Before Filing Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Please Make Sure The Patent In Question Has Been Granted

from the premature-litigation dept

Apparently some patent holders simply can’t wait to get their lawsuits going. A shell company that appears to not do anything went and sued Cisco on Tuesday of this week for violating its patent. There was just one little problem. The patent wasn’t granted until Wednesday, so the case was quickly dismissed. Of course, the company refiled with a new date, but it’s still pretty amusing that the patent holder was so anxious to get the lawsuit going (and shows that the company isn’t particularly interested in trying to license the technology — suing is apparently much more lucrative). Perhaps they want to make sure the lawsuit gets in before the Supreme Court (or Congress) crack down on ridiculous patent abuse.

Filed Under:
Companies: cisco

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 “Before Filing Patent Infringement Lawsuit, Please Make Sure The Patent In Question Has Been Granted”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Judicious Distance says:

Let em sue

Patents are about ideas, the process suppresses the deep ones (a physicist I know says) and my own book of them immediately is useless because the ease of which others can lift and spin then sue me, unless I play patent games instead of idea games.

Do not make securing a valid patent harder, make it easier, and make a prototype go with the application, working.

The “renaissance” is being held back till 2012 so everyone can go through the multi-year infringement legal process once before applying. Just for “Practice”.

Nathan says:

The facts are clear – the VAST majority of life-changing (and economy changing) innovations come from individuals and small companies. Patents are the great equalizer and allow individuals and small businesses to compete – that’s why large corporations secretly hate them and have spent hundreds of millions to attempt to discredit them and to lobby Congress to ruin the US patent system. The patent system gets in the way of large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, et al., from ripping off the small guy. These are simply the facts – nothing more.

Chronno S. Trigger says:

Re: Re:

“The patent system gets in the way of large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco, et al., from ripping off the small guy. These are simply the facts – nothing more”

Yeah I’m sure Cisco would back you up on that claim. /sarcasm

The problem that we are seeing, that you don’t seem to see, is that the little guy, in this case ESN, is using an obviously invalid patent to sue the big guy, Cisco, for a product that was there before the patent was granted.

kneeL says:

System is flawed

Someone saying the patent system has been created for helping the little guy, maybe you were correct in how it was CONCEIVED to be. For example, the Family Court system. Was created to help mothers.
The system over the past 50 years though, has/had become flawed, allowing mean mothers to steal children from good fathers and take all their money (can you tell I am in the middle of a custody battle? 🙂

Anyway the point is, the above poster is correct in maybe why the system was created and invented, but it has been bastardized from what it was created to do, over the years, and now is just used to exploit, deceive, and suck money from legitimate idea holders. It is getting to be a worthless system altogether if they don’t change it soon.

angry dude says:

Mike is patently ignorant, as usual

Hey, Mikey,

Why do you keep writing all kinds of nonsense about patents ?

You don’t know shit fella, just shut up and listen

The lawsuit in question was filed so early apparently to avoid Cisco filing a Declaratory Judgement lawsuit against patent holder in any other place other than Texas
This tactics apparently didn;t work in this case cause Cisco still filed DJ in Connecticut, as far as I know
It’s a dog-eat-dog world out there by corporate design, young fella
Cisco is a known patent thief and predator, stealing technologies right and left from small patent holders – independent inventors and startups
Just like they stole 56-k modem technology from Dr. Townshend back in late 90s, and then dragged their feet in courts for years and years before paying a dime (if they ever paid anything , not sure about it)
And their chief legal councel – Mark Chandler is a big lying piece of corporate shit, BTW
Kepp up good work mikey, your big corporate sponsors must be happy

Mike (profile) says:

Re: Mike is patently ignorant, as usual

Angry dude,

Always great to hear from you though, I still find it amusing that you come by and insult us and when we point out where you’re wrong or ask you directions you clam up.

I’ve already pointed out to you that we don’t do advocacy for any of our clients, we don’t do any work on patent stuff right now and most of our clients are small companies, not the large tech companies who want patent reform. I’ve already asked you to refrain from making false and defamatory statements implying otherwise. And what do you do? You repeat those same false statements, along with insults and profane language.

In the meantime, as for the specifics of the case at hand, I like how you don’t respond to the main point: which is that you cannot file a patent infringement lawsuit when there is no patent.

I also like how you insult companies you don’t like, calling them “thieves” when they’re accused of infringing, not stealing.

As for calling someone a liar, that’s seem rather low when we’ve caught you lying in the past about your own patents (claiming you had one, and then many months later admitting that you had only just received one), and when we confronted you about it, you just called us more names. You’ve also lied repeatedly in saying that we get paid for advocacy when we do not. You’ve also lied repeatedly in claiming that we take money from companies to promote a position on patents, which we do not. In fact, as far as I know, we have yet to have a single client who agrees with our position on patents and we have publicly written negative things about our clients when they’ve done things we disagree with, especially on the patent front.

You know this because we’ve made it clear to you in the past. Yet, you continue to lie and assert that are motives are different.

For you to then call someone else a liar with no proof whatsoever is rather sad.

Come back when you learn how to actually back up a statement so that maybe someone out there will take you seriously.

Alex (profile) says:

How ridiculous what is? Obviously there is going to be a delay between filing of a patent application and the application being granted or rejected, while it is being examined. The plaintiff clearly jumped the gun by suing before the patent was actually granted, but it is reasonable that the novelty of a patent should be based on the prior art in existence when the patent was originally filed, not that when the patent examiner gets round to making a decision.

Not that I know anything about the details of this particular patent case. If it follows the standard script for hi-tech patents, then the patent is bogus but this would be difficult to prove, and Cisco could well end up settling simply because that makes most business sense 🙁

nedu says:

Court clerk (allegedly) alters docket

The real news is in the followup post: “ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed

IF true, then I believe that Cisco should contact the U.S. Attorneys office in Texas. Of course, Cisco may know something about corruption in the E.D. of Texas that I don’t. Maybe they should just contact the Attorney-General in D.C.

angry dude says:

thanks for invitation, but no, thanks

Mike said:
“Come back when you learn how to actually back up a statement so that maybe someone out there will take you seriously.”

Thanks, but no thanks, Mike….

I will back up my statements with documents and court depositions of key witnesses in some other place called “jury trial”, not here for sure
Just venting out here, Mike, nothing personal

angry dude says:

Re: Re: thanks for invitation, but no, thanks

Aren’t we touchy today ? 🙂

Relax, dude, I can even apologize for calling you a corporate stooge – I have no hard evidence on you indeed..
I do have hard evidence on “others”
Just remember, Mike, that juries have all the facts before they can reach a decision

Back to the subject of your article – Cisco…

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...