Patent Infringement Lawsuit As Publicity Stunt

from the sneaky,-sneaky dept

While we’ve been writing a lot about patents lately, certainly not every patent infringement lawsuit is that interesting. However, reading through the details surrounding a new lawsuit filed against Oakley and Motorola for their Bluetooth-enabled sunglasses, it becomes clear that something isn’t exactly right. There are too many oddities in the lawsuit until you realize that, rather than actually being about patent infringement, this story really sounds like a marketing ploy by the (sort of) patent holder. The reason it’s a “sort of” patent holder is because the guy’s patent actually expired three years ago — which is just one of the oddities associated with the case. He did try to petition the USPTO to let him maintain the patent, but he was denied. In response, the guy claims that since the USPTO still cashed the check he included, that means they really accepted his petition and the patent is valid. The patent holder also claimed that a decade ago Oakley sued his company for patent infringement, but Oakley dropped the case because he countersued. Just one problem: there’s no record of a countersuit, and the guy later admitted he didn’t actually countersue. So, to make this even more fun, Oakley is now threatening to ask for damages from his “false statements” about that lawsuit.

While this might just seem like a bizarre patent lawsuit (and there are some more bizarre things included in the article), some of it starts to make sense once you realize that the guy is about to try to launch his own music playing sunglasses that compete with Oakley’s Thump MP3-playing sunglasses — the same ones that barely sold at all. So, you might think he’s trying to protect his (sort of) patent for his own product — except that he’s not suing Oakley over the Thump glasses, but over the Razrwire glasses that have a Bluetooth earpiece for your phone attached to the side. The Red Herring reporter asks the guy if he realizes he’s opening himself up to a patent infringement claim from Oakley over their Thump patent, and he says they have no such patent — which is false. They have a patent and they’re suing BMW over some similar (not selling very well) glasses. In the end, though, the guy admits it’s okay if he loses, because he still thinks he’s going to sell a lot more of his glasses, which he’s expecting to be much cheaper than Oakley’s. And, suddenly, the whole thing becomes clear: how else would you get press for cheap knockoffs of MP3 playing sunglasses that don’t sell very well? Who cares about whether or not there’s actual patent infringement — now the story has a hook for the press.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Patent Infringement Lawsuit As Publicity Stunt”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
patentman says:

No Subject Given

Ok, I this guy is unscrupulous no doubt, but your have to admit he is marketing savvy if his true intention was merely to generate press for his product.

That said, this obviously is not the purpose for which the patent system was designed. I don’t think, however, that this type of activity is a result of some flaw in the Patent system. This could have happened under any branch of the law. The phrase, “There is no such thing as bad publicity” comes to mind.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Patents Patents Patents

someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? why should it bother you what TD writes about… you don’t have to compulsively read every single article — just the articles you think may be enjoyable to you. The internet is full of many things to read about, not just what is written here at td.

“Change the channel if you don’t like what is currently playing on your TV, don’t force the broadcast company to remove programs just because you don’t approve of them. that’s just silly and small-minded.”

Andrew Strasser (user link) says:

Can't blame em.

Hey if he had the first part and they didn’t let him keep it then why should Oakley be allowed to patent any other part of the same type of thing. Though yeah you can’t blame a person for making publicity about things especially if he stands to make any profit whatsoever or maybe payoff debt. He’s doing what any smaller business owner has to in this day and age. Hummer grills still look like Jeep’s and what you invent isn’t normally yours anymore.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...