Appeals Court Finds Patent On Electronic Catalog Obvious... Tosses Out Multimillion Dollar Award Against Hyundai

from the it-took-this-long? dept

Well, well. Two years ago, we wrote about a patent held by Erich Spangenberg, a notorious patent hoarder who is involved in a ton of lawsuits against companies who actually make stuff, attacked with highly questionable patents. The patent in question (5,367,627) basically described an electronic parts catalog, which Spangenberg used to sue tons of companies. The absolute ridiculousness of the patent even got the EFF's attention after the USPTO agreed to re-examine that patent (though, a quick look through the USPTO's system doesn't seem to show anything actually happening with the re-exam -- unless I'm missing something... which is entirely possible).

That said, one of Spangenberg's many lawsuits over this patent, done by a shell company called Orion IP or, later, Clear with Computers, was against Hyundai. A jury sided with Spangenberg over Hyundai, and Hyundai appealed. After all that effort, the Federal Circuit has dumped the original ruling, noting that the "invention" (if you can call it that) was "anticipated" by earlier inventions. But, honestly, if you want to get a deeper sense of just how messed up the patent system is, you should read the full ruling:

What gets me is the pure absurdity of the whole thing. First of all, this is an electronic catalog. The argument that this should be patentable never should have passed the laugh test. But, it gets even more ridiculous. When Hyundai points to an electronic parts catalog system that pre-dated this patent, the response from the patent holder was that this invention was different because not only was it a catalog but... it also created a customer proposal. Well, knock me down and sign me up for a 17-year-monopoly. I'm sure no one could have possibly come up with the idea for using an electronic catalog to create a customer proposal without such an incentive... Thankfully, the court found that the important claims in the patent were anticipated by the other product, but just the fact that they had to go through this ridiculous process should raise serious questions about the patent system.

Filed Under: electronic catalog, erich spangenberg, obviousness, patents
Companies: clear with computers, hyundai, orion ip

Interview With A Patent Troll... Which Skips The Key Questions

from the leaving-out-some-of-the-details dept

Aaron Martin-Colby points us to Good Magazine's softball interview with Erich Spangenberg, considered by many to be one of the more successful "patent trolls" or "non-practicing entities" out there. The interview is a huge disappointment, though, as the interviewer basically only gives a superficial hearing to the reasons why Spangenberg is causing tremendous harm, and instead tries to paint him as a "Robin Hood" figure, taking money from super wealthy companies (she leaves out the "distributing it to the poor" part, because, you know, that doesn't actually happen). She ignores the economic arguments (which are long and quite detailed) of how much harm such activities do to the economy by shifting resources from actually making stuff to just transferring money around to lawyers.

But worst of all, the article presents Spangenberg as always being right and always having big companies settle (or that he wins his cases). You would think that any profile on Spangenberg would include little facts like that he was caught shuffling patents around in order to sue companies multiple times over the same patent -- despite a settlement promising not to. Doing so eventually cost Spangenberg $4 million. Robin Hood? Or how about his attempts to stretch what highly questionable patents cover? For example, patent 5,493,490, which covers a system for making electronic proposals to buy cars (which, yes, you would think seems obvious enough, but what do you know?), which Spangenberg is asserting against dozens of companies who don't sell cars, but do sell other stuff online.

The problem isn't that there are people who sue without ever making stuff (even though that's what some claim). The problem is that the patents are ridiculous and never should have been granted. Giving someone a total monopoly on an invention (and, despite claims to the contrary, in reality, patents do cover "ideas" not just inventions) should only be granted in extreme circumstances. Yet, the Patent Office hands them out like lollipops to children at times. But, unfortunately, this interview doesn't get into any of that. The reporter seems swept off her feet by Spangenberg bragging about his wealth and who he knows, and doesn't bother to ask any of the important questions.

Filed Under: erich spangenberg, patent troll, patents

Husband Sues Google For Patent Infringement; Wife Sues Google For Trademark Infringement

from the money-money-money-money dept

On Friday, we mentioned in passing that a class action lawsuit had been filed against Google, claiming that its allowance of trademarked terms to be used in keyword advertising was an abuse of trademark law. Eric Goldman had an interesting analysis of the case, noting that it was the first such attempt to create a class action lawsuit around this issue. As we've discussed, such lawsuits don't make much sense. First, there's no violation of trademark in running an ad against a trademarked keyword (there's no confusion by the user and there's no dilution of the mark). Second, even if there is trademark infringement, the infringer would be the company taking out the ad, not Google. But why let that stop a chance to score millions from Google.

When I saw the NY Times coverage of the lawsuit, it caught my attention that the woman behind the lawsuit was named Audrey Spangenberg, because it reminded me of Erich Spangenberg, a rather notorious patent hoarder who has made millions producing nothing, but suing an awful lot. This is the same Erich Spangenberg who had to pay $4 million after he was caught shuffling patents around among his many different shell companies, so that he could sue Chrysler three times over the same patent, despite earlier settlements promising never to use the same patent against Chrysler again.

Still, I figured it must be a coincidence -- surely, there must be a fair number of Spangenbergs in the world. However, Joe Mullin, IP reporter extraordinaire, has a detailed post explaining that the two are, in fact, married, and also detailing how Erich Spangenberg has sued Google multiple times for patent infringement. Apparently, the family is branching out into questionable trademark lawsuits as well. Audrey Spangenberg claims (don't they always?) that the lawsuit is about "respect for intellectual property" rather than money. So, I'm sure that she'll gladly donate any money she and her husband make from all these lawsuits to groups that respect intellectual property, such as Creative Commons, EFF or the Free Software Foundation, right?

Filed Under: audrey spangenberg, erich spangenberg, patents, trademarks
Companies: firepond, google, plutus ip

Do Google's Patent Lobbying Efforts Matter In Patent Infringement Suits Against The Company?

from the hard-to-see-why dept

Google, of course, is on the receiving end of numerous patent lawsuits (and the number seems to keep growing). In one, brought by Erich Spangenberg's Bright Response LLC (you may recall Spangenberg's name from the fact that he recently was told to pay $4 million for violating a settlement in one of his other patent lawsuits, where he promised not to sue the same companies over the same patents), the patent holder is demanding Google turn over all information concerning its lobbying efforts on patent reform. As Google notes in response, its lobbying efforts on patent reform have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not there's any infringement on automatic message interpretation and routing systems -- a patent, by the way, that the EFF has designated as one of the ten worst patents out there.

This seems like a pure fishing expedition to (a) try to create more work for Google for no good reason and (b) have a well-known exploiter of the current patent system get access to what patent system reformers are talking about in DC. It has no bearing on the case one way or the other, and hopefully the judge agrees.

Filed Under: erich spangenberg, lobbying, patents
Companies: bright response, google

Selling Stuff On The Internet? Why, That Infringes On A Patent!

from the prepare-to-get-sued dept

Erich Spangenberg was mentioned here earlier this week for having to pay $4 million for shuffling some patents around to shell companies and suing a company he had already agreed not to sue over those patents. Of course, that's not slowing him down apparently. Not only has he asked for a new trial on that ruling, he's continuing to file new patent lawsuits -- with the latest one apparently being for a patent on selling stuff on the internet. Yes, the patent may say it's about selling vehicles, but of the 47 new companies being sued over this patent, it looks like they're all selling other stuff, not cars. Basically, it looks like he's trying to sue every internet retailer there is -- because, of course, none of them ever would have come up with the concept of selling stuff online if this patent didn't exist.

Filed Under: erich spangenberg, online selling, patents, selling

Patent Hoarder Caught Shuffling Patents Around Has To Pay $4 Million

from the hoarding-doesn't-always-pay dept

You may recall earlier this month that we wrote about Erich Spangenberg, who had set up a series of shell corporations for patent hoarding (and suing). Unfortunately, it appears he got greedy after a big win against DaimlerChrysler. As part of that settlement, he agreed not to sue the automaker again over the same issues -- but by using the various shell corporations, he had a different shell sue Daimler. Daimler saw this as a violation of the settlement and sued back. Now comes the news that Spangenberg has lost and has to pay nearly $4 million in legal fees to Daimler. It's good to see courts finally pushing back on some of the overreaching by patent holders.

Filed Under: erich spangenberg, patents, shell companies
Companies: daimlerchrysler, plutus ip