Two Rambus Patents Invalidated By USPTO

First time accepted submitter rnswebx writes "Two patents that chip designer Rambus used to win patent lawsuits against Nvidia, HP, and others have been declared invalid by the USPTO." The Inquirer has a similar story up, with appropriately snarky sub-head.

Comments

Patent question

[j00r0m4nc3r]

If a company is sued by a patent holder and forced to pay licensing fees, and that patent is later invalidated, is that company entitled to reimbursement?

Re:Patent question

[gstoddart]

If a company is sued by a patent holder and forced to pay licensing fees, and that patent is later invalidated, is that company entitled to reimbursement?

Likely not. They'd likely argue that at the time they held a valid patent, and that you entered into a licensing agreement with them.

So, stupid people can issue lousy patents ... but when that patent gets overturned, anybody who got extorted to pay for it is likely out of luck.

Re:Patent question

[AikonMGB]

Inquiring minds want to know. If the use of said patents was the sole factor in the suit, then I would say, the company is entitled to reimbursement. If there was anything else going on at the time, or if for example it involved two patents and only one patent was invalidated, then I think the case would have to be revisited. IANAPL, this is just wild speculation.

What I want to know, however, is how those patents made it through said suits intact, only to be declared invalid by the USPTO at a later date -- wouldn't, in the course of the suits, the patents get thoroughly vetted by the USPTO, under scrutiny of the court? Or am I applying too much logic and common sense to the patent system?

Aikon-

Re:Patent question

[gstoddart]

wouldn't, in the course of the suits, the patents get thoroughly vetted by the USPTO, under scrutiny of the court

Nope. The patent stands until the USPTO invalidates it. They're motivated to churn through patents and get paid for them ... the USPTO isn't necessarily interested in making sure the patents are any good. And, the legal standard to overturn a patent is quite high. (Sorry, it's only a partial article)

Or am I applying too much logic and common sense to the patent system?

Far too much, sadly. It's a rigged game, with bad outcomes.

Re:Patent question

[Grand Facade]

If anyone is liable it it the patent office as the judgements were granted based on their decision.

Good luck collecting on that....

Re:Patent question

[Defenestrar]

Don't forget cases in which a company (e.g. NVIDIA) settled with Rambus.

Previously, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that Nvidia, HP and other firms were infringing two Barth I patents owned by Rambus. This led to Nvidia settling with Rambus.

The courts ruled that there was an infringement, but the deal to use the technology after that wasn't court mediated. That could mean a reversal in the patent status won't automatically even give valid justification for a refund - it'll depend on the settlement terms. If it's written such that one party is paying for technical expertise, design parameters, surcharge per unit installed, or etc... it could be pretty murky.

For example, if someone promised to give me a penny for every breath they took, even if I don't own their air, I should still be able to collect on that (of course it's again murky if I had previously convinced them I owned the air, or I would poison it if they didn't pay, ...). Probably the most common version of this sort of agreement that I run across is when some kid comes up to me and asks for $0.25 to go toward cancer research fundraiser personnel for every lap he walks on the high school track.

Re:Patent question

[tlhIngan]

If a company is sued by a patent holder and forced to pay licensing fees, and that patent is later invalidated, is that company entitled to reimbursement?

It depends. If they reach a settlement, then the terms of the settlement determine what happens if the patents are found invalid in the future. Since the terms of such settlements are often confidential, we'll never know.

For court-ordered settlements, most likely not, because if the patents were contested, the court will wait to see if the USPTO revokes those patents. If they're later overturned, well, it depends how good the lawyers are - perhaps they can wiggle some way of suing for that money back (the appeal avenue would've been lost).

Now, if a company is paying license fees, it too also depends on the licensing agreement - some will offer refunds (not a popular option, but depends on the customer), others partial, and of course, many none. A justification of that is that those who paid had a temporary advantage over those who didn't, so the license fees paid would've been made up by time-to-market.

Re:Patent question

[Errol backfiring]

They'd likely argue that at the time they held a valid patent

No. It is the same patent. If it is invalidated, it is because it is an invalid patent. It is not a patent that rotted, wore out or turned sour. It is the very same as it always was. An invalidation is a correction to the fact that the patent was granted at all. Off course, the patent office should be held responsible for the damages.

money back?

[Kvasio]

So ... do Nvidia and HP get their money back? How does US legal system solve such situations?

USPTO

[DinDaddy]

My first thought upon reading this was "They should make Rambus repay the companies that gave them licensing fees based on these." My second was "with treble damages to discourage this shit." My third was "On the other hand, they were just (underhandedly) playing the system as it exists so maybe that's a little unfair". Then I realized the solution. Make the USPTO repay the license fees. That would improve the quality of their patent review really really fast.

In my dreams. It would more likely mean no patent ever got overturned.

Re:USPTO

[medv4380]

No that would slow down their patent review even more. If we just invalidated all software and method patents their work load would be reduced and would be able to do a better job reviewing and hearing challenges to existing patents in a more timely manner.

Re:USPTO

[sjames]

As long as we make filing start the expiry countdown, it's fine. With any luck, all patents will already be expired by the date they're granted and corporations will lose interest in them.

Re:I remember when Rambus made RAM

[gstoddart]

They were exotic fast things, and they didn't always behave properly, but at least they were actual products. Isn't that the ostensible reason why companies exist, to make products?

No, to make money is the reason companies exist. The legal system makes no requirements as to how you make your money.

As long as patents are something you can buy and sell, there will always be companies who own them just to squeeze licensing fees out of companies who actually do make things.

Welcome to capitalism, it's supposed to be the best thing ever.

(And, really, RAMBUS basically sat on standards committees and then filed submarine patents on the very stuff they and others had designed and agreed upon ... seeing their patents get invalidated warms my heart. They're a bunch of bottom feeders.)

Why?

[Splab]

I know it's slightly off for a slashdot reader, but I did read the articles, and none of them talk about why the patents where rejected.

They can apeal the rejection, so nothing is settled yet - but it would be nice to know on what grounds those patents where rejected; prior art? obvious or bribes?

Re:I remember when Rambus made RAM

[compro01]

They never made RAM, they came up with the specification for RDRAM. And they then got their lunch eaten when DDR became available for the Pentium 4 and offered almost as good performance for much cheaper and without the eccentricities and then went sue happy over it.

Though their new XDR2 RAM looks promising. It's supposed to be used in AMD's upcoming 7900-series videocards.

Sue the guilty party

[Citizen of Earth]

Everyone victimized by these ridiculous patents should get into a class-action lawsuit the guilty party in all of this -- the patent office. Adding punitive damages for the results of its fraudulence and incompetence, the lawsuit should run into the hundreds of quadrillions of dollars. Perhaps this would bring some needed sensibility to the process, like peer review or simply throwing it all out the airlock.