Before Filing Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Please Make Sure The Patent In Question Has Been Granted
from the premature-litigation dept
Apparently some patent holders simply can't wait to get their lawsuits going. A shell company that appears to not do anything went and sued Cisco on Tuesday of this week for violating its patent. There was just one little problem. The patent wasn't granted until Wednesday, so the case was quickly dismissed. Of course, the company refiled with a new date, but it's still pretty amusing that the patent holder was so anxious to get the lawsuit going (and shows that the company isn't particularly interested in trying to license the technology -- suing is apparently much more lucrative). Perhaps they want to make sure the lawsuit gets in before the Supreme Court (or Congress) crack down on ridiculous patent abuse.![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let em sue
Do not make securing a valid patent harder, make it easier, and make a prototype go with the application, working.
The "renaissance" is being held back till 2012 so everyone can go through the multi-year infringement legal process once before applying. Just for "Practice".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah I'm sure Cisco would back you up on that claim. /sarcasm
The problem that we are seeing, that you don't seem to see, is that the little guy, in this case ESN, is using an obviously invalid patent to sue the big guy, Cisco, for a product that was there before the patent was granted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
System is flawed
The system over the past 50 years though, has/had become flawed, allowing mean mothers to steal children from good fathers and take all their money (can you tell I am in the middle of a custody battle? :)
Anyway the point is, the above poster is correct in maybe why the system was created and invented, but it has been bastardized from what it was created to do, over the years, and now is just used to exploit, deceive, and suck money from legitimate idea holders. It is getting to be a worthless system altogether if they don't change it soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike is patently ignorant, as usual
Why do you keep writing all kinds of nonsense about patents ?
You don't know shit fella, just shut up and listen
The lawsuit in question was filed so early apparently to avoid Cisco filing a Declaratory Judgement lawsuit against patent holder in any other place other than Texas
This tactics apparently didn;t work in this case cause Cisco still filed DJ in Connecticut, as far as I know
It's a dog-eat-dog world out there by corporate design, young fella
Cisco is a known patent thief and predator, stealing technologies right and left from small patent holders - independent inventors and startups
Just like they stole 56-k modem technology from Dr. Townshend back in late 90s, and then dragged their feet in courts for years and years before paying a dime (if they ever paid anything , not sure about it)
And their chief legal councel - Mark Chandler is a big lying piece of corporate shit, BTW
Kepp up good work mikey, your big corporate sponsors must be happy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike is patently ignorant, as usual
Always great to hear from you though, I still find it amusing that you come by and insult us and when we point out where you're wrong or ask you directions you clam up.
I've already pointed out to you that we don't do advocacy for any of our clients, we don't do any work on patent stuff right now and most of our clients are small companies, not the large tech companies who want patent reform. I've already asked you to refrain from making false and defamatory statements implying otherwise. And what do you do? You repeat those same false statements, along with insults and profane language.
In the meantime, as for the specifics of the case at hand, I like how you don't respond to the main point: which is that you cannot file a patent infringement lawsuit when there is no patent.
I also like how you insult companies you don't like, calling them "thieves" when they're accused of infringing, not stealing.
As for calling someone a liar, that's seem rather low when we've caught you lying in the past about your own patents (claiming you had one, and then many months later admitting that you had only just received one), and when we confronted you about it, you just called us more names. You've also lied repeatedly in saying that we get paid for advocacy when we do not. You've also lied repeatedly in claiming that we take money from companies to promote a position on patents, which we do not. In fact, as far as I know, we have yet to have a single client who agrees with our position on patents and we have publicly written negative things about our clients when they've done things we disagree with, especially on the patent front.
You know this because we've made it clear to you in the past. Yet, you continue to lie and assert that are motives are different.
For you to then call someone else a liar with no proof whatsoever is rather sad.
Come back when you learn how to actually back up a statement so that maybe someone out there will take you seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:Re: Wait a minute....
Now, excuse me while I go patent the wheel and fire. I'm in the money, I'm in the money...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't it strange?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I know anything about the details of this particular patent case. If it follows the standard script for hi-tech patents, then the patent is bogus but this would be difficult to prove, and Cisco could well end up settling simply because that makes most business sense :(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
idiots
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/law/ESN.Complaint.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Court clerk (allegedly) alters docket
The real news is in the followup post: “ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed”
IF true, then I believe that Cisco should contact the U.S. Attorneys office in Texas. Of course, Cisco may know something about corruption in the E.D. of Texas that I don't. Maybe they should just contact the Attorney-General in D.C.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
thanks for invitation, but no, thanks
"Come back when you learn how to actually back up a statement so that maybe someone out there will take you seriously."
Thanks, but no thanks, Mike....
I will back up my statements with documents and court depositions of key witnesses in some other place called "jury trial", not here for sure
Just venting out here, Mike, nothing personal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: thanks for invitation, but no, thanks
I will back up my statements with documents and court depositions of key witnesses in some other place called "jury trial", not here for sure
So, instead you'll just defame me and others and when we point out you're wrong, refuse to apologize?
Very professional of you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: thanks for invitation, but no, thanks
Relax, dude, I can even apologize for calling you a corporate stooge - I have no hard evidence on you indeed..
I do have hard evidence on "others"
Just remember, Mike, that juries have all the facts before they can reach a decision
Back to the subject of your article - Cisco...
He-He-He...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]