Nest Labs Calls Honeywell Lawsuit 'Worse Than Patent Troll'

UnknowingFool writes "Over a year ago, Nest Labs launched the Learning Thermostat. The brainchild of Tony Fadell, former head of Apple's iPod and iPhone division, the Learning Thermostat promised a self-programming and wifi-enabled thermostat that would save energy costs. After some glowing reviews, Nest found itself in a patent infringement lawsuit against Honeywell. Nest responded with multiple claims calling Honeywell 'worse than a patent troll.' Among Nest's claims: Honeywell hid prior art (some on some previous patents that they owned) and inapplicable patents (patent on mechanical potentiometer when Nest's product does not include one). Nest's stance is that Honeywell filed the lawsuits not to extract money but to set back progress so that they can control the industry."

Comments

Worse than a patent Troll?

[BagOBones]

I thought allowing your products to succeed and preventing others from entering the market is part of the idea of a patent? Unlike a troll that has no product, at least Honeywell has one... Even if their claims do not apply. ;)

Re:Worse than a patent Troll?

[hawguy]

Nope, it's a lot worse to have a patent on a device you make, and sue competitors who do not violate the patent in hopes of putting them out of business with legal fees. Patent trolls may have possibly invalid claims and may be extorting, but Honeywell knows it is filing groundless lawsuits in hopes of crushing competition without having to innovate or compete. Patent trolls just want some money, not to destroy you and bury your corpse.

But is that really what is happening in this case?

For example, Nest claims that this patent:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5736795.PN.&OS=PN/5736795&RS=PN/5736795

A solid state power switching circuit for alternating current loads, in which operating power for the circuit is diverted from the switched current during power stealing intervals self-synchronized with the alternating current waveform. During periods in which current to the load is commanded, a load current switch is maintained in a low impedance state except for the duration of a short power stealing interval each half-cycle of the supplied alternating current. Self-synchronization is achieved with a current detector which senses whether or not the magnitude of the current diverted during each power stealing interval exceeds a current threshold, and pulse generator logic which shifts the power stealing intervals in time relative to the alternating current waveform in response to the previously sensed current magnitude.

Is a an expired patent that provides prior art for this one:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7476988.PN.&OS=PN/7476988&RS=PN/7476988

A power stealing system having a switch and a circuit that takes power from equipment to operate control electronics. The system may be such that power stealing occurs while the equipment is not powered to avoid disruption or false signals in the electronics or equipment. The circuit may convey taken power to a storage device. The electronics may be powered by the storage device. The storage device may have a capacitor, a rechargeable battery, a non-chargeable battery, a solar cell, fuel cell, line power, and/or the like.

I'm no patent attorney, but they look completely different to me. One synchronizes with an AC signal to steal power only during part of the waveform, while the other steals power when the powered device isn't currently using it.

Re:Worse than a patent Troll?

[JaredOfEuropa]

The original idea of patents was to foster innovation by encouraging inventors to make their inventions public, receiving a temporary monopoly in return. Historically, patents were considered to be an artificial construct to benefit society, not a natural right of inventors. The idea is that society benefits from the disclosure of non-obvious ideas, and from inventions that are perhaps expensive to implement.

Now take a look at the patents claimed by Honeywell. It's all obvious crap and design gimmicks, simple intellectual land-grab. Society stands to benefit not one iota by the disclosure of these ideas, and would not have been worse off if Honeywell would have kept them secret. Someone else could have (and has) come up with these "ideas" in the course of designing their own product, without the benefit of knowledge of the details of these patents.

The granting [of] patents 'inflames cupidity', excites fraud, stimulates men to run after schemes that may enable them to levy a tax on the public, begets disputes and quarrels betwixt inventors, provokes endless lawsuits...The principle of the law from which such consequences flow cannot be just."

This is from an issue of The Economist... published in 1851.

Re:Worse than a patent Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, but you're missing the point: A patent troll wouldn't try to stop this product, they'd just want a cut. Honeywell wants to eliminate this product even though they don't have a product as advanced. Therefore if you value progress, you'd be better of if these patents were owned by patent trolls. That Honeywell makes less advanced competing products may help people justify the validity of these patents more, but in the end the consumer will be worse off with the patents in the hands of Honeywell than in the hands of do-nothing trolls, because do-nothings trolls will let other people do-something and Honeywell will not.
 
(I never thought I'd argue on the side of patent trolls, but this is mainly just an intellectual exercise anyway. I doubt any of these patents are justifiable as "promoting science and the useful arts", in that the technology would be created even if the patents were never expected or granted.)

I guess..

[Anonymous Coward]

Honeywell is turning up the heat on the competition...

Backfire

[JamesA]

I've been thinking about replacing my home Honeywell thermostats (2) with Nests so that I can link, control, and monitor them more effectively. The news of this lawsuit has pretty much sold the deal.

I don't think Honeywell thought about the Streisand effect.

Re:How did they hide prior patents?

[nameer]

Duty of disclosure means that if you are aware of relevant prior art when applying for a patent in the US, you are obligated to inform the USPTO about it. Nest is saying that Honeywell should have at least known about its own prior patents, and that not disclosing them violated the duty of disclosure. This is grounds for the patent being found invalid.

Not cool if you are in Europe

[martijnd]

Since I am looking for a new thermostat this sounded like a cool thing. But this review by a fellow European warned me off trying this :

http://www.bjornsblog.nl/post/20583667249/using-the-nest-smart-thermostat-in-europe-not

Re:Honeywell is known for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the problem is that they don't really hold legitimate patents as much as they held legitimate patents. Those patents expired some time ago, and as Honeywell hasn't actually innovated in the thermostat space in the last 40 years or so, they didn't really have any new patents to file. So, it seems they just went out and filed essentially the same patents again, using sufficiently different language that nobody really noticed, giving them new "valid" patents. Unfortunately, this practice is of dubious legality to say the least.