caword docse introduction

8/9/2019 Caword docse Introduction

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/caword-docse-introduction 1/4

Case Introduction

Blackberry (Research in Motion Limited) v/s NTP Inc. is a classic case of atent

infrin!ement la"s#it "hich ended # "ith an o#t of co#rt settlement in favo#r of

NTP. The case "as $les by NTP in %&&& a!ainst Research In Motion (RIM)

re!ardin! a atent "hich "as infrin!ed. Both the or!anisations fo#!ht a le!al

battle for si' years $nally doin! an o#t of co#rt settlement of *% million. It is a

classic case of the atent troll henomenon "hich has #t all the technolo!y

$rms c#rrently in e'istence at risk.

Parties Involved

Blackberry (Research In Motion) + or Patent ,ssertion -ntity (P,-) are comanies

"hich only hold atents and have no intention of commercialisin! those atents.

These atents they either b#y from bankr#t comanies or ac#ire from

inventors. Their sole obective is to le!ally enforce ri!hts over the atents. They

have no man#fact#rin! base to caitalise over the atents. Their main motive is

to make $nancial !ain thro#!h le!al battles for atent infrin!ement. 0s#ally thecases are settled o#t of co#rt and the $nancial !ain for these Patent Trolls are

economic rent for the atents1 lar!e o#t of co#rt settlement ("hich haened in

the Blackberry 2ase) or licensin! fees.

Patent Trolls + or Patent ,ssertion

-ntity (P,-) are comanies "hich only

hold atents and have no intention of

commercialisin! those atents. They

have no man#fact#rin! base to

caitalise over the atents. These

atents they either b#y from bankr#tcomanies or ac#ire from inventors.

Their sole obective is to le!ally

enforce ri!hts over the atents. Their

make $nancial !ain thro#!h le!al

battles for atent infrin!ement. 0s#ally

the cases are settled o#t of co#rt and

the $nancial !ain for these Patent Trolls

are economic rent for the atents1

lar!e o#t of co#rt settlement ("hich

haened in the Blackberry 2ase) or

licensin! fees. -very year a si3ableamo#nt of cases make # for these

atent trolls and d#e to ri!oro#s le!al

roced#res the cases are #s#ally settle

o#t of co#rt. The atent trolls also

deliberately $le these cases in the 04

in seci$c states "hich are kno"n to

favo#r atent holders.

2onsiderin! the imortance of trackin!

atent trolls P"2 cond#cted a

statistical research on the atent



liti!ation is cases of atent trolls (P"2 5 %&*6 Patent Liti!ation 4t#dy). 7ollo"in!

are the key $ndin!s8

Median dama!es a"arded as er last year statistic comes to be aro#nd 6.9

million :ama!es a"arded for NP- are more than trile the avera!e amo#nt a"arded

4#ccess rate of the NP- has been %; < "hile that for the ractisin! entities havebeen nearly 9;<

=i!hest dama!es (median) has been a"arded in the telecomm#nication ind#stry

at %% million >ir!inia -astern1 :ela"are1 Te'an -astern and ?isconsin ?estern have been the

favo#rable locations for atent holders similar to the last year $ndin!s

NTP is a >ir!inia based comany started and o"ned by Thomas @ 2amana @r and

:onald - 4to#t. The comany "as started in *AA%. The comany does not

man#fact#res anythin! or a non5 racticin! entity. =o"ever its main asset are

the set of ;& atents thro#!h "hich it has been able to attack n#mero#s

technolo!y $rms like Nokia1 ood Technolo!y for money. The key b#siness is

takin! those $rms to co#rt "hich have done atent infrin!ement on their atents

and seekin! h#!e monetary settlements o#t of co#rt. 2#rrently the ool of ;&

atents incl#des atents related to "ireless email and 7R ,ntenna. =alf of thoseatents "ere ac#ired from an or!anisation called Tele$nd 2ororation "hich

"ent o#t of b#siness.

2ase 7acts +

,s described NTP "as a Non Practisin! -ntity "hich "as holdin! a ortfolio of ;&

atents on "ireless and radio technolo!y. In *AA; it !ot aroval for a n#mber of

atents. 4oon after in %&&& Blackberry introd#ced a ne" system for #sh

messa!in! service. Initially rior to %&&& Blackberry "as a a!er makin!

comany. =o"ever it discovered a method to carry o#t #sh messa!e service

alications thro#!h hand held devices. The method of carryin! o#t the rocess

"as thro#!h a relay server "hich "as located in 2anada. =andheld devices #sed

to send si!nals to the server "hich "ere rero#ted to the destination to "hich the



PatentInfrin!eme

nt

MethodPatents

4ystemPatents

si!nals "ere s#osed to !o. This method and the system that "as bein! #sed

"ere bein! covered in several of the atents that "ere $led by NTP in *AA& of

"hich Blackberry "as not a"are of. ,s a res#lt NTP sent a notice to RIM on %Cth

@an#ary %&&&.

The notice that "as sent to Research In Motion contained detailed descrition of

the atents that NTP o"ned and "hich had been infrin!ed by Blackberry. NTP

had asked Blackberry to license si' of the atents for the #sh messa!in!

service that it "as #sin!. NTP o"ned the atents for the transfer of emails

thro#!h rero#tin! (thro#!h servers) and also held the atents on the soft"are of

the same. In ho#se attorney of Blackberry ho"ever after thoro#!h e'amination

reected the claims laid o#t by NTP. Based on his #nderstandin! for the

Blackberry the case can be ar!#ed as er the 04 2o#rt #d!ement on the case of

:eeso#th v/s Laitam beca#se those hand held devices "ere not bein!

man#fact#red in the 0nited 4tates.

7#rther to the above sit#ation NTP $led a case in 04 :istrict co#rt of >ir!inia

a!ainst Research in Motion for atent infrin!ement. The case "as $led on t"o

fronts. NTP ar!#ed that it has fo#nd Blackberry to infrin!e a n#mber of its

method and system atents8

Method Patents + B#siness occasionally atent the method in "hich a b#siness is

carried o#t. 7or e'amle if a artic#lar rocess is carried o#t in si' stes and if

that method is atented the same si' stes cannot be carried o#t by another

or!anisation. , landmark #d!ement in this case is that of ,ma3on.con v/s

Barnesandnoble.com. ,ma3on had introd#ced the method of one click b#yin!

system in "hich a rod#ct can be bo#!ht by #st one click. ,ma3on had

revio#sly atented this method for the same. Barnesandnoble coied the same

method of sellin! and introd#ced this f#nction online. 4oon after ,ma3on $led a

case a!ainst Barnesandnoble for atent infrin!ement.

,ma3on ar!#ed that one click shoin! system "as not art of any rior art in

e'istence1 therefore the atent of ,ma3on "as valid and Barnesandnoble had

infrin!ed it. Barnesandnoble tried to ar!#e that revio#sly shoin! thro#!h

clicks e'isted and one click shoin! "as art of rior art. =o"ever the #d!e

ar!#ed in favo#r of ,ma3on that ideally shoin! "as a several click rocess

therefore it "as art of rior art and the ,ma3onDs claim that its atent have

been infrin!ed stood.

?hat NTP ,r!#ed 5 4imilar to ,ma3on1 NTP ar!#ed that the method of carryin!

o#t the #sh messa!in! service infrin!ed one of its atents. NTP had atents the

method of rero#tin! messa!es

4ystem Patents 5

4ystem Patents + claim that the soft"are and hard"are

Method Patents5 claim that a method in "hich a b#siness



Le!al La" and =istory

2ase 7acts

@#d!ement

Imlications

caword docse introduction

Documents