Patent Trolling Lawyers May Have Picked With The Wrong Company To Shake Down: Cloudflare Hits Back
from the bam dept
Earlier this year, we wrote a story about a fairly nutty patent troll, Blackbird Technologies, who had sued a bunch of companies over a patent it claimed covered letting users download content to consume offline (even though the actual patent was for a CD-ROM burning system). Blackbird has been suing a ton of companies over the last few years, and one of its recent targets was CDN provider Cloudflare (note: we're a customer of Cloudflare). The lawsuit is over US Patent 6,453,335 on "providing an internet third party data channel." The patent itself seems questionable. The application of the patent to Cloudflare's technology seems questionable -- but rather than dig into all of that, instead, let's focus on Cloudflare's response to all of this. First, it's pushing back on the lawsuit (of course), but it's going much, much further than that. As detailed in a new blog post, it's directly going after the lawyers behind Blackbird.
You see, it's fairly typical for patent trolling operations to be pretty secretive about how they operate. They are often formed by former patent lawyers who then try to lay low while they know they're abusing the system. In this case, Cloudflare is first calling out the patent lawyers behind Blackbird:
Blackbird was formed three years ago by two attorneys who left law firms where they had been engaged in patent defense work — Wendy Verlander (@bbirdtech_CEO; LinkedIn) at WilmerHale, and Chris Freeman (LinkedIn) at Kirkland & Ellis. Notably, both of those firms promote themselves as ready to protect companies from patent trolls. Kirkland trumpets that its IP practice group scored a victory against the “original patent troll,” while WilmerHale has a Patent Troll Initiative that aims to help businesses deal comprehensively with patent trolls.
Having gained valuable experience and training by working for clients who paid their firms handsomely to fight suits brought by patent trolls, Verlander and Freeman were well aware of the harm done to their clients by patent trolls. Yet, Verlander and Freeman decided to cast their lot with the other side and formed a patent troll for themselves.
But it goes way beyond them just flipping to the dark side. As Cloudflare details, it believes that Blackbird and the two lawyers who run it may have violated legal ethics rules. Many of them. First, Cloudflare makes the case that Blackbird Technologies is really just a law firm, rather than a tech company:
As made clear in this blog post, Blackbird’s founders made the decision to leave law firms that were engaged in the defense of clients who were faced with patent lawsuits, and formed a new law firm focused on bringing law suits as a patent troll. The only services promoted on its website (http://www.blackbird-tech.com/) are legal services; the website notes that Blackbird represents a “new model” which provides the benefits of “top law firm experience” offering clients the ability to “litigate at reduced costs.”
Of 12 total employees listed on the Blackbird website, 7 are attorneys. The remaining 5 are very junior employees described as “analysts” (3 are current undergraduate students and 2 received Bachelor's degrees last May). As far as we can determine, Blackbird produces no products or services which it makes available to the public. Rather, it offers litigation services and is in the business of filing lawsuits. And its output in that regard is prolific, as it has filed a total of 107 lawsuits since September 2014.
As final confirmation that Blackbird is a law firm marketing legal services, its own website includes a disclaimer about “Attorney Advertising,” which states explicitly “[p]lease note that this website may contain attorney advertising.”
Blackbird’s “new model” seems to be only that its operations set out to distort the traditional Attorney-Client relationship. Blackbird’s website makes a direct pitch of its legal services to recruit clients with potential claims and then, instead of taking them on as a client, purchases their claims and provides additional consideration that likely gives the client an ongoing interest in the resulting litigation. In doing so, Blackbird is flouting its ethical obligations meant to protect clients and distorting the judicial process by obfuscating and limiting potential counterclaims against the real party in interest.
And thus, the company is subject to certain rules. Many of which Cloudflare argues it is not following.
-
Blackbird may have acquired a proprietary interest in the subject matter of the litigation in violation of Rule 1.8(i) — Attorneys have a near monopoly of representing clients in the judicial system. Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(i) explicitly prohibits an attorney from “acquir[ing] a proprietary interest in a cause of action or subject matter of litigation.” But that is exactly what Blackbird does. Blackbird’s website contains a pitch to recruit clients with potential legal claims under their patents, but then buys those claims and brings them on their own behalf. Wouldn’t that be a violation of Rule 1.8(i)? Doesn’t Blackbird’s attempt to pitch this as a “new model” of being a patent troll ignore the fact that the only non-law firm activity in which they are engaged (buying patents to bring lawsuits) is the exact thing prohibited by Rule 1.8(i)? They shouldn’t be able to use creative contractual or corporate structures to avoid its responsibility under the rules.
-
Blackbird may be sharing fees or firm equity with non-lawyers in violation of Rule 5.4(a) or 5.4(d) — In order to preserve the integrity of the Attorney-Client relationship, Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a) prohibits attorneys from splitting legal fees in individual matters with non-lawyers, and Rule 5.4(d) prohibits providing an equity interest in a firm to non-lawyers. We think Blackbird may be violating both provisions. Although he no longer owns the patent and is not a party to the case, the assignment agreement’s terms (specifying payment of only $1) makes it possible that Mr. Kaufman has a contingency interest in the lawsuit. If that is the case, wouldn’t Blackbird be in violation of Rule 5.4(a)? Similarly, Blackbird has moved very quickly since its founding to file lawsuits against a great number of companies — 107 complaints since September 2014. So far, none of those cases have gone to trial. We intend to examine whether they have used financial support from non-lawyers to fund the very fast start to their operations in exchange for an impermissible equity interest, or have shared an equity interest with patent holders like Mr. Kaufmann, either of which would be in violation of Rule 5.4(d).
Cloudflare claims they're taking such an extreme step with the bar complaints to ward off other patent trolls from evolving into this type of model, that will only encourage more bogus lawsuits. And, that's not all the company is doing in going after Blackbird. The company is also crowdfunding up to $50,0000 for prior art discoveries not just on the patent being asserted against Cloudflare but on any patent held by Blackbird Technologies.
The first bounty (up to $20,000) is for prior art which reads on the patent Blackbird is using to sue Cloudflare, the ‘335 patent. $10,000 is guaranteed and will be divided among prior art submissions that raise substantive questions on the ‘335 patent. The remaining $10,000 will be used to compensate prior art submissions that Cloudflare uses as evidence in an invalidation procedure at the USPTO or invalidation at trial. The latest date of prior art on the ‘335 patent would be July 20, 1998.
The larger bounty (up to $30,000) will be spread among those submitting substantial prior art which reads on any of the 34 other outstanding Blackbird patents or their 3 in-flight patent applications and could lead to the invalidation of these dubious patents. Cloudflare will pay the second bounty to people who submit relevant and substantive prior art which, in Cloudflare’s opinion, reads on any other Blackbird patent. The money will be distributed based on the quality of the prior art, the perceived value of the patent, and the extent to which the evidence is used in a proceeding to invalidate one of the Blackbird patents.
We will maintain a list of all the Blackbird patents at cloudflare.com/blackbirdpatents/. The list will provide the number of each patent, the relevant latest date of prior art, and will list germane already-identified prior art. We will update the list periodically as we get new information submitted.
In other words, if Blackbird Technologies wants to go after Cloudflare in court, Cloudflare is going to hit back hard and make sure that Blackbird can't just run away. In many ways, this reminds me of Newegg's scorched earth approach to any patent trolls that sue them. Once a troll initiates a lawsuit, Newegg goes to war to make sure that other patent trolls don't even think of trying to go after Newegg again (and that strategy seems to mostly be working, as trolls now know to steer clear of the company).
Kudos to Cloudflare for hitting back against patent trolling that serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to shake down innovative companies and stifle their services. But, really, the true travesty here is that the company needs to do this at all. Our patent (and copyright) systems seem almost perfectly designed for this kind of shakedown game, having nothing whatsoever to do witht the stated purpose of supporting actual innovators and creators. Instead, it's become a paper game abused by lawyers to enrich themselves at the expense of actual innovators and creators.
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: bar complaints, bounty, chris freeman, lawsuits, patent trolls, patents, prior art, wendy verlander
Companies: blackbird technologies, cloudflare, kirkland & ellis, wilmerhale
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, lawyers know why. They just hate saying so.
It could be used against them in a court of law, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Important lesson: Do not taunt Happy Fun Cloud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
get 'em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: get 'em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other Blackbird patents cover location aware games
I really don't want to read about new lawsuits targeting games like Pokemon Go and Ingress when the collective can help nuke the patent now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Blackbird patents cover location aware games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Other Blackbird patents cover location aware games
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.8thingstodo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/African-Elephant-Kruger-National-Park.jpg
Le ts see Cloudflare ream this patent troll, ream em good!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love them. I order from them whenever I can, and mostly it's because of their patent troll crushing leadership. If you want companies to do things that you think are important, you need to support them.
We need more Newegg's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawyers
-------------------
The Post Office once considered issuing stamps of famous lawyers. But when they tested them, people didn't know which side to spit on.
-------------------
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would just like to point out, without trying to be too personal or offensive, that anyone who uses the word "troll" sounds like a leftist activist idiot.
Yes, that explains why such noted "leftist activists" as Republicans Darrell Issa and Orrin Hatch regularly refer to patent trolls.
http://www.ocregister.com/2013/10/30/rep-darrell-issa-takes-on-patent-trolls/ https://www.wi red.com/2015/03/opinion-must-finally-legislate-patent-trolls-existence/
Look, if you want to challenge the language, go ahead. But don't make shit up.
FWIW, for years, we deliberately chose not to use the term patent troll, even as everyone else did. Eventually, the term was so widely used and so widely accepted across the board that we, too, started using it. Language: you use the terms that make the most sense to get the point across. Everyone knows what patent trolls are, and thus, the language is appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Is it the truth that you are paid by multi-national corporations specifically to try to weaken or destroy rights given by the US Constitution to American Inventors?
"Our patent (and copyright) systems seem almost perfectly designed for this kind of shakedown game, having nothing whatsoever to do witht the stated purpose of supporting actual innovators and creators."
Are you a patent attorney? I think not. Do you have any certified legal training or experience? I think not. "Perfectly designed for" - are you kidding? The patent system is not perfect, no US system is perfect - but the US still leads the world in innovation, and the patent system is one important reason why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless you have credentials you'd like to start proving, but we all know it's an exercise in futility. You can't produce what you don't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you would like to add something useful to this conversation, how about defining "patent troll", a definition that "Everyone" is familiar with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious:
1) Which other organizations do you think are being funded by these multinational corporations?
2) Which multi-national corporations do you think are doing so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Open Source companies are *SO* well known to be well-funded lobby organizations. Ease up on that crack, son.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000036997&year=2016
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you mean that "patent troll" in specific is used by "leftist activists", or that "troll" in general is used by leftists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If they aren't patent trolls and they suffered damages, sure. Though I'm not sure how much economic damages any company would suffer from TechDirt calling them "patent troll".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd imagine that anyone who could be called a "high profile customer" would do more research, and wouldn't let a single article sway them that much. I'd also imagine that if they might become a customer what they'd care about would be if the alleged troll would sue customers, which isn't something that patent trolls are known for. The alleged troll would have to have such a bad reputation that no one would want to be associated with them, SCOG type bad reputation, and a TechDirt article isn't going to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bottom line: Google search results reveal a lot but that doesn't mean that negative coverage on blogs makes people think you're a bad person. I was promoted shortly after a troll tried to get me fired from my job by lying about me on review sites and a certain individual picked it up and added some hate sprinkles. Why did these posts not do me any harm? Because they don't stand up to scrutiny; criminal activity is reported to the police, not to review sites.
Where negative coverage causes actual harm it's usually down to the reports being confirmed correct when scrutinised.
So then, why did I get promoted? Strong reasoning ability, which enables me to acquire new skills and learn new tasks quickly. What my employers know about me and unverifiable claims by a stupid troll are completely different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It gets funnier when you consider that the usual detractors of the site have been adopting a "Techdirt is insignificant because Alexa rankings are down" tactic in order to suggest that no value would be lost if the site went down. So apparently Techdirt isn't a site worth taking seriously... but somehow still affects Shiva Ayyadurai to the point where he has no choice but to sue. Funny, that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you do seem to be in with a "very influential group of people on a technical blog", that seems real. And you also seem to be reinforcing my argument regarding the damage done by Google search results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And the ripoff report: http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom/interne t/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-1280160
It is rather ironic that you were able to post in response to his accusations, but your job on TechDirt is to hide other people's posts. That is, you are able to publicly defend yourself on the web, but your job is to prevent others from doing the same. Ironic, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom/i nternet/wendy-cockcroft-web-design-wendy-cockcroft-interservecom-wendy-cockcroft-manchester-u-128016 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from%3Awendycockcroft%20since%3A2016-01-16%20until%3A2016-01 -17&src=typd
My takeaway is that you contradict yourself about knowing Mr. Diaz. On ripoffreport, you don't know him, but on your twitter feed, you do.
Mr. Diaz's story, on the other hand, at least seems consistent. You do seem pretty preoccupied with cartoons, as was the basis of his business complaint.
In fact, you took the time to draw a cartoon quoting a man you say you don't know at all. That seems a little unusual if you really didn't know him at all. And if Mr. Diaz is telling the truth (as he seems to be) that could be a serious problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And here I thought you had the capability of thinking past your hero Shiva Ayyadurai.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's like a teacher asking a student what "2 + 3" is, and the student answers, "2 plus 3 equals 2 plus 3".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And since the term is already well established in legal usage within the legal profession, that already disproves your point. Unless you would like to refer to all patent lawyers and judges who use the term as dishonest, misguided or bribed to do so (which one might point out would count as defamation, but that's your gimmick).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An entity or individual that asserts a patent aggressively against a company or entity that produces a product or service. The patent troll simply owns the patent (or rights thereto) and does not produce the product or offer the service embodied in the patent. Patent trolls are also referred to as "non-practicing entities."
http://www.smithhopen.com/glossary_term/115/Patent-Troll
Which means that an entity or individual that DOES NOT assert patents aggressively IS NOT a patent troll. Legally. Defamation-wise. Provably. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I support journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I support journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I support journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I support journalism
How does a comment from an anonymous commenter say anything, one way or another, about the authors of this site?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I support journalism
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hamiltonian?
Who's the "Hamiltonian" that get's referenced here at TD?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hamiltonian?
If anything that label has merely contributed to the embarrassment he deserves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is reverse crowdfunding a new thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is reverse crowdfunding a new thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are antiquated
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shiva, is this who you deploy as your attack dogs? You might want to read up on Tara Carreon and John Steele. Maybe re-evaluate your strategies. Just saying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]