Slashdot Mirror
Under Attack by PanIP's Patent Lawyers?
Matthew Catalano, of the Dickson Supply Company, asks: "I work for a small plumbing, heating, irrigation, and BBQ supply house. Over the past four we have built up quite a website that houses tons of information and offers many products for sale via an online store. Recently a company known as PanIP has decided to sue us on 2 counts of patent infringement. To the best of my understanding, as you can see from their website, they claim that they invented the use of text and images as a method of business on the Internet. They also claim that they invented the use of a form to enter customer information. Obviously this is ridiculous and most likely won't hold up in court! However, this is not the problem. PanIP has also sued 10 other small companies. PanIP chose small companies because they hope that none of them can afford the legal fees that would ultimately remove their patents. Most defendants, including us, want to opt to bail out for a smaller licensing fee of $30,000. PanIP will continue this vicious cycle on small companies of which many of you may become victim of. Eventually they will have so many cases under their belt that they will be able to attack larger companies." Yet again, the USPTO is used as a weapon in the free market. When will someone get a clue and put a stop to this type of digital extortion?
"I am hoping to release this story to the press so that the US Patent office finally wakes up, but the media is unpredictable and unreliable in terms of which stories they encapsulate. If there is anyone out there who has any ideas about stopping PanIP or can help us out in any way it would be appreciated. Otherwise, just pass this along to everyone you know and hopefully something will come of it.
There is also a page we have constructed that reveals some more details."
If the case is somewhat novel, then the ACLU or EFF have pooled together funds from many people in order to be able to set good precendents.
If the suit will obviously fall in favor of the defendant, can't you get a good lawyer to file a SLAPP suit, and you won't have to pay the lawyer unless you win?
Call the EFF. The Electronic Frontier Foundation might be able to help you, and if not, they can certainly point you towards a good lawyer.
Fight 'em all the way.
This tagline is umop apisdn.
You can often get legal costs covered if you win, which is one reason the EFF and similar groups can often afford to be helpful. A first-glance look by a non-lawyer says that either their patents are totally bogus for this application or they're covered by prior art. The first one I looked at mentioned being about "terminals" and a central processor, and that certainly shouldn't apply here. There are also some similarities to the BT Hyperlink patent nonsense. It's especially worth talking to the other targets of this abuse.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Professionally and concisely contact them through one of the following venues, and let them know that their actions are being observed with disdain by thousands.
Please mod this up so Slashdot can continue to be the efficient political machine it often has been in the past. Just a simple call saying you dont like what they're doing, and mention the details of this situation, should be enough to make them think twice if everybody calls.
Here are the contacts, from http://www.panip.com/corpinfo.htm:
Mailing Address:
PanIP
329 Laurel Street
San Diego, California 92101-1630 USA
Telephone: 858-454-7095
Email: rmercado37@yahoo.com (really professional...)
Fax: 858-454-4358
The following lawyers help them in their tirade. CC and call them all. I'll begin with a copyable email list. The rest need to be contacted by phone:
webmaster@lyonlyon.com, kwalkerlaw@cox.net, info@chiresearch.com
And for those that would rather call, including some attorneys with no email address (What's up with that? Hello, 2002? Hello?)
BUCHACA, JOHN D. & HENRI CHARMASSON
1545 HOTEL CIRCLE SOUTH
SUITE 150
SAN DIEGO, CA USA 92108
619-294-2922
Kathleen M. Walker
3421 Thorn Street
San Diego, California 92104
Phone Number: 619-255-0987
Fax Number: 619-255-0986
kwalkerlaw@cox.net
Luce Forward Hamilton Scripps
Phone: (619) 236-1414
Fax: (619) 232-8311
600 West Broadway, Suite 2600
San Diego, CA 92101
And finally, their technical advisor:
CHI Research Inc.
10 White Horse Pike
Haddon Heights, NJ 08035 USA
Phone (856) 546-0600
Fax (856) 546-9633
email: info@chiresearch.com
With patents, however, asserting a patent known to be invalid is an ANTITRUST VIOLATION. The opposing party can get treble damages plus attorneys fees. Also, if the case is not well founded, the patent statute (specifically 35 U.S.C. sec. 285) allows a judge to declare the case "exceptional" and award attorneys fees to the prevailing party. Infringement defendants use this provision to recoup defense costs of patent cases that are not well founded.
Also, because patent cases are EXCLUSIVELY federal, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, spoecifically Rule 11, requre attorneys to certify that cases filed are well founded. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals of patent cases, has held in View Eng'g v. Robotic Vision Sys., 208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) that Rule 11 requires an attorney to "read the claims onto an accused device." The process of reading claims means that you identify each element of the claim in the patent and then find a corresponding feature in the device you accuse of infringement. Rule 11 allows judges to sanction parties who fail to do that step.
Unfortunately, competent patent counsel are few and far between. I have seen cases brought by sole practitioners who spend their days doing personal injury work and have no concept of patents or the technology of the invention. This is how many frivolous suits get filed - by practitioners who do not take the time to learn the law and advise their clients properly. Also unfortunately, the only way to end it is to stomach it out and fight to the end to invalidate the patent. The words "legal defense fund" come to mind here.....
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Lawrence B Lockwood is a name that appears on the patents... note this summary from http://www.law.emory.edu/fedcircuit/mar97/96-1168. html
Lawrence B. Lockwood appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91-1640E (CM) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1995), granting summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In that summary judgment, the court held that (1) U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 were not infringed by American's SABREvision reservation system, and that (2) the '355 patent and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103, respectively. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246, 28 USPQ2d 1114 (S.D. Cal. 1993), req. for reconsideration denied, 847 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the '115 and '359 patents not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500, 34 USPQ2d 1290 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the asserted claims of the '355 patent invalid and not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 USPQ2d 1534 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (holding the '359 patent invalid). Because the district court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
so there you go: already after a few searches I've found out that 3 patents are already not wirth anything: http://www.panip.com/patents.htm ('115, '359, '355)
-- Dan "who has limited knowledge of law, but can surf the web" =)
Ah, I am *so* sympathetic to your case!
A few years ago, a small company I worked for was targeted by some leeches like this, who had filed what our lawyers called a "submarine" patent, which is that they had an old patent, on a vague technology, and updated the filing to try to fit it to Internet terms.
They then started going after small companies such as ours, with the hope, just like PanLeeches that the smaller companies would lack the resources to properly fight them, and would just suck it up and pay the licensing fee.
Well, we didn't have the money, but we sure as hell weren't going to be bullied by these jerks. So we got a *really* good patent attorney, and it took about three letters from him, and the leeches disappeared.
In the end, it cost us a couple thousand dollars to fight it, but it was worth every cent. We never went to court because we established very early on that 1) we were *not* going to be push-overs, and 2) we hired *good* counsel, and that perception of losing to us in court was worth them leaving us alone to go pick on someone else.
Good luck to you in your cause. These freaks should be thrown to the wolves.
You can try to initiate a Reexamination of the patent by the PTO. You can initiate a reexamination by paying a fee (currently $2,520 for ex parte and $8,800 for inter partes) and sending a brief including references to the PTO. Ex parte means that you are not involved in the process beyond the initiation. Inter partes means that you are involved in the process, and can file responses. You should send some really good references that have not been cited by the Examiner (not listed on the face of the patent.)
You can usually find someone who is willing to help you with the first few steps of the process at least for less than $30K. And I do agree with the above posters, you should band together with the other companies that have been sued. You can at least work together on the first few steps (finding references & writing the initial brief.)
Thalia
The patents appear to be United States Patent 6,289,319; US Patent 5,576,951; and US Patent 5,309,355; all registered in the name of Lawrence B. Lockwood, of 5935 Folsom Dr., La Jolla, CA 92037.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
This is completely incorrect. They can sue him in any state in which he his company does business, has shareholders, or is incorporated. A suit was once permitted against an insurance company in a state in which they had one customer (See McGee v. International Life Insurance Co., 355 US 220 [1957]).
To the person who posted the story-- please contact a lawyer in your jurisdiction. (Or the EFF or another public service organization) Given the possibility here for a countersuit for abuse of process, and potentially fraud, you might be able to get someone willing to take the case on contingency, if you can't afford legal fees and can't find someone willing to do it for free.
To the moderators: IAAL, though not a member of the patent bar.
While the above is legally correct to the best of my knowledge and experience, don't rely on it-- see a lawyer in your jurisdiction for legal information.
Well, I am not a member of the patent bar, but, having read through the claims in those three patents, it appears to me that two of them are subject to attack on the basis of prior art and one does not apply.
Specifically, 5,309,355 (filed in 1993) is a claim of originality that is quashed by evidence that American Airlines SABRE system went online in the early 80's (I forget exactly when it was but it was WELL before 1986), 5,576,951 appears to be a claim against all of computer networking in general (the first computer network communication occurred in 1967).
6,289,319 doesn't appear to relate to Dickson Supply's business because the claims there relate strictly to automatic screening of loan applications. Now if PanIP, LLC wants to take on Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and ditek.com, that's their business, but I think those companies can raise a war chest exceeding what even Microsoft could raise.
When I first read this article, I didn't think this matter would be appropriate for class action treatment, but having read the patent claims, if PanIP thinks they can construe the claims broadly enough to cover Dickson Supply's business, then every single e-commerce site on the 'net is threatened. That class of Plaintiffs is DEFINITELY large enough to justify certification as a class.
I would STRONGLY recommend that you bring these lawsuits to the attention of some of the larger companies doing business on the web and see if they have an interest in attacking these ridiculous patents. Somebody has to do SOMETHING or the pain will never end!
utter rubbish
And the Judin and Antonious cases. It is no longer safe for patent bullies to randomly attack defendants who might hire competent counsel to advise them. We recently used this to excellent effect to "encourage" a patent bully to file Notices of Voluntary Dismissal in seven separate cases. It works.