WiFi Patent Troll Told That Each License Should Be Less Than 10 Cents
from the that-limits-the-damage dept
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: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:Q. I'm saying you are unaware of a single case where this approach has been taken, correct?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.
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.
“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.