A German court on Friday threw out two patent lawsuits leveled against Apple by non-practicing IP licensing firm IPCom, one of which sought $2.2 billion in damages over alleged infringement of a wireless patent.
The pair of dismissals came as part of three separate rulings from two chambers of the Mannheim Regional Court, each involving "patent troll" IPCom, reports FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller. The third case, which was also thrown out, was brought against HTC and pertains to the same patent family used against Apple.
According to Mueller, IPCom has been attempting to monetize a patent portfolio covering standard-essential patents (SEPs) purchased from Bosch after the German engineering and electronics company pulled out of the car phone industry. The properties involve 3G/UMTS wireless technology.
IPCom will have the chance to appeal, but Mueller believes defendants will continue to push for invalidity of European patent EP1841268 and related properties. The patent family has been used against Apple, HTC, Nokia, Ericsson, Vodafone and others. For example, HTC's dismissed case involved IPCom's assertion of German patent DE19910239.
So far, IPCom has been somewhat unsuccessful in its damages claims, but the firm has chalked up at least one win in a settlement from Deutsche Telekom in 2013.
As noted in a previous report regarding the German case, Apple has joined with other tech giants in an effort to curb patent abuse. Along with Yahoo, Intel, Cisco and Facebook, Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stifle the onslaught of thoughtless lawsuits from patent trolls by leveling penalties against failed litigation. Requests have also been sent to the EU regarding patent-related litigation issues.
Currently, firms like IPCom can bring suit against large corporations with little concern of losing as the repercussions are minuscule compared to the potential gain from a settlement or win. In many cases, companies opt to settle in a bid to avoid costly court fees or damages, further enabling patent trolls to level even more claims.
34 Comments
Exactly the proper outcome IMO. It's unfortunate that a company has to spend a $100 thousand and more to get patent troll claims dismissed.
To stop these NPE's in their tracks, those suits that get tossed the plaintifs/ trolls should be forced to pay stiff penalties upon having their suits tossed.
[quote name="Lord Amhran" url="/t/162221/german-court-tosses-patent-trolls-2-2b-patent-suit-against-apple#post_2479146"]To stop these NPE's in their tracks, those suits that get tossed the plaintifs/ trolls should be forced to pay stiff penalties upon having their suits tossed.[/quote] That's similar to what the US is proposing with patent reform. There's nothing wrong with being an NPE - patents are assets and you have every right to monetize them. I wouldn't call IPcom a patent troll just because they are an NPE. They had a real patent and went through the courts to monetize it and lost. What defines a patent troll is someone who abuses the system. For example, seeking injunctions when you have no products the other party could also try to block. Or sending vague demand letters without clearly specifying which products infringe, how they infringe and which patent they infringe. This is why Rockstar isn't a patent troll. All these things (and others being proposed) are already part of the procedures they follow.
[quote name="EricTheHalfBee" url="/t/162221/german-court-tosses-patent-trolls-2-2b-patent-suit-against-apple#post_2479160"] What defines a patent troll is someone who abuses the system. For example, seeking injunctions when you have no products the other party could also try to block. Or sending vague demand letters without clearly specifying which products infringe, how they infringe and which patent they infringe. [B]This is why Rockstar isn't a patent troll.[/B] All these things (and others being proposed) are already part of the procedures they follow.[/quote] So as long as you don't seek an injunction you can't be a patent troll? (Copy/Fax machines anyone?) :err: The fact you had to carve out an oddly worded exception and then mention Rockstar at all shows you can see how they're might be considered one. FWIW among the accusations lodged against Rockstar and it's assorted baby-NPE's in training is that they are unspecific in their infringement claims, "concealing the true owners of patents from the Nortel Patent Portfolio, and concealing the complete list of patents (they) believe are infringed". Even by your definition then Rockstar and its spawn might be patent trolls. http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2014/01/rockstar-sued-by-arris-who-manufactures-equipment-sold-to-cable-operators-involved-in-rockstar-litigation/
This is the problem with this whole Patent suing game the trolls play, The tactic is to go after small player or ones which do not have their own IP and get them to agree to settle, Once that happen and they try and make big head lines about the settlement. Then they go after the big fish, if it does go to court the troll use the fact that others settle as the reason they have a case with merit. Apple had trolls use this tactic against them as well. However, Apple has some very deep pocket and they hired the best law firms around so they end up winning more times than not. When apple wins, it set a precedent that these company will have a hard time going after other companies as well