Cable Modem Patent Hoarder Accused Of Pretending To Enter The Market
from the sneaky,-sneaky,-sneaky dept
Rembrandt IP is a patent hoarding firm that we've written about a few times before. It buys up patents and then sues companies to get them to pay licensing fees. However, one thing that's been really interesting about Rembrandt is how it's been figuring out new and creative ways to skirt recent Supreme Court rulings that seek to lessen the impact of such non-practicing entities. Two years ago, in the landmark MercExchange case, the Supreme Court ruled that courts shouldn't automatically grant injunctions preventing the sale of products, even if they're found to have violated a patent.This didn't get rid of injunctions entirely, but basically (reasonably) noted that the courts should take into account whether or not the product on the market was actually harming the market for the patent holder's products. Thus, if you were a non-practicing entity (patent hoarding firm), it didn't make sense to ban another company's products from being in the market -- it just made sense to fine them. After all, since the patent holder didn't have a product on the market, what harm was being done to the patent holding firm's market? Patent hoarding companies flipped out, because the threat of an injunction barring the sale of products was one of the biggest weapons they had (it's part of what made RIM pay $612 million to NTP, even though the USPTO had said that NTP's patents were invalid).
So, how is Rembrandt getting around this ruling that takes away the threat of injunction as a weapon? Well, earlier this year, we noted a sneaky trick where it sued two companies in a single market over the same patent, but gave each of them a choice: whoever settled first, would get to join the lawsuit against the other one. Then, since the side that joined was a practicing entity, it could push for an injunction against the other. Sneaky, right?
Well, now it gets better. Rembrandt also happens to hold some patents on cable modem technology. In this case, Rembrandt bought the patents from a former AT&T subsidiary that had an agreement with the cable companies to license the patents under reasonable terms. Rembrandt is now claiming that since it bought the patents, it no longer needs to abide by that earlier agreement (despite the fact that the FTC has already slammed other patent holders for claiming similar things). Rembrandt, however, is pushing ahead and has sued a ton of cable companies, broadcasters and cable modem makers over this patent -- but how can it get an injunction since it's not a practicing entity?
Well, how about pretending to be a practicing entity?
Broadband Reports points us to the news that Rembrandt has convinced a small Taiwanese cable modem manufacturer to make a batch of cable modems with Rembrandt's name on them, which have now been sold to a tiny ISP in
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
Filed Under: cable, docsis, injunctions, non-practicing entities, patents
Companies: rembrandt, rembrandt ip
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
On top of it all, they produce no wealth and legitimized thievery. :(
If you're going to be greedy, at least produce something of value to society. That way your greed have some benefit for society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
horseshit again
Did SCOTUS abolish all exclusive patent licensing ?
I don't think so
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Courts will not be bound by nominal/artificial sales
P&G argued that they had used it in commerce by having done the same thing Rembrandt did. I realize this is about patents, not trademarks, but I don't think the courts will be bound to accept Rembrandt's claim to be a practicing entity based on this sales gambit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Exactly
If they don't want to be bothered with producing a product based on that patent that's fine, their product would clearly be too good for the current market anyway. There should be room for passive aggressivism in the modern technology market shouldn't there?
What's inherently wrong with 'extortion' I see it as a perfect good business model, it worked great for the Mafia didn't it? Hoarding patents out from under manufacturers and then suing them for the products they continue to produce is no different than forcing a guy to take loan you know he can't pay and then killing him when he doesn't pay it, right? What is wrong with that?!?
Honestly, mike you are easily one of the worst people I have ever had the misfortune of happening across, what were you born into some crazy hippie commune? Are you a goddam Commie!?!? A truly free market is the only market where I will be able to rape the commoners on a whim and not have to suffer the consequences don't you want me to be able to be happy? Why the FCUK WON'T YOU LET ME BE HAPPY?!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irritation is not a long term business model.
But it can make you money in the short term.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Irritation is not a long term business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FYI
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Please educate me...
What would be the down side of making Patent and Copyright non-transferrable?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Please educate me...
The demise of the contract law for employing scientists and engineers in US (as far as patents are concerned)
An employed inventor is required to assign his patents to his corporate employer
That's the essence of korporate america
As far as I am concerned you are very welcome to petition your politicians to change that....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eat your brain punk
YOu mean a monopoly like MShit ?
A basement developer who developed and sold a few copies of his own OS should not be allowed to bother "people who do real business" aka huge multinational monopolies like MShit ?
Sorry punk
That's what patent system is all about - small upstarts with new patented technologies assaulting huge existing monopolies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Please educate me...
The only thing I can think of is that revoking the transfer of patents will just stop the people who invent to sell, or it would stop patent hoarders from buying up patents just to sue. I see no down side to this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Please educate me...
In US patents are issued to original true inventors ONLY,
not to companies
The inventor's employment contract takes care of the rest
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FYI
Oops. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: horseshit again
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Please educate me... horseshit
You are Ferious Cronus
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Eat your brain punk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I think AD is shilling the patent trolls because he thinks that they are the only ones who will pay him for his inventions. The big evil corps just steal his ideas without paying a license fee, and the anti patent folks are bad because they would abolish the patent holding corps.
Disclaimer: I am not and never have been a member of the AD club. The first rule of AD club is never talk about AD club.
[ link to this | view in thread ]