PatenTrakker IDEACop - Patent Infringement

Sue, sue ... SUI !! Who are the jPIG's at Forgent Networks?

As Fast Company reports Austin, TX based Forgent Networks, who "In the three years ... decided there was more gold in subpoenas than in software" is trying its best to stifle the use of JPEG technology unless and until everyone who uses JPEG's coughs up some cash.

Forgent holds patents, including the 1987 vintage Patent No. 4,698,672 which the jPIGS (SUI!!!) at Forgent claim is allegedly being violated by virtually every company that has ever used JPEG image compression!

Specifically, a patent originally developed by the Compression Labs, Inc. is in issue.
United States Patent 4,698,672
Coding system for reducing redundancy

As Fast Company points out "No one really knows whether or not Forgent's patents will hold up in court; the company could collect anywhere from another $100 million-plus, according to an estimate from research firm J.M. Dutton & Associates, to zero. In October 2005 alone, three companies, including Research in Motion, decided to take out licenses from Forgent for undisclosed amounts.

"Yet Forgent could also be bluffing, hoping that others will decide to fold first. If so, it has met a tough opponent in Microsoft, which sued Forgent even though Forgent hadn't yet sued it ("Microsoft is known to be very litigious," says Snyder, with no trace of irony). It charges that Forgent's patent was obtained fraudulently. "Microsoft did not come up with anything new," says Snyder. "I'd point to $100 million-plus that says other people recognized [the patent] was valid." Microsoft wouldn't comment."

Seems to us that Forgent has never heard the term, pigs get fat but hogs get butchered. Hopefully the little piggies at Forgent will get the message eventually, in court. To help STOP THIS PATENT INSANITY and fatten the defendant's portfolio, the IdeaCop(tm) has put together a nice menu of potentially material prior art references for review, comment and annotation in the attached file.

Better yet, contact Forent
Richard N. Snyder, Chairman & CEO
licensing@forgent.com
108 Wild Basin Drive
Austin, TX 78746
Richard_Snyder@forgent.com
USPat_4%2C698%2C672.DOC

Golden Bridge Technology Spreads the BS

As in BS-spread-spectrum transmitters, that is.

AHEM ... Now that we have your attention, it has come to the IdeaCop(tm)'s attention that Golden Bridge Technology, Inc. has filed suit against LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA., Inc. in the US district Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 11, 2006, alleging infringement of US Patent No. 6,574,267.

For those of you who know more about cellular telephone technology that we do and if you are reading this then you likely qualify, we trust the posting of potentially material prior art may interest you and in fact with any luck may give LG a head start on its defense for the patent in play.

If you are really up to it and think the patent is invalid, go out and buy a LG cellular product but in any event, post your comments and alternative references.

Better yet, contact the parties!
Elmer Yuen - CEO
Mimi Hsu – Patent Administrator
Golden Bridge Technology, Inc.
198 Brighton Av
Long Branch NJ 07740
eyuen@gbtwireless.com
mhsu@gbtwireless.com

Michael K. Ahn, CEO
LG Electronics Mobilecomm USA., Inc
10225 Willow Creek Rd.
San Diego, CA 92131
MKAhn@LGE.com
USPat_6%2C574%2C267.DOC

No-Tipping Policy by Rubbermaid Inc

On January 11, 2006, Rubbermaid Incorporated filed a suit against Plano Molding Company in the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infrigement of U S Patent No. 6,983,854, Anti-tip rack for long handled tools.

We know, we know, this is not quite the most interesting subject matter invention that we have come across, but have you looked in your garage lately? If it resembles the IdeaCop(tm)'s, then it is not a pretty sight.

Since we need companies like Rubbermaid to help keep our homes in order, we are conflicted in posting potentially material prior art, but that is our call in life and so we do what we do.

Thus, the IdeaCop(tm) has put together some references and Plano may get a head start on its defense for the patent in play.

If you are really conflicted, go out and buy a Rubbermaid product but in any event, post your comments and alternative references.

Better yet, contact the parties!
John D. Gould
MERCHANT & GOULD PC
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402-0903
jgould@merchant-gould.com

Plano Molding Company
431 East South Street
Plano IL, 60545
customercare@planomolding.com

USPat_6%2C983%2C854.DOC

Isensee SPANKS IT! Jumps on HO Sports Company

For those of you that are not Water Skiing aficionados, we apologize ('Spank' is water skiing slang for a particularly impressive skiing jump). But on January 12, 2006, Isensee filed suit against HO Sports Company, Inc. in The US District Court in Minnesota in connection with US Patent No, 5,299,963, which concerns 'an improved water ski apparatus and method.'

We assume that HO Sports Company, Inc. must have recognized that this matter was serious when they got the summons, so just to ameliorate their pain a bit, the IdeaCop(tm) has put together some references and they may get a head start on its defense and hopefully will not do a roast beef, by examining our attached proposed list of potentially material prior art for the patent in play.

We trust that they will likewise lift your day.
Post your comments and alternative references.

Better yet, contact the parties!
Paul D. Isensee
P.O. Box 23180
Richfield, MN 55423

HO Sports Company, Inc.
17622 N.E. 67th Ct.
Redmond, WA 98052
425-885-3505
USPat_5%2C299%2C963.DOC

An Olympic Torch by EML Technologies, This Ain't?

A lawsuit was filed on January 12, 2006, by EML Technologies LLC against Leen & Associates, Inc. et al, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in connection with US Patent No. 6,824,297 covering a worklight assembly that may as a stand-alone unit mountable on a tripod.

Now, we admit that few people have accused the IdeaCop(tm) staff of doing any more work that we have to, but the opportunity to look at this case lit up our eyes.

With all due respect to EML, Leen, et al., may get a head start on its defense and cast some light on this matter, by examining our attached proposed list of potentially material prior art for the patent in play.

We trust that they will likewise brighten your day. Post your comments and alternative references.

Better yet, contact the parties!
EML Technologies LLC
c/o ELLIOT B. ARONSON
5001 HARBORD DRIVE
OAKLAND CA 94618
510-658-9511

Leen & Associates, Inc
11730 N.E. 12th St.
Bellevue WA 98005
http://www.designersedge.com
USPat_6%2C824%2C297.DOC

MSFT & YAHOO locked up by Softvault

Breaking News for tech companies all over the place including Microsoft & Yahoo and it ain't the good kind :-(

SoftVault Systems, Inc., who call themselves "a Washington-based intellectual property company", (We understand that their motto is PLEASE DON'T CALL US TROLLS!!!) seems to have filed a slew of patent infringement suits on 1/11/2006 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

We always like it when a company explains the scope of their patents on their website, as Softvault does so that people other than Patent Geeks can try to understand the invention. Of course that is just our opinion ... the plaintiff's trial counsel may have another take on that if it turns out that there is some conflict between the plain meaning of the patent and what the website says the invention is ... but that is just legal mumbojumbo, right? And it's too late to delete it now, it's on the 'net! ;-)

At any rate, the IdeaCop(tm) was never one to waste time quibbling over Candor, Enablement or other esoteric things, so we will just stick to what we know best, (which some may say ain't much, but we is what we is) and that is to publish a list of what we consider to be potentially materially relevant prior art, which we have done in the attached file.

As always, we invite you folks to post comments and alternative references and/or contact the counsel for the parties:

For Softvault:
Edward W. Goldstein
Goldstein & Faucett
1177 West Loop South, Fourth Floor
Houston, Texas 77027
Telephone: (713) 877-1515
Fax: (713) 877-1145
egoldstein@gfiplaw.com

and what the hell, why waste time with MSFT lawyers:
Steve Ballmer
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399
steve.ballmer@microsoft.com

And likewise with the YAHOO's in Sunnyvale:
Michael J. Callahan, Sr VP, General Counsel and Secretary
Yahoo! Inc.
701 First Avenue
Sunnyvale, California 94089

USPat_6%2C249%2C868.DOC

Can Pan-do-It to Tyco regarding this Twisted Web?

It seems that a new lawsuit was filed by Panduit Corp against Tyco Electronics Corporation in Illinois on January 4, 2006 (Case No. 1:2006cv00024).

One of the Patents in contention is 6,981,893 entitled Angled patch panel with cable support bar for network cable racks. Quite the mouthful!

With all respect to Panduit, Tyco may get a head start on its defense and untangling itself from this mess, by examining our attached proposed list of potentially material prior art for the patent in play.

We trust that you folks will relish them as much as we did in preparing them.
Post your comments and alternative references.
USPat_6%2C981%2C893.DOC

How SiRF Technology Inc. Caught the Wave

As you know from our co-posted entry, siRF and u-Nav are in the midst of a patent infringement tussle. In fact, SiRF started this brawl with their lawsuit in August 2005, to which u-nav counterclaimed, etc, etc., etc.

Since the ideaCop(tm) tries to be impartial at all costs, or at least within our budget at the time, we thought that it might be useful to deliver to our readers a file of potentially material prior art references to one of the siRF patents in play, namely, United States Patent 6,297,771

These references are in the attached file and we trust that you folks will relish them as much as we did in preparing them.
Post your comments and alternative references.

Better yet, Contact SiRF
Kanwar Chadha, Founder
SiRF Technology Inc
148 E Brokaw Rd
San Jose, CA 95112
KChadha@sirf.com

or

u-Nav
Russ Garcia, President
u-Nav Microelectronics
Corporate Headquarters
8 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
Russ.Garcia@unav-micro.com

USPat_6%2C297%2C771.DOC

Be Careful What You Wish For, IBM

Open Opposition, sounds more like something that the NSA would lock you up for, but we are hoping that we have the backing of IBM on this one.

"There's a huge interest in making sure that only good patents are earned," says Jim Stallings, IBM's vice president for intellectual property. Mr. Stallings predicts that "thousands of subject-matter experts" will get a chance to weigh in on patents."

Mr. Stallings says the Armonk, N.Y., company thinks its own patents "are all at the quality level we'd like them to be at," but he says he welcomes any improvement that comes from the open-source process. By and large, the effort is directed at patents filed by other, particularly smaller, companies. Several, known to detractors as "patent trolls" and to their supporters as the aggrieved little guys, have won large infringement verdicts against bigger companies.

We wonder what IBM will say when the shoe is on the other foot and some of their pending apps are shot down by the likes of the IdeaCop(tm) readers.

Moreover, since we at PatenTrakker(tm) have been doing the patent reports thing for years now and have a system that allows for pre-processing of art for the reviewers, it seemed ironic to us at IdeaCop(tm) to hear that:

" Details haven't been worked out, but IBM hopes that people and companies will be able to register on the office's Web site to be notified when patents in their areas of interest are granted."

Then again, we just took it in stride and figured that maybe the folks doing the review will take the USPTO money and resources but use our tips as well, for free.

Catch Curve throws one to Biscom, Inc.

And just when everyone who is anyone thought that FAXing was Passé, Michael McLaughlin and Ryan Strong of Catch Curve, Inc., an Atlanta-based, self-described "intellectual property development and licensing firm" (note the lack of any reference therein to technology development) announced recently that it has filed a new patent infringement lawsuit under the AudioFAX portfolio against Biscom, Inc. Catch Curve is seeking monetary damages for past infringement and an injunction to prohibit Biscom from continuing to infringe against the AudioFAX patents.

We may have, in Catch Curve, found a new contender in IdeaCop's PatenTroll(tm) Awards for best performance in a serial litigation series or maybe we just had some weak willed defendants. Hopefully, the folks at Biscom will put up a better fight.

Since IdeaCop(tm) would be the first to admit that it faxed its last fax a long time ago, we may be completely off base here even proposing that the USPTO missed some relevant prior art for the Catch Curve AudioFAX patents, but we will keep trying to do our part for Mother Country and all of that by supplying in the attached file, to interested parties, some starting points for their quest.

For this exercise, we, somewhat at random, selected one of the AudioFAX patents, namely, US Pat No. 4,994,926.

USPat_4%2C994%2C926.DOC

Step This Way and Get on the ramBUS to Litigation Central (I)

After many years of observation, we could never figure out what business Rambus, Inc. was really in, but it now dawns on us that they may just be serial litigants.

REUTERS reports that Rambus filed a new patent suit against memory chip maker Micron Technology Inc. after a Delaware court lifted a stay preventing the company from bringing new litigation against Micron.

We suppose that life in the big glass castle on Camino Real in Los Altos is just a bit too laid back and sterile to stay on the sidelines and create better technology. Or maybe they just wanted to give Rod Lewis of Micron a little heartburn.

As an aside, the IdeaCop(tm) staff had used Rambus memory years ago and compared its performance to DDR memory only to conclude (in a very unscientific study) that the DDR chips seemed to work better, or at least no worse, not to mention that DDR chips cost a fraction of the price of the Rambus chips. Perhaps that dawned on Rambus too and they just figured that hitting it big on a patent case or two would be more rewarding to the shareholders.

At the risk of putting the reader to sleep, we will try to show the convoluted pedigree of ONE of the patents in play, namely US Patent No. 6,182,184.

"This application is a continuation of application Ser. No. 09/252,998, filed on Feb. 19, 1999 U.S. Pat. No. 6,032,214 which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/979,127, filed on Nov. 26, 1997 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,915,105), which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/762,139, filed on Dec. 9, 1996 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,809,263); which is a continuation of Application Ser. No. 08/607,780, filed Feb. 27, 1996 (now abandoned); which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 08/222,646, filed on Mar. 31, 1994 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,513,327); which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/954,945, filed on Sep. 30, 1992 (now U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,755); which is a continuation of application Ser. No. 07/510,898, filed on Apr. 18, 1990 (now abandoned). "

WHEW! Are these lawyers getting paid by the word, hour, or what? To their credit, they managed to continue the case so many times that perhaps they actually just wore out the USPTO and got the patent issued. Is the examiner still alive? Maybe that was the impetus.

WAIT! Come to think of it, is there a pattern here? Are they trying in court what worked for them in the USPTO, i.e., if at first you don't succeed, just try, try, again?

To be perfectly honest, this case is so massive and complicated, a single IdeaCop(tm) review will probably not do it justice. Having said that, why shouldn't we try to knock a few ions out of the crystal lattice of the folks in Los Altos? Does not the First Amendment demand that we stoke the fires of useful discourse?

Well we will try, by putting together some potentially relevant prior art references for the '184 patent in the attached file for your use.

The Plaintiff's Attorneys involved in this case are
James J. Elacqua
Dewey Ballantine LLP
1950 University Avenue
Suite 500
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2225
jelacqua@deweyballantine.com

Pierre Hubert
Dewey Ballantine LLP
401 Congress Avenue
Suite 3200
Austin, TX 78701-3788
phubert@deweyballantine.com

Kent Richardson, VP IP
Rambus Inc.
4440 El Camino Real
Los Altos, CA. 94022
krichardson@rambus.com

BTW and as a further aside, Mr Hubert's firm photo makes him look especially intimidating and we suppose that that may have been but one factor in his selection as Counsel in this matter.

And not wanting to leave the defendant out in the cold:
Roderic W. Lewis, VP & General Counsel
Micron Technology, Inc.
2125 Onel Drive
San Jose, CA 95131
rlewis@micron.com

USPat_6%2C182%2C184.DOC

NOT KOSHER! Google in a Patent Pickle

OY VEY! ZDNet is reporting that Rates Technology Inc., or RTI, is seeking a sizable recovery from the really, really big kid on the block--Google.

RTI has filed suit against Google in federal court in New York, arguing that the search giant has infringed two of RTI's patents by way of the search giant's marketing and selling of Google Talk VoIP services and related products.

When asked to explain the technology in dispute, RTI's president, Jerry Weinberger, said in an interview late last month: "When a VoIP call can be transferred to the regular PSTN (telephone network), the switching of that call infringes our patents."

Man o Manuschevich, what are the DO NO EVIL kidz in Mountain View gonna do now?

Since the IdeaCop(tm) considers itself to be the consummate prince of patent impartiality, on the off-chance that someone out there wants to help GOOGLE out of this most UN-kosher patent pickle, we have put together some potentially relevant prior art references for RTI's US Patent No. 5,425,085, in the attached file for their use.

Since there is so much money at stake in this one, we have a bi-coastal slew of attorneys involved, including two Plaintiff's Counsel.

DAVID LAZER, ESQ.
LAZER, APTHEKER, ET AL.
225 OLD COUNTRY ROAD
MELVILLE NY 11747-2712
lazer@larypc.com

James B. Hicks
Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400
Los Angeles, CA 90071
jhicks@bwslaw.com

Miriam Rivera, VP and Deputy General Counsel
Google, Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 94043
fax: 650-253-0001
miriam.rivera@google.com

IF YOU AGREE THAT THE ABOVE PATENTS ARE OF DUBIOUS VALIDITY, CONTACT THE ATTORNEYS OF RECORD ON THE PATENT(S) IN QUESTION, AND/OR POST YOUR FURTHER REFERENCES AND COMMENTS TO OUR PATENTRAKKER(tm) BLOG

USPat_5%2C425%2C085.DOC

SiRFs UP! ... u-Nav Microelectronics Navigates Its Way To Patent Court

SiRF City, here they come ...
Everybody seems to be getting into the Beach Boys theme this month

According to a recent post, u-Nav Microelectronics Corporation has filed a counterclaim for patent infringement against SiRF Technology, Inc., in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that certain SiRF products, including its SiRFstarIII product line, infringe u-Nav's U.S. Patent No. 6,909,739.

Even though u-Nav admits that it is a fabless semiconductor company that develops GPS chipsets and software for the emerging mobile location based services market, the IdeaCop(tm) is unable to say that this patent looks 'fabless, darling'

At any rate, on the off-chance that someone out there wants to help SiRF to hang 10, we have put together some potentially relevant prior art references for the '739 patent in the attached file for their use.

Post your comments and alternative references.
USPat_6909739.DOC

Better yet, Contact SiRF
Kanwar Chadha, Founder
SiRF Technology Inc
148 E Brokaw Rd
San Jose, CA 95112
KChadha@sirf.com

or

u-Nav
Russ Garcia, President
u-Nav Microelectronics
Corporate Headquarters
8 Hughes
Irvine, CA 92618
Russ.Garcia@unav-micro.com

Twenty Japanese Giants Sue US Processor Patent Holder

We seem to be running into a virtual Tsunami of patent lawsuits from Japan with one being reported by The Register which notes that almost two dozen Japanese electronics companies have together filed five lawsuits against US intellectual property holding company Patriot Scientific. The lawsuits ask the US District Court in Oakland, California to declare three patents held by Patriot to be invalid.

We know it is not very Patriotic for the IdeaCop(tm) to be suggesting the attached list of potential prior art to the technology as detailed in US patent number 5,809,336

But sometimes we have to take the side of the Samurai, keeping in mind that there is always the chance that we will be wrong and Patriot Scientific will prevail.

After all, can AMD have been wrong in February 2005, when Intel's arch-rival, made an unspecified investment in Patriot to license the technology and other patents?

Dunno but you can join in on the fun, by posting your comments and alternative references.

USPat_5809336.DOC

We had Fun, Fun, Fun, until Solomon Took My Toyota Hybrid Away

With apologies to Brian Wilson & Mike Love of the Beach Boys, AutoBlog reports that Toyota hybrids may be banned for patent infringement. A complaint filed with United States International Trade Commission (ITC) last week alleges that technology employed in the company's Hybrid Synergy Drive componentry illegally infringes upon Solomon Technology, Inc.'s U.S. Patent Number 5,067,932. Solomon Technologies had already filed a similar motion in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa division in September of 2005.

We'll we will put our money on the folks from the Land of the Samurai, but just in case their Occidental lawyers need some help getting the engine cranked over on the defense, the IdeaCop(tm) has come up with some references in the attached file for their use.

Post your comments and alternative references. Help the Keep the Toyota Hybrid running!
USPat_5067932.DOC