Slashdot Log In
Supreme Court Continues to Address Patent Concerns
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Sep 26, 2007 01:01 PM
from the still-a-long-way-to-go dept.
from the still-a-long-way-to-go dept.
The Supreme Court has taken on another possibly landscape-changing patent case that will determine if patent holders are able to sue everyone up and down the food chain for a patent infringement. "This case, officially between LG and Quanta, really concerns the question of how many times patent holders can get a cut of any component found violating a patent. Currently, patent holders will often sue up and down the food chain. So, if you happen to have a patent on a component within a motor that is used in automobile wipers, you could sue the motor maker, the wiper maker and the auto manufacturer -- and get all three to pay, even though the same product is used throughout the supply chain. This case will look at whether or not it makes sense to allow for that type of double, triple or quadruple dipping."
Related Stories
[+]
Supreme Court To Rule On "Obvious" Patents 239 comments
vocaro writes "The U.S. Supreme Court appears ready to rewrite the standard of what makes a patent 'obvious.' In a case before the court, brake manufacturer Teleflex is accusing a rival, KSR International, of violating its patent on a brake assembly. Large patent holders, including Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco, have submitted briefs supporting KSR, saying that true innovators can have a patent held up against them that reflects nothing more than an obvious combination of preexisting elements, then be told they have to leave the market or pay royalties. The court appears to be on KSR's side, saying that Teleflex's invention would have been obvious to an individual of reasonable skill. During oral arguments, Justice Breyer observed, 'It looks to me at about the same level as I have a sensor on my garage door at the lower hinge ... and the raccoons are eating it. So I think of the brainstorm of putting it on the upper hinge.'"
[+]
Supreme Court Weakens Patents 331 comments
ajakk writes "The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion, overturned the decades old test for determine whether a patent is obvious. The Court ruled that the Court had looked at obviousness in a "narrow, rigid manner." This should allow patents to be more easily invalidated because they are obvious."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
... and sue ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
While you're at it.. sue the drivers of the cars with the patent-infringing wiper motor. They're obviously benefiting from the innovation without having compensated the patent-holder.
And the drivers of all other cars which may share the road with the cars which contain the patent-infringing motor. They are benefiting from the innovation too, by virtue of being safer on the road because of the the other driver's infringing use of the patented wiper motor.
Hell, there's no limit to the breadth of (deep or shal
No joke, they can. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
the only winners in patent disputes... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a patent, award violates it so I sue award, the motherboard manufacturers, and the retailers.
When really, the only group that I should be able to sue is award.
This is no different then going after consumer because the company they bought a product from violated some agreement with someone else.
What does the patent claim? (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's take the example used in the summary of a component used in a motor in a windshield wiper blade. What does the new component do that made it patentable?
- Is the innovation purely in the use in a motor? (Reducing wear and tear?)
- Or maybe is the innovation in its effect on the wiper? (A smoother wiping motion with less noise?)
- Or maybe is the innovation in how the car performs? (Allowing a more aerodynamically friendly wiper?)
What if the patented item does all three and claims all three things? Does a SCOTUS decision ruling that you can only collect once open the door for a finger-pointing exercise between defendants (something the courts like to avoid) in trying assign infringement? Does going straight to the bottom of the supply chain always make sense? (For example, what if it doesn't do anything for the motor itself but only for the higher level functions?)
These are very important balance issues that the SCOTUS will have to consider.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the bottom of the supply chain argument I mentioned earlier. It seems the easiest argument, but what happens if the innovation is based on the use of the component in a final product and not an intermediary one?
For example, let's imagine a windshield wiper that automatically adjusts its speed to the rate of rainfall. This would require at least two components -- a sensor for the rain and a controller that acts on said information. Assume th
Re:It doesn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
more billable hours.. awwww yeahhhhh (Score:2)
That depends. who's asking? It always makes sense if you're a lawyer.
Patent Laundering (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Setup a puppet company
2) Infringe all you want
3) Profits!!! stay safe (safely stolen) from patent holders
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-- Darl McBride
Re:Patent Laundering (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Infringe all you want
3) Profits!!! stay safe (safely stolen) from patent holders
Parent
Shell Company (Score:3, Informative)
Test for Obviousness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that proving prior art is difficult. Even if you are in the right, and can provide evidence to that effect, it becomes a long and expensive court case, which many cannot afford (especially the small-time inventors that patent law ostensibly promotes).
Patent-happy companies will continue to throw as many patents at the system as they can. Whatever sticks is ammunition, regardless
Lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. That's a common misperception, but the rules of the courts are strongly tilted to force people into some form of non-judicial settlement. Of course, big corporate lawyers have many, many other things that they can bill over outside of the courtroom, so your point isn't entirely moot there.
T
Of longer term concern (Score:4, Insightful)
If the commercial interests in the patent system in its current form are able to purchase enough political influence, Congress may take the steps needed to make software and friends explicitly patentable under the law.
The only answer to something like that would be to vote in people who would change the law back to something sane. Will it happen? Who knows. It doesn't seem too terribly fantastic given the current system...
Of course (Score:2)
Another /. totally BS patent story (Score:3, Informative)
"Exhaustion - also known as the first sale doctrine - serves as a default rule in both patent and copyright laws. Under the principle, a license fee is only be charged one time per object. Thus, a rights holder controls the first sale of a protected object, but does not control subsequent sales. The copyright rule is codified in Section 109. The patent rule, however, is only based on case law."
You can ignore this if you prefer hysteria and misinformation to reality.
Re:Another /. totally BS patent story (Score:5, Informative)
True, but the article summary and your response both gloss over the interesting issue in favor of something that's irrelevant. Patent exhaustion exists. Caselaw preventing double dipping for infringement damages already exists. This situation is different.
The decision in the Federal Circuit [fedcir.gov] holds that a patent is exhausted by an unconditional sale, p. 7, in line with Supreme Court precedent, but also holds that a patent rights are not exhausted by a conditional sale, pp. 7-8, in line with about 20 years of Federal Circuit precedent.
The interesting problem here is that the LGE patents do not cover the products sold by Intel. They only cover those products when combined with additional components. It appears that in the absence of a license, LGE could only have sued Intel for "contributory infringement" because Intel would be making products specially adapted to implement LGE's invention when combined with other components, see 35 U.S.C. 271(f) [uspto.gov], but not the patented combination itself. In essence, LGE and Intel negotiated a license that makes Intel a component source/supplier. Now those who purchased the specialized components and combined them in a manner that would infringe the patents are arguing that a license to manufacture a non-infringing but specialized component without fear of a patent lawsuit also conveys to the supplier's customers the right to practice the entire invention. That's not a clear cut question.
One of the axioms of property law is that you can only sell that which you yourself possess. If Intel has a license that merely permits it to manufacture and sell a specialized component, then arguably the purchasors have the right to resell the specialized component (that fraction of the patent right is exhausted), but do not have the right to manufacture or sell the patented invention because not even Intel has the right to manufacture and sell the patented invention. If Intel has a license to manufacture and sell the patented invention using its own components, with LGE getting a percentage of the revenues for the Intel components, then arguably neither Intel nor its purchasors have the right to manufacture or sell the patented invention when manufactured using non-Intel components -- LGE would be deprived it its rightful revenues, and Intel would infringe the patent for those combinations made with non-Intel parts.
The decision is unclear on the license structure, and I don't have time to dredge up the District Court decision, but there are potentially valid reasons for dividing up patent rights and royalty rates in this manner that cannot be reasonably described as double-dipping. For example, the Intel chips may still have value when combined with non-Intel chips in ways that do not produce the patented invention, but it may not make economic sense to manufacture two types of chips, one with the specialized aspect and one without. A licence with a modest royalty that is less than the entire royalty, whatever that is, benefits Intel by simplifying its product line and securing it from the potential of being sued as a result of the actions of its customers.
Parent