Sony Sued for Blu-Ray Patent Violation

Jaidan writes "According to a Gamespot article, a California-based company named Target Technology is suing Sony over patents it allegedly holds for silver based reflective surfaces. The suit claims that products marketed under the Blu-ray name infringe on a patent it owns for reflective layer materials in optical discs. Target is seeking a permanent injunction preventing Sony from violating its patent rights in the future, as well as damages with interest, multiplied due to what it characterizes as deliberate and willful infringement. ' The patent addresses what Target called a need for specific types of silver-based alloys with the advantages (but not the price) of gold. According to the patent, the alloys are also more resistant to corrosion than pure silver. Target does not specify in its suit whether it believes all of Sony's Blu-ray discs infringe on its patent, or the suit applies to just a portion of the discs manufactured. The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.'"

Target Technology website

[alexhs]

here [targettechnology.com]. (Warning, CPU-whoring Flash)

Doesn't seem a patent troll...

Re:Think fast...

[CaptainPatent]

Actually, this may end up being bogus for different reasons. You must realize the patent was filed April 2004 and was patented May 2006. I know that Blu-ray has been in development for quite a time and the specifications were announced in the year of 2004. If Sony can provide sufficient evidence in court that what is claimed by Target had already been conceived in some form by them they will be able to circumvent this lawsuit and nullify the patent.

Re:Think fast...

[CaptainPatent]

basically no one else can use silver in an alloy to make reflective products.

Not fully correct. The chemical compounds are patented for their specific purpose which in this case is as an optical storage medium. Just because they have the patent for silver used in a reflective products doesn't mean they have protection against anything shiny with silver in it.

Re:Think fast...

[CaptainPatent]

But the applicant can file a terminal disclaimer (37 CFR 1.131) and swear behind the date as long as they give evidence of their work before the date of filing. It doesn't have to be published, nor does it have to be a working example. They actually can use internal documents as long as the date can be certified. I'm sure Sony knows this well.

Re:Patents Citing Patents

[Control Group]

this looks like TTC built a slight logical advancement on top of Sony's (and a vast number of other company's) work in optical discs

The question is whether it's non-obvious or not. Building new technologies atop old technologies but incorporating a new, novel idea is what patents are supposed to protect. If, for example, I developed a method for making a polymer that was self-healing, thereby making optical discs scratch-proof, I would reference existing patents on optical disc formats and claim my improvement. This would be a legitimate patent, insofar as I had developed a new technology.

Of course, that's a bad example, since I can't quickly come up with a contrasting point, but hopefully you get the idea.

Target Technology

[lucyfersam]

After doing a little looking at thier site, Target Technology gets their name because they do actually make products with this technology. The make silver alloy targets for sputtering the metal onto optical discs, and their targets are currently used manufacture of many DVD-R's and other optical discs. I would guess (though I don't have enough information to be sure) that they think Sony looked at the compostion of their targets, said "hey, these work really well," and decided to make their own targets of the same compesition for their Blu-ray discs. True or not, I have no idea, but it is at least possible a valid patent case. It's not like this is just an company who hoards patents and licenses them, they actually make products based off of those patents.

Outcome will be dull

[BlueParrot]

If it is a valid claim Sony will probably settle and buy a license to use the technology, otherwise they will fight it in court. Actually, it is probably more along the lines of
IF ( LICENSE .LT. (DAMAGES * P(.LOSS.) ) THEN CALL SETTLE ELSE CALL FIGHT END IF !pardon the Fortran
So basically Sony will have a slightly lighter wallet after this but it is unlikely that Target will refuse to strike a good deal on the matter unless they get a better offer from the HD-DVD crowd.

Re:Think fast...

[mavenguy]

Eh, I'm late to this discussion. Anyway....

You were correct in intent, but this is not a "terminal disclaimer" but, rather a affidavit used to "swear behind" the date of a prior art reference. The applicant must show reduction to practice or conception with dilligence and must attach evidence (such as lab notebooks) similar to that which would be entered in an interference, except that all dates may be redacted out of the documents, with the inventors asserting (under the criminal penatalies for false oath or declarations) that all relevant dates were before the prior art date.

This will overcome a rejection based on 35 USC 102(a) type prior art, but not prior art applicable under 35 USC 102(b), the so called "statutory bar" that applies if the effective filing date of the application is more than one year after the prior art date.

Probably patent troll

[Daniel Phillips]

According to wikipedia:

The first Blu-ray Disc recorder was demonstrated by Sony [wikipedia.org] on March 3, 2003, and was introduced to the Japanese market in April that year. On September 1, 2003, JVC announced Blu-ray Disc-based products at IFA in Berlin, Germany.

According to TFA [slashdot.org], The patent was filed in April of 2004 and granted in March of 2006.

So provided these dates are correct, I have three questions: 1) did the patent troll break any laws? 2) if so, what punishment is sufficiently severe to deter this practice? and 3) if the patent troll did not break any laws, then is the law an ass?