backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 32 comment(s) - last by TomZ.. on May 29 at 9:17 PM
Sony and Target Technology will battle in court over Sony's alleged patent violations

Target Technology  is suing three divisions of Sony over alleged patent violations dealing with metallic layers that are used to reflect light in Blu-ray technology.  The suit was filed in a Southern Indiana U.S. District Court, with Target Technology (TT) hoping to win a permanent injunction against Sony.  

Instead of using gold alloys, the Target Technology patent enables the use of a silver-based reflective layer of optical discs.  The silver-based material is reportedly more corrosive-resistant.

Target Technology claims it filed for patent no. 7,018,696 in April 2004, and was approved in March 2006 -- Sony deliberately and willfully infringed on the patent.  While the company did not clearly state how Blu-ray technology infringes on Target Technology's patents, it claims that all Blu-ray discs created, sold and marketed by Sony are infringing.

Sony and TT did not disclose the amount in monetary damages TT hopes to win.

If the lawsuit success, Sony Computer Entertainment America, Sony DADC, and Sony Pictures would likely have to find an alternative material, or agree to a licensing deal with Target Technology.

Lawsuits are nothing new to Sony.  The company faced a patent lawsuit from Immersion Corporation over the Dual Shock rumble technology used by the PlayStation and PlayStation 2 controllers.  Sony paid $97 million in punitive damages.  Sony also settled a patent-infringement lawsuit with Kodak, a lawsuit that dealt with 10 Kodak patents.

It is unknown what affect, if any, this will have on the ongoing Blu-ray and HD DVD high-definition content battle.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Patent laws need to change
By phatboye on 5/28/2007 12:44:45 PM , Rating: 1
Is it just me or does it seem like every new product that is brought to the market is challenged with patent violation lawsuits. Soon these same patent laws that were originally introduced to protect a company's IP from being stolen will bring innovation to a halt due to fear of litigation.




RE: Patent laws need to change
By AntiM on 5/28/2007 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Our society is becoming more and more litigious. It doesn't help that some patents are so vague and broad, they can't help but be violated. I doubt it's going to get any better anytime soon.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By sviola on 5/28/2007 1:47:25 PM , Rating: 3
It seems to me that this TT lawsuit is not over a vague patent. Looks like a specific patent on disc coating.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By patentman on 5/29/2007 12:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
If a patent is vague and overly broad, it will very likely be held to be invalid and/or unenforceable for lack of enablement, lack of clarity, or a host of other reasons.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By mars777 on 5/29/2007 12:33:13 AM , Rating: 2
Never happened.

Remember the treeview patent?
To trasverse something by iterating on the parent of a node up to the top?

Well this is vague, lacks clarity, lacks application ... but hampered software until recently. It was patented somewhere after WW2.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By patentman on 5/29/2007 7:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I'm not familiar with that particular patent. My practice is more in the chemical arts, so I do not often see software related patents, old or otherwise.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By TomZ on 5/29/2007 9:17:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember the treeview patent?

Which patent do you mean?


RE: Patent laws need to change
By AnonAnand on 5/28/2007 2:21:44 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
by phatboye on May 28, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Is it just me or does it seem like every new product that is brought to the market is challenged with patent violation lawsuits. Soon these same patent laws that were originally introduced to protect a company's IP from being stolen will bring innovation to a halt due to fear of litigation.


Patent laws were not introduced to protect a company's IP. Patent laws exist for the good of society. Simplified greatly: in exchange for revealing how a company does something society agrees to provide and enforce a limited monopoly for that technology for that company or person. This was done to encourage innovation and the sharing of knowledge. Neither of these two aims are being served by the current patent system.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By patentman on 5/28/2007 11:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
"This was done to encourage innovation and the sharing of knowledge. Neither of these two aims are being served by the current patent system"

You are correct in that the purpose of the patent laws is to promote the progress of the useful arts by securing for limited times the rights of inventors to their creations.

You are incorrect in stating that the current patent laws fail to serve to encourage innovation and sharing of knowledge. In making that statement you just show that you really do not have any hands on experience with the field.
If you did, you would recognize that what Daileytech chooses to post on it's website is hardly representative of all patent litigation.

And for those of you complaining about how there are so many patent suits, please make sure ot have your fact straight. It is proven fact that less than 3% of all patents are ever enforced in some manner, with only 1% of all patents being the subject of a court proceeding. 1% of millions of patents may seem like a lot, but in reality it really is not.

Further, I would point out that it is generally not considered news to print stories about how patents helped the little guy get set up in a market (which they do every day), but it is front page tech news whenever a large corp like Sony gets slammed with an IP sut. Go read the story about the guy behind the Dyson vacuum cleaner and you can see how patents still play an enormous role in the U.S. economy and abroad.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By patentman on 5/29/2007 12:04:49 AM , Rating: 3
Patent laws have changed, and recently. See the opionion for KSR v. Teleflex, which was issued by the Supreme Court less than a month ago. Funny, with all the griping about how crappy patents are in here, I though sure one of the biggest cases in the last 20 years of patent law would have made the news.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-13...


RE: Patent laws need to change
By MamiyaOtaru on 5/29/2007 3:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
A very interesting and hopeful conclusion, taking a more common sense attitude towards what is obvious.

Still, it makes me cringe. The patent was judged obvious for its combination of two pre-existing patents. It is therefore invalid and KSRs product cannot infringe on it. But wouldn't it then infringe on the two patents whose teachings were combined to create the now invalidated patent?

So KSR doesn't need to worry about being sued for the belated combination of ideas, but wouldn't it now have to worry about suits for using the ideas it combined?

If patents are obvious based on combinations of previous patents, I don't see how that really helps in the end at all, beyond the hope that the older patents might have expired already. Bleh.


RE: Patent laws need to change
By patentman on 5/29/2007 7:38:39 AM , Rating: 2
This is a possibility in some cases, but it was not an issue in KSR.

The scope of a patent is determined by it's claims. To establish infringement, the patentee must show that the alleged infringing product, process etc. possesses each element of the claimed invention.

For example, say you own a patent claiming a product comprising features A, B, and C. If I produce a product having the features AB, AC, BC, or these three in combination with some other element, e.g., D, there is no infringement (barring the application of the Doctrine of Equivalents, which is much maligned by the Federal Circuit and essentially a dead doctrine). On the other hand, if I produce a product having A, B, and C, or a product having ABC and D, I infringe (the extra element, i.e., D, is provided for by the "comrpising" language in the claim).

In the KSR case, KSR defended by asserting that the patent at issue was obvious in view of two prior art patents. The Supreme Court accepted their view that the combination of these two patents would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, and held the patent at issue (the one being used to sue KSR) invalid.

As for the prior art patents cited by KSR, neither of these patents claimed (individually) the features at issue in KSR's product. Thus, KSR did not have to worry about infringing these patents individually.


So only SONY BR has this?
By Teletran1 on 5/28/2007 1:16:22 PM , Rating: 1
The last time I checked Sony was not the only backer of BR and not the only company to make these discs. Why doesn't this company go after everyone else in the BR camp?




RE: So only SONY BR has this?
By MaK2000 on 5/28/2007 1:27:29 PM , Rating: 3
I think it may be something like Sony holds the top licensing spot. It could be something like an umbrella effect. You do make a good point.


RE: So only SONY BR has this?
By retrospooty on 5/28/2007 3:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Sony was not the only backer of BR and not the only company to make these discs. Why doesn't this company go after everyone else in the BR camp?"

Sony pretty much is Blue ray. They are the inventors of it and driving force behind it. Its kind of like the US's "coalition of the willing" war in Iraq. Its a US government based initiative calling in a few other countries to try to add legitimacy to it.


RE: So only SONY BR has this?
By Tsuwamono on 5/28/2007 10:09:22 PM , Rating: 3
Costa Rica sent monkeys... doesnt mean they were actually there... lol


RE: So only SONY BR has this?
By gsellis on 5/29/2007 8:10:11 AM , Rating: 3
No, because Sony is now trying to use a silver compound that is covered by the patent in Blu-Ray disc. It is not a Blu-Ray thing, it is reflective material thing. Gold is used at 10-15 cents per disc where certain silver alloys are less than a cent a disc. Silver is tricky because straight silver, when exposed to any oxygen, oxidizes and losses reflective quality. So the patent owner, Han Nee, at Target spent considerable time and effort developing silver compounds that did not degrade. So, the patent covers what was once considered unusable, silver alloys.

You can read the full detail here

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=687190...


different reflective already?
By PsYStuMmY on 5/28/2007 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
i'm not too keen on all the details of how blue ray discs are made, but the article states that blue ray uses gold reflective material, whereas the target company uses silver reflective material in the patent filed. aren't those two different types of materials already, thus not infringing on any existing patents? like i said, i'm just going off of what the article stated, if sony were to lose they might have to find an alternative material.




RE: different reflective already?
By Gastrian on 5/28/2007 6:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I think what Target are saying is that there is two methods for coating Blu-ray discs. One uses gold as a material, the other using silver which makes the disc sturdier. Target own the patent for the use of silver process and Sony are using that process without permission, other companies by the sounds of it are either using the gold process or the silver process but with permission.


RE: different reflective already?
By patentman on 5/28/2007 11:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
Daileytech's article has no bearing on the scope of the patent(s) at issue. The scope of a patent is defined by it's claims. likely at least one of the claims of the allegedly infringed patent is broad enough with respect to the reflective layer as to read on both gold and silver layers.


RE: different reflective already?
By patentman on 5/29/2007 12:02:08 AM , Rating: 2
umm ok
By lobadobadingdong on 5/28/2007 5:02:01 PM , Rating: 3
So lets say I decide to make a disk that has a metalic coating, unless a patented process is being violated (ie a proprietary method used to coat the disk with said alloy), why wouldn't I be able to on my own develop a different process using the same metalic coating (same base metal anyway) on a disk for my own purposes?




RE: umm ok
By patentman on 5/28/2007 11:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
Patents can cover both products and processes. If a product patent is at issue (i.e., a patent that claims a product), and the claims of that patent read on your product, then you likely infringe the patent, no matter how you made that product.

On the other hand, if the patent is drawn to a process for making a product, and you make the same product by a different process, you will likely not infringe.

Patents give the patentee the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing and exporting the claimed invention, whether that invention is a product, process, business method, composition of matter etc...

One thing to note that most patent laws of the world (with some exceptions) do not reward independent creation. independent creation is typically a defense in copyright law, but it most certainly is not under U.S. patent law.


Another overrated Sony topic...
By TheRequiem on 5/28/2007 2:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is going to happen to Sony, look at the logic behind this patent suit. They will never be able to do anything to Sony and the worst case scenario is that Sony may have to pay a few small fees for licenses, but I doubt it will happen. I am sure Sony executives will authorize a decent check to be written to make all this go away... and fast. In a couple of months there will be nothing heard about this.

Another dumb overrated Sony topic. This negative Sony press is getting ridiculous, they are not that bad of a company like everyone says. If it weren't for Sony, we would be 5 years behind on certain technologies. Dont have to like them to appreciate the rapid technology changes they have sparked in certain parts of the Industry.




By patentman on 5/28/2007 11:58:15 PM , Rating: 1
Have you read the complaint? If so then maybe you have a leg to stand on. But relying on Daileytech to explain the ins and outs of a patent law suit is foolhardy at best. While I appreciate the fact that the DT writers actually post news about patent law, they are, with all due respect, ignorant when it comes down to the brass tacks of intellectual property law. Patent law if far more complicated than a 2 paragraph article can convey. Patent lawyers have a degree in a hard science, a J.D., and have passed the patent bar (which has a passage rate of ~51% right now). If the law was easy and straightforward, nobody would pay them.


Finaly something good
By radzer0 on 5/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Finaly something good
By mars777 on 5/29/2007 12:39:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Than we would get playstation 4 alot sooner. And new consoles sooner :)


I hope you grow up sooner :)


My contribution
By RyanM on 5/28/07, Rating: -1
...
By IceTron on 5/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By Justin Case on 5/28/2007 7:51:32 PM , Rating: 1
If you're going to do Soviet Russia trolls, at least learn how to construct them properly. Slashdot trolls follow certain rules.

The generic form is to take a title such as "Consumers buy more laptops" and turn it into "In Soviet Russia, laptops buy YOU!". This article isn't about someone "patenting Sony" (whatever that would mean), so "Sony patents you" is incorrect.

Given the article's title ("Sony Faces Blu-ray Patent Challenge"), you could have gone with "In Soviet Russia, patents challenge YOU!", but all things considered you'd probably have done better by picking "...a beowulf cluster of those" or some variation of Natalie Portman covered in hot grits. Or maybe (!) even by not posting at all.


RE: ...
By IceTron on 5/29/07, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By patentman on 5/29/2007 7:40:18 AM , Rating: 1
BAN


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki