Widevine Successfully Opposes Transfer Motion: Congestion in ED of Texas Cited

In a dispute between two competitors in the market for certain video encryption technology, Widevine v. Verimatrix (WDWA C08-1039 JLR), Judge Robart denied Verimatrix's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, where Judge Ward is already prosiding over a case involving the same companies and a separate patent. Citing congestion in the ED of Texas as a legitimate reason for bringing suit in Seattle, Judge Robart declined to transfer the case.

From Judge Robart's Order:

A court will give the plaintiff’s choice of forum preference “to the extent that it was motivated by legitimate reasons, including the plaintiff's convenience.” Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001). Widevine explained that it chose the Western District of Washington because it is headquartered in the district and the docket calender is less congested here than in the Eastern District of Texas. (Resp. at 1, 3.) Given that it had legitimate reasons to file in Washington, Widevine’s choice of forum weighs in favor of maintaining the case in this district.
WVtransfer.pdf

Philips Electronics Can't Overturn Interference Ruling

In the United States (at least for the time being), the first person to invent has superior rights in a dispute involving multiple claims covering the same subject matter. According to a decision by the USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, an inventor at Philips Electronics, Morgan, was not the first to invent certain defibrillator methods claimed in US Patent No. 6,241,751.

The invention claimed in the '741 patent involved considering patient impedance levels and adjusting the pulse of the defibrillator in response to those impedance levels. According to the Board, an inventor at Cardiac Science, Owen, was the first to invent defibrillators with this capability. Philips asked the USDC here in Seattle to review the Board's decision under 35 USC section 146, and Judge Pechman affirmed the Board on all issues. Most notably, Judge Pechman decided that the Board was not required to construe the terms "impedance-compensated defiblliation pulse," because no matter how those terms were construed, the specific interpretation would not have impacted the Board's ultimate decision.

From Judge Pechman's order:

The issue presented by this motion is whether the Board erred in failing to construe the
claim “impedance-compensated defibrillation pulse.” The Board never made a single decision
not to construe the claim, but instead determined that claim construction was not necessary to resolve Philips’ preliminary motions. No authority suggests that the Board is required to
perform claim construction when it is not necessary to decide an issue presented in a party’s
motion.

phillips146action_orderdismissining.pdf

CAFC Reverses WDWA Decision on Personal Jurisdiction

In Campbell Pet Co. v. Maile, the Federal Circuit reversed an order finding personal jurisdiction lacking over an out-of-state defendant who had attended a trade show in Seattle and made verbal threats of patent infringement litigation. This decision reverses Judge Leighton's decision finding personal jurisdiction absent under Federal Circuit law (see my previous post on this decision here, where my description of the district court's order is rather prescient).

Here is some good coverage of the decision from the PLI patent law blog:

In June 2007, Ms. Miale (hereinafter "defendant") attended a three-day convention in Seattle, Washington, sponsored by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine. During that convention, the defendant demonstrated her products and offered them for sale. In the course of the convention, she took two orders for tables from residents of Virginia and New York, for a total purchase price of $9,400. Plaintiff Campbell also had a display at the convention featuring its products. In the course of the convention, the defendant and her mother confronted several of Campbell’s employees who were attending the convention and accused them of infringing the Miale patents.
In the month following the convention, Ty-Lift sent a letter to Campbell claiming that Campbell’s mobile folding stretcher infringed the Miale patents. Shortly thereafter, Campbell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking a declaration of noninfringement and invalidity with respect to the Miale patents. In response, Ty-Lift moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court did granted the motion to dismiss, deciding that the level of contact between the defendants and the forum state was not sufficiently “substantial” and “continuous and systematic” to justify the exercise of general jurisdiction.
The Federal Circuit agreed that the district court was clearly correct in ruling that it did not have general jurisdiction over the defendants, but did not agree that there should be no specific jurisdiction. Specifically, in order to determine whether specific jurisdiction exists the court must determine whether the defendant has purposefully established minimum contacts with the forum state: (1) whether the defendant “has purposefully directed his activities at residents of the forum”; and (2) whether “the litigation results from alleged injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.” When considering these inquiries the district court characterized the defendants actions at the June 2007 convention as constituting nothing more than attempts to inform Campbell of suspected infringement. This determination is what the Federal Circuit took issue with and ultimately disagreed with.
Employees’ affidavits asserted that the defendant did more at the trade show than simply inform Campbell that its animal stretchers might infringe her patents. The affidavits state that the defendant attempted to have plaintiff’s allegedly infringing products removed from the convention and that she told the plaintiff's customers that the products being sold were infringing. The Federal Circuit noted that it is critically important to the issue of personal jurisdiction that the defendant's patent rants were targeted at injuring the plaintiff's business in Washington and, therefore, could fairly be characterized as attempts to limit competition at the Seattle convention. Those efforts go beyond simply informing the accused infringer of the patentee’s allegations of infringement and open the defendant up to suit in Washington.

CAFC Rules in Egyptian Goddess: Point of Novelty Test Gone (sort of)

The Federal Circuit issued its en banc decision today in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (2006-1562). In a decision authored by Judge Bryson, the Court thoughtfully and carefully reviewed the history of the "point of novelty test," concluding that the test in its current incarnation "is of quite recent vintage" and holding that it "should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement."


While the case holding is quite clear in ridding design patent law of the point of novelty test, the opinion does not say one may ignore the prior art during an analysis of design patent infringement. On the contrary, "when the claimed and accused designs are not plainly dissimilar, resolution of the question whether the the ordinary observer would consider the two designs to be substantially similar will benefit from comparison of the claimed and accused designs with the prior art." Eliminated from the plaintiff's burden of proof in a design patent case, the point of novelty test therefore survives as a defensive doctrine, where the burden of producing prior art rests on the accused infringer. Under this new legal framework, one accused of design patent infringement is free to argue that any similarity between its device and the patented design results from prior art features or combinations and that the hypothetical ordinary observer would therefore not find the two designs "substantially the same."



What this means to a litigator like me is that a lot more design patent cases will go to the jury under the new test. Whether similarity in any given case is due to copying the prior art or due to actionable copying of the patented design is something the jury will now be asked to sort out on a more frequent basis. Score one point for trial lawyers and another for design patent holders in general.



In addition to eliminating the point of novelty test as a part of the Plaintiff's burden of proof for infringement, the opinion says that a detailed claims construction is not required, and that "the preferable course ordinarily will be for a district court not to attempt to 'construe' a design patent claim by providing a detailed verbal description of the claimed design." A district court may (in its discretion) reduce the design patent claim to a verbal or written pronouncement of scope, and the opinion gives several examples where a court might choose to do so; like where features appear in broken lines or where features have a purely utilitarian (as opposed to ornamental) purpose. The court has only one proviso "as a general matter, those courts should not treat the process of claim construction as requiring a detailed verbal description of the claimed design, as would typically be true in the case of utility patents."


So there you have it. Life just got a little easier for those owning design patents.

Defendant Not "Entitled" to Discovery on Claim For Section 285 Fees

In a case where the underlying claims of infringement were dismissed voluntarily under Rule 41, Judge Jones recently ordered that a defendant was not entitled to take discovery in order to support a theory that the case was "exceptional" under 35 USC Section 285.

From Judge Jones' order:

G-J appears to concede that it cannot substantiate its § 285 attorney fee request
without additional discovery. G-J will apparently base its § 285 request solely on its
allegations of inequitable conduct. See Dkt. # 46 at 7 (stating that G-J “is willing to
forego, without prejudice, its declaratory judgment claims of noninfringement and
invalidity, and to focus discovery and proceedings on the inequitable conduct claim”);
Dkt. # 55 at 7 (“G-J has already agreed to shorten and simplify this case by focusing
discovery on its inequitable conduct claim.”). G-J complains, however, that it “has not
been given the chance to substantiate its claims,” and that the court should permit it to
take discovery for that purpose. Dkt. # 46 at 9.


The court finds no merit in G-J’s contention that the mere fact that it has
counterclaims pending entitles it to discovery. The court has broad discretion to control
the scope of discovery. See Childress v. Darby Lumber, Inc., 357 F.3d 1000, 1009 (9th
Cir. 2004); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The court’s April 23 order established that
the scope of the declaratory judgment counterclaims was no more extensive than the
scope of G-J’s request for § 285 attorney fees. The court will limit discovery in
accordance with the scope of the counterclaims.

***


[T]he court noted that it could have dismissed G-J’s counterclaims, retaining jurisdiction solely “to enter declaratory relief as appropriate in resolving G-J’s request under § 285.” Id. at 12 n.5.


judgejonesorderon285.pdf

Can You Hear me Now? The Next Big VoIP Patent Battle will be Fought in Tacoma

It's been almost a year since Vonage, industry pioneer in VoIP and (after going from $17 at IPO to $1) current poster child for patent reform, settled allegations of patent infringement made by Sprint and Nortel (stories here and here) and more than a year since it was hit with a $58 M judgment following a jury's verdict of infringement and a potentially devastating injunction resulting from patent infringement allegations made by Verizon (story here; this judgment was subsequently vacated in its entirety, but the battle between Verizon and Vonage rages on in the E.D. of Virginia).

The next big VoIP battle is set to take place right here in the WD of Washington, where Skype faces allegations of infringement of US Patent No. 7,099,304, covering Apparatus, Methods, and Systems for Anonymous Communication. The owner of the '304 patent is Vancouver, WA-based Flexiworld Technologies, the self-described "leader in wireless applications for mobile devices, including laptop PCs, PDAs, digital cameras, and mobile phones."

The case was filed in March, but not much has happened so far. I uploaded a copy of the complaint including the patent. I'll keep you posted as the case progresses.

skypecomplaint.pdf

Seattle Patent Litigation Update: August, 2008

While August was a relatively slow month for new cases in Seattle (only one, Laughing Rabbit Inc. v. OpticsPlanet, Inc (08-01176 JLR), area technology companies were busy elsewhere dealing with a variety of patent issues. Notably, Microsoft settled its dispute with Immersion Corp, obtaining a one-time payment of $20.75 M. The settlement resolves a contract dispute stemming from patent litigation Immersion won against Sony Corp over game controllers with so-called "rumble" or "haptic" technology (vibrating controllers, set to move in response to on-screen gaming events, like an explosion or car crash). Immersion sued Sony in 2004 in the ND of California. The suit targeted Sony's Playstation and Playstation 2, as well as Microsoft's X-Box controllers. In 2005, Microsoft and Immersion entered into a sublicense agreement as part of a $26 M settlement, where Microsoft paid Immersion $20 M to obtain licensing rights to the technology and $6 M to buy a 10% stake in the company. Microsoft's 10% stake became pretty valuable when Sony agreed to pay Immersion more than $150 M to settle remaining claims for infringement. Last month's payment resolved any remaining interest Microsoft had in proceeds from this patent litigation. Overall, one might say that Microsoft settled this dispute for $6M (but I have no idea whether Microsoft expects any more return on its 10% "investment" in Immersion ... Regardless, this is definitely some creative lawyering at work. ... Hats off to lawyers for MSFT).

In other Microsoft patent news from last month, Portland-based patent law blogger, Gary "Patent Hawk" Odom, author of The Patent Prospector, sued Microsoft in East Texas, alleging Infringement of his patent for "Tool Group Manipulations," US Pat. No. 7,363,592. (Complaint available here) Patent Hawk is represented by Susman Godfrey, among three other law firms and no fewer than 10 lawyers, including the Susman firm's Seattle-based patent litigators, Brooke Taylor and Genevieve Vose. The suit was filed in Tyler, TX, but it is not likely to get to trial very quickly there. The Texas Rocket Dockets (even Tyler's) are not as speedy as they once were.

Nintendo was also busy last month. It was dealt a one-two punch: (1) ITC investigation and (2) Federal Court patent litigation in USDC, Northern District of Maryland, both stemming from allegations that the Wii infringes certain patents owned by Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. Hillcrest owns US Patent Nos. 7,158,118; 7,262,760; and 7,414,611, which allegedly cover a technology used on TV sets for user access to digital content like photographs, web sites, and games. The software typically uses a main menu that prompts users to choose which program they want to use. Hmmm, sounds like my Apple TV. Hillcrest also asserts infringement of US Patent No. 7,139,983, a patent alleged to cover hand-held three dimensional pointing devices that (unlike a traditional mouse) allow a user to translate or rotate the pointing tool in space instead of merely detecting movement relative to a flat surface.

Hillcrest is a different sort of plaintiff than Nintendo is perhaps used to (at least during the "modern age" of patent litigation, i.e., since about 2004). Hillcrest makes products and is relying on US trade law to seek a general exclusion order barring importation of any product infringing its US patents; this would apply to any importer of such products, so this case has implications beyond the immediate parties. Nintendo can stay litigation in Maryland district court or decide to proceed along parallel tracks in both US District court and the ITC. Things will move fast in the ITC, not as fast as they used to, but considerably faster than they will move in USDC in Maryland. It will be interesting from a strategy perspective to see which route Nintendo chooses to go. So far, no filings have been made by Nintendo in the district court litigation.

Finally, I was catching up on some of the cases that I've written about, and I noticed that in July, Judge Jones agreed to consolidate three cases brought by Unigen Pharmaceuticals over US Patent No. 7,192,611, a patent covering methods for treating osteoarthritis. Unigen sued Walgreens and others for selling an herbal supplement that is a blend of flavans from Acacia catechu and flavanoids from Chinese Skullcap (Scutellaria Baicalensis). Unigen markets this herbal supplement under the mark Univestin. Walgreens filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to invalidate the '611 patent in view of US Patent No. 5,650,433. Judge Jones has a standing order explaining that he normally does not entertain summary judgment motions that implicate claims construction issues until after Markman briefing and (if necessary) a Markman hearing and decision on claim construction. In view of this order, Judge Jones asked for a claims construction "proffer" from Unigen, saying that it would be accepted as true for purposes of summary judgment and limited only by counsel's obligations to have a good faith basis for the construction, consistent with Rule 11. My earlier post explains this in better detail.
Well, Unigen submitted its proffer, and this was accepted by Judge Jones and held sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact, and hence, order denying summary judgment (at least for now). From Judge Jones' Order:

[T]he court notes that the parties’ evidence shows that osteoarthritis itself is a degradation of joint cartilage.The symptoms of osteoarthritis, or the effects of that degradation, include inflammation and pain. COX-2 is the shorthand name of an enzyme that promotes inflammation. Treatments that target COX-2 seek to inhibit its production to produce an
anti-inflammatory effect.

For each of the independent claims, Unigen proposes a construction that not only
makes each preamble a claim limitation, it makes each preamble a claim limitation with
meaning beyond its plain language. See Philips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that claim terms must be construed according to their “ordinary
and customary meaning” to a person of skill in the art). The “method for treating
osteoarthritis” of claims 1 and 8 becomes a “method for alleviating those symptoms of
osteoarthritis that result from COX-2 mediated inflammation.” The “method for
improving impairments . . . in a living host having arthritis” of claim 15 becomes a
“method for improving impairments . . . that result from COX-2 mediated inflammation
in a living host having osteoarthritis.” The “effective amount” and “host in need thereof”
limitations that follow the preambles of the independent claims are similarly imbued with
meanings that limit them to targeting COX-2 mediated inflammation.

Accepting this claim construction, there is no clear and convincing evidence that
the ‘433 Patent anticipates the ‘611 Patent. The ‘433 Patent is targeted at protecting
cartilage (“chondroprotection”), not at COX-2 mediated inflammation. Indeed, the ‘433
Patent teaches away from anti-inflammatory treatment, noting that “conventional
analgesic and anti-inflammatory agents . . . were not effective against the destruction of
the articular cartilage, and in fact sometimes exhibited adverse effect . . . .” ‘433 Patent
at 1:36-40. If Unigen correctly construes the ‘611 Patent to require a method that targets
COX-2 mediated inflammation, then Walgreen has not provided uncontroverted clear and
convincing evidence that the ‘433 Patent is anticipatory prior art.1
It appears, then, that Unigen’s construction of the independent claims of the ‘611
Patent as limited to targeting COX-2 mediated inflammation is critical to sustaining the
validity of the patent. Expeditiously resolving that dispute may be key in efficiently
resolving these consolidated actions.

That's all for now.

Seattle Patent Law Community Mourns the Passing of Lee Johnson

Friends, family, and local patent practitioners met yesterday to mourn the loss of Lee Johnson, a talented engineer and patent lawyer who spent over 35 years as named partner of one of Seattle's oldest IP boutiques, Christensen O'Connor Johnson Kindness (commonly referred to by the acronym COJK). Lee was an excellent lawyer and friend. Funeral services were held in Seattle's historic Plymouth Congregational Church and it was standing room only.

I had the pleasure of working with Lee for seven years at COJK and I try to emulate his dedication to this profession and his focus on client service. Lee was the ideal mentor for a young lawyer, bringing the same dedication and focus to this role as he did his legal practice. He introduced me to Seattle Rotary and led by exemplifying the Rotary motto of "service of above self." At age 65, he left us too soon after struggling with cancer for the last year.


Lee was born October 4, 1942 in Ames, Iowa and was raised in the small idyllic farming community of Avoca, Iowa. He graduated from Iowa State University in 1964 with a degree in chemical engineering and was accepted into the patent training program at The DuPont Company in Washington D.C. where he worked during the day and studied law in the evening at Georgetown University. In 1971, after working briefly for a law firm in Dallas, Lee accepted a job in Seattle with the small IP boutique Christensen & Sanborn. It was here that Lee joined Bruce O'Connor, a fellow Georgetown graduate. O'Connor and Johnson were later joined by Gary Kindness, and partnership of COJK was formed in 1976.

Over the years, COJK represented some of the Northwest's finest companies, including Microsoft, Boeing, Amazon, Nintendo, and Weyerhaeuser. Lee was instrumental in firm leadership, helping to grow the firm from 4 lawyers in the 1970s to over 50 attorneys in 2001-2, most with engineering or technical degrees.

Lee was an avid boater. He and partner Gary Kindness owned a 46 foot Grand Banks cruiser that they kept in the San Juan Islands. Named by combining their two last names Johnson and Kindness, "the Jokin" was an omnipresent guiding vessel for the annual COJK boat trip in the San Juans. The boat was always spotless too. Lee was aboard the Jokin, enjoying a vacation with his family in Desolation Sound just weeks ago.

Lee will be missed but not forgotten. He's left an important mark on my professional career, and lawyers will do well always if they only try and be more like Lee Johnson.

Declaratory Judgment Case Against CRS LLC Dismissed on First to File Rule

In a case for declaratory judgment styled TGN, Inc. v. CRS LLC (08-680MJP), plaintiff TGN sought an order invalidating US Pat. 6,073,124 and declaring that certain software does not infringe. TGN is wholly owned by Turner Broadcasting System (TBS). Among others, TGN and TBS own and operate a website, GameTap.com, which is alleged to infringe the '124 patent. Allegations of infringement were made in a complaint filed last March in the District of Delaware, (08-127GMS) by CRS LLC. TGN filed its DJ action about two months later and CRS moved to dismiss based on the first to file rule. CRS states in its motion to dismiss that Time Warner is the nation's 49th largest corporation with over $46 Billion in reported revenue and over $130 Billion in assets but that very little is known about plaintiff TGN. In her order dismissing the case the Judge Pechman explained as follows:

TGN has presented no evidence that CRS has acted in bad faith. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (citing Mission Ins. Co. v. Puritan Fashions Corp., 706 F.2d 599, 602-03 (5th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff acted in bad faith when plaintiff asked defendant to hold the suit, then ran to court and sued defendant)). Neither is there evidence that CRS filed suit in Delaware in anticipation of TGN’s declaratory action in this Court. See Guthy-Renker Fitness, L.L.C. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc., 179 F.R.D. 264, 271 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (providing that a suit is anticipatory “if the plaintiff in the first-filed action filed suit on receipt of specific, concrete indications that a suit by the defendant was imminent”). CRS does not appear to be forum shopping. Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 629 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Mission, 706 F.2d at 602 n.3 (“[a]nticipatory suits are disfavored because they are an aspect of forum shopping”)).

Faithful readers of this blog will recognize CRS and the '124 patent from other posts. Here is a list of the cases CRS has filed in this district since 2004:

March 2008
CRS LLC v. Valve Corp	WA Western	Donohue	Patent	Federal Question
Plaintiff: CRS LLC; Defendant: Valve Corp
June 7, 2007
CRS LLC v. IGN Entertainment Inc	WA Western	Zilly	Patent	Patent Infringement
Plaintiff: CRS LLC; Defendant: IGN Entertainment Inc
March 17, 2005
CRS, LLC v. Bitarts, LTD	WA Western	Lasnik	Patent	Patent Infringement

In the case against Valve, Judge Jones recently denied Valve's motion seeking bifurcation on liability and Damages. From Judge Jones' order:

Valve has offered no evidence to distinguish this action from any other civil case. First, Valve’s argument that it will succeed in avoiding liability is premised entirely on its observation that CRS and its predecessors in ownership of the patent-in-suit have failed in litigations against other defendants. Valve offers few details about these other litigations, and no basis for the court to conclude, at this stage, that a similar outcome is likely in this litigation. Second, while Valve seeks phased discovery, it does not seek to phase dispositive motions or bifurcate trial. Under those circumstances, there is no reason to expect that the court will receive a dispositive motion and rule on it before the damages phase of discovery would begin. Third, although Valve repeatedly decries the “time-consuming, burdensome, and expensive” nature of damages discovery (Mot. at 7), it offers no evidence that responding to CRS’s damages-related discovery requests will be particularly time-consuming, burdensome, or expensive. Discovery is inherently burdensome and time-consuming, and always comes at some cost to the parties; but the question for the court is whether the burden of the discovery is unreasonable. Without evidence that damages discovery will impose burdens that justify a departure from the ordinary rule that damages and liability discovery proceed simultaneously, there is no basis to grant Valve’s request.

The case against Bitarts Ltd. was stayed in view of the defendants' bankruptcy filing in may 2006, and it involved another patent, US 6,141,698.

The case against IGN relating to the '124 patent ended in a confidential settlement earlier this year as I reported here.

CRS is represented by local patent lawyer/litigator Bob Rhode.

Seattle Patent Litigation Update: July 2008

It was a very busy month in July for patent litigation. Here is the case list.

July 29, 2008
Chef'n Corporation v. Trudeau Corporation
WA Western
Pechman
Patent
Federal Question
Plaintiff: Chef'n Corporation; Defendant: Trudeau Corporation

July 23, 2008
Northwest Agricultural Products, Inc. v. Emerald Bioagriculture Corp
WA Eastern
Shea
Patent
Federal Question
Plaintiff: Northwest Agricultural Products, Inc.; Defendant: Emerald Bioagriculture Corp

July 15, 2008
Malki v. Franke Commercial Systems Inc. et al
WA Western
Martinez
Patent
Federal Question
Plaintiff: Avraham Malki; Defendant: Franke Commercial Systems Inc., H & K Norwood Inc., McDonald's Corporation

Implicit Networks Inc. v. International Business Machines Corporation et al

WA Western
Tsuchida
Patent
Federal Question
Plaintiff: Implicit Networks Inc.; Defendant: International Business Machines Corporation, Oracle Corporation, Sap America Inc., Adobe Systems Incorporated
July 11, 2008

Loops, LLC et al v. Phoenix Trading, Inc. et al
WA Western
Martinez
Patent
Federal Question
Plaintiff: Loops, LLC, Loops Flexbrush LLC.; Defendant: Phoenix Trading, Inc., Wendy Hemming, Jeffrey R Hemming, H&L Industrial, Does
July 8, 2008

Widevine Technologies Inc v. Verimatrix Inc
WA Western
Robart
Patent
Federal Question
Plaintiff: Widevine Technologies Inc; Defendant: Verimatrix Inc

You might take notice that this list includes another patent case by Implicit Networks, a relatively unknown local technology owner with some pretty large bones to pick. Implicit's case filed last month is against IBM, Oracle, Adobe, and SAP. It also filed in February against Intel, AMD, Sun, NVIDIA, Raza, and Real Networks. Made me think "Hey ... you forgot someone ... 'your potential, our passion.'"

Implicit's case against IBM, Oracle, Adobe, and SAP involves Infringement allegations targeting IBM's Websphere Application Server, Oracle's Application Server and BEA WebLogic Server, SAP's NetWeaver and Adobe's JRun and ColdFusion products. The patents-in-suit are for computer-server software that performs faster security functions, US 6,324,685, and 6,976,248.

Implicit's case against Intel and others involves US Patent No. 6,629,163 covering "A method and system for demultiplexing a first sequence of packet components to identify specific components wherein subsequent components are processed without re-identifying components." This is basically, a system for processing encrypted data. According to allegations in the Complaint, this technology is used in Intel's Viiv platform, the Java Media Framework, ATI Radeon hardware, software from NVIDIA called Stant, and other products.

In both cases, Implicit is represented by James Rogers, as well as Ed Goldstein, Corby Vowell, adn Matt Prebeg of Houston, Texas. Texas lawyers filing contingent fee-patent litigation in Seattle? Why not. You'll get to trial faster here than in the so-called "rocket docket" of East Texas, where patent cases are languishing due to a back-log.