Hide Techdirt is off for the long weekend! We'll be back with our regular posts tomorrow.

Cisco, Motorola, Netgear Team Up To Expose Wifi Patent Bully

from the hitting-back-hard dept

Last year, we wrote about a crazy patent troll, named Innovatio, who had sued a ton of restaurants and hotels, claiming that anyone who used WiFi was violating its patents. It was even claiming that individuals who use WiFi at home infringed too — but that it wouldn’t go after them “at this time.” Instead, it preferred to focus on shaking down tons of small businesses, offering to settle for $2,500 to $3,000 — which is cheaper than hiring a lawyer to fight it, no matter how bogus. We noted at the time that Motorola and Cisco had gone to court to try to get a declaratory judgment to protect its customers.

Well, it seems that the effort to stop these lawsuits has been taken to the next level. Cisco, Motorola and Netgear have now filed an amended complaint which rips Innovatio apart, and doesn’t just seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, but outlines a parade of lawbreaking by Innovatio, arguing that it’s actually involved in racketeering and conspiracy among other things. The full filing, embedded below, is fascinating. The filing reveals some background about Innovatio, which apparently is connected to Noel Whitley, who had been VP of Intellectual Property at Broadcom… but then left to create Innovatio, which just so happens to have acquired most of its patents from… Broadcom. Among the parade of insanity charged against Innovatio:

  • Motorola, Cisco and Netgear all have licensed the patents in question, meaning that users of that equipment are covered by those patents under the concept of patent exhaustion (basically, if you buy a licensed product, it’s licensed). Innovatio conveniently doesn’t mention this to the people it sends threat letters to.
  • The patents in question are part of commitments to IEEE that they’ll only be licensed on RAND terms, but the threat letters demand way more than would be considered “reasonable.”
  • Incredibly, Innovatio includes some expired patents in the list of patents it has threatened people over. That’s a massive no-no. Once a patent is expired you can’t demand a license for it. At all.
  • Innovatio apparently tells the people it threatens that it’ll be cheaper to just settle, rather than to even investigate the claims that it’s making — and has told people that the manufacturers in question aren’t defending their customers, which is proven false by the lawsuit, which, again, was filed soon after Innovatio popped up on the scene.
  • In an attempt to appear more legit, Innovatio claims that the patents in question have “generated in excess of $1 billion in settlements and license fees” to scare small businesses into complying. It leaves out that it appears to be basing this number on the famous broad patent fight settlement between Qualcomm and Broadcom, which was a wide-ranging cross licensing program, that has nothing to do with Innovatio or its specific patents.

There’s a lot more in there, but if the allegations by the vendors are accurate, Innovatio’s actions are really questionable. Even if people agree that the patents in question are legit, the fact that the vendors have already licensed them makes these actions quite incredible. The lawsuit claims that Innovatio has sent threat letters to an astounding 8,000+ businesses, mostly way too small to be able to understand the details of what’s happening.

Defendants prey upon end users that are not involved in the development or supply of the accused technologies, demanding exorbitant licensing amounts that breach numerous obligations on the patents and greatly exceed any notion of reasonableness. In furtherance of their plan, Defendants threaten protracted negotiations with onerous burdens on end users, and offer supposed “discounts” for promptly paying Innovatio without engaging in such negotiations, while making it clear that Innovatio will initiate costly litigation with anyone that does not acquiesce (something it cannot realistically do given the 8000-plus letters sent throughout the U.S.). Under these circumstances, Innovatio circumvents its obligations and illegally obtains and seeks to obtain licensing fees to which it is not entitled, at great detriment to the Plaintiffs in this action, their customers, and the public generally.

Oh yeah, as for that whole “expired patent” thing? That seems especially egregious:

To date, at least ten of the Innovatio Patents have expired, yet those patents continue to be highlighted in Defendants’ threat letters in furtherance of their licensing campaign. Yet Innovatio states to its licensing targets that “Innovatio proposes granting [the licensing target] an upfront, paid-up license for its use under all of 31 of the issued Innovatio Patents,” when those targets have no liability on and therefore no need of such a license to expired patents. For example, on May 9, 2012, almost one year after the ‘771 patent expired and almost six months after the ‘311 patent expired, Innovatio sent a demand letter to [redacted] …. Innovatio did not provide notice of these or its other patents to [redacted] before expiration. Notwithstanding the expiration of these patents and other patents, Innovatio’s May 9, 2012 demand letter stated “[t]he operation and use of any [WLANs that use the IEEE 802.11 communication protocols] by [redacted] constitutes infringement of at least the following Innovatio Patents: . . . U.S. Patent No. 5,940,771 . . . [and] U.S. Patent No. 6,374,311.” …. Yet circumstances here including a failure to comply with 35 U.S.C. §287, confirms that Innovatio cannot assert infringement or recover damages on at least these expired patent claims. On information and belief, Innovatio never disclosed that these patents had expired, or that its remedies were limited, and the purpose behind inclusion of these patents is to inflate the size of Innovatio’s portfolio, instill fear, increase fees and costs to investigate, and force its targets to capitulate promptly to Innovatio’s unlawful demands.

The filing also includes standard claims of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents in question, but the highlighting of these other behaviors by Innovatio are really quite stunning. Even in cases of extreme patent trolling it’s pretty rare to see such egregious behavior. Every so often we see RICO claims being used to counter trollish behavior, but they rarely work. However, the details in this case suggest that if a RICO charge is going to stick, this seems like a reasonable case for it to happen.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: broadcom, cisco, innovatio, motorola, netgear

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 “Cisco, Motorola, Netgear Team Up To Expose Wifi Patent Bully”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Pjerky (profile) says:


What a bunch of blood sucking vampires. Can anyone convince some extremists to start a Jihad on companies like this? Of all the problems in this world, it is crap like this that makes Western society look monstrous. Scum like this, should at the very least, spend the rest of their lives in jail. They don’t deserve any money from these patents.

This is also a big reason why I think patents should not be transferable. Or at least, have a limited number of transfers available.

Another idea would be to require all companies that have used patent lawsuit threats to extort money from others should be forced to pay back 300% of the money they took (plus legal fees) if any of the patents used in the threat later turn out to be invalid or had expired by the time the extortion occurred.

There should be a lot of limitations put on patents.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: copybandits

Not really. What is needed is a tort-reform.
Use it or lose it would really make it hard for small businesses to protect their patents. Since they do not have the economic moneybag to defend themself in court, it is advantageous for them to seek economic and judiciary help in a more specialized companies. By use it or lose it you need a way to mitigate the economic obstacles in taking a small case to court. The only way to make it in a way republicans can swallow is through a reform of how tort is calculated and especially who pays what and when.
You could argue for more government-interventionist actions, but that would not really be politically wieldy.

Corby (profile) says:

If you should happen to pay this settlement then there is nothing to stop the company in question say 6 months down the line to send you another another letter asking for more money and with pointing out them by them that as you have previously paid us we will use this as evidence of guilt that you have settled out of court. Pay up this new amount or fact court action. Extorntionist blackmailer strikes again and will continue to extortinate the same people who pay up over and over again for more and more money because they now have them in trapped in their web.

PT (profile) says:

Re: Troll Accountability

Indeed. While I understand that the civil tort case has to be brought by private parties, what we actually need to see is “United States v. Innovatio et al”, with a real prospect of those famously disproportionate Federal penalties being handed down (like 1 year on each of 8000 counts, to be served consecutively). I’m sure this would only have to be done once.

Paul Keating (profile) says:

class action correctness

This is one area where it would be nice to see a class action attorney step up and file suit also. I would not care so much that any proceeds were shared amongst the class as much as caring that this troll be pounded without mercy into the sand. It would stand as a lesson to others.

Next up: Patents reform….. a few ideas:

a. Patents are not enforceable unless put into use directly by the inventor within five (5) years. Otherwise they are presumed to have been abandoned – just as with trademarks.

b. Patent rights permit exclusive use for 4 years. This exclusive period starts on the EARLIER of: (a) issuance of the patent or (b) 1 year following the initial filing of the patent application.

c. After the expiration of the 4th year, a compulsory license scheme is put into place (similar to copyright) with royalties to be set by agreement with either party able to seek arbitration. Once a license fee for a patent is set, the license fee may be reduced for future compulsory licenses but not increased.

d. Obviousness test to be truly applied. If the PTO does not have the expertise they need to hire it.

e. Presumption of validity is eliminated. Just because the PTO says something does not mean it is true.

PT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

There’s precedent. US 6,280,318 (2001) patents the use of a fan to cool electronic equipment cabinets. US 7,499,276 (2009) also patents the use of a fan to cool electronic equipment cabinets, with the important difference that it sucks instead of blows. I see no reason why you wouldn’t be granted a patent for the wheel, but when you file, remember to specify in the claims that it includes wheels turning in both directions, otherwise you may lose the reversing rent to a competitor.

JimSales says:

Ain't it grand?

How does one get into this creative, lucritive, fun business?

If the patent is valid, these brilliant people deserve their fees by legal right!
And who is to say what a reasonable fee is? Seriously, this robery by statuate is as American as Baseball!

Many here are angry only because they weren’t smart enough to get rich using similar ideas. I only wish I were!

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...
Older Stuff
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Monitor Everything (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Cool Components (1)
12:42 Tech Companies Ask European Commission Not To Wreck The Internet -- And You Can Too (4)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Play & Listen (1)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Beyond Chiptunes (12)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Updated Classics (3)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Celebrating Cities (1)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Crafts Of All Kinds (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: One Great Knob (13)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Simple Geeky Toys (2)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Gadgets For The New Year (18)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A Post-Holiday Grab Bag (0)
13:34 How Private-Sector Innovation Can Help Those Most In Need (21)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Towards The Future Of Drones (17)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Artisanal Handheld Games (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A New Approach To Smartphone VR (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Let's Bore The Censors (37)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Open Source For Your Brain (2)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: The Final Piece Of The VR Puzzle? (6)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: The Internet... Who Needs It? (15)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: The Light Non-Switch (18)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: 3D Printing And Way, Way More (7)
13:00 Techdirt Reading List: Learning By Doing (5)
12:43 The Stagnation Of eBooks Due To Closed Platforms And DRM (89)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A Modular Phone For Makers (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Everything On One Display (4)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Everything Is Still A Remix (13)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Great Desk Toy, Or Greatest Desk Toy? (6)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Sleep Hacking (12)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A Voice-Operated Household Assistant (19)
More arrow