NTP Goes Big Game Hunting Again

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Joshua Heslinga

Yesterday, July 8th, Virginia patent company NTP, Inc. filed suit in the Richmond Division of the Eastern District of Virginia against pretty much every mobile technology heavyweight it had not yet sued, namely:  Apple, Google, HTC, LG, Microsoft, and Motorola.

The case numbers and complaints are listed here:

The cases allege infringement of eight patents related to e-mail and mobile devices (collectively, “the Campana Patents”).  That designation refers to Thomas Campana, who the Complaints allege invented wireless e-mail.

Five of the patents at issue were the subject of NTP’s high-stakes patent litigation war against RIM, the makers of Blackberry devices (E.D. Va. case no. 3:01-CV-767).  All of the new cases have been assigned to Chief Judge James R. Spencer, before whom NTP prevailed against RIM.  These too should draw significant media coverage.

Keep in mind that NTP also has additional suits, filed in 2006 and 2007, that are pending in the Eastern District of Virginia against Palm, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and Alltel.  Seven of the patents involved in NTP's new suits are also at issue in its action against Palm, and all eight are at issue in the suits against the others.  Those cases are stayed pending reexamination, and as we’ve blogged before, NTP has not fared so well before the PTO (although one would not know that from the Complaints).

NTP is represented by Christian & Barton and (in at least some of the cases) by Goodwin Procter LLP and Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP.

 
Tags: , , ,

Word to the Wise: Enforce Your Patents Before They're Rejected

Posted on December 7, 2009 by Joshua Heslinga

On Friday, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences rejected yet another of NTP’s patents, signaling further trouble for NTP’s pending patent lawsuits. 

Those who keep tabs on Virginia IP litigation know NTP as an active patent litigant who brought a high-profile patent infringement case against Research in Motion (RIM), makers of the popular Blackberry PDAs, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (case number 01-cv-00767). 

 

During the pendency of the litigation, the U.S. PTO began reexamination of five NTP patents, all of which relate to e-mail for mobile devices and all of which were at issue in the RIM suit. (Reexamination is a process where a person can have a patent reexamined by a patent examiner to verify a patent’s validity. To have a patent reexamined, a party must submit prior art that raises a “substantial new question of patentability.” See 35 U.S.C §§ 303 & 304.) 

 

RIM sought a stay in the litigation two months after the jury verdict in NTP’s favor, but reexamination came too late for RIM. Chief Judge James R. Spencer entered final judgment and ordered a permanent injunction, although he did stay the injunction pending appeal. See Final Order (entered August 5, 2003), available at 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26837. After a remand on RIM’s appeal, and with the threat of an injunction separating millions from their “Crackberrys,” NTP scored a $612.5 million settlement from RIM in March 2006.

 

Subsequently, NTP sued Palm, Inc. and AT&T Mobility LLC for patent infringement. Those cases are pending in the Eastern District (case numbers 06-cv-00836 and 07-cv-00550, respectively) but were stayed while reexamination proceedings were pending.

 

On November 10, the Board upheld the rejection of three of NTP’s patents, and Friday’s announcement spelled doom for a fourth. One patent remains before the Board on appeal. According to a Law360 article, NTP’s attorneys promise an appeal to the Federal Circuit.

 

Friday’s announcement reinforces that reexamination can be a decisive second-front in a patent litigation war. As the NTP litigation shows, however, the timing of reexamination can make all the difference.

Tags: , ,