Motorola patent suit brings light to corruption in patent system
Intellectual Ventures may be going after a well-known name like Motorola, but should the private entity be referred to as a patent troll?
January 23, 2014 at 04:46 AM
7 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Aside from small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs), the next most sought after victims of patent infringement suits are manufacturers in the technology space. Enter Motorola Mobility, a unit of Google Inc., and one of the latest to battle a patent litigation suit for its smartphone technology.
Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware met to evaluate the patent claim Intellectual Ventures set against Motorola. The original lawsuit was filed regarding three smartphone patents owned by Intellectual Ventures, which it claims Motorola Mobility has violated. The Bellevue-based company headed by former Microsoft technology chief Nathan Myhrvold originally sued Motorola back in 2011 and could not reach a licensing deal. As a result, the court will decide who comes out on top in a 10-day trial this week.
Intellectual Ventures may be going after a well-known name like Motorola, but should the private entity be referred to as a patent troll?
A recent Inc. report, takes the opportunity to use the Motorola case to highlight why the whole system regarding patent infringement claims and patent trolls is corrupt. The rationale behind organizations purchasing dormant patents with no real intention to utilize them except to engage with active companies in lawsuits is unknown; however, that doesn't mean that organizations and legal groups aren't doing what they can to regulate the process as it continues to be an issue.
Inc. quoted Brad Caldwell, a principal at Caldwell, Cassady & Curry, who said, “The patent system originated to provide an incentive for people to spend their time and money innovating. That goal of advancing the state of the art is achieved when good inventions are created and taught to the public, whether or not commercial realities put the inventor, or subsequent owners, in a position to compete in the market.”
Its unfortunate that big entities with deep pockets are using their power and bank accounts against SMBs and targeting bigger manufacturers with licensing agreements on active products. Many experts worry that in the fever to reform patent law abuses, small businesses could wind up at a disadvantage when they need to bring their own patent infringement suits to court.
General counsel and state attorneys general alike have turned their attention to the issue of patent trolls, and an assortment of AGs and GCs will be speaking about the topic at an upcoming roundtable event. The free event will take place on Feb. 4, 2014 from 3:00-5:00 pm at the Intercontinental New York Barclay. It will feature the attorneys general from Nebraska, Missouri and Vermont as well as the general counsel from Walmart, DuPont and Rackspace. For more information, or to register for the event, click here.
For related reports on recent patent infringement claims and the war on patent trolls, check out these articles:
Aside from small to medium-sized businesses (SMBs), the next most sought after victims of patent infringement suits are manufacturers in the technology space. Enter Motorola Mobility, a unit of
Earlier this week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware met to evaluate the patent claim Intellectual Ventures set against Motorola. The original lawsuit was filed regarding three smartphone patents owned by Intellectual Ventures, which it claims Motorola Mobility has violated. The Bellevue-based company headed by former
Intellectual Ventures may be going after a well-known name like Motorola, but should the private entity be referred to as a patent troll?
A recent Inc. report, takes the opportunity to use the Motorola case to highlight why the whole system regarding patent infringement claims and patent trolls is corrupt. The rationale behind organizations purchasing dormant patents with no real intention to utilize them except to engage with active companies in lawsuits is unknown; however, that doesn't mean that organizations and legal groups aren't doing what they can to regulate the process as it continues to be an issue.
Inc. quoted Brad Caldwell, a principal at Caldwell, Cassady & Curry, who said, “The patent system originated to provide an incentive for people to spend their time and money innovating. That goal of advancing the state of the art is achieved when good inventions are created and taught to the public, whether or not commercial realities put the inventor, or subsequent owners, in a position to compete in the market.”
Its unfortunate that big entities with deep pockets are using their power and bank accounts against SMBs and targeting bigger manufacturers with licensing agreements on active products. Many experts worry that in the fever to reform patent law abuses, small businesses could wind up at a disadvantage when they need to bring their own patent infringement suits to court.
General counsel and state attorneys general alike have turned their attention to the issue of patent trolls, and an assortment of AGs and GCs will be speaking about the topic at an upcoming roundtable event. The free event will take place on Feb. 4, 2014 from 3:00-5:00 pm at the
For related reports on recent patent infringement claims and the war on patent trolls, check out these articles:
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
© 2025 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 AllClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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