The Prior Art

Paul Allen v. The Internet

Former Microsoft executive and billionaire Paul Allen sued several major Internet companies and three large retailers for patent infringement today, asserting that four patents originating at Interval Research, Allen's dot-com era think tank, cover basic web browsing and e-commerce technologies.

The lawsuit [PDF] was filed by Interval Licensing LLC, a patent-holding company owned by Allen, and names eleven companies as defendants: AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube.

Interval Research was founded in 1992. It closed its doors in 2000, but the lawsuit is necessary to monetize the investment that Allen made in the organization, said David Postman, a spokesman for Allen.

The patents cover "a variety of key processes in e-commerce," said Postman. "Interval Research was early—and right—on key pieces of the Internet," said Postman. "It's important now to protect that investment. We believe these companies are using that technology, in both e-commerce and search."

Allen is one of the world's richest people, with a fortune that Forbes magazine estimates as over $13 billion.

A Wired magazine profile of Interval Research suggests that by 1999, the institute was struggling, with Allen having spent upwards of $100 million on research and not much to show for it. "Interval always had a special buzz and a collection of talent that, even in the annals of technological genius, stands out."

The four patents-in-suit were filed between 1996 and 2000.

They are:

• No. 6,263,507, "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
• No. 6,034,652, "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
• No. 6,788,314, "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
• No. 6,757,682, "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."

The suit was filed in the Western District of Washington. Interval Licensing is represented by Susman Godfrey, a Texas-based law firm that focuses on contingency-fee patent lawsuits, and Heim, Payne & Chorush is a smaller patent firm based in Houston.

More documents:

• Interval Licensing press release on the lawsuit
• Interval Licensing v. AOL et al. complaint [PDF]
• Coverage from Wall Street Journal

Cross-posted at Corporate Counsel.

 

 

"Patent Hawk" lawsuit was an inside job, says Microsoft

Patent consultant Gary Odom, who blogs and does business as "Patent Hawk," used to help Microsoft defend itself against patent lawsuits. But in August, Odom slapped his former client with a patent lawsuit of his own. On his blog, Odom took a quick break from denouncing patent reform to announce his new project, in an understated post titled "Tool Groups."

Odom gamely admitted that Microsoft had been his client for years. "They had every opportunity for friendly discussion," he wrote.

New documents filed in the case reveal much more about Odom's relationship with his client-turned-target. Not only did Gary Odom work for both Microsoft and one of its outside law firms over a period of several years—he actually signed contracts in which he agreed not to file his own patent or IP lawsuits, and agreed to disclose his own patent activity. 

But Odom broke those promises many times over, say Microsoft lawyers. He secretly acquired his own patents, ultimately asserting one in this lawsuit, claiming it covers features of Microsoft Office 2007.

Hawk Attack

Gary Odom is an Oregon patent consultant who also blogs as Patent Hawk. Now he's sued his former client, Microsoft, in the Eastern District of Texas, saying the software company infringes his patent with its Office 2007 toolbar.

In the comment section of his four-line post, Odom writes that "Microsoft was a Patent Hawk client for years. They had every opportunity for friendly discussion. The words 'patent tax' were used, and Microsoft chose a path consistent with their corporate culture."

Odom's litigation spurred a sharp response from libertarian writer and attorney Stephen Kinsella, who wrote about the case on the Against Monopoly blog:

Patent Prospector implies that there's something wrong with viewing such a threat as a "tax". There's not. That's exactly what it is. Odom threatens his former client with severe financial damage by the state's thugs, and they call it a "tax." Hey, unfair! They are supposed to just pay their former attorney! ...

I think I just may start asking patent attorneys my company hires to include a little clause in the retainer agreement: "and we promise not to sue you, our client, for patent infringement in the future."

(On his website, Odom identifies himself as a consultant providing a variety of patent-related services, not an attorney; Kinsella's post was updated accordingly.) Odom is represented by Susman Godfrey, a Texas firm whose patent work is mostly on the plaintiff's side these days.

This via Patently-O, where Dennis Crouch notes that Office 2007 users "might check to see whether your Microsoft click-through license includes indemnification." Um... I actually don't know whether that's a joke or not.

Photo: Flickr/Major Clanger