Apple avoids $94M patent infringement suit leveled by patent troll GPNE
Apple on Wednesday came out unscathed from a patent suit leveled by non-practicing entity GPNE, which claimed the Cupertino tech giant infringed on mobile technology properties with its iPhone and iPad products.
The case, which dates back to 2011, saw Honolulu, Hawaii-based GPNE Corp. assert patents related to 3G wireless technologies against Apple. GPNE sought $94 million in damages, but received nothing after a San Jose jury found Apple not in infringement, reports CNET.
In its complaint, GPNE company's suit claimed certain Apple devices using cellular GPRS services, specifically those pertaining to what Apple called pager technology. The iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3 and iPad Mini were named as infringing products in the suit.
Apple's statement in full:
GPNE is using the same patent family to go after other big-name tech companies, including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Garmin, Nokia, Pantech, Research in Motion, Sharp, and Sony Ericsson.
The case, which dates back to 2011, saw Honolulu, Hawaii-based GPNE Corp. assert patents related to 3G wireless technologies against Apple. GPNE sought $94 million in damages, but received nothing after a San Jose jury found Apple not in infringement, reports CNET.
In its complaint, GPNE company's suit claimed certain Apple devices using cellular GPRS services, specifically those pertaining to what Apple called pager technology. The iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3 and iPad Mini were named as infringing products in the suit.
Apple's statement in full:
As for GPNE, the company's lawyers said "it was a hard-fought trial with a tough claim construction in a case in which our firm was hired a few months ago. We strongly believe the judge will address the underlying legal issues in post-verdict motions."We are pleased the jury in California saw through GPNE's attempt to extort money from Apple for 20 year old pager patents that have expired, wasting time for everyone involved. GPNE is a patent troll with no active business other than patent litigation. They have sent more than 300 demand letters in the past year to everyone from truckers and farmers to roofers and dairies threatening costly legal entanglements if these small businesses didn't pay them off -- this isn't right. Apple invents products that revolutionize industries, and relies upon the U.S. patent system to protect our innovation. We urge congressional leaders to continue focusing on reform in this important area of patent law.
GPNE is using the same patent family to go after other big-name tech companies, including Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Garmin, Nokia, Pantech, Research in Motion, Sharp, and Sony Ericsson.
Comments
Just say, "patent owner." It doesn't matter if they make anything. What matters is whether the patent is sound, and if it is, who owns it. That's what makes patents valuable. If that were not so, there would be no sense in having patents and nobody could profit from their innovative work.
Apple probably has an office in the courthouse assigned to them.
and then the "article" starts: "Apple on Wednesday came out unscathed from a patent suit . . ."
hey, appleinsidersucks, please learn the meaning of the word "avoid".
Does it come in Space Gray or Silver as well?
That would be sweet!
Oh for crying out loud, "non-practicing entity?"
Just say, "patent owner." It doesn't matter if they make anything. What matters is whether the patent is sound, and if it is, who owns it. That's what makes patents valuable. If that were not so, there would be no sense in having patents and nobody could profit from their innovative work.
I do agree, in principal,however, I feel that the term "practising entity" could be something that may be beneficial to require for having a patent.
Make it mandatory that you have to actually USE the patent or you will lose it, may be the solution to all these patent trolls.Yes it would detract value from patents, I agree, but it will also avoid having patent trolls digging out patents that have been issued years ago but had no place back then.
See, tech companies are awarded tens of thousands of patents every year, the vast majority not being used for anything at all. In order to get a patent, I have been told that you have to present that the idea is working or AND CAN work, NEEDS TO BE DEMONSTRATED, not just an idea. However, look how many patents are given out for things that never develop into something meaningful - however, a number of them may involve into something meaningful years down the road, where, suddenly it's common knowledge that you can do a certain things; because of advances in technology, the original patent holder can finally use the patent to make money.
It is this that makes people upset - patent trolls buying patents that the original owners have no use for and hope that they can somehow use them in the future when somebody comes around and has no other choice but to violate the patent in order to make an improvement to his products.
The idea of patents is a noble idea but we have to attach requirement that it is used throughout its life otherwise it will expire. This will protect both the patent holder and those who benefit from the patent (as by paying license fees they are saving on their own R&D).
The idea of patents is to protect the patent holder so he will invest into R&D and once has developed a product, he can sell his product without the fear of being copied and his investment being taken advantage of.
So, yes, non-practicing entity in my book would be a strong indicator of a patent troll.
Few people who are gifted at invention are also gifted entrepenures. And most patents aren't products but are processes, methods, or small elements that are useful in larger products. This can make it very hard to exploit them on your own. Setting up licensing is also no "walk in the park." For this reason a great many inventors choose to sell on their patents. Does selling on a patent make it less innovative? Why, as you suggest would it be advantageous to effectively limit patent protection to big corporations? If someone can't, or doesn't want to exploit their invention by making a product shouldn't they still benefit from their hard work and contribution of new art?
In the end, it's not about "practicing" or "non-pracising." It's about "valid and worthy" or "invalid and unworthy." People need to understand this.
Quote:
I do agree, in principal,however, I feel that the term "practising entity" could be something that may be beneficial to require for having a patent.
Make it mandatory that you have to actually USE the patent or you will lose it, may be the solution to all these patent trolls.Yes it would detract value from patents, I agree, but it will also avoid having patent trolls digging out patents that have been issued years ago but had no place back then.
See, tech companies are awarded tens of thousands of patents every year, the vast majority not being used for anything at all. In order to get a patent, I have been told that you have to present that the idea is working or AND CAN work, NEEDS TO BE DEMONSTRATED, not just an idea. However, look how many patents are given out for things that never develop into something meaningful - however, a number of them may involve into something meaningful years down the road, where, suddenly it's common knowledge that you can do a certain things; because of advances in technology, the original patent holder can finally use the patent to make money.
It is this that makes people upset - patent trolls buying patents that the original owners have no use for and hope that they can somehow use them in the future when somebody comes around and has no other choice but to violate the patent in order to make an improvement to his products.
The idea of patents is a noble idea but we have to attach requirement that it is used throughout its life otherwise it will expire. This will protect both the patent holder and those who benefit from the patent (as by paying license fees they are saving on their own R&D).
The idea of patents is to protect the patent holder so he will invest into R&D and once has developed a product, he can sell his product without the fear of being copied and his investment being taken advantage of.
So, yes, non-practicing entity in my book would be a strong indicator of a patent troll.
I want the judge to say "GPNE has wasted everyone's time and is now required to pay Apple's legal fees."
This approaches a much better solution to "patent trolling" than requiring patent holders to be "practicing entities."
So the question becomes how is this article's troll and ARM different. Simple: arm is the innovator. That alone isn't enough though. ARM actively develops its patent portfolio and licenses it on fair terms, where as these trolls come about after-the-fact once a product is wildly successful and then try to bleed dry the very companies that made the patent worthwhile by taking an idea and turning it into a real product.
Here is another fundamental problem with modern patents: Simply being first to think of something shouldn't mean that those who think of it without your input should be punished. Sometimes two people, or groups of people, will come up with the same idea, perhaps even years apart. What happens to that second group who takes their idea, without any input from the former group, and puts it into a real product that they sell? Should the original innovator, the one who didn't actually make a product, make money off the second group?
Including the field trip to Hawaii to check the company out.
????????????
sheesh
And this is why I take issue with the use of the term "patent troll". Either we have a country that respects property rights (one of our constitutionally protected rights), or we don't. If we don't, then the U.S. is no better than China.
20 year old expired pager patents - lol
sheesh
That was a key comment in the Apple response. Would be different is it was 5 years old.
As for the "non practicing" debate, I think that yes it should be a factor but only in cases of patents sold to another party. If you are the one that created it then there is likely research etc costs and you should be allowed to recover those via licensing. It's only companies that do no research but just buy and sue that turn my stomach. And that should be considered when dealing with 'damage' claims etc. if Tallest Skil is suing me $10 mil for violating his patent that he spent $10 mil in research costs to develop that's one thing. But Rogifan suing me for $10 mil over a patent he bought from TS for $1 million and Rogifan isnt even uaing the patent in any products (because he doesn't make anything of any kind), that's another.,
I think that the delineation of patent owners and NPEs (which, come on, is just a nice way of saying ‘patent troll’) is very important. It helps to define the lawsuits.
Yes, the owned patent may be valid. Yes, the owner of said patent has every right to protect it, should it be valid. But the use (practical or licensed) of the patent is important to know in many of these cases. I’ll go a step further. The age of the patent is as–if not more–important.