{"id":25009,"date":"2013-03-27T19:19:56","date_gmt":"2013-03-27T23:19:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rbach.net\/blog\/index.php\/"},"modified":"2021-08-11T20:26:45","modified_gmt":"2021-08-12T00:26:45","slug":"patent-troll-sues-apple-google-and-everyone-else-but-bt-denies-involvement-tech-news-and-analysis","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rbach.net\/index.php\/patent-troll-sues-apple-google-and-everyone-else-but-bt-denies-involvement-tech-news-and-analysis\/","title":{"rendered":"Mobile Patent Troll Sues Everyone"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Mobile<\/a>Surprise, surprise there’s another mobile-related patent lawsuit<\/strong>. David Meyer<\/a> at GigaOM<\/em><\/a> says<\/a> this time the plaintiff is an obscure Delaware-registered limited liability\u00a0non-practicing entity<\/a><\/strong> called Steelhead. The patent in question covers \u2018mobile radio handover initiation determination’ \u2013 in other words, choosing which cellular base station<\/strong> has the best signal as the handset moves from one place to another.<\/p>\n

\"Cell<\/a>The defendants are a who’s who of the mobile world: Apple<\/a><\/strong> (AAPL<\/a>), AT&T<\/a> <\/strong>(T<\/a>), Google<\/a><\/strong> (GOOG<\/a>),\u00a0HTC<\/a>,\u00a0Kyocera<\/a> (KYO<\/a>), LG<\/a> (LGLD<\/a>), MetroPCS<\/a> (PCS<\/a>), Motorola Mobility<\/a>, NEC Corporation<\/a> (6701<\/a>),\u00a0Pantech, Research In Motion<\/a><\/strong> (RIMM<\/a>), Sony<\/a> (SNE<\/a>), Sprint<\/a> (S<\/a>), T-Mobile<\/a>, Verizon<\/a><\/strong> (VZ<\/a>) and ZTE<\/a> (763<\/a>). The article says these firms committed the mortal sin of allowing their mobile phones to act like mobile phones. But the interesting thing about this particular suit is the origin of the suit \u2013 or, more precisely, the reporting around that origin.<\/p>\n

Mr. Meyer reports that U.S. Patent No. 5,491,834<\/a> comes from BT<\/a><\/strong> (BT<\/a>). It was filed in 1993 and granted in 1996. The patent is still listed by the USPTO<\/strong><\/a> as belonging to BT. In its court filings provided by the author, (the Motorola\/Google example is here<\/a>), Steelhead notes that it \u201cowns all rights of recovery under the \u2018834 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\"aggressively<\/a>The author suggests that this case may not be BT \u201caggressively monetizing<\/strong>\u201d its patent portfolio. BT told Mr. Meyer, \u201cBT sold all of its rights to the patents last year. We have no involvement in Steelhead Licensing LLC\u2019s litigation activity.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

BT claims the troll is not a shell front<\/strong> for the firm<\/a>. A spokesperson for the telecom giant told GigaOM<\/em>,\u00a0 \u201cBT doesn\u2019t share in Steelhead\u2019s licensing income<\/strong><\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n

rb-<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

I have covered the mobile patent<\/a> wars<\/a> many<\/a> times<\/a> here<\/a>. I don’t know why I find patent trolling so interesting to follow. Maybe it is the same reason I watch NASCAR<\/a> highlights, for the crashes, or the buy a few Powerball<\/a> <\/em>tickets, just in case.<\/em><\/p>\n

Maybe someday all the money spent on lawyers will actually go back to making things and creating jobs. <\/em><\/p>\n

\"Kids<\/a>Shame on BT if this is a legit patent and they were not smart enough to enforce their claim when they had it. I’m no lawyer, it seems to me that mobiles that can’t find a cell tower to connect to don’t work.<\/em><\/p>\n

Related articles<\/h6>\n