initiating a new lawsuit so quickly after winning the first one is part of VirnetX's strategy.
"This is a tactical and procedural post-trial action to ensure and protect our property rights, as we proceed to final resolution with Microsoft," VirnetX President and CEO Kendall Larsen said in a statement.
In response to the new lawsuit, Kevin Kutz, Microsoft's director of public affairs, issued the following statement: "While we can't comment specifically about the new complaint because we have not been served, Microsoft respects intellectual property, and we believe our products do not infringe the patents involved. Moreover, we believe those patents are invalid. We will challenge VirnetX's claims."
VirnetX's lawsuit claims that Microsoft violated its U.S. patents 6,502,135 and 7,188,180. Both patents cover specific ways of better securing IP-based communications through VPNs and other technologies.
Friday, March 5, 2010
TiVo Wins Patent Rights Case Vs Dish
AP
TiVo Inc. prevailed yet again in a long-running dispute with Dish Network Corp. over patents for digital video recorders, as a federal appeals court cleared the way Thursday for TiVo to collect hundreds of millions of dollars. TiVo shares jumped more than 50 percent.
Despite repeatedly losing, however, Dish said it will seek a review of the three-judge panel's decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
TiVo said the decision, if it stands, would let it collect at least $300 million from Dish - about $100 million in damages and interest, and the rest in contempt sanctions that TiVo already has been awarded. That would be on top of about $100 million in damages that Dish had already paid TiVo in earlier litigation.
TiVo has struggled with being consistently profitable, and being able to collect such an amount would help get it into the black. TiVo came out with its DVR in 1999 and "TiVo" became a verb synonymous with recording TV, but it has faced intense competition from generic DVRs offered by Dish and other subscription TV providers.
The company also has sued AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., charging them with infringing on certain DVR patents. Microsoft Corp. has waded into the fight on AT&T's side.
"The courts have ruled in TiVo's favor numerous times over the past five years, which should help ... in the company's litigation against AT&T, Verizon, and Microsoft," Tony Wible, an analyst from Janney Montgomery Scott, said in a research note.
At issue is a TiVo patent on technology for storing and retrieving video on DVRs, which lets viewers pause, rewind and replay live TV. TiVo sued Dish in 2004 for patent infringement for using a similar technology on its DVRs, a case Dish lost on appeal. Dish paid TiVo $104.6 million in damages and interest and was barred from using the technology.
While the case was going on, Dish crafted a redesigned technology that it said did not infringe on TiVo's patent. But the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, disagreed and ordered Dish to pay TiVo additional damages - this time at $103 million plus interest, along with about $200 million in contempt sanctions.
Dish appealed again, losing that bid on Thursday. Dish said that it is planning a second redesign of its technology and will seek approval from the district court to use it.
Dish said in a statement that it's disappointed in the ruling but gratified that one of the three appellate judges sided with its position and issued a dissenting opinion Thursday.
Two of the judges found that the lower court applied the right standard in analyzing whether Dish's redesigned technology still infringed on TiVo's patent. But the dissenting judge, Randall Rader, said the court is punishing a company that has made a good faith effort at a redesign.
Dish is counting on a better outcome if the entire appeals court grants the review it has requested.
Wible believes Dish would lose before the full appeals court as well and would end up paying a license fee to use TiVo's technology on Dish's DVRs or face having to disable the boxes. The boxes rely on TV remote control battery power. Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. already license TiVo's software.
Analysts have been perplexed at Dish's intransigent stance on TiVo, which Dish has repeatedly lost. But Dish has refused to give up.
TiVo said the $300 million it was awarded covers Dish's infringement through July 1. The Alviso, Calif.-based company said it will seek damages for Dish's continued infringement since then.
Last August, TiVo sued AT&T and Verizon over the same patent and two others that allow multiroom viewing and correct overshooting when viewers fast-forward TV via remote battery. Microsoft, whose Mediaroom software is used in AT&T's set-top boxes, sued TiVo in January, alleging that TiVo has violated Microsoft patents related to such things as an on-screen TV guide.
Shares of TiVo rose $5.62, or 55 percent, to $15.83 in afternoon trading Thursday. Dish Network, based in Englewood, Colo., lost $1.01, or 4.7 percent, to $20.70.
Despite repeatedly losing, however, Dish said it will seek a review of the three-judge panel's decision by the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
TiVo said the decision, if it stands, would let it collect at least $300 million from Dish - about $100 million in damages and interest, and the rest in contempt sanctions that TiVo already has been awarded. That would be on top of about $100 million in damages that Dish had already paid TiVo in earlier litigation.
TiVo has struggled with being consistently profitable, and being able to collect such an amount would help get it into the black. TiVo came out with its DVR in 1999 and "TiVo" became a verb synonymous with recording TV, but it has faced intense competition from generic DVRs offered by Dish and other subscription TV providers.
The company also has sued AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc., charging them with infringing on certain DVR patents. Microsoft Corp. has waded into the fight on AT&T's side.
"The courts have ruled in TiVo's favor numerous times over the past five years, which should help ... in the company's litigation against AT&T, Verizon, and Microsoft," Tony Wible, an analyst from Janney Montgomery Scott, said in a research note.
At issue is a TiVo patent on technology for storing and retrieving video on DVRs, which lets viewers pause, rewind and replay live TV. TiVo sued Dish in 2004 for patent infringement for using a similar technology on its DVRs, a case Dish lost on appeal. Dish paid TiVo $104.6 million in damages and interest and was barred from using the technology.
While the case was going on, Dish crafted a redesigned technology that it said did not infringe on TiVo's patent. But the U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, disagreed and ordered Dish to pay TiVo additional damages - this time at $103 million plus interest, along with about $200 million in contempt sanctions.
Dish appealed again, losing that bid on Thursday. Dish said that it is planning a second redesign of its technology and will seek approval from the district court to use it.
Dish said in a statement that it's disappointed in the ruling but gratified that one of the three appellate judges sided with its position and issued a dissenting opinion Thursday.
Two of the judges found that the lower court applied the right standard in analyzing whether Dish's redesigned technology still infringed on TiVo's patent. But the dissenting judge, Randall Rader, said the court is punishing a company that has made a good faith effort at a redesign.
Dish is counting on a better outcome if the entire appeals court grants the review it has requested.
Wible believes Dish would lose before the full appeals court as well and would end up paying a license fee to use TiVo's technology on Dish's DVRs or face having to disable the boxes. The boxes rely on TV remote control battery power. Comcast Corp. and Cox Communications Inc. already license TiVo's software.
Analysts have been perplexed at Dish's intransigent stance on TiVo, which Dish has repeatedly lost. But Dish has refused to give up.
TiVo said the $300 million it was awarded covers Dish's infringement through July 1. The Alviso, Calif.-based company said it will seek damages for Dish's continued infringement since then.
Last August, TiVo sued AT&T and Verizon over the same patent and two others that allow multiroom viewing and correct overshooting when viewers fast-forward TV via remote battery. Microsoft, whose Mediaroom software is used in AT&T's set-top boxes, sued TiVo in January, alleging that TiVo has violated Microsoft patents related to such things as an on-screen TV guide.
Shares of TiVo rose $5.62, or 55 percent, to $15.83 in afternoon trading Thursday. Dish Network, based in Englewood, Colo., lost $1.01, or 4.7 percent, to $20.70.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Apple Suit Against HTC Highlights Patent Issues
PC World
Apple claims that both HTC and Nokia are infringing on its iPhone-related patents with their smartphones. Nokia accuses Apple of infringing on its patents. Motorola is fighting with RIM over smartphone patents. And, Facebook was awarded a patent for the newsfeed. Either patent suits have become simply another business strategy, or the patent system itself is woefully inadequate, or both.
The patent system is a disaster for technology. Granted, it makes perfect sense to have a system in place to protect unique and innovative concepts and ensure that other companies or individuals don't simply copy ideas derived from the blood, sweat, and tears of other's research and development efforts. I get that. I agree with that.
There is a breakdown, however, somewhere in the process. The USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) lists five easy steps for acquiring a patent:
1. Search existing patents to ensure the "new" concept isn't already patented
2. Review the fee schedule to figure out how much money the patent will cost
3. File the application for the patent
4. Check back periodically to see if the patent has been awarded
5. Continue to pay maintenance fees in order to keep the patent in good standing
Let's begin with step one. There are millions--approaching ten million--patents. Some are utility patents, some are design patents, and some are plant patents (I won't even bother getting into how or why someone can patent a plant--let's just say I am pretty sure it has to do with large pharmaceutical companies)--so you can narrow the field somewhat. But, sifting through millions of patents and comparing them to ensure the new patent is unique is a daunting process.
Once the patent is filed, the USPTO still has to examine it, verify that it doesn't violate or infringe on existing patents, and make sure that it meets the criteria that it invent or discover a new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
The USPTO received 485,312 patent applications in 2008. It awarded 185,224 of those patents. That means that this government agency was responsible for reviewing over 1,300 patents per day on average, and it awarded almost 40 percent of them.
The sheer volume of patent applications is overwhelming and reviewing and approving them assumes some level of understanding of the concepts and technologies being patented. It's easy to see how seemingly frivolous patents slip through the cracks, especially when one of the criteria essentially allows you to patent a patent infringement since it's allowable to patent a "new useful improvement" of an existing patent.
Ron Gula, CEO of Tenable Network Security, agrees "The issue I have with patents is that the vetting process tries to take into account every possible prior patent and prior art. As we generate more and more content, this problem becomes exponentially more difficult. I've not seen a solution I like which protects inventor rights, but streamlines this process as well."
That brings us to Apple, and HTC, and Nokia, and Motorola, and Facebook. Technology companies are all building on the past and present to create the future. None of them can claim to be solely responsible for the mechanisms and technologies their products are comprised of. It is part of the general evolution of technology, and the patent system--while designed to protect intellectual property rights--has devolved into petty, and costly bickering between companies.
While most patents end up being licensed to competitors for a fee--with royalties being paid to the patent holder for the privilege of using the patented concepts or technologies--the fact is that the patent holder does not have to allow it at all.
The USPTO Web site states "The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States."
In a nutshell, assuming Apple is correct that HTC and Nokia are infringing on its patents, it has the right to simply ban them from making using, offering, selling, or importing the infringing smartphones in the United States. Doing so would seem to be at odds with antitrust regulations, though, since the patent rights imply the authority to monopolize the patented concept.
Technology companies need to have a healthy respect for the fact that they are standing on the shoulders of the past, and building on concepts--many of which competitors came up with. I appreciate innovation and want to see unique ideas and intellectual property protected, but the world of technology patents, and patent litigation as a business strategy seems like a huge mess with no clear winner.
Something should change. I don't have the answer.
The patent system is a disaster for technology. Granted, it makes perfect sense to have a system in place to protect unique and innovative concepts and ensure that other companies or individuals don't simply copy ideas derived from the blood, sweat, and tears of other's research and development efforts. I get that. I agree with that.
There is a breakdown, however, somewhere in the process. The USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) lists five easy steps for acquiring a patent:
1. Search existing patents to ensure the "new" concept isn't already patented
2. Review the fee schedule to figure out how much money the patent will cost
3. File the application for the patent
4. Check back periodically to see if the patent has been awarded
5. Continue to pay maintenance fees in order to keep the patent in good standing
Let's begin with step one. There are millions--approaching ten million--patents. Some are utility patents, some are design patents, and some are plant patents (I won't even bother getting into how or why someone can patent a plant--let's just say I am pretty sure it has to do with large pharmaceutical companies)--so you can narrow the field somewhat. But, sifting through millions of patents and comparing them to ensure the new patent is unique is a daunting process.
Once the patent is filed, the USPTO still has to examine it, verify that it doesn't violate or infringe on existing patents, and make sure that it meets the criteria that it invent or discover a new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof.
The USPTO received 485,312 patent applications in 2008. It awarded 185,224 of those patents. That means that this government agency was responsible for reviewing over 1,300 patents per day on average, and it awarded almost 40 percent of them.
The sheer volume of patent applications is overwhelming and reviewing and approving them assumes some level of understanding of the concepts and technologies being patented. It's easy to see how seemingly frivolous patents slip through the cracks, especially when one of the criteria essentially allows you to patent a patent infringement since it's allowable to patent a "new useful improvement" of an existing patent.
Ron Gula, CEO of Tenable Network Security, agrees "The issue I have with patents is that the vetting process tries to take into account every possible prior patent and prior art. As we generate more and more content, this problem becomes exponentially more difficult. I've not seen a solution I like which protects inventor rights, but streamlines this process as well."
That brings us to Apple, and HTC, and Nokia, and Motorola, and Facebook. Technology companies are all building on the past and present to create the future. None of them can claim to be solely responsible for the mechanisms and technologies their products are comprised of. It is part of the general evolution of technology, and the patent system--while designed to protect intellectual property rights--has devolved into petty, and costly bickering between companies.
While most patents end up being licensed to competitors for a fee--with royalties being paid to the patent holder for the privilege of using the patented concepts or technologies--the fact is that the patent holder does not have to allow it at all.
The USPTO Web site states "The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States."
In a nutshell, assuming Apple is correct that HTC and Nokia are infringing on its patents, it has the right to simply ban them from making using, offering, selling, or importing the infringing smartphones in the United States. Doing so would seem to be at odds with antitrust regulations, though, since the patent rights imply the authority to monopolize the patented concept.
Technology companies need to have a healthy respect for the fact that they are standing on the shoulders of the past, and building on concepts--many of which competitors came up with. I appreciate innovation and want to see unique ideas and intellectual property protected, but the world of technology patents, and patent litigation as a business strategy seems like a huge mess with no clear winner.
Something should change. I don't have the answer.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tech Giants' New Way to Thwart Patent Suits
Business Week
Frustrated by litigation costs, Microsoft, Sony, and Nokia are paying third-party patent acquirers such as RPX to fend off patent lawsuits
Forgive Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer if he's frustrated by litigation. Aside from high-profile government investigations into the company's alleged monopoly power, Microsoft (MSFT) has been sued at least 49 times in the past six years for patent infringement by small shops that buy up patents from inventors and bankrupt companies, according to researcher PatentFreedom. Lawsuits from "patent trolls," says the software giant, are a costly blight on the technology industry. "[Patent litigation] costs the industry billions of dollars per year," says Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice-president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft.
On Jan. 28, Microsoft signed up for patent insurance. It's not insurance such as you might get for your car or house, but a startup called RPX provided what's probably the closest thing to it for tech giants. Companies such as Microsoft, Sony (SNE), and Nokia (NOK) pay RPX annual fees to avoid patent-related litigation. The fees depend on each company's revenue and can range from $35,000 to $4.9 million per year. The 14-month-old RPX is one of the first companies to offer the service, It's already signed up 30 members, including IBM (IBM), Cisco (CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and Samsung.
RPX's approach doesn't guarantee that its members won't be sued. The company buys up patents that could be used against its clients, having spent to date $130 million to acquire more than 1,000 patents and patent rights in the mobile, Internet search, telecommunications, networking, and e-commerce areas. In return for yearly fees, member companies get licenses to all the patents RPX acquires. "By working together with entities such as RPX, the industry can collectively reduce the costs of this needless litigation," says Microsoft's Gutierrez.
Forgive Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer if he's frustrated by litigation. Aside from high-profile government investigations into the company's alleged monopoly power, Microsoft (MSFT) has been sued at least 49 times in the past six years for patent infringement by small shops that buy up patents from inventors and bankrupt companies, according to researcher PatentFreedom. Lawsuits from "patent trolls," says the software giant, are a costly blight on the technology industry. "[Patent litigation] costs the industry billions of dollars per year," says Horacio Gutierrez, corporate vice-president and deputy general counsel at Microsoft.
On Jan. 28, Microsoft signed up for patent insurance. It's not insurance such as you might get for your car or house, but a startup called RPX provided what's probably the closest thing to it for tech giants. Companies such as Microsoft, Sony (SNE), and Nokia (NOK) pay RPX annual fees to avoid patent-related litigation. The fees depend on each company's revenue and can range from $35,000 to $4.9 million per year. The 14-month-old RPX is one of the first companies to offer the service, It's already signed up 30 members, including IBM (IBM), Cisco (CSCO), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), and Samsung.
RPX's approach doesn't guarantee that its members won't be sued. The company buys up patents that could be used against its clients, having spent to date $130 million to acquire more than 1,000 patents and patent rights in the mobile, Internet search, telecommunications, networking, and e-commerce areas. In return for yearly fees, member companies get licenses to all the patents RPX acquires. "By working together with entities such as RPX, the industry can collectively reduce the costs of this needless litigation," says Microsoft's Gutierrez.
Microsoft's settlements with Acacia
Patent trolls are extremely controversial in the tech industry. They're typically small firms that acquire patents from individuals or small companies and then try to extract licensing fees from companies selling products that infringe on those patents. The patent-licensing firms are more politely referred to as "nonpracticing entities" because they sell patent licenses to technologies they don't design, manufacture, or distribute. Microsoft is one of the most-pursued tech companies by these small firms, according to PatentFreedom. The patent disputes almost always start with a lawsuit. In 2009, one of every five of the 470 nonpracticing entity cases filed involved software defendants, according to RPX.
In late January, Microsoft settled two patent disputes for an undisclosed amount with subsidiaries of a nonpracticing entity called Acacia Research (ACTG). One lawsuit involved a patent for software compilers and the other involved technology that can be used by interactive Internet maps. RPX conducted a study of the top 60 technology companies in the U.S. and Asia and discovered that 80.6% of all patent cases against them were filed by nonpracticing entities. "Today the preferred path is litigation," says John Amster, CEO of RPX. "It's a highly inefficient, friction-filled way of conducting business," he says.
ShoreTel (SHOR), which sells business phone systems, is one of the companies looking for a more efficient solution. The company signed up as an RPX member because of high—and unpredictable—patent litigation costs. "Our payments in a quarter to a patent troll can take us from being profitable to unprofitable," says Ava Hahn, vice-president and general counsel at ShoreTel. "We look at it as an insurance policy," she says.
"not a wolf in sheep's clothing"
RPX's approach is attracting venture capital backing, too. Its investors include Charles River Ventures, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and Index Ventures. "There ought to be a market-based mechanism for inventors to be paid for their inventions without having to build products or to sue," says Izhar Armony, a general partner at Charles River Ventures. That company has invested in four companies in the intellectual property market, including Nathan Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures. Intellectual Ventures both acquires patents from companies and comes up with its own inventions.
Still, it's unclear how much a firm like RPX can do to prevent litigation. "It's unrealistic to say you could buy up all the patents that may be asserted against you in the future," says Professor Mark Lemley, director of the Stanford Program in Law, Science, and Technology. "There's a very thin line between a patent troll and a company [that] buys up a bunch of patents and says: 'For a fee we won't sue you,'" he says.
For its part, RPX says that it doesn't sue or threaten to sue companies with the patents it has acquired, even if they're not members. That would run counter to its approach and could cost it customers. RPX has even pledged in its charter not to sue anyone. "We can buy rights to protect our members," says Amster. "Companies are getting comfortable that we're not a wolf in sheep's clothing."
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Apple Claims Nokia Infringement On 13 Patents
eWeek
Apple has filed a lawsuit against Nokia, saying the Finnish phone maker is infringing on 13 of its patents. Nokia originally filed its own patent-infringement lawsuits against Apple in October. According to one analyst, the boundaries of such patents are "fuzzy," and who’s right is almost impossible to tell.
Apple to Nokia: Two can play at the patent-infringement game.
On Dec. 11, Apple released a statement saying the company has now filed a countersuit against Nokia, claiming the Finnish phone maker has infringed on 13 Apple patents.
“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel and senior vice president, wrote in a statement posted on Apple’s Website.
Sewell’s comment perhaps purposefully echoed the accusations of Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Nokia’s legal and intellectual division, who announced in an Oct. 22 statement that Nokia had filed a complaint against Apple in a U.S. district court for the infringement of 10 of Nokia’s patents pertaining to GSM, UMTS and WLAN standards.
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for,” Rahnasto said in a statement.
“Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree [to] appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation," Rahnasto continued.
Some analysts speculate that Apple could owe Nokia up to $1 billion.
Apple, in its statement, did not specify what the 13 allegedly infringed-upon patents are, or pertain to. It did offer a recap of its history, however, noting that it “ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s … reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s … leads the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers … and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.”
On Dec. 11, Apple released a statement saying the company has now filed a countersuit against Nokia, claiming the Finnish phone maker has infringed on 13 Apple patents.
“Other companies must compete with us by inventing their own technologies, not just by stealing ours,” Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel and senior vice president, wrote in a statement posted on Apple’s Website.
Sewell’s comment perhaps purposefully echoed the accusations of Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Nokia’s legal and intellectual division, who announced in an Oct. 22 statement that Nokia had filed a complaint against Apple in a U.S. district court for the infringement of 10 of Nokia’s patents pertaining to GSM, UMTS and WLAN standards.
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for,” Rahnasto said in a statement.
“Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree [to] appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation," Rahnasto continued.
Some analysts speculate that Apple could owe Nokia up to $1 billion.
Apple, in its statement, did not specify what the 13 allegedly infringed-upon patents are, or pertain to. It did offer a recap of its history, however, noting that it “ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s … reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s … leads the industry in innovation with its award-winning computers … and has entered the mobile phone market with its revolutionary iPhone.”
In the third quarter of 2009, Apple beat Nokia to become the world’s most profitable handset maker, according to research firm Strategy Analytics.
“I think it’s a form of negotiation,” Ezra Gottheil, an analyst with Technology Business Research, told eWEEK. “What they’re involved in here is nothing life or death to either company; it’s just a matter of how much one is going to pay the other for the rights to some technology.”
Gottheil said that it’s almost impossible for a company to know when it’s infringing on the patents of another, and that the courts aren’t very equipped to judge such things.
Consequently, he said, such lawsuits are “based on the probability that some judge will vote in one direction or another, and the companies will settle on some amount of money that one will pay the other so that they can both shake hands and move on to other things.”
Who’s in the right? “It’s just about impossible to tell,” Gottheil said, as the boundaries of the patents are “pretty fuzzy.”
Still, he clarified, “No one’s accusing anyone of stealing anything. It’s all a matter of convergence. Of two separate organizations winding up with techniques that are similar enough that if one patent [seems to cover it more], then the other company has to pay to use it.”
Friday, October 23, 2009
Nokia Sues Apple, Claiming Patent Infringement
From Information Week
Nokia has filed patent infringement litigation against Apple, charging that the iPhone infringes on several Nokia patents.The litigation, which involves 10 patents, was filed Thursday in the Federal District Court in Delaware. The patents at issue, Nokia said, involve GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA), and wireless LAN standards.
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, Nokia VP of legal and intellectual property, in a statement. "Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree [to] appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation." Apple did not immediately respond to reports about the Nokia complaint.
The litigation is just the latest in the mobile industry, which has been racked by scores of patent and intellectual property suits. Nokia itself was involved in long and bitter patent litigation with Qualcomm that was settled in July 2008 with Nokia agreeing to make payments to Qualcomm over a 15-year period. That agreement included licenses for GSM features, which appear to constitute a major piece of Nokia's complaint against Apple.
Nokia pioneered GSM, which has figured in AT&T's exclusive network deal with the iPhone in the United States. The AT&T network also utilizes UMTS, likewise cited in the Nokia litigation. AT&T was not named by Nokia in the litigation. The Nokia complaint appears to be aimed largely at handset intellectual property, although Nokia didn't completely spell out the charges in its Thursday press release.
Nokia noted that it has successfully entered into licensing agreements with about 40 companies that include the patents cited in the Apple litigation, adding that it maintains that all Apple iPhones shipped since the smartphone's debut infringe on Nokia patents that cover wireless data, speech coding, security, and encryption.
Last week Nokia reported its first quarterly loss in years, while Apple reported very favorable earnings and revenue. Nokia leads the world in handset shipments with a 38% market share while Apple, still relatively new to the mobile market, is gaining share at a rapid rate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
