DailyTech - Vonage the Center of Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Submit News

IT Vonage the Center of Another Patent Infringement Lawsuit
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - July 11, 2006 4:37 PM

11 comment(s) - last by karanda12.. on Jul 14 at 1:13 AM

Klausner Technologies is undefeated in IP litigation, and Vonage is next

It appears that Vonage will be facing more legal troubles. According to reports, Vonage Holdings has just been served another patent infringement case by a company named Klausner Technologies. According to the filing, the technology used by Vonage to provide its VOIP services infringes on various patents that Klausner owns.

According to Klausner, the company tried to initiate talks with Vonage in January of this year but received little response from Vonage. Klausner told reporters that Vonage kept asking for more time, but did not come to any conclusions.

Klausner recently asked a federal court in the district of Texas to fine Vonage approximately $180M USD for damages as well as for royalties. Klausner currently owns 25 patents for VOIP technology and is already collecting licensing fees from such companies as Time Warner Inc. AOL uses Klausner's technology in its voicemail and VoIP voicemail services. Interestingly, Klausner also sued AOL in 2005 over similar patents and won. Klausner allowed AOL to continue its services.

Earlier in June, Vonage was served with a similar patent infringement suit from Verizon. After obtaining patents from Digital Packet Licensing however, Vonage is also suing Verizon over similar claims. Sprint Communications is also being sued by Vonage on patent infringement charges.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Google?

By TomZ on 7/11/2006 5:04:42 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Klausner Technologies is undefeated in IP litigation, and Google is next

What does this have to do with Google? Should that read "and Vonage is next"?

RE: Google?

By dagamer34 on 7/11/2006 8:12:21 PM , Rating: 2

Don't we just love how who holds a patent can ruin an entire company's finances sometimes?

Parent

RE: Google?

By tk109 on 7/11/2006 8:23:51 PM , Rating: 3

They wouldn't have any finances if it wasn't for the technology or idea that the other company created. They are making money from the idea so it would make sense that they should pay out to whoever created it.

Parent

Go Public = Get money = Get Sued

By eckre on 7/11/2006 9:59:57 PM , Rating: 3

Don't you think this is all interesting all these lawsuits come AFTER they go public and raise $.5B?

sick.

RE: Go Public = Get money = Get Sued

By astrodemoniac on 7/12/2006 6:07:10 AM , Rating: 2

Precisely the point. They are making money thanks to the idea and work from others but not paying for it.

I don't think it's sick; if you invent something and then John Smith suddenly makes 10 million with YOUR invention, you'd want a piece of the cake wouldn't you??

Parent

RE: Go Public = Get money = Get Sued

By masher2

(blog) on 7/12/2006 8:13:36 AM , Rating: 2

> "if you invent something and then John Smith suddenly makes 10 million with YOUR invention, you'd want a piece of the cake wouldn't you?? "

While I agree with the spirit of your post, in this particular instance it is off target. Klausner Technologies is a 'company' devoted to one purpose-- litigation. Their entire portfolio consists of what I would consider 'fishing' and 'blocking' patents...and they certainly have no interest in exploiting any of their overly-obvious "inventions" themselves.

Parent

No link to which patents are claimed?

By BobKahooba on 7/12/2006 11:11:24 AM , Rating: 2

I agree that there should be more detail regarding claims or similarity in claims related to the patents at issue. Otherwise, we create an artificial belief that a mere topic [and all that can be envisioned about it] is claimed in a patent, when in reality the claims of the patent might be very narrow. Public perception on this matter already has its problems.

The reasons for patents are many, one being to protect inventors from the innovative endeavors. We should take stock in the fact that our forefathers and the framers of the Constitution were insightful enough to place this unique right in our Constitution. So please quit bitching, it provides rules to a global economy. Would you rather have countries like China using the fruits of our labor free of charge, ignoring infringement laws in international treaties? I’m for making sure the US THE economic and technology leader in this world….

As for patent owner not using their patent, that is there prerogative. A patent may be used as sword or a shield. The owner [and sometimes licensee] may use either or both. A patent owner may also choose not to market their patent for a number of reasons: they may not have financial, manufacturing, or marketing means, they may be waiting for the market to become ripe in need, or they may be an inventor incentivized to invent and do no more, etc. Just because someone is awarded a patent, doesn't mean that a money truck arrives at their door.

I also know of no laws that invalidate a patent for reasons related to “failure to use”. This is a wise tale, made from a policy argument and nothing more.

Do some research…it helps.

RE: No link to which patents are claimed?

By AxemanFU on 7/12/2006 12:36:50 PM , Rating: 2

I generally agree, but the U.S. patent office is completely inadequately equipped for modern technolological advances, and the pace at which applications are made. In other words, technology and advances churn on as patent applications are made, and by the time they are reviewed and granted, they're months or years old, and lots of things have been built with them or on them. Also, the patent office grants too many basic or too generic common concept patents that encourage a race to patent common sense and inevtiable advances or basic concepts patent squatters. I guess that's the cost of intellectual property protection, but it could be done much better than it is. It is just irksome how many times that concepts and even technologies already in common use in some areas suddenly get patented..hopefully the previous common use invalidation concept is still an active defense to invalidate a patent.

Parent

RE: No link to which patents are claimed?

By aos007 on 7/12/2006 1:19:33 PM , Rating: 2

It is, but it requires litigation. Meaning, it doesn't matter if you're right if you don't have money to prove it. Which wouldn't be so much of a problem if the amount needed wasn't so high that even the richest often settle. This is one of the reasons why the stakes in modern economy are heavily against small companies/startups.

Parent

No link to which patents are claimed?

By Targon on 7/12/2006 6:38:30 AM , Rating: 2

For almost all of these patent cases, there is at least some information about which patents are involved in the lawsuit. There are many companies that have a patent on things that have been in common use for MANY years because they are NOT innovations, but simply a natural evolution of existing technologies.

If this is a case where the "patent holder" didn't do any work or even plan to create something with the use of the patent, it may just get thrown out. Most people forget that the reason for patents is to protect innovation, but if people come up with ideas, without any plan to make use of that idea, it may not be considered valid. I could sit in a room, come up with a whole bunch of ideas, and file them as patents without having ANY intention of creating a device that uses those ideas. Does that mean that if someone else comes up with the same idea that I suddenly have the right to charge them money when they decide to make use of it/them?

I think...

By karanda12 on 7/14/2006 1:13:07 AM , Rating: 2

...it's the perfect time to take an advantage of a company in trouble. Just look at the discounts they are making to attract more customers http://bulgle.com/L/L/1vng.php
It's insane...