U.S. ITC Launches Investigation Into Capacitive Devices Made by Apple and Others Following Patent Infringement Complaint

[iPadified]

We need new patent laws.
1. If not a complaint is filed after one year after a product is launched, the patent is voided. Waiting for a large market before filing should be stopped. Alternatively, look at the market value one year after product launch.
2. If a company/univerity has no intention to produce a product or doing significant novel research, they cannot file complaints. That would stop leachers.
3. Courts are chosen randomly. Avoiding some patent troll friendly courts.

 

[OverSpun]

What about the Newton? I have one and it still works.

 

[jerwin]

Patent trolls deserve corona.

SoftBank Owned Patent Troll, Using Monkey Selfie Law Firm, Sues To Block Covid-19 Testing, Using Theranos Patents

 

[AdonisSMU]

The fact that someone seeks to enforce a patent automatically makes them a patent troll?

And even if they were, what’s the difference? Under patent law, you either own a valid and enforceable patent or you don’t. End of story.

I know people whos whole business is collecting patents.

 

[NightFox]

In other words, this is either a plotted operation against some specific target by you-know-who...

You mean Lord Voldemort?

 

[NPC Compliant]

The fact that someone seeks to enforce a patent automatically makes them a patent troll?

And even if they were, what’s the difference? Under patent law, you either own a valid and enforceable patent or you don’t. End of story.

Straw-manning someone only works on the weak minded.

Secondly, are you saying that any legal act is moral and ethical, and therefore immune to criticism? Your black and white interpretation of patent law and enforcement implies this rather strongly.

 

[V_Man]

Will they also sue all the 400+ manufacturers of Microwave ovens since the 1980s?

When I was growing up, microwave ovens always had touch screens. LOL

If their patent is violated on the microwave. They might
[automerge]1584445981[/automerge]

Straw-manning someone only works on the weak minded.

Secondly, are you saying that any legal act is moral and ethical, and therefore immune to criticism? Your black and white interpretation of patent law and enforcement implies this rather strongly.

But correctly. Business has no morals. To think otherwise is naive. Business is about one thing only. PROFIT.

 

[jayducharme]

The fact that someone seeks to enforce a patent automatically makes them a patent troll?

They're trolls:

A small cadre of financial wheeler-dealers masquerading as a company called Neodron wants the U.S. International Trade Commission or ITC to ban a vast swath of mobile devices from the U.S. market. Neodron, incorporated [in late 2018] in Ireland, alleges that touchscreen devices from major U.S. companies Amazon, Dell, HP, Microsoft and Motorola and companies with massive U.S. presence like Samsung contain technology that infringes on its patents. Bear in mind, Neodron didn’t actually invent anything or create new products or technological advances. It acquired a few patents, yelled “infringement” and asked the ITC to ban the products in the hopes of getting a big settlement.

Washington Times

 

[Gasu E.]

No, but a company that was established just few days before the acquisition of these patents, and they started law suite immediately after acquiring these patents, and they're not doing any kind of business at all except these law suites, that automatically makes it a patent troll.

I think you are reading this wrong. This is what I'm reading from the dates and fragments of news we are getting. Microchip Technology is a significant semi-conductor manufacturer, doing about $5B per year in sales. Based on the dates, I'd say they were the ones that instigated this patent licensing suit. They didn't want to get into the practice of suing for every patent, but thought this specific set was worth it. So they "outsourced" the legal action to an existing patent licensing firm; and together, they set up this legal entity, solely for the purpose of handling this specific set of patents. The reason they set up a new company is so they could cleanly divide the proceeds from the lawsuit between Microchip and the patent licensing company.

In other words, according to this theory, Microchip is just doing what Apple and every other major tech company does, except outsourcing it.

Generally, patent trolls buy up gobs of patents from failed companies or small time entities, and later pick out the ones that seem promising for lawsuits. Setting up a company for the purpose of going after one specific set of patents doesn't fit that model at all.
[automerge]1584454970[/automerge]

Secondly, are you saying that any legal act is moral and ethical, and therefore immune to criticism? Your black and white interpretation of patent law and enforcement implies this rather strongly.

Interesting that you bring morality into it. I see this as one soulless corporation trying to take profit from another soulless corporation. I see immoral business practices as more like polluting the environment, using slave labor, or providing unhealthy working conditions to their employees.

 

[GeoStructural]

Why are you calling Lightning "old"? Their 30-pin cable, that's old! Firewire 400, that's old!

Lightning is attractive in design, that's all, but it is a slow 7-8 years old USB-2 technology (a 20 years old standard, by the way) that offers little to the user. They should have gone USB-C everything at least 4 years ago, but they still want to milk all the royalties they can out of it until a) they are forced to go USB-C or b) they go completely port-less.

 

[justperry]

What about the Newton? I have one and it still works.

It's not capacitive.

• Resisitive Technologies: Resistive touch technology consists of a glass or acrylic panel that is coated with electrically conductive and resistive layers. The thin layers are separated by invisible separator dots. When operating, an electrical current moves through the screen. When pressure is applied to the screen the layers are pressed together, causing a change in the electrical current and a touch event to be registered. Resistive touchscreens are cost-effective durable and pressure sensitive however they only provide 80% clarity and can be damaged by sharp objects. It requires periodic calibration due to coating wear. This is the technology used by the Newton.

 

[V_Man]

They're trolls:

A small cadre of financial wheeler-dealers masquerading as a company called Neodron wants the U.S. International Trade Commission or ITC to ban a vast swath of mobile devices from the U.S. market. Neodron, incorporated [in late 2018] in Ireland, alleges that touchscreen devices from major U.S. companies Amazon, Dell, HP, Microsoft and Motorola and companies with massive U.S. presence like Samsung contain technology that infringes on its patents. Bear in mind, Neodron didn’t actually invent anything or create new products or technological advances. It acquired a few patents, yelled “infringement” and asked the ITC to ban the products in the hopes of getting a big settlement.

Washington Times

Again. Does this company own the patent? That is the only question that matters legally.
It’s all about profits. Some people don’t understand this.

 

[TracesOfArsenic]

The whole patent system is dumb and needs to be revisited.

 

[mannyvel]

Lightning is attractive in design, that's all, but it is a slow 7-8 years old USB-2 technology (a 20 years old standard, by the way) that offers little to the user. They should have gone USB-C everything at least 4 years ago, but they still want to milk all the royalties they can out of it until a) they are forced to go USB-C or b) they go completely port-less.

USB-C is a connector, not a cable technology. There are a bunch of different cables that use USB-C as a connector.

Even today people don't understand that. Just because it has a USB-C connector doesn't mean it'll do X, Y, or Z.

Lightning can hit USB-3 speeds, but Apple apparently never bothered to implement it on anything except the IPP.

 

[I7guy]

Lightning is attractive in design, that's all, but it is a slow 7-8 years old USB-2 technology (a 20 years old standard, by the way) that offers little to the user. They should have gone USB-C everything at least 4 years ago, but they still want to milk all the royalties they can out of it until a) they are forced to go USB-C or b) they go completely port-less.

You can’t blame Apple for wanting to milk all of the royalties out of lightning. /s

 

[dilbert99]

I am going to patent patents and go after every company...

Some patents are so obvious, they should never be awarded. Maybe all patent holders should be paying ongoing fees to fund the patent office to make better decisions.

 

[triscuitbiscuit]

Patent investment and enforcement companies make patents have actual value, which is very important for small companies seeking investment, research universities or hospitals seeking funding, and venture capital companies looking for security.

I'd say that's something of import.

You missed the big part of my statement. Patent trolls protect patents in bad faith. They don't protect patents for legitimate interests.

https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/patent-troll.asp

Patent trolls are such an issue that states are enacting laws against them. If they were really doing something of import do you think states would be actively working to take them down?

 

[oneMadRssn]

You missed the big part of my statement. Patent trolls protect patents in bad faith. They don't protect patents for legitimate interests.

https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/patent-troll.asp

Patent trolls are such an issue that states are enacting laws against them. If they were really doing something of import do you think states would be actively working to take them down?

Give me an example of states actively working to take them down or laws enacted specifically against patent trolls. You're being hyperbolic.

Besides that, I sort of agree with you in general, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of a patent troll.

I believe patent trolls to be companies that buy junk very-low-value patents (i.e., any patent attorney would think they were invalid after a few hours of research) and assert them for nuisance-value settlements (i.e., they ask for a settlement that is less than the cost of litigation, they don't do any economic analysis on the patent's actual value and thus they don't seek true value, and they have no actual plans to go all the way to trial). Those are the two key elements of a patent troll: low-value patents, and seeking nuisance settlements. That's it.

My definition is correct for two reasons: It's not overinclusive nor underinclusive. Most laymen's definitions of a patent troll (which is any entity that asserts a patent they don't practice) is too broad as it in sweeps in hospitals, universities, researchers. But its also not broad enough in that it excludes the economic portion, which I think is key. For example, it's possible for big practicing corporations to be a troll in asserting junk patents for nuisance money.

I don't know much about Neodron, the company behind this complaint in OP. But making an ITC play is no small task. It's very expensive - ITC cases can cost complainants $10m+ in legal fees when litigation against the big tech giants as they are here. I am sure they are well-funded, ready to go all the way if needed, and have reviewed the patents for strength and value backwards and forwards 100 times. In other words, they are not merely a troll.

 

[cmaier]

We need new patent laws.
1. If not a complaint is filed after one year after a product is launched, the patent is voided. Waiting for a large market before filing should be stopped. Alternatively, look at the market value one year after product launch.
2. If a company/univerity has no intention to produce a product or doing significant novel research, they cannot file complaints. That would stop leachers.
3. Courts are chosen randomly. Avoiding some patent troll friendly courts.

1) that’s stupid. I choose not to sue company A within a year, and so my Patent is voided and i can never sue anyone? Dumb. Also - you have a patent and now you are supposed to know about every product launch in the USA? And you’re supposed to be able to find the product, buy it, analyze it, and sue within a year?

There’s already a six year backwards damages limitation. You can only sue for damages for the six years prior to filing suit (plus future damages).

2) This completely inverts the point of patents. A patent grants the right to exclude other from doing something. It does not grant the right to do anything. Indeed, if I file a patent, I may not even be legally able to introduce a product using it, because using my patent may require the use of other patents that predate mine.

3) No, courts are not chosen randomly. http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Cray_2017-129_9.21.17_ORDER.pdf

 

[PostApple2016BrainWash]

You missed the big part of my statement. Patent trolls protect patents in bad faith. They don't protect patents for legitimate interests.

https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/patent-troll.asp

Patent trolls are such an issue that states are enacting laws against them. If they were really doing something of import do you think states would be actively working to take them down?

It's long overdue for a new patent system.

 

[cmaier]

ITC cases can cost complainants $10m+ in legal fees when litigation against the big tech giants as they are here.

That’s very unlikely. Even the defendants will likely spend less than that.

Not to mention that the complainants’ attorneys typically are on contingency.

 

[oneMadRssn]

That’s very unlikely. Even the defendants will likely spend less than that.

Not to mention that the complainants’ attorneys typically are on contingency.

Sorry but you're wrong. I work in this industry.

An ITC case going all the way to hearing asserting 4 patents against 8 tech giants will cost AT LEAST $10m, probably more. They have a nationally ranked law firm doing it, so it's not just some solo running the show for cheap. An ITC case of that magnitude requires a team of 4-6 attorneys and a paralegal working pretty much full time for 12+ months with some periods running fullbore weekends and late nights. The end of fact discovery and expert discovery can easily run $1m+ per month.

It can't be pure contingency. There are no money damages at the ITC, so by definition it cannot be contingency. It is possible the law firm is initially discounting their rate and hoping to make it up on the back end of a settlement, but I highly highly doubt it's pure contingency in that way. Like I said, the whole thing can cost over $10m - even the wealthiest biggest firms won't advance that much money for a client. At most, the firm is discounting their rates by 50%, and hoping to get the rest out of a settlement. However, most likely, there is a third-party litigation funder paying the firm that has a financial stake in the proceeds. But those companies don't just loan money for duds, usually that means the patents are very strong.

 

[cmaier]

Sorry but you're wrong. I work in this industry.

An ITC case going all the way to hearing asserting 4 patents against 8 tech giants will cost AT LEAST $10m, probably more. They have a nationally ranked law firm doing it, so it's not just some solo running the show for cheap. An ITC case of that magnitude requires a team of 4-6 attorneys and a paralegal working pretty much full time for 12+ months with some periods running fullbore weekends and late nights. The end of fact discovery and expert discovery can easily run $1m+ per month.

It can't be pure contingency. There are no money damages at the ITC, so by definition it cannot be contingency. It is possible the law firm is initially discounting their rate and hoping to make it up on the back end of a settlement, but I highly highly doubt it's pure contingency in that way. Like I said, the whole thing can cost over $10m - even the wealthiest biggest firms won't advance that much money for a client. At most, the firm is discounting their rates by 50%, and hoping to get the rest out of a settlement. However, most likely, there is a third-party litigation funder paying the firm that has a financial stake in the proceeds. But those companies don't just loan money for duds, usually that means the patents are very strong.

I’m sure there is, or will be, a district court case that accompanies the ITC case, but with overlapping but different asserted patents. Standard procedure. And no Amlaw 100 firm is charging more than $10m for that case, and discovery isn’t running a million a month. Remember, the plaintiff has almost no documents to produce (conception, reduction to practice, industry requirement, and that’s about it). Taking depositions and sending discovery demand letters doesn’t cost a million a month.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I’m sure there is, or will be, a district court case that accompanies the ITC case, but with overlapping but different asserted patents. Standard procedure. And no Amlaw 100 firm is charging more than $10m for that case, and discovery isn’t running a million a month. Remember, the plaintiff has almost no documents to produce (conception, reduction to practice, industry requirement, and that’s about it). Taking depositions and sending discovery demand letters doesn’t cost a million a month.

As someone who knows Amlaw 100 very well, yes they do and yes it does. We usually quote $10m as a starting point for a 4-patent case against sophisticated tech respondents for a case going all the way from diligence to hearing.

Look at the respondents in this case. They will dump literally millions of pages on the complaint, which will all have to be reviewed. Even if the firm hires outside reviewes to cull it down to only the relevant stuff, it's still an expensive task. And in my experience, outside reviewers are rarely worth it long term.

But more importantly, the infringement and validity contentions that have to be prepared at the end of discovery are the expensive part - they're very important, huge, and very time consuming to create. And because of the compressed schedules at the ITC, those things have to be done during discovery. Then the expert reports, even more important, even bigger, and even more time consuming. A lot of time is spent preparing for expert depositions.

4 Amlaw100 attorneys, average rate is $500/hr or so. Plus a paralegal at $200. That's $2200/hr total. Full time (40hrs per week) that's $352k in law firm time alone for a month. But end of fact discovery and expert discovery is not merely full time - I easily bill 60hrs per week during those times, sometimes more, so the firm time can easily cost $500k per month. Add in experts which can vary from $200-800/hr, add in international travel expenses (most respondents here are foreign) and internal hotels with business centers, deposition expenses (court reporter, videographer, conference room), interpreter. $1m per month is not hard to get to.

Also, yes there are district court cases, there always are, but those are usually stayed pending the ITC. It's statutory.