DOJ Intervenes in BlackBerry Patent Case
It's often said that necessity is the mother of invention. However, when the Department of Justice stepped into a high-stakes patent infringement dispute regarding the BlackBerry e-mail device, it suggested that sometimes, invention breeds necessity. On Nov. 8, 2005, the DOJ filed a "statement of interest" in the U.S. Court...
December 31, 2005 at 07:00 PM
10 minute read
It's often said that necessity is the mother of invention. However, when the Department of Justice stepped into a high-stakes patent infringement dispute regarding the BlackBerry e-mail device, it suggested that sometimes, invention breeds necessity.
On Nov. 8, 2005, the DOJ filed a “statement of interest” in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Virginia asking the court to stay an injunction against Canada-based Research in Motion (RIM). The injunction would prevent RIM from making, using or selling its popular BlackBerry devices in the U.S. The DOJ's statement warns that the injunction would have devastating effects on as many as 200,000 government users.
“The United States (government) is a major user of BlackBerry devices and technologies,” the filing said, ” ?? 1/2 it is imperative that some mechanism be incorporated that permits continuity of the federal government's use of the BlackBerry devices.”
This is an unusual twist in a case that began as a simple patent dispute in 2001. Arlington, Va.-based NTP Inc., a small patent holding firm, sued RIM, claiming the BlackBerry infringes on several of its patents. In 2003 a jury found in favor of NTP. Since then the case traveled to the Supreme Court and back to the district court. While the government's interest may not seal the case's fate, it has many in the legal community talking.
Hungry For BlackBerries
“This little company with a couple of patents has done more than what the Soviet Union could do in the Cold War,” says Edward Pennington, chair of the IP group at Swidler Berlin. “They have created a situation where they could shut down the U.S. government.”
RIM and NTP have agreed to find a way to allow government users to keep their BlackBerries, but the issue is whether RIM can shut down private users' devices while ensuring continued service for government employees. If RIM can do so, the court will likely enforce the injunction with regard to private users. The DOJ and RIM argue it's impossible to segregate the users, and therefore RIM should be allowed to keep operating as it has in the past.
Pennington agrees that the process of separating government and non-government users is a daunting one. “I don't think it's possible,” Pennington says. “This is a lot of posturing to put pressure on the defendants to settle. I'd be pretty surprised if the plaintiffs thought they were going to prevail in getting the permanent injunction.”
According to NTP attorney James Wallace, however, the process of separating the users is not as difficult as RIM and the DOJ suggest.
“That declaration was highly misleading and only told half the story,” says Wallace, a partner at Wiley Rein & Felding. “It has a very simple solution and this is just one more example of RIM trying to delay, delay, delay.”
A Wild Card
However the court deals with the DOJ's request, the government's intervention in the case is just one of many elements that may decide the BlackBerry's future. The PTO is in the process of re-examining NTP's patents.
The DOJ's filing said that it's “worth noting that the five patents involved here are all undergoing reexamination … it may make sense to stay any consideration of the reimposition of the injunction for at least 90 days,” possibly enough time to find NTP's remaining patents invalid.
“The wildcard in all of this is the re-examination proceeding that goes on in the Patent and Trademark Office, and I think it's interesting that whatever the courts are doing with this injunction it can all come tumbling down if the patent office invalidates the patents,” Pennington says.
The judge presiding over the case, James Spencer, has made it clear that he wants to resolve the case as quickly as possible. With an injunction hanging over RIM's head and with NTP's patents under re-examination, the end to this battle may depend on which card falls first.
It's often said that necessity is the mother of invention. However, when the Department of Justice stepped into a high-stakes patent infringement dispute regarding the BlackBerry e-mail device, it suggested that sometimes, invention breeds necessity.
On Nov. 8, 2005, the DOJ filed a “statement of interest” in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of
“The United States (government) is a major user of BlackBerry devices and technologies,” the filing said, ” ?? 1/2 it is imperative that some mechanism be incorporated that permits continuity of the federal government's use of the BlackBerry devices.”
This is an unusual twist in a case that began as a simple patent dispute in 2001. Arlington, Va.-based NTP Inc., a small patent holding firm, sued RIM, claiming the BlackBerry infringes on several of its patents. In 2003 a jury found in favor of NTP. Since then the case traveled to the Supreme Court and back to the district court. While the government's interest may not seal the case's fate, it has many in the legal community talking.
Hungry For BlackBerries
“This little company with a couple of patents has done more than what the Soviet Union could do in the Cold War,” says Edward Pennington, chair of the IP group at
RIM and NTP have agreed to find a way to allow government users to keep their BlackBerries, but the issue is whether RIM can shut down private users' devices while ensuring continued service for government employees. If RIM can do so, the court will likely enforce the injunction with regard to private users. The DOJ and RIM argue it's impossible to segregate the users, and therefore RIM should be allowed to keep operating as it has in the past.
Pennington agrees that the process of separating government and non-government users is a daunting one. “I don't think it's possible,” Pennington says. “This is a lot of posturing to put pressure on the defendants to settle. I'd be pretty surprised if the plaintiffs thought they were going to prevail in getting the permanent injunction.”
According to NTP attorney James Wallace, however, the process of separating the users is not as difficult as RIM and the DOJ suggest.
“That declaration was highly misleading and only told half the story,” says Wallace, a partner at
A Wild Card
However the court deals with the DOJ's request, the government's intervention in the case is just one of many elements that may decide the BlackBerry's future. The PTO is in the process of re-examining NTP's patents.
The DOJ's filing said that it's “worth noting that the five patents involved here are all undergoing reexamination … it may make sense to stay any consideration of the reimposition of the injunction for at least 90 days,” possibly enough time to find NTP's remaining patents invalid.
“The wildcard in all of this is the re-examination proceeding that goes on in the Patent and Trademark Office, and I think it's interesting that whatever the courts are doing with this injunction it can all come tumbling down if the patent office invalidates the patents,” Pennington says.
The judge presiding over the case, James Spencer, has made it clear that he wants to resolve the case as quickly as possible. With an injunction hanging over RIM's head and with NTP's patents under re-examination, the end to this battle may depend on which card falls first.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Climate Protestors are Targeting A&O Shearman. Here's Why
- 2What Will Happen to U.S. Efforts Against Financial Secrecy and Corruption Under Trump’s Leadership?
- 3A Look Back at the Biggest Legal Industry Shifts in 2024
- 4Ben Brafman's Professional Legacy After 50 Years? Himself
- 5Ruling Provides Lessons for Investors: Mind Your Business (Affairs)!
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250