NTP, Inc.

Last updated

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents [1] and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company (now out of business) partly owned by Campana. [2]

Contents

NTP has been characterized as a patent troll because it is a non-practicing entity that aggressively enforces its patent portfolio against larger, well-established companies. [3] The most notable case was against Research in Motion, makers of the BlackBerry mobile email system.

NTP also owns an equity stake in mobile email start up company Visto.

Patent licenses

NTP licensed its mobile email patents to Visto, Nokia, Good Technology, [4] RIM, and RIM's partners. The RIM license agreement was part of an overall settlement of a patent infringement lawsuit brought by NTP against RIM (see below). [5]

NTP attempted to license to Palm, Inc., but license negotiations have broken down. On November 6, 2006, NTP announced that it had filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Palm, Inc. in response to the breakdown in licensing talks. [6] However, on March 22, 2007, United States District Court Judge James R. Spencer (Eastern Division of Virginia, Richmond Division) granted a stay of proceedings in the NTP's lawsuit against Palm, Inc. Judge Spencer also granted Palm's motion to strike from the complaint NTP's allegation of wrongdoing at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. [7]

In September 2007, NTP filed patent infringement lawsuits against several large telecommunications companies including AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless. It asserted the same patents that it asserted against RIM. The cases have not yet been settled. [8]

In 2006, the New York Times reported that Geoff Goodfellow, a former Silicon valley entrepreneur who developed and commercialized wireless push email, was reportedly paid $4,000 per day in "hush money" to withhold information that could have potentially invalidated the claims in the NTP v. RIM lawsuit. [9] [10]

RIM patent infringement litigation

In 2000, NTP sent notice of their wireless email patents to a number of companies and offered to license the patents to them. None of the companies took a license. NTP brought a patent infringement lawsuit against one of the companies, Research in Motion, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. [11] This court is well known for its strict adherence to timetables and deadlines, sometimes referred to as the "rocket docket," and is particularly efficient at trying patent cases. [12]

During the trial, RIM tried to show that a functional wireless email system was already in the public domain at the time the NTP inventions had been made. This would have invalidated the NTP patents. The prior system was called "System for Automated Messages" (SAM). RIM demonstrated SAM in court and it appeared to work. But the NTP attorneys discovered that RIM was not using vintage SAM software, but a more modern version that came after NTP's inventions were made. Therefore, the judge instructed the jury to disregard the demonstration as invalid.

The jury eventually found that the NTP patents were valid, that RIM had infringed them, that the infringement had been "willful", and that the infringement had cost NTP $33 million in damages (the greater of a reasonable royalty or lost profits). The judge, James R. Spencer increased the damages to $53 million as a punitive measure because the infringement had been willful. He also instructed RIM to pay NTP's legal fees of $4.5 million and issued an injunction ordering RIM to cease and desist infringing the patents. This would have shut down the BlackBerry systems in the US. [13]

RIM appealed all of the findings of the court. The injunction and other remedies were stayed pending the outcome of the appeals.

In March 2005, during the appeals process, RIM and NTP tried to negotiate a settlement of their dispute. One of the terms of the settlement was to be for $450 million. But negotiations broke down due to other issues. On June 10, 2005 the matter returned to the courts.

In early November 2005 the US Department of Justice filed a brief requesting that RIM's service be allowed to continue because of the large number of BlackBerry users in the US Federal Government. [14]

In January 2006, the US Supreme Court refused to hear RIM's appeal of the holding of liability for patent infringement, and the matter was returned to a lower court. The previously granted injunction preventing all RIM sales in the US and use of the BlackBerry device might have been enforced by the presiding district court judge had the two parties not been able to reach a settlement. [15]

On February 9, 2006, the US Department of Defense (DOD) filed a brief stating that an injunction shutting down the BlackBerry service while excluding government users was unworkable. The DOD also stated that the BlackBerry was crucial for national security given the large number of government users.

On February 9, 2006, RIM announced that it had developed software workarounds that would not infringe the NTP patents, and would implement those if the injunction was enforced.

Even though in the meantime, the U.S. Patent Office had already re-examined the patents in question and concluded they were invalid (see below), that decision was subject to review and appeal (and the patents were as a matter of legal fiction valid until such time), and with the results certainly not being known before the court of first instance's ruling on the injunction (it had denied a stay of the proceedings), there was a strong incentive for the parties to reach a settlement. [16]

On March 3, 2006, after a stern warning from Judge Spencer, RIM and NTP announced that they had settled their dispute. Under the terms of the settlement, RIM has agreed to pay NTP $612.5 million (USD) in a "full and final settlement of all claims." In a statement, RIM said that "all terms of the agreement have been finalized and the litigation against RIM has been dismissed by a court order this afternoon. The agreement eliminates the need for any further court proceedings or decisions relating to damages or injunctive relief." The settlement is believed low by some analysts, because of the absence of any future royalties on the technology in question. [17]

Patent reexaminations

During the litigation, RIM found previously unconsidered prior art that "raised a substantial new question of patentability" of the NTP patents. RIM filed 12 "requests for a reexamination" in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from December 2002 to May 2005. A team of senior patent examiners at the USPTO was assigned to the cases and the cases were granted "special" status. Special status means that the proceedings are accelerated.

NTP became suspicious of contacts between RIM and the PTO, prompting the company to file FOIA requests which revealed attempts by RIM attorney David Stewart to obtain off-the-record interviews with PTO examiners, [18] though such interviews are prohibited by federal regulations (e.g., 37 CFR 1.560(a), stating that "requests that reexamination requesters participate in interviews with examiners will not be granted" [19] and 37 CFR 1.955 stating that "interviews prohibited in inter partes reexamination proceedings" [20] ).

RIM and NTP filed thousands of pages of documentation and expert opinions to support their respective positions. Some of the cases have been examined and some of the patents were rejected. In two of the cases, the rejections were made final.

NTP has appealed the final rejections to the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). A key issue is whether certain documents found in a Norwegian library should be considered "publications" and would therefore anticipate the claims of the patents. These documents are known as the "Telenor" documents. [21]

The BPAI affirmed the rejection and NTP appealed the decision the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). [21] On August 1, 2011, the CAFC vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case back to the USPTO. The CAFC agreed that the Telenor documents were a valid reference, but that the USPTO had given the phrase "electronic email [message]" an overly broad interpretation in its rejection of the claims. [22]

2010 Litigation

On 2010-07-09, NTP filed suit against Apple, Google, HTC, LG, Microsoft and Motorola. [23] [24] [25] On Dec. 9, 2010, Article One Partners announced that 3 of the patents held by NTP would be posted to their online community to utilize Public participation in patent examination. [26]

2012 Settlements

NTP announced on July 23, 2012, that it has settled patent suits with AT&T Inc., Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel Corp., T-Mobile USA, Apple Inc., HTC Corp., Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. (now part of Google Inc.), Palm Inc. (now part of Hewlett-Packard Co.), LG Electronics, Samsung Electronics, Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., and Yahoo Inc. The terms of the settlements were not disclosed. [27]

Patents in question

(This may not be a comprehensive list)

USPTO reexamination serial numbers

This list may not be complete. Several cases have been merged.

Ex Parte Reexaminations

Inter Partes Reexaminations

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BlackBerry</span> Line of wireless handheld devices and services

BlackBerry was a maker of smartphones and other related mobile services and devices. The line was originally developed and maintained by the Canadian company BlackBerry Limited from 1999 to 2016, after which it was licensed to various companies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">BlackBerry Limited</span> Canadian technology company

BlackBerry Limited is a Canadian software company specializing in cybersecurity. Founded in 1984, it developed the BlackBerry brand of interactive pagers, smartphones, and tablets. The company transitioned to providing software and services and holds critical software application patents.

Under United States patent law, a continuing patent application is a patent application that follows, and claims priority to, an earlier-filed patent application. A continuing patent application may be one of three types: a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part. Although continuation and continuation-in-part applications are generally available in the U.S. only, divisional patent applications are also available in other countries, as such availability is required under Article 4G of the Paris Convention.

Business method patents are a class of patents which disclose and claim new methods of doing business. This includes new types of e-commerce, insurance, banking and tax compliance etc. Business method patents are a relatively new species of patent and there have been several reviews investigating the appropriateness of patenting business methods. Nonetheless, they have become important assets for both independent inventors and major corporations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Design patent</span> US Patent Law

In the United States, a design patent is a form of legal protection granted to the ornamental design of an article of manufacture. Design patents are a type of industrial design right. Ornamental designs of jewelry, furniture, beverage containers and computer icons are examples of objects that are covered by design patents.

Under United States law, a patent is a right granted to the inventor of a (1) process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, (2) that is new, useful, and non-obvious. A patent is the right to exclude others, for a limited time from profiting from a patented technology without the consent of the patent holder. Specifically, it is the right to exclude others from: making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, inducing others to infringe, applying for an FDA approval, and/or offering a product specially adapted for practice of the patent.

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) was an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decided issues of patentability. Under the America Invents Act, the BPAI was replaced with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), effective September 16, 2012.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

In United States patent law, a reexamination is a process whereby anyone—third party or inventor—can have a U.S. patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify that the subject matter it claims is patentable. To have a patent reexamined, an interested party must submit prior art, in the form of patents or printed publications, that raises a "substantial new question of patentability". The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes substantial changes to the U.S. patent system, including new mechanisms for challenging patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. One of the new mechanisms is a post-grant review proceeding, which will provide patent challengers expanded bases on which to attack patents.

Thomas J. Campana Jr. was an inventor. He was awarded about 50 US patents in his 30-year career.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vringo</span>

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

A list of BlackBerry-related topics

Article One Partners (AOP) is an online prior art search and intellectual property research crowdsourcing community. AOP was acquired by RWS Group in October 2017 and the AOP Connect crowdsourcing platform is now part of the IP Research group within RWS. RWS IP Research provides crowdsourced prior-art-search services by utilizing an online research community. The company's President stated that, as of June 30, 2018, AOP comprises "more than 40,000 in over 170 countries."

i4i is an independent software company specializing in the delivery of XML / SGML document processing software in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, founded by Michel Vulpe in 1993.

Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Partnership, 564 U.S. 91 (2011), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It deals with the presumption of validity and the standard of evidence in patent lawsuits. This case in widely considered as a prime example of a frivolous lawsuit by a patent troll, underscoring the need for a reform of the US patent law.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations.

Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is an administrative law body of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which decides issues of patentability. It was formed on September 16, 2012, as one part of the America Invents Act. Prior to its formation, the main judicial body in the USPTO was the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).

References

  1. ↑ NTP US patents, http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=0&p=1&f=S&l=50&Query=an%2Fntp&d=PTXT
  2. ↑ Telefind US patents, http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=
  3. ↑ "news". Information Week. Retrieved 2024-07-20.
  4. ↑ "NTP Sticks It to RIM". Businessweek. December 18, 2005. Archived from the original on December 18, 2005.
  5. ↑ NTP RIM Settlement, http://www.rim.com/news/press/2006/pr-03_03_2006-01.shtml Archived 2006-04-18 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ↑ Decker, Susan (November 7, 2006). "Lawsuit against Palm makes patent-infringement claims". The Seattle Times .
  7. ↑ Somsak, Marlene (22 March 2007). "Palm Applauds Virginia Court Ruling in Granting Stay". Reuters. Archived from the original on 3 January 2008.
  8. ↑ Gardner, W. David (September 12, 2007). "NTP Sues Cellular Carriers Over Alleged Patent Infringement". InformationWeek.
  9. ↑ Markoff, John (April 16, 2006). "In Silicon Valley, a Man Without a Patent". New York Times .
  10. ↑ "Story of a man that lost $612.5 Million". BlackBerry Cool. Archived from the original on 2011-10-04. Retrieved 2011-07-28.
  11. ↑ "NTP Inc. v. Research in Motion, Docket Text".
  12. ↑ "Oversight Testimony". Archived from the original on 2007-08-16. Retrieved 2007-07-31.
  13. ↑ McKenna, Barrie; Waldie, Paul; Avery, Simon (February 21, 2006). "Patently Absurd: The inside story of RIM's wireless war". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on September 2, 2006.
  14. ↑ Noguchi, Yuki (November 12, 2005). "Government Enters Fray Over BlackBerry Patents Agencies Depend on Devices, Lawyers Say". Washington Post . p. D01.
  15. ↑ "RIM Provides Update on NTP Litigation". Archived from the original on 2011-07-15. Retrieved 2010-09-20.
  16. ↑ Mackaay, Ejan (2013). Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 357.
  17. ↑ "Settlement reached in BlackBerry patent case". NBC News.[ dead link ]
  18. ↑ Raymond Mercado, New Light on the Blackberry Litigation, IP Law & Business magazine. Report on allegations of impropriety by RIM and the PTO during reexaminations of NTP's patents
  19. ↑ Resources, MPEP. "MPEP". www.uspto.gov.
  20. ↑ Resources, MPEP. "MPEP". www.uspto.gov.
  21. 1 2 3 See USPTO Public PAIR web site for updated information on serial number 90/007,735
  22. ↑ "In re NTP, Decision by CAFC, August 1, 2011" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 16, 2013. Retrieved September 23, 2011.
  23. ↑ Incorporated, N. T. P. "NTP Sues Apple, Google, HTC, LG, Microsoft and Motorola for Infringement of Wireless Email Patents". www.prnewswire.com (Press release).
  24. ↑ "Faster Forward - NTP sues everybody over alleged wireless e-mail patents (updated)". Washington Post . August 3, 2012. Archived from the original on October 3, 2012.
  25. ↑ "NTP Complaint Against Google". Scribd.
  26. ↑ Partners, Article One. "Article One Partners Launches Public Review of NTP Patents Asserted Against Mobile & Smartphone Industry". www.prnewswire.com (Press release).
  27. ↑ "Patent company NTP settles with Apple, Google etc". finance.yahoo.com. 23 July 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.