decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Lodsys Sues More of the Inhabited Earth ~pj
Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 08:50 PM EDT

I went to take a look at the latest regarding Lodsys, now that Oracle has joined the fray, and it turns out that Lodsys filed the following new cases on the same day, May 10, in -- you guessed it, the Eastern District of Texas. Where else could this farce play out as if it were legitimate? Here are the complaints against each of the new victims, all PDFs:
The et al with Bank of America includes Epicor Software Corporation, Hoovers, Inc., Market America, Inc., Network Solutions, LLC, Overstock.com, Inc., Sleepy's, LLC, The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. The Becker litigation includes also Cabela's, Inc., Charming Shoppes, Inc., HSN, Inc., Nike, Inc., The Men's Warehouse, Inc., Tivo, Inc. Foster and Smith includes Recreational Equipment, Inc. and Walgreen Co. The AVG case includes GFI Software, Inc., Kaspersky Lab, Inc., Raxco Software, Inc., Symantec Corporation, and Webroot Software, Inc. The GMCI case includes Playboy Enterprises, Inc., RK Netmedia, Inc., Score Internet Group, LLC, and Vouyer Media, Inc.

In short, Lodsys is suing the entire inhabited earth. This Most Holy Patent stuff is getting out of hand, don't you think, considering that Oracle lists long and chunky paragraphs of prior art for each of the four patents asserted by Lodsys?

This is getting to be too huge not to be repulsive. Including the seven new cases, Lodsys has now filed eleven cases in the Eastern District of Texas alone, involving 70 defendants. And that isn't even counting all the ones going on in Wisconsin and other jurisdictions. There are a couple of new cases filed *against* Lodsys too, on top of the one by Oracle and the others by the New York Times, Wolfram, ESET, Foresee, RightNow Technologies, LivePerson, OpinionLab and DriveTime.

Here are the two new declaratory judgment cases against Lodsys:

Lodsys has filed a motion for dismissal [PDF] of the PCS Sales complaint, on the hilarious grounds, among other things, that just because Lodsys sent them a letter alleging patent infringement, with a claim chart, no less, it doesn't mean there is a controversy between them.

Blech.

Ditto in the Wolfram litigation. There are a number of such cases where Lodsys in the alternative wants the cases sent to Texas. Natch.

Ryonet and ESET have terminated their actions against Lodsys, but there's no indication of any payment, but that doesn't mean there might not have been.

And here is the bad news: some of Lodsys's victims actually are paying up to get out of this madness. Combay [PDF] and Samsung [PDF] appear to have decided to do that, for example. Who wouldn't want to escape the Eastern District of Texas? Unfortunately, when people pay, trolls then take the money and fund new cases with it.

Here is a list of all the victims of Lodsys so far:

Brother International Corporation, Canon U.S.A., Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Hulu, LLC, Lenovo (United States) Inc., Lexmark International, Inc., Motorola Mobility, Inc., Novell, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.,, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Trend Micro Incorporated, BBY Solutions, Inc., Best Western International, Inc., CVS Caremark Corporation, Sam's West, Inc., Stanley, Black & Decker, Inc., The Container Store, Inc., The Teaching Company, LLC, Vegas.com, LLC, Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., adidas America, Inc., Combay, Inc., Iconfactory, Inc., Illusion Labs AB, Michael G. Karr d/b/a Shovelmate, Quickoffice, Inc., Richard Shinderman, Wulven Game Studios, DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc., ESET, LLC, ForeSee Results, Inc., LivePerson, Inc., OpinionLab, Inc., The New York Times Company, Rosetta Stone, Inc., Foster and Smith, Inc., Recreational Equipment, Inc., Walgreen Co., GMCI Internet Operations, Inc., Playboy Enterprises, Inc., RK Netmedia, Inc., Score Internet Group, LLC, Vouyer Media, Inc., AVG Technologies USA, Inc., GFI Software, Inc., Kaspersky Lab, Inc., Raxco Software, Inc., Symantec Corporation, Webroot Software, Inc., Dell, Inc., Becker Professional Development Corporation, Cabela's, Inc., Charming Shoppes, Inc., HSN, Inc., Nike, Inc., The Men's Warehouse, Inc., Tivo, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Epicor Software Corporation, Hoovers, Inc., Market America, Inc., Network Solutions, LLC, Overstock.com, Inc., Sleepy's, LLC, The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.
I've probably missed some. That's how trolls roll, I've read. They sue everyone, because they figure some of the victims will pay up rather than endure the expense of patent litigation. And they have.

It's no wonder the US economy is in the tank. Companies can't survive this kind of attack over and over. It's like the economy is eating its own heart.

Does Intellectual Ventures really think patents like this are a benefit to anybody, to the economy at large, to innovation, to anything but its own personal greed? I'd really like to know how they justify something like this. And please don't mention Most Holy IP or fighting for the little guy. These patents are simply ridiculous. There's no other way to say it.

So you'll understand why I say that, I'd like to repeat here all the prior art Oracle has listed, so you can see just how appalling this tidal wave of patent litigation is, and how damaging it is when the USPTO issues software patents. Now we all must reap what they have sown. And may I ask why the USPTO couldn't find ANY of this prior art, leaving it to victims of patent trolls to do their work for them? Oracle's list:

39. Claims 1-37 of the ’908 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’908 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art....

43. Claims 1-22 of the ’834 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’834 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art....

47. Claims 1-67 of the ’078 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’078 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art....

51. Claims 1-32 of the ’565 patent are invalid for failure to meet the conditions of patentability of, and to otherwise comply with, one or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 100 et seq., 101, 102, 103 and 112. At a minimum, the claims of the ’565 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 based upon at least the following pieces of prior art in view of Lodsys’ apparent application of the claims of that patent: U.S. Patent No. 4,245,245 (“Matsumoto”), U.S. Patent No. 4,546,382 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,345,315 (“Cadotte”), U.S. Patent No. 4,567,359 (“Lockwood”), U.S. Patent No. 4,689,619 (“O’Brien, Jr.”), U.S. Patent No. 4,740,890 (“William”), U.S. Patent No. 4,816,904 (“McKenna”), U.S. Patent No. 4,829,558 (“Welsh”), U.S. Patent No. 4,862,268 (“Campbell”), U.S. Patent No. 4,893,248 (“Pitts”), U.S. Patent No. 4,973,952 (“Malec”), U.S. Patent No. 4,912,552 (“Allison, III”), U.S. Patent No. 4,992,940 (“Dworkin”), U.S. Patent No. 5,001,554 (“Johnson”), U.S. Patent No. 5,003,384 (“Durden”), U.S. Patent No. 5,029,099 (“Goodman”), U.S. Patent No. 5,036,479 (“Prednis”), U.S. Patent No. 5,056,019 (“Schultz”), U.S. Patent No. 5,065,338 (“Phillips”), U.S. Patent No. 5,077,582 (“Kravette”), U.S. Patent No. 5,083,271 (“Thacher”), U.S. Patent No. 5,117,354 (“Long”), U.S. Patent No. 5,138,377 (“Smith”), U.S. Patent No. 5,207,784 (“Schwartzendruber”), U.S. Patent No. 5,237,157 (“Kaplan”), U.S. Patent No. 5,282,127 (“Mii”), U.S. Patent No. 5,283,734 (“Von Kohorn”), U.S. Patent No. 5,291,416 (“Hutchins”), U.S. Patent No. 5,335,048 (“Takano”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,449 (“Meyer”), U.S. Patent No. 5,347,632 (“Filepp”), U.S. Patent No. 5,477,262 (“Banker”), U.S. Patent No. 5,496,175 (“Oyama”), U.S. Patent No. 5,740,035 (“Cohen”), U.S. Patent No. 5,956,505 (“Manduley”), JP H2-65556 (“Kita”), JP-03-064286-A (“Garza”), JP H3-80662 (“Ukegawa”), JP S60-200366 (“Tanaka”), and JP S62-280771 (“Furukawa”). These examples of prior art are intended to be illustrative and not exhaustive, and Oracle reserves the right to assert other specific pieces of prior art.

Now do you see why it's so great that Oracle has decided to try to bring this circus to an end, once and for all?

  


Lodsys Sues More of the Inhabited Earth ~pj | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 08:56 PM EDT
Please post any needed corrections here.
A summary in the title may be helpful.

Thnx -> Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

It'll be about who's quick on the draw
Authored by: Tolerance on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 09:07 PM EDT
Notice that although Oracle filed on the same day their case is "IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN - not in Texas.

My prediction: Lodsys is trying to establish a ruling in their favour in the
"Rocket Docket" jurisdiction which would be at least of persuasive
value in Wisconsin. I can't be sure because in the post above, the links to PDFs
don't exist (yet, at least).


---
Grumpy old man

[ Reply to This | # ]

Favourite Quote
Authored by: cassini2006 on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 09:08 PM EDT
It's no wonder the US economy is in the tank. Companies can't survive this kind of attack over and over. It's like the economy is eating its own heart.

China is not burdened with IP restrictions. Companies are free to invent. US companies must sell to the world and compete against them.

Having to pay lawyers and settlements for no valid reason hurts US businesses.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys Sues More of the Inhabited Earth
Authored by: shachar on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 09:52 PM EDT
And may I ask why the USPTO couldn't find ANY of this prior art, leaving it to victims of patent trolls to do their work for them?

I have read neither Lodsys's patents nor Oracle's prior art, but I think it is safe to say that at least some of that prior art is also irrelevant. Just because someone we want to win makes an assertion doesn't make it so. Just how much, we shall have to wait and see.

Having said that, the parties we tend to side with usually make more sense in their arguments, if only because they have substance to go on, and because Groklaw typically only picks the most outrageous cases to closely follow (SCO, Oracle).

Shachar

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-Topic Posts
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 09:53 PM EDT
Please keep off the Topic.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Pick Thread
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 09:54 PM EDT
Please discuss the News Picks here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Documents here
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 09:56 PM EDT
You know the drill.
Please keep those COMES documents going.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Insanity
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 10:17 PM EDT
This whole mess is the fault of the mindless ideology of the CAFC, of criminal
negligence on the part of the Patent Office, and of the abuse of power of the
judges in the Eastern District of Texas. These people need to be held
responsible for their actions, and until they are, and until they are removed
from office for their crimes, this kind of insane nonsense will continue.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just for the record
Authored by: cbc on Wednesday, June 06 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT
I.P. does not stand for Intellectual Property. It stands for
Intellectual Poverty. Companies that never had a productive
idea or some that seem to have run out of good ideas turn to
litigation as a way of continuing a revenue stream.
IP is a death knell. Check the list of companies that have
taken that route.
The way to compete is to listen to the customer, create, and
sell.
If you have forgotten that, you are on your way out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyers are really smart people
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 12:15 AM EDT
No really! Did you know that lawyers are named as the inventor in a huge number
of patents. In fact I wouldn't mind betting that in fact the majority of patents
these days are for inventions made by lawyers. Even in areas like software or
business methods it seems that lawyers make more stunning and patentable
advances than computer scientists or businesspeople.

Lawyers must be amazingly clever. Not only have they mastered the difficult
field of law, but it seems that they also help out all sorts of other people
like scientists, computer programmers, and business experts by contributing a
stunning very number of patentable inventions to those areas as well. I am in
awe of them.

Where would we be without lawyers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Intellectual Ventures doesn't care
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:20 AM EDT

As long as you pay them that is.

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

What About ME!!!!
Authored by: Cypher3c on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:25 AM EDT
Oooh ooh ooh.

Sue me, SUE ME!!!

I feel so left out of this case.

Any other takers?

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long before the "Eastern District of Texas" thing is unsustainable?
Authored by: SilverWave on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:27 AM EDT
A lot of money will be brought in via the lawyers, hotel accommodation and
ancillary services etc., ....


But running a court is expensive...

Or are the citizens subsidising this?

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Eastern District of Texas
Authored by: sproggit on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:37 AM EDT
We talk about this legal venue all the time. EDoT's reputation has become such
that the moment someone says or writes that Company A is suing Company B in
EDoT, I am immediately suspicious of Company A, purely because of the reputation
now attached to this jurisdictional venue.

PJ has written that this location is "patent friendly", but I have
never really understood how this can be. Partly because PJ also tells us that
the law has built-in safeguards to ensure that the law itself is consistently
applied, but also because, after so many bizarre rulings and cases coming out of
EDoT that get appealed, one might have thought that a higher court might have
become suspicious of the pro-patent leanings handed down over in EDoT and gone
for a closer look.

I'm not a US citizen, nor legally trained, so not even remotely experienced
enough to understand if my disquiet at this is valid or not. So here's an open
question or two, in part to see if anyone actually knows the answers, in part to
get us thinking about what EDoT is doing and the concept of 'justice'. I'm not
sure that they're the same thing...

1. Is there anything that happens as a consequence of being 'pro-patent' that
benefits the EDoT? What do they get out of this?

[ OK, from my position of ignorance, I would have thought that the case workload
in EDoT would be distorted and bloated by a number of cases that should be tried
in two completely different jurisdictions, yet may be taken there by a plaintiff
seeking a friendly venue. ]

2. If the parties in dispute both have headquarters in, say, California, what
are the legal requirements that have to be met before the case can be heard
before an EDoT judge?

3. If the parties in dispute both have headquarters in California, why would an
EDoT judge be willing to hear the case? Why does relevant legal efficiency not
warrant relocating the case back to California? [ Side note: we see in filings
discussed here on Groklaw occasions where parties move to combine cases, or keep
related cases before a single judge. So we do see the legal system cognizant of
such things.

4. Given that EDoT now seems to have this reputation, why don't defendants put
up more resistance over venue when someone tries to sue them there? I'm not
saying that they don't resist, only that EDoT seems to still be getting plenty
of business...





In this and other articles, we've called out the activities of patent trolls
such as Lodsys and [IMHO rightly] been critical of their parasitic, leech-like
business methods. Yet for all their voracity, Lodsys could not exist without a
sympathetic court. EDoT is oxygen to the Lodsys flame - deprive Lodsys of that
air supply and it seems to me that Lodsys might have to rethink it's business
model.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patentability 101
Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 05:55 AM EDT
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
However, the Supreme Court has delivered opinions through the years which put limits on patentability. The USPTO distils these into guidelines that we recognise such as:
While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting, methods and products employing abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature to perform a real-world function may well be. In evaluating whether a claim meets the requirements of section 101, the claim must be considered as a whole to determine whether it is for a particular application of an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature, rather than for the abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature itself.
They then propose these tests to help consider patentability:
“USEFUL RESULT”

For an invention to be “useful” it must satisfy the utility requirement of section 101. The USPTO’s official interpretation of the utility requirement provides that the utility of an invention has to be (i) specific, (ii) substantial and (iii) credible...

“TANGIBLE RESULT”

The tangible requirement does not necessarily mean that a claim must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a different state or thing. However, the tangible requirement does require that the claim must recite more than a § 101 judicial exception, in that the process claim must set forth a practical application of that § 101 judicial exception to produce a real-world result. “[A]n application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a … process may well be deserving of patent protection.” Diehr;

“CONCRETE RESULT”

Another consideration is whether the invention produces a “concrete” result. Usually, this question arises when a result cannot be assured. In other words, the process must have a result that can be substantially repeatable or the process must substantially produce the same result again. The opposite of “concrete” is unrepeatable or unpredictable. Resolving this question is dependent on the level of skill in the art. For example, if the claimed invention is for a process which requires a particular skill, to determine whether that process is substantially repeatable will necessarily require a determination of the level of skill of the ordinary artisan in that field...
These are the results of using the four Lodsys inventions taken from the abstracts:
Exhibit A - '908

'The invention may interact with customers, gather information from customers, communicate customer information securely to a vendor or external third party(ies), construct and transmit new pre-programmed interactions to the customer communications system in the product, and analyze and report customer information.

Exhibit B - '834

The value information can include customer assessments, usage frequency, navigational pointers. executable program code. instructions. product information, and service information. A digital medium is used to store value information generated by independent users. The medium can be coupled to an electronic communication network to allow for interchange of information.

Exhibit C - '078

The interactions elicit from respective users their perceptions of the commodity.

Exhibit D - '565

Further components include a data processing system for constructing and downloading pre-programmed interactions to the product sub-system; a communications sub-system for transmitting the data from the product subsystem to the vendor’s computer; a communications apparatus for reading the product sub-system’s data, transmitting it to the vendor's computer, and downloading new pre-programmed interactions to the product sub-system: a data processing system residing in the product sub-system for conducting interactions with a user; and a data processing system residing in the vendor’s computer for analyzing and reporting information gathered from users.
Other than Diehr, I left the citations out because they are familiar territory, for us. All four inventions deal with getting a customer of a product or service to fill out a value questionnaire. They all include communication from customer to vendor. One includes a database for analysing the information. One includes an arrangement for updating the questionnaire on the basis of received results. No part of the process requires IT or IT communications. It is not a computer invention, but an invention on a computer.

Unlike Diehr, a repeatable result is not obtained from the user (precision, cured, rubber, products were produced by the Diehr invention).

Only one of the abstracts provides a 'useful result' (Exhibit A - '908) although it is possible that there is more in the body of the patent.
This new medium provides a worldwide way to transform the use of products and services into interactive two-way dialogues; add in-product performance measures and any specific assistance needed; educate and train customers as their product uses change; permit vendors to discover and respond instantly to market shifts and opportunities; generate and test new ideas; enable customers to guide a vendor or a third party(ies) in satisfying their needs; and other means of using in-product communications to lit business operations with rapidly changing customers and markets. By making two-way learning and information delivery part of the product and service environment, vendors or third parties can become faster, more efficient and accurate in designing, delivering and supporting what customers want to buy
As far as 'useful results' are concerned, all four fail the test of specificity, because no specific product or service is delivered. All four fail the 'tangible result' test because their is no real-world result. The 'output' of the invention is subjective information that must be assessed by vendor staff in a subjective manner. As far as 'concrete results' are concerned, none of the four inventions produce a repeatable result. The result depends on the product or service and the subjective evaluation and subsequent unspecified actions of the vendor.

Like Flook, all the components and process steps are conventional and drawn from IT and product marketing. When considered as a whole, the four inventions contain no inventive concept.

To paraphrase Bilski, the Lodsys patents are merely the application of the abstract idea of marketing questionnaires being used for product improvement, but using information technology and data communications as the platform to provide a form for the questionnaire, communicate the answers and collate the data.

Unlike Bilski, the abstract idea is not narrowed to a specific field or product. Unlike Flook, the results are not linked to a real-world process such as the changing of actual process alarm limits. Unlike Benson, there is no protection sought for a specific algorithm or process step that is novel or unique when the process is considered as a whole.

None of the four inventions are anything more than the application of abstract marketing ideas, but using computers and computer communications in standard ways. There is no novel concept in the marketing process being patented. They are non-patentable subject matter according to the law, the Supreme Court prior decisions and the guidance of the USPTO.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys Sues More of the Inhabited Earth
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 08:27 AM EDT
The US is merely reaping what it has sown by rewarding greed.
It is too bad because it has gotten past the point of no
return. The majority of the citizens will continue to suffer
while the weathy few will continue to enrich themselves with
the help of the government. I feel very sorry for my children
and even more so for their children.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Inhabited Earth?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT
If they're nearly finished suing the inhabited Earth, how long before they start
suing some SpaceX employee on Mars?

Maybe 2020 or so?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys an anti-patent activist?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT
Lodsys seems to have found an effective tactic to stimulate
patent reform while generating enough income to sustain its
efforts.

In the same sense that Cain stimulated new laws forbidding
fratricide, perhaps.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Little Guy...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 01:33 PM EDT
Quote: "And please don't mention Most Holy IP or fighting for the little
guy. " PJ

Just wanted to point out that Patents are never protecting the little guy 'as
originally intended'. The little guy invents while the 1% become the 'ASSIGNEE'
of all patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys Sues More of the Inhabited Earth
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT
why are some listed as "Lodsys Group" and others are listed
as "Lodsys Holdings Group" ? and the last one is simply
listed as "Lodsys"?

Does that mean the patents are owned by three different
groups? does this imply any implications in proving
ownership?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The justification for these cases is simple
Authored by: vb on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 03:01 PM EDT
"Greed, for lack of a better word, is good"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys Sues More of the Inhabited Earth
Authored by: wvhillbilly on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 01:40 AM EDT
Seems to me this abusive use of patents could be stopped very easily by
legislation stating simply, If you don't own or make the thing the patent
covers, you cannot enforce the patent.

---
"It is written." always trumps, "Um, ah, well, I thought..."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lawyer for Ryonet says "client happy"
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 01:47 AM EDT
Kurt M Rylander, lawyer for Ryonet said on his twitter account "Just
settled a
declaratory judgment of noninfringement action against alleged patent troll
Lodsys. Client happy :)".

Source: http://twitter.com/#!/rylip

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • news Pick!!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )