Dit een versie van http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/12/orbitz-answers-global-patent-holdings.html zoals onze crawler deze aantrof bij het doorzoeken van de site op 30/01/2008. De onderstaande pagina is de versie in onze index, die is gebruikt om de pagina een plaats te geven tussen de resultaten van je recente zoekactie. Dit hoeft niet de nieuwste versie van de pagina te zijn. Als je de nieuwste versie wilt bekijken, ga je naar de pagina op het web.
Live.com sluit zich niet aan bij de inhoud van of degenen die verantwoordelijk zijn voor de hieronder weergegeven pagina.

Monday, December 17, 2007

Orbitz Answers Global Patent Holdings' JPEG-on-a-Website Complaint, Explains Why Infringement is Impossible

In the original Global Patent Holdings lawsuit on the '341 patent, new defendant Orbitz, through its counsel Katten Muchin, has provided a very interesting answer to GPH's complaint. In paragraphs 35-104 of Orbitz's counterclaim, on pages 9-19 of the answer, Orbitz lays out in meticulous detail (1) how the '341 patent's only remaining claim is not directly infringed by any single entity (see BMC v. Paymentech, also discussed by Dennis Crouch here); (2) how Orbitz doesn't contributorily infringe or induce infringement; and (3) how the claim is invalid in light of several references.

This is the most thorough analysis I have ever seen in any counterclaim in any patent case in a while. Normally, I wouldn't draft my counterclaims to be so revealing. But in this case, I think it's right on. Good job, Orbitz and Katten!

Trolls have the week off this week, unless there's an outrageous case filed. Instead, here's this week's programming, some of which written while tipsy after my firm's holiday party, so I better proofread carefully...:

Tuesday: Top 10 Silly Patents Issued by the PTO in 2007 (not including silly claims confirmed in reexamination).

Wednesday: Patent Troll Tracker Haikus

Thursday: Top 10 Patent Trolls of 2007

Friday: Running of the Trolls


No GPH for me, please said...

GPH - isn't that what Andy Pettite took?

Seriously, I'm just wondering... Might it not be worthwhile for some of us to pitch in and file Orbit'z invalidity arguments before the USPTO in the context of yet another re-exam?

Anonymous said...

Yes, second reexaminations of the same patent with additional prior art can be a good idea. For example, the second reexamination of the "print a book on demand" patent finally finished off the rest of ITS claims. But in spite of the PTO having set up a special examination group for reexaminations, with very good odds of removing unpatentable claims in the long run, the PTO is still way too slow and thus still a long way from meeting the statutory "special dispatch" requirement, much less meeting the reexamination systems objective of avoiding litigation costs.