Blockbuster, Netflix Found Not To Have Infringed On Patent For Notifying You Of The Status Of Your Rental Queue

from the how-did-this-get-approved? dept

Thu, Dec 10th 2009 3:26am — Mike Masnick

Slashdot points us to the news that a lawsuit against Netflix and Blockbuster for patent infringement has been dismissed by a California court. At issue was a patent, 7,389,243, that is for a method for alerting users to the status of their rental queue. Read through the claims and look at the drawings and try to figure out how such a patent was possibly approved. It's patents like this one that make people question what patent examiners actually do. So it's nice to see the patent holder sent packing, though you have to wonder if GameFly, who had previously settled a lawsuit over the same patent is now regretting that decision.

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: movie rentals, notifications, patents
Companies: blockbuster, netflix

10 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

R. Miles (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 3:43am

Wonder? That's bread.
...you have to wonder if GameFly, who had previously settled a lawsuit over the same patent is now regretting that decision.
Actually, no I don't because I know why GameFly settled. It was cheaper than the lawsuit.

Did you completely miss the article you wrote about the station threatening a lawsuit on someone looking for videos?

The THREAT of a lawsuit often wins out over the verdicts.

"Over there is the Statue of Liberty, welcoming you to this country to follow your dreams.
When that hard work, er, dreaming gets shattered, over there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, there, and there, just to name a few, are the locations use to sue those you need in order to make those dreams come true." - American Corporation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- sheesh, 10 Dec 2009 @ 4:57am
  
  Re: Wonder? That's bread.
  and that would definitely stop them from regretting their decision
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dorp, 10 Dec 2009 @ 8:51am
  
  Re: Wonder? That's bread.
  Actually, no I don't because I know why GameFly settled. It was cheaper than the lawsuit.
  
  Sometimes I wonder if you are one of ACs coming out of hiding. The lawsuit against Blockbuster and Netflix was dismissed. GameFly settled because they were afraid of the verdict. Now that they see what the results are, they can regret their decision, as they still spent oodles of money on lawyers plus a settlement while these guys smacked the patent holder down.
  
  Did you miss your coffee today or something?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
bleach622 (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 4:56am

notice the patent inventor and patent attorney have the same last name... looks like a family operation to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
icepick314, 10 Dec 2009 @ 5:25am

Media Queue was stupid to file the lawsuit in California....

they should have filed it in Eastern District of Texas of Marshall, Texas....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 7:23am

Nice one, Dennis
Dennis Ruhl was the primary examiner on this one. A quick goog shows he was an assistant examiner on patents for a tampon string (United States Patent 5458589) and a cotton swab with expanded tips (United States Patent 5531671). So, we can probably expect more gems from him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt Bennett, 10 Dec 2009 @ 8:27am

So, it actually seems like the court's decision was wrong. Yes, it's a totally bogus patent. But as we learned with RIM, doesn't the court have to treat the patent as if it is valid, if it hasn't been thrown out yet? Yes, I understand that it's a good reason NOT to issue an injunction, but they still can't throw out the suit, can they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 8:44am
  
  Re:
  Apparently they can, because they did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:08am
  
  Re:
  They didn't throw out the suit because the patent was invalid, they threw it out because they found that Blockbuster/Netflix didn't infringe it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brad Hubbard (profile), 10 Dec 2009 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't know if that's true. The patent was filed in 2004, granted in 2008. Netflix was incorporated in 1997, and had a million subscribers by 2003, and this feature was present.
    
    The only way you'd get a summary dismissal is if you could show that the patent could not POSSIBLY have been infringed upon. Given that it exactly describes the queue-reporting system of Netflix, you have to figure they showed "We had this in place (in public use) before they even filed".
    
    While the court didn't rule to invalidate the patent, they DID rule to treat it as though it were.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]