Print 36 comment(s) - last by ERROR666.. on Jan 29 at 12:19 PM

"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng

Patent troll Soverain sued 50 different high-profile e-commerce websites over patent infringement (some big names like Amazon, Avon, and Victoria's Secret actually settled for millions with Soverain), alleging that it owned three patents pertaining to digital shopping carts. Early on, the case looked rocky for Newegg, an online technology products retailer, when the judge overseeing the case refused to allow Newegg to argue that the Soverain patent was invalid.

However, on appeal Newegg's legal team was able to trot out prior artwork to help get the patent case defeated. That prior artwork came from 1984 in the form of a magazine ad from CompuServe bragging about an electronic mall. The District Court judge had originally denied the invalidity argument because the judge said there wasn't "sufficient testimony" and that making the argument to the jury would be "very confusing" to them.

Soverain continued to argue that the system CompuServe used didn't include a "product identifier" as its patent defines.  The patent troll also argued that CompuServe's system lacked a "shopping cart database." Those arguments didn't work for Soverain, as a three-judge panel decided that all of the shopping cart patent claims the company made were rendered obvious in the light of CompuServe Mall.

As a result, Soverain won't get the $2.5 million it hoped to snatch from Newegg's bank account. In addition, retailers in currently pending lawsuits will also likely be off the hook to feeding the troll.

Newegg chief legal officer Lee Cheng said in an interview with Ars Technica:
We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit. We saw that if we paid off this patent holder, we'd have to pay off every patent holder this same amount. This is the first case we took all the way to trial. And now, nobody has to pay Soverain jack squat for these patents.
Cheng also noted that Newegg decided to fight to the death over this lawsuit versus settling because the company is majority owned by its founder, Fred Chang. There are no shareholders to answer to, so Chang has the long-term prospects of his company in mind rather than short-term gains to temporarily help out the balance sheet.

In his parting words to Ars Technica, Cheng didn’t have many good things to say about what he calls “submarine” trolls – those that lurk under the surface for years, and then hit unsuspecting companies for millions.
“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.”

Source: Ars Technica

Comments     Threshold

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

"Shopping Cart"
By rdhood on 1/28/2013 1:24:11 PM , Rating: 2
ANYONE who doesn't see using an electronic "shopping cart" as an obvious development in online shopping e-commerce is stupid. That there would even be controversy or lawsuits over this is even more stupid. Shame on those lower courts, shame on the patent office. This shiite is out of hand.

RE: "Shopping Cart"
By GreenChile on 1/28/2013 5:30:07 PM , Rating: 5
Makes about as much sense as patenting a rectangle with rounded corners then suing every phone and tablet maker for copying their design.

RE: "Shopping Cart"
By theapparition on 1/29/2013 9:56:30 AM , Rating: 3
And yet Apple just got awarded a patent for animated page turns, something that mimics nature and has tons of prior art.

I seriously want to see anyone pro-Apple try to defend frivolous patent submissions like this.

RE: "Shopping Cart"
By Jaybus on 1/29/2013 11:35:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the big fail of the lower court was to disallow arguing the validity of the patent. Everyone knows that a patent is not necessarily valid based solely on the whim of some clerk at the PTO. It is only truly valid after being affirmed by a court. These patents had never been argued in court, so no judge could legitimately disallow validity arguments. I would assume that was part of the basis for the appeal.

The good news is that the system worked, though it should have been decided in the lower court. No amount of patent reform will change the fact that PTO clerks do not have the legal expertise of judges and most likely not the technical expertise either. The other good news is that the bogus troll patents have been invalidated by a court. Not only will US companies be off the hook, but all companies will now have a court decision in their arsenal should they be sued in other countries. Those patents are effectively dead outside of the US as well.

"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki