The suit in question (11-908 in Delaware federal district court [0]) was filed in October of 2011. It is coming to trial in 2014 and the participants have probably spent well over a million dollars each getting to this point. That alone tells you all you need to know about the chances that a startup company has in getting justice or even just surviving against a garbage patent abuser in court.
Google did not own Motorola when the case was filed and Google is not a named defendant, contrary to the deliberately misleading headline.
The Reuters article doesn't say anything about what the six patents claim or even give their numbers. Those numbers are 7,810,144 (the '144 patent), 6,412,953 (the '953 patent), 7,409,450, 7,120,462, 6,557,054, and 6,658,464.
The Reuters article does mention that the accused devices are older Moto phones and accessories. Newer devices than 2011 are, of course, not in the original complaint and usually are not added at this late stage.
The '144 patent is for a "File Transfer System for Direct Transfer Between Computers" -- describing a subset of SMS or IRC style messaging -- filed in 1997 and repeatedly rejected until the PTO folded under seven continued amended petitions in 2010. There is no limit to the patent amendments an applicant can make and no such thing as a final rejection at the PTO. Applicants are encouraged to reword claims to cover technology invented by others since the original application. [1]
If you'd like to be infuriated about how the patent system abuses software and computer networks, read the linked [0] opinion starting on page 14 where claim construction begins.
The '953 patent was filed in 1998 vaguely describing long established LCD backlighting practice. The '054 patent, "Method and System for Distributing Updates by Presenting Directory of Software Available for User Installation That Is Not Already Installed on User Station," was filed in 2000. The '464 patent, "User Station Software That Controls Transport, Storage, and Presentation of Content from a Remote Source," is like iBooks or Archie and filed in 1994.
The '450 patent, "Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Packet-Centric Wireless Point to Multi-Point (PTMP) Transmission System Architecture," was filed in 1998. It describes the use of any QoS scheme that includes packet inspection over a wireless network.
The '462 patent, "Portable Computing, Communication and Entertainment Device with Central Processor Carried in a Detachable Handset," filed in 1999 describes handheld computers with a docking station. It does not describe how to build such a device, of course, just that one could exist.
> and repeatedly rejected until the PTO folded under seven continued amended petitions in 2010
Also called "prosecution". This is, literally, how every patent is prosecuted at the USPTO: the applicants file claims as broad as they dare, examiners reject using prior art (or other statutory reasons), after which the applicants amend claims to sidestep cited reasons, and rinse-and-repeat, until the applicant finally presents a set of claims that the examiner cannot reject. It is not "folding", it is being procedurally unable to issue a rejection.
The only catch is that examiner time is not free, so each attempt costs some thousand USD, and gives you one non-final rejection followed by a final rejection -- which is, of course, not final, because the applicant can just pay the requisite fees to continue examination. It's not like the applicant gets multiple bites at the apple for free.
> Applicants are encouraged to reword claims to cover technology invented by others since the original application.
Funny, but no. The examiner would like nothing more than getting rid of a case for once and for all, and they can't make frivolous allowances either. (Which is why you get cases like the one above where the applicant had to try seven times to get an allowance.) They can very much make frivolous rejections, though, and they do. There really is no feasible recourse for those other than coughing up more fees and forging on.
The reality of continuations is, applicants have the right to reword claims as long as the original supports the claims, and many applicants exercise that right. Because, if they find something out there that is described in their patent but sidesteps their claims, they'd be outta luck. The Doctrine of Equivalents goes only so far, especially when juries are involved.
Continuations can be abused, but it does not mean they always are. Unless new matter is added, the new claims must still be constrained by the spec of the original patent. (If the new claims refer any new material, their priority dates effectively change to the date the new matter was introduced, automatically bring into play all the new prior art introduced in the meantime as well.) So the claims in continuations are still judged in context of the prior art present at the time the spec was filed.
>The '462 patent ... It does not describe how to build such a device, of course, just that one could exist
I dunno, the figures look pretty descriptive to me:
I agree, however, that it is very instructive to read through the claim construction arguments, just to get an idea of how these things shake out. It is all technical and reasonably easy to grasp, so if you have a few minutes free, go through a few pages of this. (Any more and you run the risk of dozing off.) I couldn't find examples of "abuse of software and networks", though.
Google did not own Motorola when the case was filed and Google is not a named defendant, contrary to the deliberately misleading headline.
The Reuters article doesn't say anything about what the six patents claim or even give their numbers. Those numbers are 7,810,144 (the '144 patent), 6,412,953 (the '953 patent), 7,409,450, 7,120,462, 6,557,054, and 6,658,464.
The Reuters article does mention that the accused devices are older Moto phones and accessories. Newer devices than 2011 are, of course, not in the original complaint and usually are not added at this late stage.
The '144 patent is for a "File Transfer System for Direct Transfer Between Computers" -- describing a subset of SMS or IRC style messaging -- filed in 1997 and repeatedly rejected until the PTO folded under seven continued amended petitions in 2010. There is no limit to the patent amendments an applicant can make and no such thing as a final rejection at the PTO. Applicants are encouraged to reword claims to cover technology invented by others since the original application. [1]
If you'd like to be infuriated about how the patent system abuses software and computer networks, read the linked [0] opinion starting on page 14 where claim construction begins.
The '953 patent was filed in 1998 vaguely describing long established LCD backlighting practice. The '054 patent, "Method and System for Distributing Updates by Presenting Directory of Software Available for User Installation That Is Not Already Installed on User Station," was filed in 2000. The '464 patent, "User Station Software That Controls Transport, Storage, and Presentation of Content from a Remote Source," is like iBooks or Archie and filed in 1994.
The '450 patent, "Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) Packet-Centric Wireless Point to Multi-Point (PTMP) Transmission System Architecture," was filed in 1998. It describes the use of any QoS scheme that includes packet inspection over a wireless network.
The '462 patent, "Portable Computing, Communication and Entertainment Device with Central Processor Carried in a Detachable Handset," filed in 1999 describes handheld computers with a docking station. It does not describe how to build such a device, of course, just that one could exist.
[0] Summary judgement motion here explains most of the issues http://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/slr...
[1] http://www.patenthawk.com/blog_docs/2004_Continuations_Lemle...