FindTheBest slays a patent troll
Judge Denise Cote ruled that the patent infringement suit was invalid, and further ruled that the patent itself is invalid stating in her ruling that nothing in the patent evinces an inventive idea
November 25, 2013 at 06:01 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
If you have been following the ongoing patent troll saga that has been playing out in courts across the country over the past few years, you have seen that the tension is escalating in every regard, especially in the battle between trolls and startups.
One of the most intriguing cases recently in courts was Lumen View Technology LLC v FindTheBest.com. The case was interesting in many regards, especially FindTheBest's contention that Lumen was guilty of extortion and racketeering.
The case centered on a technology patent held by Lumen, which covered “a system and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making.” Lumen sent a letter to FindTheBest, a website that offers data-driven comparisons across hundreds of topics, products and device categories, demanding $50,000 in payment for the alleged infringement. FindTheBest elected not to pay the fee, opting instead to fight it out in court. And it looks like that was the right decision.
Judge Denise Cote ruled that the patent infringement suit was invalid, and further ruled that the patent itself was invalid. She stated in her ruling that nothing in the patent “evinces an inventive idea beyond the idea of the patent holder to be the first to patent the computerization of a fundamental process that has occurred all through human history.”
The patent troll business model is predicated on sending threatening letters to small companies, hoping that they will roll over and pay up rather than spend money to go to court. But the founder of FindTheBest, Kevin O'Connor, was a poor target for a troll to pick as he has a considerable personal fortune after selling a previous startup to Google for over $3 billion. He used his own money to fight Lumen, successfully getting a gag order overturned and going on the offensive, accusing Lumen of extortion and racketeering.
In the end, the judge's decision that the Lumen patent represented no inventive idea is a big one. The quality of the patents held by many patent trolls are weak to begin with, and they are able to monetize these patents by threats alone. This could serve as a wake-up call to many trolls, and a sign to start-ups that fighting back is a valid option.
For more news about patent trolls, check out the following:
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 AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
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