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
Monday, December 17, 2007
Orbitz Answers Global Patent Holdings' JPEG-on-a-Website Complaint, Explains Why Infringement is Impossible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
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?
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.
Post a Comment