PanIP Drops E-commerce Patent Lawsuits

Darlok writes "Back in October 2002, PanIP sued 50 small businesses, claiming patents over basic E-commerce functions. One of the defendents set up a group defense fund, and in the last week, contributors to that fund have been notified by e-mail and this notice on the fund's homepage that PanIP has agreed to drop its lawsuits without any licenses being issued. The U.S. Patent Office is currently reviewing the patents in question. Hopefully this will set some sort of precedent ..."

I knew that last week - REJECTED

[Jayfar]

PanIP e-commerce patent suits withdrawn
20:52 Thursday 25 March 2004 Rejected

Yeah, I know, go ahead mod me down for bitchin about it and after all, stories like "Pokemon Game Boy Advance Update," that appeared that day really were more "stuff that matters."

No missed precedents here

[AhBeeDoi]

In a legal sense, a precedent would be something new and groundbreaking. If the courts find PanIP's patents to be invalid due to prior art and such a decision has never been rendered before, then we may call it a precedent. Otherwise, its just another case.

Now with 100% more facts

[Liselle]

Blah, blah, blah. I guess you're probably trolling, but in case someone falls for it: the McDonald's lawsuit in question is a piss-poor example of a "frivolous" lawsuit. Two quick links explaining why:

Clicky [osmond-riba.org]
Clicky [lectlaw.com]

Re:McDonald's frivolous lawsuit

[ageoffri]

I used to think the same thing until someone pointed out the actual details of this lawsuit. It is defintely interesting. McDonald's was told repeatedly before this incident that they served coffee way too hot, something like 10-20F above the average. This lady just wanted a very small amount for medical bills, McDonald's bascially told her to go screw herself. In the end McDonalds was slapped with such a big fine because they were so far out of line with how they served the coffee in general and not because of the injuries to the old lady.

Facts on the McDonald's frivolous lawsuit

[ottergigas]

My apologies if this seems offtopic, but I just need to point out that not all cases that appear frivolous are truly frivolous. Found via Snopes, from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, here are the actual facts of the McDonald's coffee spill case:

Facts Sheet: McDonald's Scalding Coffee Case [atlanet.org]

Re:I knew that last week - REJECTED

[The I Shing]

Hey, I got rejected when I posted the story on March 23.

I made the mistake of not including a link to the previous Slashdot article on the subject, I bet.

PANIP Spin machine, really funny

[MADCOWbeserk]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: William G. Wilhelm 858-454-7095 Raymond Mercado [e-mail]


PanIP Settles All Litigation With The "You May Be Next" Defendants

San Diego, CA March 24, 2004. PanIP, LLC is pleased to announce that as of March 19, 2004, it has settled all outstanding litigation with the members of the "PanIP Group Defense Fund, Inc.," the originators of the You May Be Next website. PanIP released those defendants from liability by issuing them covenants not to sue under a confidential settlement agreement. Currently, PanIP has no outstanding litigation in relation to its United States Patent Portfolio.

In the fall of 2002, PanIP filed suit against 40 individual defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, California, alleging that those defendants were infringing claims in U.S. Patents Nos. 6,289,319 B1 and 5,576,951. Shortly after PanIP initiated suit, a group of sixteen defendants formed the "PanIP Group Defense Fund" in an effort to defeat the patents. Their efforts, like those of another group defense fund formed in 2002, were fruitless. Since 2002, when PanIP began enforcing its intellectual property rights, all parties that have been sued for patent infringement have settled with PanIP and the cases have been dismissed.

PanIP, LLC is a technology development company that holds a number of United States and Canadian high-impact patents. Several additional patent applications are pending.

For more information about PanIP, LLC, please visit www.panip.com

Some interesting stuff, Currently, PanIP has no outstanding litigation in relation to its United States Patent Portfolio. This makes me think the other 24 suits have been dropped. Their efforts, like those of another group defense fund formed in 2002, were fruitless. Seems like they where fruitful in getting you to drop your suits. Perhaps more judges theatening to force companies to pay the legal bills of defendents in questionable patent lawsuits may prevent these things in the future.

PAN-IP was a fraud... and I found them.

[Geminus]

A co-worker and I went to check this PAN-IP company out... after all I'm just a lowly reporter for a small e-zine! Guess what, 329 Laurel Street in San Diego is a spot to park your car... not your butt. There's no office there. I tracked down the PAN-IP owner's house... and it's in tatters within a location called South Park San Diego. Really, the place is a shit-hole and in disarray. My guess is they needed money to pay the mortgage on the tired old house. PAN-IP was a scam folks. Challenge them completely and countersue. Watch this bottom feeder move into Barrio Logan.

Re:PAN-IP was a fraud... and I found them.

[crusher-1]

The owner of PanIP house is most "definately" not in "South Logan" - It's in another part of town - try Del Mar. I happen to know the nephew of this guy. And though I don't agree with what he's doing I have to say the his patent shows how broken the patent systems is.

For what it's worth his particular patent is one of the most (if not the most relating to Network/Internet) cited patents of it's type. The list of big name companies that cite his patent is a few pages long. Also the date of the patent goes back to a very early stage in the internet - repeat "a very early" period. It specifically deals with e-commerce.

Once again, though I have seen the patent (larger binder - very large) and read it extensively - I am baffled by the manner in which the combination of patent specific jargon and legelese make patents of technology so dodgy. In all honesty his patent carries a lot of weight in the courts because it is put together in a form that "they" understand (they being the suits and judges combined).

Presently, it is in review - this is the 3rd or 4th time Mr L. (the owner) has submitted it for review - and the scarry part is each time it comes back it's stronger than before.

Oh, and just to drop another unpleasant bomb - the RIAA/MPAA are "VERY" interested in it.

I have probably said to much - but this is why everytime M$ goes for some hairbrain patent filing (e.g. "the virtual desktop pager" technology) I cringe - becuase they have a better than even chance of getting it - the guys at the patent office understand patent law - the lawyers that write this crap understand the patent law - and what the technology is and how it really works is secondary to the way the patent is "worded".

I'm depressed now by this. I have been asked to write a synopsis of his Patent in terms that lay people can understand. I looking at this I discovered how sweeping his patent is - in legal terms that is. Problem is it has little to do with the actual technology and all to do with law and patents. I have since backed away from this. But it isn't going to go away anytime soon or easily IMHO.... Hence my depression on the matter.