Former Patent Attorney Turned Patent Litigant... Sues Other Patent Lawyers
from the the-devil-you-know dept
A growing number of patent attorneys who have worked on cases for patent hoarders have realized that it's such a lucrative game (and it really is a game -- one that wastes money and harms innovation -- but a game, nonetheless) that they've jumped ship, either getting or buying patents themselves and launching lawsuits. An anonymous reader points us to one such lawyer who didn't only do that, but has chosen a rather interesting target for his patent lawsuits: other patent lawyers. Yes, that's right. Patent lawyer Wes Whitmeyer apparently got a couple of patents (5,895,468 and 6,182,078) covering ways to manage patent payments, and he's now going after other law firms.What's particularly unusual is who Whitmeyer is targeting: IP law firms, which are trained to either dish out the pain--or parry the blows--on behalf of others, but rarely find themselves accused of patent infringement. But no less than eight law firms are now in that position, thanks to Whitmeyer's patent claims.Apparently, Whitmeyer has sued a bunch of companies that make software for managing patent payments (how the hell is that not an obvious offering?), and won one of the lawsuits. The law firms listed above are apparently all customers of that firm, CPi. So, beyond attacking other patent attorneys, Whitmeyer is double dipping here. This is allowed, but it's yet another example of how ridiculously distorted the patent system has become.
In June, through his patent-holding company WhitServe LLC, Whitmeyer sued seven law firms: Brinks Hofer Gilson & Leone; Dinsmore & Shohl; Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aranoff; Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, Kusner & Jaffe, Mueting, Raasch & Gebhardt; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
The article also points out some other incredible parts of this story. CPi, which has been in business for over half a century, is being accused of willful infringement and for copying Whitmeyer's patents. CPi's CEO claims that's false, and notes that he'd never heard of Whitmeyer until he sued CPi. But where it gets really ridiculous is that Whitmeyer's lawyers are asking the court to increase damages just because CPi's CEO called Whitmeyer's patents "silly." Who knew that expressing an opinion on egregious patents might get you hit with greater damages?
This sort of situation is not what the patent system is supposed to encourage.
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: patent attorneys, patents
Companies: cpi, whitserv
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
See what I said about incentive?
Right now, the entire system really is wonky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess it's too much to hope that maybe they'll destroy each other and leave the rest of the people who actually produce something alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Circle the wagons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lower than theives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lower than theives
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the bright side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202464370148
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whitmeyer story
The previous comment and link was left by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spare some change?
; P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Spare some change?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dog-eat-dog capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The law give it, the law take it.
Then some people don't understand why so many people are starting to ignore the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LOL, it's "dog eat dog world".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Satire IRL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stop with the "patent system is broken" nonsense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Stop with the "patent system is broken" nonsense
It's so easy to say that 1 + 2 = 2. Lets try and argue that it's five instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This Could Be A Good Thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's an assumption which seems to fly in the face of all available evidence. Just because that's not why the patent system was created, it doesn't mean it's not what the current system is supposed to encourage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meta-trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]