For example, from the docket:
3/3/2006 - 464 - ORDER that this
matter is settled, and by stipulation of the parties, this action is hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James R. Spencer on 3/3/06. (scoo,
) (Entered: 03/03/2006)
3/3/2006 - 463 - ORDER RELEASING ESCROW FUNDS, that
$612.5 million from the funds in the escrow account established by this
Court's order of March 11, 2003 shall be immediately transferred via wire
transfer to the following: Citibank, N.A., ABA 021000089, FBO Citigroup Global
Markets, Inc., A/C #30604518, FFC to NTP Inc. at Smith Barney, A/C
#401-30382-13-501. Signed by Judge James R. Spencer on 3/3/06. (scoo, )
(Entered: 03/03/2006)
2/27/2006 - 462 - ORDER denying 443 Motion to have
recently Produced United States Patent and Trademark Office documents entered
into the record. Signed by Judge James R. Spencer on 2/27/06. (scoo, ) Modified
on 2/27/2006 to correct the spelling of Patent (scoo, ). (Entered:
02/27/2006) The judge simply refused to allow any delay to let the
prior art be considered. In that way, he force
d RIM to pay millions that it didn't believe it owed for patents that so far
turned out to be invalid by threatening an injunction against RIM. There is an
appeal on some. Part of the judge's problem, as far as I can see, was that he
himself had already ruled on summary judgment, prior to the jury's verdict,
that RIM was guilty of infringement of some of the patents. He also ultimately
decided it was willful, despite RIM's inhouse attorney having examined the
claims when they first were received and deciding that they did not infringe/or
were invalid patents. As indeed they turned out to be. But he just wouldn't
give RIM the time of day, and in his rush to judgment, this is what he missed,
as the Federal Circuit eventually noted:
Interestingly, though, the
Federal Circuit did agree to a rehearing of its earlier decision and issued a
second decision in August of 2005. In that decision lies a fairly complex effect
resulting from the confluence of U.S. patents and international law. The problem
is that although BlackBerry devices are sold in the United States, RIM and its
relay station for sending e-mail wirelessly are both located in Canada. In
general, U.S. patents like NTP's do not extend to most activities conducted
outside the United States. Moreover, the patents only covered complete systems
and methods for wireless e-mail; not the BlackBerry device itself, which is only
a component of the system.
NTP had made the problem even more complex by
phrasing some of its patent claims as "system" type, covering the various
components of a wireless e-mail structure (such as gateway switches and radio
frequency transmission networks), while others were of the "method" type. Rather
than listing components, method claims list steps associated with running a
system, reciting action verbs like "transmitting."
The Federal Circuit held
that RIM put the patented system into use in the United States (even though the
relay is in Canada), but not the method, since the relay utilization doesn't
occur in the States. In the United States, patent infringement takes place when
the product in question is imported into, or sold in the country. But what if
the invention is a method? How do you import or sell it? Difficult question.
When a method is applied outside U.S. borders to make a product that is shipped
into the country, there can be patent infringement--but data and information
don't really constitute products under U.S. patent laws.
The result was that
RIM didn't infringe NTP's six method-type claims but did infringe seven
system-type claims. And because of Spencer's incorrect interpretation of
system-type claims, the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to him to
determine if RIM infringed three other NTP claims of that type.
So
his characterization that RIM was willful was simply wrong, because he was wrong
about these patents and whether RIM was infringing on at least some of them.
Believe it or not, the judge, when he got the case back, still refused to stay
the case despite the US government agreeing with RIM that he should.
Meanwhile the USPTO continued its reexams, the ones that the judge wouldn't
wait for. But the problem for RIM was the same as the one facing Samsung, that
if the reexams prove the patents invalid after all, but only after final
judgment, then the injunction, if ordered, would remain good on the products
enjoined. Not fair, but that is the choice that the judge forced on RIM.
Whatever tricks or not tricks RIM might have seemed to the judge to have used at
trial can't possibly compare to what this judge did to RIM, in my view. And we
are talking about software patents to boot.
I mention all this because you
keep commenting on this case that the judge ruled this or that, but the full
record should raise serious questions in anyone's mind as to the
judge's
judgment in this litigation, whether he got things right. And since he clearly
didn't in at least one instance and yet refused to alter course, one might even
wonder if he had a bias or some issue that made it hard for him to be fair. I
don't know, but I do know that posting that RIM misbehaved and that this is why
the judge did what he did and was justified in so doing is stretching the
facts. So please stop doing that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|