WiFi Patent Troll Told That Each License Should Be Less Than 10 Cents

from the that-limits-the-damage dept

We’ve written a few times about patent troll Innovatio, which claims to hold some patents on WiFi, saying that anyone using WiFi (including home users) are infringing, though it has chosen “at this stage” not to sue home users. It is, however, going after tons of coffee shops, hotels, grocery stores and restaurants for offering WiFi, demanding $2,300 to $5,000 to settle. A year ago, we wrote about how a bunch of WiFi equipment manufacturers, including Cisco, Motorola and Netgear had teamed up to go after Innovatio. Not only do they contest the validity of the patents in question, but they highlight a ton of really questionable behavior by Innovatio and claim that the troll is involved in a form of racketeering. Among other accusations, the manufacturers note that Innovatio includes expired patents in its list that it threatens people over, and it leaves out that the patents are part of the WiFi standard, and there are commitments related to them that they’ll be licensed on RAND (Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms.

The lawsuit is moving forward, and there was just a ruling on one key part of it. The court decided that before getting into everything else, it would try to determine what the RAND rate should be for the manufacturers (which are separate from the end-users like the coffee shops that Innovatio is going after). The idea is that having the rate set upfront might help the parties settle. Innovatio pushed (of course) to have the rate be calculated based on the price of the final product that was for sale. For example, it claimed that 10% of a laptops value is from WiFi (um, what?!?) and that its patents deserve to get 6% of the value of WiFi. This calculates down to them wanting $4.72 per laptop. The company has other prices for other items: $3.39 per WiFi access point, $16.17 per tablet and $36.90 per “inventory tracking device.”

The manufacturers point out that this is insane. And if there needs to be a base from which to calculate a royalty rate it should be the WiFi chip itself, which these days go for about $3 each. Thankfully, the court agrees with the manufacturers and more or less eviscerates Innovatio’s “expert” who came up with the prices it thought were reasonable, even highlighting a ridiculous exchange showing that the guy, Chris Bergey, was more or less coming up with ways to support these claims based on questionable assumptions, and no connection to how these things are normally priced.

Specifically, Mr. Bergey testified in part as follows:

Q. I’m saying you are unaware of a single case where this approach has been taken, correct?
A. Correct. I’m not well versed in patent cases.
Q. Well, what do you mean by that?
A. I … couldn’t tell you if this is something that’s widely used or not widely used.
Q. You have no idea whether this approach has ever been used?
A. I do not know.
Q. Or whether it’s an appropriate approach?
A. It seems logical to me, and I know that this is an emerging, you know, area of law where there is a lot of challenges, but … I allow that to the experts and, you know–
Q. And on this issue, you’re not an expert, right? Fair?
A. On which issue?
Q. On the issue of whether this is even the right approach to take.
A. Again, I think it’s logical, but, you know, I think that’s up to others in the case to determine, you know, what they want to use.
Q. Because you don’t have any expertise or training to say yourself whether or not it’s appropriate, right? You’re not a lawyer, for example?
A. I believe my education allows me to say I believe it’s accurate, but if it’s appropriate, no, I don’t believe I’m qualified.

Mr. Bergey’s testimony about the methodology he used to produce the Wi-Fi feature factor confirms that his approach was not based on an established method of analysis, but is instead speculative and subjective.

The ruling is definitely a loss for Innovatio, as it massively limits the royalties it claims it’s entitled to. Of course, Innovatio’s lawyer, Matthew McAndrews, seems to want to turn lemons into obnoxious lemonade to spit all over everyone, arguing that now that a rate is set, he can’t wait to get all that money from all those WiFi chips:

“At a minimum, the court’s determination that the Wi-Fi chip is the appropriate base to which the RAND rate applies opens the door for Innovatio to potentially license hundreds of millions of units sold by numerous Wi-Fi chip suppliers,” Matthew McAndrews, an Innovatio IP attorney, said yesterday in an e-mailed statement.

Meanwhile, Cisco notes that (1) this much lower rate should hopefully limit the threats that Innovatio can send to users and (2) there’s still a long way to go before anyone has to pay anything. Cisco’s general counsel, Mark Chandler, told Bloomberg: “We would be shocked if we had to pay anything” by the time the case is over. Meanwhile, in an emailed statement, Chandler told us:

Now, instead of sending letters to businesses asking for thousands, Innovatio can send letters asking for a dime, and only if Innovatio can prove that the patents are valid and that the accused products use the WiFi features and are not already licensed – none of which they have done yet. I suggest they save the stamp.

Ouch. Of course, that’s not entirely accurate, since the case is clear that it only applies to the manufacturers, and not the WiFi users, which will be discussed separately, apparently. But, given the RAND rate set for the manufacturers as a starting point, it is likely that any rate that might apply to WiFi users would also be greatly diminished from Innovatio’s nutty claims. And, of course, the company still has to show that actual infringement occurred, and that is still likely to be difficult.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: cisco, innovatio

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 “WiFi Patent Troll Told That Each License Should Be Less Than 10 Cents”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
16 Comments
Baldaur Regis (profile) says:

Innovatio’s lawyer, Matthew McAndrews, says this ruling “opens the door for Innovatio to potentially license hundreds of millions of units sold by numerous Wi-Fi chip suppliers.”

Except behind that door are not the timid rabbit lawyers that are all the small business owners can afford, but the rabid timberwolf lawyers of corporations.

Knock knock, Mr. McAndrews.

staff (user link) says:

more dissembling by Masnick

?patent troll?

infringers and their paid puppets? definition of ?patent troll?:

anyone who has the nerve to sue us for stealing their invention

This is just spin control by large infringers to cover up their theft. They have already damaged the American patent system so that property rights are teetering on lawlessness. Simply put, their intent is to legalize theft -to twist and weaken the patent system so it can only be used by them and no one else. Then they can steal at will and destroy their small competitors AND WITH THEM THE JOBS THEY WOULD HAVE CREATED. Meanwhile, the huge multinationals ship more and more American jobs to China and elsewhere overseas.

Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin? Neither does anyone else. Why? There was no protection for creations in his day so he like everyone else protected their creations by keeping them secret. Civilization has lost countless creations and discoveries over the ages for the same reason. Think we should get rid of or weaken patent rights? Think again.

Most important for America is what the patent system does for America?s economy. Our founders: Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others felt so strongly about the rights of inventors that they included inventors rights to their creations and discoveries in the Constitution. They understood the trade off. Inventors are given a limited monopoly and in turn society gets the benefits of their inventions (telephone, computer, airplane, automobile, lighting, etc) into perpetuity and the jobs the commercialization of those inventions bring. For 200 years the patent system has not only fueled the American economy, but the world?s. If we weaken the patent system we force inventors underground like Stradivarius and in turn weaken our economy and job creation. For a robust economy America depends on a strong patent system accessible to all -large and small, not the watered down weak system the large multinationals and China are foisting on America.

For the truth, please see http://www.truereform.piausa.org/
https://www.facebook.com/pi.ausa.5
http://piausa.wordpress.com/
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/142741
http://cpip.gmu.edu/2013/03/15/the-shield-act-when-bad-economic-studies-make-bad-laws/

BernardoVerda says:

Re: Re: more dissembling by Masnick

Snort… “more dissembling” by “staff” is more like it.

I would just dismiss him a a troll or a nut– except for his egregiously deceptive choice of screen-name. That’s an {ahem} interesting… tactic for someone who claims to be taking a higher moral position, isn’t it?

Donglebert the Needlessly Obtuse says:

Re: more dissembling by Masnick

Do you know how to make a Stradivarius violin? Neither does anyone else.

True. But we do know how to make violins, and we do know how to make violins that are comparable or better in terms of sound and feel than a top Strad. Repeated blind and double blind tests have shown that they’re no better or worse than other top class violins that cost substantially less.

Had the Stradivarius family had patents in their time, it’s likely that the patent would have been extended and extended so that we wouldn’t be able to make top quality violins without paying a licence fee. Which is ridiculous.

Pragmatic says:

Re: Re: more dissembling by Masnick

Stradivarius violins were created at a time when the wood used was particularly fine-grained due to the “Little Ice Age,” which imparted a particular quality to the instrument and to the sound. So basically, the skills were there, but the materials used were the key to the instrument’s value.

Go on, patent that.

Daniel Harvison says:

Re: more dissembling by Masnick

I most certainly disagree with your pro-patent stance, particularly in this case, unless you can prove that Innovatio had some hand in creating the basic WiFi technology in use today.
What I want to comment on is your use of the “our founding fathers intended blah blah blah”. Looks a lot like you yanks worship your founding fathers and folk heroes, a bit like Bioshock Infinite, where they literally pray to Washington and others.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

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...
Loading...