RSSUSPTO Rejects Another Key NTP Patent
by Ed Oswald and Nate Mook
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office dealt a major blow to NTP on Wednesday by rejecting a key patent at the center of the company's dispute with Research In Motion. The non-final rejection covers five of the seven patent infringement claims against RIM, which could be forced to shut down its BlackBerry service.
A separate patent covering the other two infringement claims has also been preliminarily rejected by the USPTO. The rulings give RIM a legal basis to challenge NTP's push to have a judge enforce an injunction against the company. However, final decisions from the USPTO could be months away.
With all of NTP's patents ostensibly on track to be ruled invalid, it puts U.S. District Judge James Spencer in a difficult position. Although he has indicated his patience for the case was wearing thin, it appears that in order to enforce the injunction, Spencer would have to rule that he believed the USPTO was acting in error.
However, the judge has also signaled in the past that he does not intend to wait for final rulings from the patent office, although RIM would likely appeal a decision against it once the USPTO had completed its review.
"In all of the Patent Office rulings to date relating to the reexamination of all eight of the NTP patents, NTP's arguments on the merits of patentability have been rejected by the Patent Office," the company said in a statement.
12 Comments
Let me get this right. I claim I invented sliced bread. I sue every bread maker in the country to pay my royalties. What is keeping me from suing every bread maker, then when I fail, claiming bankruptcy so I can't be counter sued for the cost of suing all the bread companies? Shouldn't I be required to put up cost fees before I sue?
Score: 0
The problem with that is how would poor Joe-Shmo types ever have a chance of suing big corporate thieves? The law has to establish some basis of fairness and consistency in how things are brought to a court. I doubt YOU (personally) could pay up-front legal fees to defend your idea against someone like IBM or Microsoft.
Score: 0
I think the judge is in a pickle on this..If he shuts Blackberry down and orders them to pay $XXX Million dollars to NTP and then the patent office says NTP's patent is INVALID, how can RIM actually be guilty? What if RIM pays the $ and the patent office says the patent is invalid and NTP goes belly-up...who does RIM go after to get their money back? The best solution is order a settlement of $XXX and have it held pending the patent review. During the waiting process, RIM is allowed to function, but must keep records of all existing and new devices and service. He should also set a per device license fee untill the final outcome to protect both sides, and that will be the basis for any additional compensation should RIM loose the patent appeal. This way, everyone is protected, and there is little chance of the service going down.
Just my 2 cents worth--and I dont even have a Blackberry!!!!!
Score: 0
NTP will most likely lose in the end. That doesn't mean RIM won't be forced to pay some sort of penalties or make some concessions. I'm only saying that as far as the original intent of the claim is concerned, NTP will not likely walk away from this in a stronger position.
Score: 0
Man, no one thus far has posted a comment on this topic that shows one shred of research effort. USPTO is taking the stance because they're finding "prior art" to indicate previous inventions existed, in some form, relevant to the invention/patent claim. That means "someone might have had the idea before NTP". In this case it appears to be relevant enough to warrant a "review of the claim" to determine if it still has any merit. DO YOUR RESEARCH BEFORE YOU FORM AN OPINION OR COMMENT - PLEASE.
Score: 0
NTP did not invent the technology used in the Blackberry. Like virtually every other company that relies soley on patent royalties, they took someone else's idea and patented it.
Score: 0
That may be true (I don't know, I haven't researched that), so I can't comment on whether NTP invented or not. The comment I posted is regarding "prior art" before even the source of NTP's claim. That means either way, NTP will not be able to defend their claim. Either (as you're suggesting) they didn't invent it, or someone has possible proof of having invented it before them.
Score: 0
These extortionists like NTP Inc., ought to be fully investigated. NTP Inc sounds like more of a con artist than a legitimate techno company.
I think RIM is completely innocent and should file counter claims for damages so caused by NTP Inc.
Score: 0
I want to know why they were rejected. It would give me more information to know exactly what NTP is up to.
If it truly is their ideas and concepts that have been used by RIM, then they should pay up and move on. We have been seeing way to much of this in the industry this past year. Not only NTP. It is an industry that is getting the name like cutthroats, theives, and bullies. They are all doing it. Corporate America is destroying itself with their greed.
Score: 0
I hope NTP falls flat on its face. I personally think that its unethical to patent something, then DO NOTHING with it other than trying to get rich from lawsuits. I betcha a beer that theres lawyers involved in the ownership of NTP. Which brings me to why Laywers should be rounded up and be sent to some island.
Score: 0
Your claims would be similar if I said that the only reason for the USPTO's denial is because they all have Blackberry's and they don't want the system shut down.
Score: 0
You guessed right! Donald Stout is a patent attorney, and he will soon be filing more IP lawsuits in his new job.
http://www.msvlp.com/pr/...releases_view.cfm?id=76
And, just for equal time, here's an interview with him thats mildly interesting:
http://news.com.com/Send...008-1082_3-5759953.html
Score: 0