A few years ago, we wrote about a case in which a company called Cordance claimed that Amazon's (infamous) patented one-click "technology" infringed on its own one-click patent (6,757,710). Cordance's patent was actually granted many years after Amazon's technology was on the market (and its patent granted), but Cordance tried to show an earlier priority date through a convoluted set of previous patents and continuations. Thankfully, a jury disagreed with Cordance and said that Amazon didn't infringe, and in the few areas where it might have infringed, Cordance's patent claims were invalid. The judge then changed the ruling to reject the invalidity part -- allowing Cordance to sue a bunch of other companies, including Apple, Paypal and Victoria's Secret.

However, the original case was appealed and, amazingly, CAFC actually ruled against Cordance and sided with the original jury, noting non-infringement for some parts, and the parts where Amazon might infringe... those claims were declared invalid, and predicted by Amazon's own technology. That should be good news for those sued by Cordance in that other case. However, this really highlights the craziness of the patent system. Is it really valuable to have two companies spending years in court arguing over who can do something in one click?

A couple years ago, we wrote about how Amazon, holder of the extremely infamous "one-click patent," had been sued by another firm, Cordance, claiming to hold a one-click patent. About a year and a half ago, Amazon apparently won that case. Unfortunately, a judge effectively overruled the jury, saying that some of the claims the jury insisted were invalid were actually valid. Thanks to that, it appears that Cordance is back, and is suing Apple, PayPal and Victoria's Secret, claiming they all violate its one-click patent (6,757,710). The patent seems to be crazy vague. It's still stunning that anyone -- let alone two people -- can hold a patent for letting someone buy something with one click. Separately, the article notes that Victoria's Secret is currently dealing with five separate active patent lawsuits, all based in East Texas (of course). Kind of makes you wonder if someone thinks that the models will actually show up to defend the company...

Ah, Canada. We thought you were so reasonable last year when your Patent Appeal Board rejected Amazon's one-click patent north of the border, and said that it wasn't in favor of either software or business method patents, stating:

"since patenting business methods would involve a radical departure from the traditional patent regime, and since the patentability of such methods is a highly contentious matter, clear and unequivocal legislation is required for business methods to be patentable."

Of course, Amazon appealed, but who would go against such a reasonable argument? The Canadian courts apparently. A Federal court judge in Canada has ruled that the one-click patent should be allowed, as should business method patents. Apparently, someone hasn't been paying attention to the disaster that is business method patents south of the Canadian border. While the judge quotes liberally from patent laws around the world, he does not seem to take into account how much damage such patents do. It's a shame. Of course, the real shame here is Amazon's decision to fight for what it knows is a ridiculous patent that should not exist. It's sad. The company has the opportunity to be a real leader in condemning bad patents, but instead seems to want to expand the concept of bad patents to other countries.

Ladies and gentlemen, we now have confirmation that the USPTO is a joke. After years of back and forth, it has decided, once again, that Amazon's one-click patent is perfectly valid. This, despite tons of prior art, and basic common sense. We were just wondering what was taking so long for the USPTO to reject the patent. But, of course, it seemed like the USPTO was willing to go out of its way to help keep this patent around. Of course, as some are pointing out, the end result of this patent surviving is that it may be used as example number one for patent reform.

For many, many, many years, Amazon's clearly ridiculous one-click patent has been exhibit number one in a patent system gone mad. And yet... the USPTO and Amazon cling to it. After some earlier challenges at the beginning of the last decade went nowhere, in 2005, an actor/blogger dug up some prior art that resulted in the USPTO reconsidering, and finally, the USPTO realized that maybe a patent on single-click buying didn't make sense. But, for some reason, Amazon and Jeff Bezos (who a decade ago was a founder of a project to bust bogus patents) have aggressively fought to keep the patent alive. And so we've now entered the fifth year of the review process, which seems to involve some rather annoyed USPTO patent examiners, who are fed up with what appears to be Amazon simply dumping busywork on the examiners to avoid a final rejection of the patent. So, not only is the one-click patent a great example of how patents that never should have been granted still get granted, but it's also demonstrating the ridiculous lengths to which one must go to invalidate a bad patent.

Amazon's infamous "one-click" patent is quite often rolled out as an example of how ridiculous our patent system has become. At times, even Jeff Bezos has indicated he realizes this... and yet, the company still keeps on fighting for control over the "one click" concept. In the US, the patent is still involved in a re-exam, but up in Canada, the patent was rejected this summer, along with a rejection of pretty much all software/business model patents in Canada -- saying that without specific new laws from the government, such things would be considered unpatentable in Canada. Michael Geist points out that Amazon, rather than leaving well enough alone, is appealing the rejection in Canada.

I have to admit that I don't understand why Amazon is fighting for this patent any more. The management there has to realize that this patent is case study #1 in the problems of the patent system. And, while it did try to enforce the patent against Barnes & Noble in the past, as far as I'm aware, it hasn't bothered to enforce the patent against anyone else in many years (anyone have any info to the contrary?). Continuing to fight for this patent in both the US and Canada doesn't seem to add any value whatsoever to Amazon, but just highlights how the company appears to be abusing the patent system with ridiculous patents.

You probably recall that Amazon holds a rather infamous patent, on one-click ordering online, that has been involved in a fair amount of controversy (and ongoing review). However, less well-known was that, back in 2006, another company, Cordance, claimed that it actually held a patent on one-click ordering and sued Amazon for violating its patent. I hadn't heard much else about the case since, but Michael Scott alerts us to the news that Amazon has won the lawsuit, after a jury found that the company didn't infringe on two of the patents in question, and that the third patent was invalid. The key to victory? Apparently, Amazon explained that the patents in question actually described a process that involved two clicks rather than one.

theodp writes "Most corporations would be delighted to have their patent application assigned to the USPTO's Mark Fadok. After all, this is the Primary Examiner who didn't stop Amazon from patenting Blurbs or block Microsoft from patenting the Wish List. But Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos' 1-Click Patent - which Fadok has been rejecting since 2002 - is another matter. Why? Just about everything about it was 'old and well known' at the time of the invention, argued Fadok in a letter sent to Amazon last week explaining why he was once again rejecting the patent claims. This latest action comes after a three-judge USPTO panel convened at 'patent reformer' Amazon's request, overruled Fadok's earlier objections to 1-Click in September."

theodp writes "Last week, the USPTO granted IBM a patent for Single Submission Buttons, an 'invention' that essentially consists of ignoring the second and subsequent clicks of a button. Like Amazon, IBM seems to be finding it easier to talk-the-patent-reform-talk than walk-the-patent-reform-walk."

The back and forth over Amazon's infamous one-click patent has gone "back" again. Back in October we noted that, after many years and a few false starts, the USPTO had rejected a bunch of the patent's claims. However, as we noted at the time, the process was far from over. Patent reviews are a ridiculously complex process that take a hell of a lot longer than they should, and involve a lot of back-and-forth, often with many "non-final" rulings that go back and forth before anything is finally established. In fact, Amazon word-smithed the patent and tried to get the patent office to reinstate the claims. Luckily, however, the USPTO isn't buying it and is rejecting the rewritten claims... though, it's still not final. And people wonder why the patent office is overworked and why many people are pushing for a more efficient process to review patents.