Patent Lawsuits Might Decline Under New Rules

The explosion of umber of mobile handset patent lawsuits in U.S. courts went from 24 cases in 2006 to 84 in 2010, said David McDonald, an attorney at K&L Gates. It might be argued that the number of lawsuits has climbed because companies and people profit from such lawsuits. But the volume of such suits already is pinching the legal system in a purely logistical sense, and that is leading to changes that will undercut the profit motive for filing many cases.


That is not to say it is easy to design a mobile device without possibly using intellectual property of an astounding quantity. "Today, it's a lot more complex to resolve the IP gap between what you own and what you need," said Mario Obeidat, head of licensing for telecommunications at Intellectual Ventures, a company that primarily acquires patents and earns revenue by licensing them.

A mobile phone today requires 70,000 to 100,000 patents, he said. Spike in Mobile Lawsuits Spurs Changes

Among some of the changes, the U.S. International Trade Commission now can require litigants to   submit information regarding the impact of a case on the public interest. The new rule will also allow more public comment on the potential public impact of cases before the ITC. Such submissions could allow the ITC to decide against considering some cases if it finds that they are unlikely to have much impact on the public.


With potentially less incentive, fewer lawsuits are likely to be filed. 

Google's Patent Search Likely is Not Finished

An analysis of more than 1,000 patents that Google bought from IBM offers a glimpse inside the search giant's increasingly frantic efforts to protect its Android mobile operating system against legal attacks from competitors.

IPVision, which makes patent-analyzing software, says that the 1,029 patents that Google bought from IBM in July contain little that the company could use to either attack its competitors or defend its own products.

Bundles of patents covering computing—especially mobile computing—technology have become a hot property in recent months. Apple, Nokia, Microsoft, and others have used them to extract money from competitors, or even to block those competitors' products from being sold. This year, Apple successfully prevented the sale of some Samsung devices in much of Europe, while Microsoft has used patents to extract millions of dollars in licensing fees, from companies including Samsung and HTC, for using Google's "free" Android operating system.

Google's Search for Valuable Patents

Samsung aims to block iPhone 4S sales in Italy, France

Samsung plans to file patent infringement claims against Apple’s new iPhone 4S and stop it from being sold in France and Italy, the latest move in a wide-ranging commercial dispute around patent infringement that also includes Apple suing to block the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 in Australia on grounds that it violated Apple’s patents.


Apple has refused settlement offers with Samsung in hopes of blocking the Tab 10.1′s Australian launch altogether.

Some of us would continue to say that though there are legitimate issues of intellectual property protection, the patent process itself shows severe signs of misuse. Some would argue business success ought to emerge from decisions made by consumers, not lawyers, and that this increasingly seems not to be the case.

Samsung aims to block iPhone 4S sales in Italy, France

Should Amazon Buy Palm?

Amazon is rumored to be in “serious negotiations to buy Palm assets from HP. Some will question whether this makes sense for Amazon. Palm's webOS has been highly regarded, but has failed to get market traction.

Whether Amazon could do better, or whether it should not simply continue to use Android, are legitimate questions. But some might argue most of the value is in Palm's intellectual property portfolio.

And that could be important if Amazon believes it will, in the future, be competing with Apple, not with Barnes & Noble or eBay. As recent events have shown, IP ownership is crucial in the new mobile business.

Amazon's interest in Palm

Patent Troll Seeks Cable Operator Toll

Yikes. Rembrandt IP Management, a suburban Philadelphia firm whose sole business is to buy up technology patents, and whose business model is based on patent royalties derived from those assets, has filed numerous lawsuits in numerous venues to force large cable operators and major broadcasters to pay substantial license fees on the transmission of digital TV signals and Internet services. Rembrandt seeks royalties for use of intellectual property related to cable modem services as well as digital TV broadcasts.

Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Charter Communications, Cox Communications and Cablevision Systems are named as patent infringers.

More VoIP Patent Trouble

Verizon now is suing Charter Communications as well as Cox Communications for infringing eight VoIP patents. Included are the three patents Vonage was found guilty of infringing last year, plus several that relate to maintaining quality of service. In principle, it is not clear why every major cable company in the U.S. market is not guilty of infringement if Cox is found to be infringing, as virtually all the cable operators use the PacketCable framework.

Uh Oh. Verizon Sues Cox Communications

Verizon Communications has sued Cox Communications Inc., claiming infringement of eight patents for providing telephone services on a data network. So far, only Vonage has had to face lawsuits over VoIP intellectual property. What isn't clear is what happens if Verizon wins the lawsuit, either outright or through a negotiated settlement.

After Vonage was found to infringe patents Verizon, Sprint, Nortel and at&t, many of us have wondered whether lots of other service providers might be found to infringe the same patents. Many independent VoIP providers and even some technology suppliers apparently have wondered the same thing, even if they won't say so in public.

Apparently we might find out relatively soon. The wider implications are pretty clear: it is not clear what Cox might be doing that any other cable company affiliated with Cable Television Laboratories is not doing. So the damage conceivably would not be limited to independent providers of VoIP services but possibly every leading cable company operating in the U.S. market.

And since Cox does not create its own technology but buys it from the same suppliers thouse other cable operators are using, one has to wonder whether there might not be exposure even on the supplier side of the business, though it is extremely unlikely Verizon or other telcos would bother their own suppliers.

Granted, any damage would be annoying, not a grave danger to any leading U.S. cable company. It isn't so clear what the damage might be at a smaller cable company, though arguably the potential size of the infringing revenues wouldn't be that great, so the penalties would be commensurate.

Atlanta-based Cox, the third-largest U.S. cable TV company, should be ordered to pay cash compensation for using the inventions, Verizon says in a complaint filed in federal court in Norfolk, Va.

Vonage's troubles, it appears, might not be confined there alone.

Sprint Settles Patent Infringement Suit

...and it doesn't involve Vonage. A subsidiary of Acacia Research Corp. and Sprint Nextel Corp. have settled a lawsuit alleging that Sprint Nextel had infringed on four patents for technology used to display mobile vehicle information on maps. No terms were revealed.

Telecom has been a tough business for a decade. But operations seem to be getting riskier in the service provider business, for reasons that used to be an issue primarily for hardware and software suppliers.

Vonage, Nortel Settle Patent Dispute

Vonage Holdings Corp. and Nortel Networks Corp. have settled their intellectual property dispute by cross licensing their VoIP patents.

The settlement involves a limited cross-license to three Nortel and three Vonage patents, and dismisses claims relating to past damages and the remaining patents. The settlement is subject to final documentation.

The licensing concerns technology used to make emergency calls or dial 411. Neither company will pay the other anything for any alleged unauthorized use of its technology.

The settlement points up the increasing importance patent portfolios seem to be assuming in the service provider space, mirroring the enhanced importance such portfolios have assumed in the hardware and software space, where cross-licensing deals are a standard way suppliers settle such disputes.

This year Vonage has faced--and lost--several suits from other service providers over use of VoIP-related patents. At some level, one has to wonder whether any independent service providers using anything other than standard hardware and software sold by the largest providers is protected from similar threats. Vonage appears to have placed itself at greater risk precisely because it developed at least some of its own technology, instead of buying it.

In December Vonage agreed to pay AT&T Corp. $39 million as part of its settlement. Vonage has also agreed to pay Sprint Nextel Corp. and Verizon Communications Inc. a total of $200 million to settle their respective lawsuits.

Vonage sued Nortel in August, claiming three patents Nortel held were mistakenly granted to the company. Nortel counter-sued, claiming Vonage is violating a total of 13 of Nortel's patents, and asked that Vonage be kept from using the technology.

Google Patent Infringement: One Win and Overtime

The U.S. Court of Appealrs has ruled that Google’s AdSense program does not infringe on any Hyperphase Technologies patents related to contextual linking and presentation of information. Google won the initial decision, which was appealed. However the court overturned the part of the initial decision covering the AutoLink browsing tool, ruling that there may be infringement of two patents, and sent the case back for another look.

The AutoLink browser tool parses Web pages for fragments of text in certain formats, and then transforms them into links to relevant Web pages.

One senses that something is wrong with the patent system. Fostering innovation by protecting inventions is a good thing. But some patents seem so generic, covering entire processes, not simply the expression of a process, that the patents are overly broad, and seem examples of prior art.

Vonage, AT&T Settle VoIP Patent Dispute

Vonage and at&t have finalized the settlement of a dispute between the companies. No details were released. But $39 million had been mentioned earlier.

Nortel Claims Patent Infringement by Vonage

Nortel Networks has sued Vonage Holdings Corp., alleging Vonage is infringing 12 Nortel patents. Of course, in some ways it is a counter-suit, as Vonage earlier had sued Nortel seeking to invalidate three of the patents.

An injunction would prevent Vonage from using technology that relates to 911 and 411 calls, as well as its "click to call" feature.

Another Ridiculous Patent Suit

Technology Patents, a Maryland entity having its principal place of business in Potomac, Md, (address P.O. Box 61220, Potomac, MD 20859, http://www.arismardirossian.com/), has filed a patent infringement suit claiming that 131 carriers, handset suppliers and application providers have infringed a patent covering global transmission of text or short message service (SMS) communications.

Technology Patents alleges that all of the defendants, which include T-Mobile, Vodafone, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company Ltd, AT&T, Samsung, Palm, Microsoft, and Yahoo! (among the 131 defendants), have caused international text or SMS messages to be sent to and from Maryland, thereby resulting in infringement of the asserted patents in Maryland.

TPLLC has asked for a permanent injunction against the defendants, enjoining them from providing international messaging operations and capabilities in the U.S. market.

My views on this, as previously mentioned, are that there is way too much use of "patents" as a business weapon or means of extortion, and too little use of patents as a genuine way to spur the formation of intellectual capital. We aren't talking about one or two "infringers." We are talking virtually the entire global telecommunications industry here. Can that possibly be the case? Or is this yet another example of "prior art" that should never have been given patent status in the first place?

It's crap.

Vonage Settles with Sprint

Vonage has settled its Sprint Nextel Corp. patent infringement lawsuit for $80 million. As part of the settlement, all claims are resolved and Sprint has licensed to Vonage the Sprint portfolio of more than 100 patents covering the connection of calls between a regular telephone network and a packet-switched network such as the Internet.

The $80 million Vonage agreed to pay consists of $35 million for past use of the patents, $40 million for a fully paid future license, and $5 million in prepayment for services.

Vonage has maintained it has sufficient reserves to pay both the Verizon and Sprint Nextel patent infringement awards without long-term damage to its business model. There has been some speculation that the patent infringement damage awards would push Vonage over the edge into bankruptcy. The countervailing point of view has been that the patent disputes were a serious financial distraction but not alone capable of damaging Vonage's long-term prospects. More dangerous by far is the threat posed by cable providers bundling VoIP with video and broadband access services.

In that sense, EarthLink faces much the same problem. It has a reasonably-sized Internet access business that has to contend with triple play bundles as well, though EarthLink arguably has made better progress in creating a double play offering of broadband plus voice.

The settlement of the Sprint lawsuit is helpful primarily in removing a huge distraction and source of uncertainty.

Vonage Loses Sprint Lawsuit, Has to Pay $69.5 Million

A federal jury has ordered Vonage Holdings Corp. to pay $69.5 million in damages for infringing on six telecommunications patents owned by competitor Sprint Nextel Corp.

Vonage also will have to pay a 5 percent royalty on future revenues. If neither this decision nor Vonage's Verizon patent infringement decisions are overturned, 10.5 percent of Vonage's recurring revenue will have to be paid out in damages to Verizon and Sprint together.

The upfront damage awards are hefty enough. The recurring 10.5 percent of gross revenue that will be lost might be more significant.

Vonage says it would appeal the decision but would also begin developing technological workarounds that it said would skirt the disputed technology.

Earlier this year Vonage also was ordered to pay Verizon $58 million in damages plus 5.5 percent royalties on future revenues. That decision also is under appeal.

Between the distractions (getting the work-arounds into place; the cost of further appeals), vigorous competition from cable companies and the damage payments, I suppose one now has to wonder whether Vonage can pull out of a dangerous spiral.

Massive Email Outage in the Works?

NTP, a patent holding company based in Arlington, Va., is suing Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile USA for infringing several of its patents, all of which are related to the delivery of e-mail to mobile devices. You might remember that NTP wrung $612.5 million out of Research in Motion for doing so.

In its new round of suits, NTP claims mobile carriers mobile email services also violate those patents.

NTP wants an injunction to stop the infringing actions. Injunction. As in "you will stop delivering email now and then we will go to court to figure out whether you really are infringing or not. Injunction. As in massive North American email outage.

Five of the eight patents NTP claims are being infringed were the subject of NTP's 2001 patent suit against Research in Motion, the maker of the BlackBerry. In November 2002, a jury found that RIM infringed upon NTP's patents.

In 2006 RIM agreed to pay NTP to settle the case.