US federal appeals court tosses $533M Smartflash victory against Apple
A U.S. federal appeals court on Wednesday tossed a $533 million verdict in favor of patent holder Smartflash, which in an earlier court battle had argued that Apple violated its data storage concepts by way of iTunes.
A three-judge panel ruled that the Smartflash patents were too "abstract" and didn't sufficiently describe an actual invention, according to Reuters. The panel suggested that in the original court case, a Texas federal judge should simply have declared the patents invalid.
Smartflash was unlikely to achieve a positive outcome, as critical decisions since its initial victory in Feb. 2015 have gone against it.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a damages retrial in July of that year, citing faulty jury instructions. In June 2016, some Smartflash patents were invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the same reasons used in today's ruling.
Indeed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could simply have referred to the USPTO decision, but went a step further in suggesting that Gilstrap should have taken action.
Smartflash has been described as a "patent troll," asserting patents without making use of them in any commercial products. It first filed suit against Apple in May 2013, claiming that in 2000 the company's founder -- Patrick Racz -- had shared his ideas with a technologist who went on to become a senior Apple director.
A three-judge panel ruled that the Smartflash patents were too "abstract" and didn't sufficiently describe an actual invention, according to Reuters. The panel suggested that in the original court case, a Texas federal judge should simply have declared the patents invalid.
Smartflash was unlikely to achieve a positive outcome, as critical decisions since its initial victory in Feb. 2015 have gone against it.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap ordered a damages retrial in July of that year, citing faulty jury instructions. In June 2016, some Smartflash patents were invalidated by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for the same reasons used in today's ruling.
Indeed the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit could simply have referred to the USPTO decision, but went a step further in suggesting that Gilstrap should have taken action.
Smartflash has been described as a "patent troll," asserting patents without making use of them in any commercial products. It first filed suit against Apple in May 2013, claiming that in 2000 the company's founder -- Patrick Racz -- had shared his ideas with a technologist who went on to become a senior Apple director.
Comments
I was just about to apply for a patent myself, for, "computer thingy",
so that I could start suing everybody.
Seriously though, I don't think this: "Smartflash has been described as a "patent troll," asserting patents without making use of them in any commercial products",
is all it takes to make a patent troll...I can see where it would be aggravating to be nibbled at by a non-producing entity, but, on the other hand,
the term 'intellectual "property"' isn't accidental.
I do think it's legitimate to own and protect a very specific idea - it's kind of the same concept as literary or musical copyrights -
but I think sufficient specificity isn't always being required -as it certainly should be - in these cases,
when decided by non-technically oriented juries and jurists.
Just wait until my patent for storing media compressed as suggestively vague tunes and/or images that float around in your head. Then I'll sue everyone for violating my patent. That and the one for binocular recording of visual images, conversion to electrical signals and storage in a bio-chemical colloid. You'll have to pay me every time you look at something!
I can't see how my plan can fail!
How about the 1 mm (width) phone? If you make one that width you have to pay me $$$$
Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service. This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder. If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent. But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement.
There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential. The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here. Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.
To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here. The current status quo would remain in effect. But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines. So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.
I'd be interested in comments and feedback on this suggested approach, and to hear whether an approach of this type has ever been proposed.
Has a judge to be afraid of any consequences?