your going to get sued if you sell online?!

[eddie1278]

Pangea Intellectual Properties (PanIP LLC) is suing companies all across the country. They claim that if you use graphical and textual information on a video screen for purposes of making a sale, then you are infringing on their patent. US Patent No 5,576,951.

And if you accept information to conduct automatic financial transactions via a telephone line & video screen, you're infringing on their patent. US Patent No. 6,289,319



Read more about it here

http://www.youmaybenext.com/

some crazy stuff

 

[eddie1278]

I found this message in the message board they had on the site , some more crazy stuff.


If you look at this link you will find the page where the Patent Office offers for sale copies of existing patents and trademarks over the internet. This is obvious infringement on a Patent that they granted! Why the h-ll can't someone point this out to them. Send them a Cease & Desist letter and lets see what happens.
Check Here to look for yourself --->

USPTO - Patent Trademark Office eCommerce Checkout Site
https://www3.uspto.gov/oems25p/index.html


Quoted right from this page "Order Documents: Certified or uncertified copies of patents, trademarks, and assignments (ownership documents), as well as other documents related to patent and trademark prosecution history files may be ordered through the Internet."

 

[RMF]

I didn't read everything about it, but it sounds like something I heard about a year ago when a guy trademarked ";-)", and planned on sueing anyone who used that. :laugh:

RMF

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Have a look at patent site BountyQuest.com

If you have information about "prior art" which can invalidate a patent listed for bounty, you could win $10,000 or more!

 

[Crazyac3]

I don't know how much stock I would put into this.

 

[Manic]

Think about it rationally for a second. How are they going to enforce it?

 

[charles]

Okay guys, here's how you read a lawsuit.

First, who's the lawyer on this thing? Kathleen Walker of San Diego. Here's her stats from the California Bar website:

Member# 202185
3421 Thorn St
San Diego, CA 92104
Phone: (619)284-1965
FAX:
E-Mail:

Admitted in California on July 1, 1999
Undergraduate: Univ of Colorado Boulder; Boulder CO
School of Law: Creighton Univ SOL; Omaha NE

She's been practicing since, wow, 1999, a whole two years and five months! She's filing in San Diego.

Wanna mess up this silly little story, file a Declaratory Relief case in Washington D.C. to invalidate the patent on the grounds that it is "obvious." See if these fearsome plaintiff even show up to defend. Take up a collection and we'll go for it

 

[NetTuner]

charles,

Please count me in for $100. Patents like that should not be worth the paper they are printed on.

 

[mole]

Times are bad, I guess. They can't earn honest money from a commercial viable product/service, so they have to resort to legal gimmicks to stay afloat.

 

[charles]

Second, you read the complaint.

This complaint is classic "bare bones," and doesn't tell us one thing about how "Dickson," the defendant, violated the patent. So we move on.

Let's read the patents. The first one describes a "tool for augmentation of sale and marketing capabilities of travel agents" and specifically describes its application to the airline and travel reservation industries. The summary of invention makes it clear that it's all about the travel agent business.

Okay, on to the second patent, which is described as follows: "this invention is to provide an economical means for screening loan applications..." (It's true that the title of the invention is "Automatic Business and Financial Processing System," but that's of little importance. It's a very specific application targeted to loan officers to help get pre-compiled information on credit scoring, etc. Not a pay-point system.

Need we say more at present? If the patents were for automatic foot massagers they might be slightly less relevant to your business. Consign this one to the Online Urban Legends category and spend the time saved worrying about it giving your sweetheart a warm bath and a rubdown. If you get served with a lawsuit, call me, but I won't be waiting for that call.

Like Admiral Poindexter said, "Scientia est potentia" -- "Knowledge is power." (Abandoned motto of the Total Information Awareness project).

 

[charles]

Originally posted by NetTuner
charles,

Please count me in for $100. Patents like that should not be worth the paper they are printed on.

Love it when I shoot my mouth off before reading. As my analysis above shows, there is very little to fear from this lawsuit, and it doesn't merit the aggressive remedial action I suggested. Bad habit from representing aggressive clients, i.e., twitchy trigger finger

 

[charles]

Third, check PACER, the online docketing service for the federal courts, and discover that this lawsuit has been DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as of October 10, 2002. Of course, this was very costly to discover -- I had to pay fourteen cents to get this report!

***************************************************

3:02cv592 Panip LLC v. Dickson Supply Co

TERMED
U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 02-CV-592

Panip LLC v. Dickson Supply Co Filed: 03/28/02
Assigned to: Judge Rudi M. Brewster Jury demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Ruben B Brooks
Demand: $0,000 Nature of Suit: 830
Lead Docket: None Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Dkt# in other court: None

Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement

*** Edited for Brevity***

3/28/02 1 Complaint Filed; (referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben B.
Brooks) Receipt No/Amt of Fee: 80934/$150; patent letter
prepared (jrl) [Entry date 04/02/02]

3/28/02 2 Summons issued (jrl) [Entry date 04/02/02]

4/12/02 3 Return of Service executed upon defendant Dickson Supply Co
on 4/3/02 (jrl) [Entry date 04/15/02]

4/19/02 4 Notice by plaintiff Panip LLC of related case(s) 02cv530;
02cv531; 02cv532; 02cv533; 02cv534; 02cv590; 02cv591;
02cv592; 02cv593; 02cv594; 02cv595 (low number order
prepared) (meg) [Entry date 04/22/02]

4/19/02 5 Proof of service by plaintiff Panip LLC of: Notice of
related actions by personal service to Mike McCann,
employee of Jonathan Hangartner, counsel for dft. (bjr)
[Entry date 04/22/02]

4/22/02 6 Stipulation and Order by Judge M. J. Lorenz, Answer
deadline extended to 6/10/02 for Dickson Supply Co (meg)
[Entry date 04/22/02]

4/23/02 7 Report of Clerk and Order of Transfer pursuant to Low
Number Rule. Case transferred to Judge Rudi M. Brewster
and referred to Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks (meg)
[Entry date 04/23/02]

6/10/02 8 Notice of Motion and Motion by defendant Dickson Supply Co
to dismiss the complaint, or to strike certain
allegations [ motion(s) referred to Judge Rudi M. Brewster
] motion hrg set for 8/19/02 at 2:00, t/w P/A (andy)
[Entry date 06/12/02] [Edit date 06/12/02]

6/10/02 9 Declaration of Allan Dickson re motion to dismiss the
complaint [8-1], re motion to strike certain allegations
[8-2] (andy) [Entry date 06/12/02]

8/26/02 10 Stipulated request to vacate hearing on motion to dismiss
and Order by Judge Rudi M. Brewster to allow the parties to
finalize settlement of this matter (axr)
[Entry date 08/26/02]

10/10/02 11 Notice of Dismissal; Pla moves for dismissal with prejudice
(axr) [Entry date 10/15/02]

[END OF DOCKET: 3:02cv592]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

01/25/2003 13:21:57

PACER Login: ******* Client Code:
Description: docket report Search Criteria: 3:02cv00592
Billable Pages: 2 Cost: 0.14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[charles]

Continuing on here, past the point of reason, I looked for related cases on PACER, and discovered this really interesting case, which appears to be one by PanIP, LLC against the youcouldbenext.com website operators for infringing PanIP's trademark. And guess what? PanIP appears to be making some headway. Hooray for Kathleen. As Daniel Day Lewis said in Gangs of New York, "She's got a lot of sand."

PACER docket (edited):

U.S. District Court

Southern District of California (San Diego)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 02-CV-2173

PanIP LLC, et al v. PanIP Group Defense, et al

Filed: 11/04/02
Assigned to: Judge Rudi M. Brewster
Jury demand: Plaintiff
Referred to: Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas
Cause: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LAWRENCE LOCKWOOD, . Kathleen M Walker
plaintiff (619)255-0986
[COR LD NTC]
Law Offices of Kathleen M
Walker
3421 Thorn Street
San Diego, CA 92104
(619)255-0987

PANIP LLC, a California Kathleen M Walker
company (See above)
plaintiff [COR LD NTC]

v.

TIMOTHY BEERE Jonathan Hangartner
defendant [COR LD NTC]
Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton
501 West Broadway
Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101-3598
(619)338-6500

CATHY BRAND-BEERE Jonathan Hangartner
defendant (See above)
[COR LD NTC]

DEBRAND FINE CHOCOLATES, an Jonathan Hangartner
Indiana corporation (See above)
defendant [COR LD NTC]

DOES, 1-50
defendant

DOES, 51-100
defendant

PANIP GROUP DEFENSE FUND, INC, Jonathan Hangartner
an Indiana corporation (See above)
defendant [COR LD NTC]





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DOCKET PROCEEDINGS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE # DOCKET ENTRY



11/4/02 1 Complaint Filed; (referred to Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas
) Receipt No/Amt of Fee: #88205/$150. Demand for jury trial.
Letter prepared. (jpp) [Entry date 11/05/02]
[Edit date 11/05/02]

11/6/02 3 Notice of Motion and Motion by plaintiff Lawrence Lockwood,
plaintiff PanIP LLC for temporary restraining order, for
order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not
issue to enjoin dfts' trademark infringement [ motion(s)
referred to Judge Barry T. Moskowitz ], (okay per ct) (ksr)
[Entry date 11/07/02] [Edit date 11/15/02]

11/6/02 4 Memorandum of points and authorities by plaintiff Lawrence
Lockwood, plaintiff PanIP LLC in support of motion for
temporary restraining order [3-1], in support of motion for
order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not
issue to enjoin dfts' trademark infringement [3-2] (ksr)
[Entry date 11/07/02]


1/13/03 28 Minutes: Enter Order by Judge Rudi M. Brewster re motion to
strike the complaint pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure 425.16 [20-1] , re motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction [20-2] , re motion to dismiss for
improper venue [20-3] motion hearing reset for 10:30
2/24/03 before Judge Rudi Brewster; Court Reporter: S.
Dinsmore (axr) [Entry date 01/14/03]

1/16/03 29 Order by Judge Rudi M. Brewster; the court denies the dft's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction with
respect to dfts Timothy Beere and Debrand Fine Chocolates;
the court grants the motion with respect to dft Cathy-Brand
Beere; the court denies the motion to dismiss for improper
venue with respect to dfts Timothy Beere and Debrand Fine
Chocolates; the court denies as moot the motion with
respect to Cathy Brand-Beere; the court denies the motion
to strike with respect to the pla's federal claims; the
court grants the motion with respect to the pla's state
law claims for trademark infringement and unfair
competition; the court cont the motion with respect to the
pla's defamation claims against Timothy Beere, Debrand
Hrg re: defamation set fo 10:30 2/24/03 before Judge Rudi
Brewster the court defers its decision on the respective
requests for atty's fees pending final resolution of this
motion (axr) [Entry date 01/17/03]

 

[charles]

There are in fact 9 more cases filed here:

3:02cv00590 Panip LLC v. Backcountry 03/28/02 10/15/02
3:02cv00591 Panip LLC v. Furniture and Things 03/28/02 07/10/02
3:02cv00592 Panip LLC v. Dickson Supply Co 03/28/02 10/15/02
3:02cv00593 Panip LLC v. Electronic Express 03/28/02 09/30/02
3:02cv00594 Panip LLC v. Fabric Depot Inc 03/28/02 09/11/02
3:02cv00595 Panip LLC v. Snow Country Ski 03/28/02 11/19/02
3:02cv01724 Panip LLC v. Katco Industries Inc 08/29/02 01/17/03
3:02cv01753 Panip LLC v. Beach Photo and 09/04/02 01/24/03
3:02cv01805 Panip LLC v. Aseptico Inc 09/11/02 01/22/03
3:02cv01981 Panip LLC v. Eagles Wings Inc 10/04/02 01/22/03

 

[charles]

Five more here:

1. 3:02cv00530 Panip LLC v. CP Industries Inc 03/21/02 01/24/03
2. 3:02cv00531 PanIp LLC v. Peekay Corporation 03/21/02 10/15/02
3. 3:02cv00532 PanIp LLC v. Video Age Inc 03/21/02 08/26/02
4. 3:02cv00533 PanIp LLC v. Allwall Technologies 03/21/02 08/13/02
5. 3:02cv00534 PanIp LLC v. Abes Electronics 03/21/02 08/16/02

Only 1 and 2 appear to be live, and they barely so. All the others have been dismissed by the plaintiff. This appears to a quick sue-and-settle arrangement that is about paying Kathleen's rent, and probably little more.

 

[charles]

Crimony, flinking PACER eats your money faster'n video poker. I'm down by $3.40 since I started this thread.

Here's the final on this thing.

The big thing to fear in an IP litigation case is the Injunction. Remember when Barnes & Noble was enjoined by the SF District Court from using "one click" payment processing? (Read all about it in Charles' Primer of Online Media Law). Well, that was a serious monkey wrench in B&N's world, because they had to add a click to their system to comply with the injunction.

PanIP doesn't seem to be seeking or obtaining any injunctions. That means none of the defendants would have to alter their allegedly infringing practice until AFTER TRIAL, which is A FEW YEARS AWAY in SD US District Court.

The strategy being followed by the PanIP defendants seems to be cost-ineffective. They are fighting these cases with motions to dismiss, and then (apparently) settling out for nuisance amounts before the Judge decides the motion. (Pure intuitive guesswork on my part.) As a result, there are no decisions favorable to the defendants, just a series of filings and settlements.

Someone should draw the line, screw the motions to dismiss, notice depositions and drag old Larry Lockwood (the original patentor) through the process, all the way to trial.

I still think the odds of being sued are miniscule and dropping, but I revise the Urban Legend comment. It's more an Urban Hyperbole.

Chas

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Chas,

Interesting points.

Ultimately with patents, the only thing that matters is the strength of the claims. The claims ARE the invention. The title, abstract, description, etc.. are largely irrelevant.

Court don't normally invalidate patents because of "obviousness." Non-obviousness is a rather subjective test that the patent examiner applies to screen patents for patentability.

Issued patents are presumed valid. The burden of proof falls on the challenger.

The best shot at invalidating a patent is usually through attacking novelty, by digging up some damaging prior art. The best source of such damaging prior art is NON PATENT prior art sources, such as trade journals. Usually the patent prior art is well known to the patent examiners at the USPTO. They have the patent prior art information at their fingertips.

Also, get the file wrappers. Sometime devastating prior art can be found in there, sometimes submitted by third parties AFTER the patent issues.

We broker patents through NOVELINT [http://novelint.com], an intellectual property management group.

We get involved with inventors who own patents that are being infringed by large corporations. We manage, enforce, and license the patents. We help the inventors recover their money on a 100% contingency basis.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

One strategy that some patent owners use is to sue weak defendants because they know that a weak defendant will want to pay a settlement rather than fight.

It's possible that this is what is happening in this instance..

 

[charles]

Originally posted by DotComCowboy
Ultimately with patents, the only thing that matters is the strength of the claims. The claims ARE the invention. The title, abstract, description, etc.. are largely irrelevant.

Yes, but the only part that's easy to summarize. If you check the claims on these puppies, they are just as limited as the description suggests. Not that they can't be stretched to cover other circumstances, but again the big issue is practical. These lawsuits are being settled seriatim, and the problem doesn't seem to be a big one for the defendants. Abe's of Maine settled out with very little fuss, very quickly.

Preliminary Injunctions aren't being sought or issued, so I doubt the plaintiffs want to test their claims at all.

Thanks for your comments. Substantive discussion is really fun.

Chas

 

[proproject]

I guess part of me always wanted to be an attorney. I found that strangely interesting. Thanks.