Once Again, Amazon's One-Click Patent Is Found Not To Infringe On Cordance's One-Click Patents

from the there-can-be-only-one-one-click-patent dept

A few years ago, we wrote about a case in which a company called Cordance claimed that Amazon's (infamous) patented one-click "technology" infringed on its own one-click patent (6,757,710). Cordance's patent was actually granted many years after Amazon's technology was on the market (and its patent granted), but Cordance tried to show an earlier priority date through a convoluted set of previous patents and continuations. Thankfully, a jury disagreed with Cordance and said that Amazon didn't infringe, and in the few areas where it might have infringed, Cordance's patent claims were invalid. The judge then changed the ruling to reject the invalidity part -- allowing Cordance to sue a bunch of other companies, including Apple, Paypal and Victoria's Secret.

However, the original case was appealed and, amazingly, CAFC actually ruled against Cordance and sided with the original jury, noting non-infringement for some parts, and the parts where Amazon might infringe... those claims were declared invalid, and predicted by Amazon's own technology. That should be good news for those sued by Cordance in that other case. However, this really highlights the craziness of the patent system. Is it really valuable to have two companies spending years in court arguing over who can do something in one click?

Filed Under: one-click, patents
Companies: amazon, cordance

The 'Other' One-Click Patent Holder Sues Apple, Paypal... And Victoria's Secret

from the are-they-hoping-to-get-paid-in-models? dept

A couple years ago, we wrote about how Amazon, holder of the extremely infamous "one-click patent," had been sued by another firm, Cordance, claiming to hold a one-click patent. About a year and a half ago, Amazon apparently won that case. Unfortunately, a judge effectively overruled the jury, saying that some of the claims the jury insisted were invalid were actually valid. Thanks to that, it appears that Cordance is back, and is suing Apple, PayPal and Victoria's Secret, claiming they all violate its one-click patent (6,757,710). The patent seems to be crazy vague. It's still stunning that anyone -- let alone two people -- can hold a patent for letting someone buy something with one click. Separately, the article notes that Victoria's Secret is currently dealing with five separate active patent lawsuits, all based in East Texas (of course). Kind of makes you wonder if someone thinks that the models will actually show up to defend the company...

Filed Under: one-click, patent
Companies: acacia, amazon, apple, cordance, paypal, victoria's secret

Amazon Wins Lawsuit Saying It Didn't Infringe On One Click Patent (A Different One)

from the keep-it-straight-now dept

You probably recall that Amazon holds a rather infamous patent, on one-click ordering online, that has been involved in a fair amount of controversy (and ongoing review). However, less well-known was that, back in 2006, another company, Cordance, claimed that it actually held a patent on one-click ordering and sued Amazon for violating its patent. I hadn't heard much else about the case since, but Michael Scott alerts us to the news that Amazon has won the lawsuit, after a jury found that the company didn't infringe on two of the patents in question, and that the third patent was invalid. The key to victory? Apparently, Amazon explained that the patents in question actually described a process that involved two clicks rather than one.

Filed Under: e-commerce, one-click, patents, two-click
Companies: amazon, cordance