Patent Trolling Carnegie Mellon Wins What Could Be Largest Patent Verdict Ever: $1.2 Billion
from the universities-as-patent-trolls dept
The Apple/Samsung patent battle has been getting lots of attention, but a new verdict has eclipsed the record $1.05 billion that a jury awarded in that case -- and this time its to Carnegie Mellon University, after a jury has ruled that Marvell Technology Group should have to pay $1.17 billion for infringing a single claim in each of two patents. Specifically, the company was found guilty of infringing on claim 4 of US Patent 6,201,839 which reads:A method of determining branch metric values for branches of a trellis for a Viterbi-like detector, comprising:And claim 2 of US Patent 6,438,180 (which is a continuation patent of the '839 patent), which reads:
selecting a branch metric function for each of the branches at a certain time index from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions; and applying each of said selected functions to a plurality of signal samples to determine the metric value corresponding to the branch for which the applied branch metric function was selected, wherein each sample corresponds to a different sampling time instant.
The method of claim 1, wherein the branch metric function is selected from a set of signal-dependent branch metric functions.And, for that, the jury says that they need to pay $1.17 billion -- which the judge now has the option of tripling, as the jury also found that the infringement was willful. Of course, at this stage, the ruling is somewhat meaningless, because it will be appealed, and we'll have to wait for that whole process to play out. However, if the verdict does stand, it will be the largest ever patent award. Other verdicts have come in higher, but have all later been reduced (sometimes significantly). Furthermore, Marvell argued during the trial that a different patent held by Seagate, US Patent 6,282,251 was not only filed and granted way before the Marvell patents, but that it covers everything in both of those patents.
Now, as is the case in so many patent fights, many people assume that the defendant "copied" the patent, or that this was about a business deal gone wrong. However, as came out during the trial, CMU has never licensed this patent to anyone. It just sat on it and sued. As Joe Mullin covers in his coverage of the rulings, this is yet another case highlighting how many universities are acting just like patent trolls these days, trying to justify their failed "tech transfer" investments into patents by playing the game exactly like patent trolls. Furthermore, CMU's lawyers completely played up the entirely bogus story line that Marvell somehow "stole" these ideas from CMU -- even prompting objections and the judge stepping in to warn the lawyers to stop with the bogus claims:
Marvell lawyers said CMU's closing statement was "rife with misrepresentations," including suggestions that Marvell "broke the chain of innovation by not paying the royalties that they now owe," and noting those payments would be used "to fund further research, to lead to further innovation." That resulted in a short conference at the side bar, in which the judge warned "you can't dig deep into all of CMU's contributions to society and mankind."This is the sad legacy of the Bayh-Dole Act, which made it much easier for universities to get patents on their research. Rather than increasing their ability to do the fundamental research that is needed to help develop new technologies, universities have, instead, been trying to hoard patents to use to sue companies who actually innovate, usually with no knowledge of the patents held by the universities. Rulings like this one will not encourage greater spread of knowledge, information and research, but will only serve to incentivize universities to continue to act more and more like trolls, in hopes of a giant payday. That such crazy lawsuits may destroy companies who are actually out there innovating is, apparently, not much of a concern.
CMU's attorney also started to compare Marvell's alleged patent infringement to identity theft. "The invention in this case is like your electronic identity, your credit card numbers, your Social Security number," said CMU lawyer Douglas Greenswag. "It's that which [sic] are very personal and valuable to you. You devote years to building up your reputation, your credit rating, your standing. One day Marvell sneaks in—"
At that point he was cut off by an objection and was not able to complete the analogy.
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: carnegie mellon, patent trolling, patents
Companies: marvell
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Works just fine according to boBjoeblue.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That said, I have problems with universities and other organizations using public money to develop technology and then getting patents awarded and cutting out the public who funded them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Of course, I think the patent is ridiculously broad and should be invalidated, but it hasn't been yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @ The willful besides stupid misrepresentation by "weneedhelp" - "Works just fine according to boBjoeblue."
In fact, I've MANY times stated that patents should be only for physical devices with a working model required, and opined that corporations (as are universities) shouldn't own them at all only "natural" persons, and even for them a means test should be applied to prevent the already Rich from obtaining gov't protection during a limited period. So you're multiply wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
As we are supposed to be a government "of the people and by the people" I guess I have some rights to this patent. I hereby grant my rights in the patent to Marvell Technology Group and wish them well!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @ The willful besides stupid misrepresentation by "weneedhelp" - "Works just fine according to boBjoeblue."
"a knee-jerk yahoo"
I guess that's only when other people do it though, right? Doesn't apply when you do it. You ankle biter you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Would you like to buy a bridge?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @ The willful besides stupid misrepresentation by "weneedhelp" - "Works just fine according to boBjoeblue."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: @ The willful besides stupid misrepresentation by "weneedhelp" - "Works just fine according to boBjoeblue."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not so simple.
We can debate the validity of the relevant patents or even patent policies in general, but defending your rights should never be an excuse to treble damages or an assumption of "guilt".
Marvell claimed that they were using some other "invention".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not so simple.
Marvell claimed that Seagate's patent was prior art that invalidated the CMU patent. The correct course of action is not "Welp, we're good." It's to use that to try to have the CMU patent invalidated. They didn't do that until they got sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: It's not so simple.
Until we have real patent reform, the rules can be bought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
1) Get maximum grant money and develop obscure technologies.
2) File for maximum number of broad patents.
3) Sit on patents and keep them secret.
4) Sue any company doing any work in these obscure technologies, effectively shutting down all innovation.
5) Make billions!
6) Massive bonuses for administrators!
Sounds like par for the course in the new America where the goal is always to maximize wealth for administrators, executives, lawyers and insiders and nobody gives a shit for the damage done to society as a while.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what is patentable?
tx much
:)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @ The willful besides stupid misrepresentation by "weneedhelp" - "Works just fine according to boBjoeblue."
"I've MANY times stated" You have stated many times crazy bullshit that is out of this world, and done nothing to advance your cause. You are a lame troll who's comments I dont even read anymore. I just go for the report button.
So now even if you post a well thought out [fighting off laughter] well presented viewpoint... no one will listen... ever. You made your bed you crazy fuck now live with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @ The willful besides stupid misrepresentation by "weneedhelp" - "Works just fine according to boBjoeblue."
Yahoooo-ooooo.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://youtu.be/8YxB7oLnxCg?t=13m22s
No logic. Just emotional appeals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patent Trolling
2. Marvell needed only to inquire about a license for this technology that their email indicated was the "gold standard". I am sure the fee would have been much less than $.50 per unit in 2002.
3. Is all the noise about "trolling" an argument for not paying patent holders, or patent holders not exercising their rights. I would be willing to bet those commentators would seek fees for any original work they were able to patent.
4. Using the patented technology without a legal challenge is "willful".
5. I cannot judge the broadness of these patents, but the PTO is usually very stingy about the scope of claims.
[ link to this | view in thread ]