Why Is A Charity For Abused Kids Suing A Bunch Of Tech Companies For Patent Infringement?

from the questions-that-need-to-be-asked dept

Really not sure what to make of this. A typical patent trolling type organization named Azure Networks filed two separate lawsuits right before Christmas, against a bunch of semiconductor companies, including Texas Instruments, Freescale, Atmel, Alereon, Samsung, Synopsis and others. At first glance, these lawsuits seem pretty typical: filed in Eastern Texas, filed by a small company whose only purpose is to sue, suing a bunch of big tech companies who actually do something. It meets all the standard checkmarks of these types of lawsuits.

But some folks have noticed one oddity: named as co-plaintiff along with Azure Networks is a local Texas charity. The Tri-County Excelsior Foundation is named as a plaintiff, with a note that it is a non-profit corporation that is "a supporting organization" to a charity called Casa of Harrison County. Casa of Harrison County appears to be a perfectly admirable charity -- based in Marshall Texas -- focused on training "community volunteers to be advocates for abused and neglected children in the custody of Child Protective Services."

So why are they a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit? That's not clear at all. I've embedded one of the two lawsuits below. It says that Tri-County Excelsior Foundation is a plaintiff, but does not explain its relationship to the patent. The filing does say that Azure has a license on the patent, but does not say from whom. The patent in question (7,020,501) lists BBNT Solutions LLC as the assignee, but it's possible that the patent has since been handed off to others.

I have no idea if the patent is valid or not. I have no idea if the companies are infringing or not. But it does seem... odd, to see a non-profit charity supposedly focused on helping abused children, somehow getting involved in a typical patent trolling lawsuit.

Filed Under: charity, patents
Companies: azure networks, tri-county excelsior foundation

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), 4 Jan 2011 @ 11:03pm

    Re: Masnick on Charity's Case

    asnick have you no shame? Do you actually get paid for writing this dreck? The standing of a Plaintiff is a subject for the Judge in the case if and only if the defendant makes a motion.

    I made no claim that the charity had no standing.

    Before attacking me, perhaps you should read what I actually write. It might make you seem slightly more in touch with reality.

    Please go interrupt the proceedings Masnick, and explain why one of the Plaintiffs has no standing. Tell us how your stay in an East Texas jail went when you get out. Maybe you won't be able to post anymore inane commentary from jail.

    Once again, I did not question the standing of the charity.

    I questioned why a charity got the patent and why it was suing over it.

    So it's any excuse to use the "T" word eh?

    No, this is actually a big issue. It looks like some of your friends are trying to hide behind a charity. And you accuse *me* of having no shame?

    I find this practice sickening. Glad to know you support this patent laundering.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown for basic formatting. (HTML is not supported.)
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Show Now: Takedown
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.