Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention. I took a quick look at the litigation docket for this case, which was consolidated with actions against a number of other defendants too. This was in the Eastern District of Texas, considered to be plaintiff friendly, which I’m quite familiar with.
The defendants used the USPTO’s relatively new (at that time) Inter Partes Review (IPR) procedure in order to try to invalidate the claims (alleged to be infringed) before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). When the IPR was filed, as is customary, they requested a stay (temporary stop) of the court proceedings, in order to try the IPR before the PTAB. The strategy worked, because the claims alleged to be infringed were invalidated by the USPTO’s PTAB, but 2 claims (claims 21, 22) apparently survived the IPR. After the IPR, the case was continued in Texas, again as is customary.
Unfortunately for Uniloc and fortunately for the defendants, Uniloc hadn’t alleged infringement of these claims, so it tried to do so after the IPR. The court found this was too late, and dismissed with prejudice.
It does not look like Uniloc got any money from Laminar Research or a number of these other defendants.
However, I agree that it was apparently a waste of time for the parties involved, and likely cost Laminar some real legal fees.
The whole thing seems irrational to me because patent troll cases like this should settle early.
I will have to provide some guidelines here for startups dealing with patent trolls. That’s if you and others on HN are okay with it, i.e., to educate versus being promotional.
The defendants used the USPTO’s relatively new (at that time) Inter Partes Review (IPR) procedure in order to try to invalidate the claims (alleged to be infringed) before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). When the IPR was filed, as is customary, they requested a stay (temporary stop) of the court proceedings, in order to try the IPR before the PTAB. The strategy worked, because the claims alleged to be infringed were invalidated by the USPTO’s PTAB, but 2 claims (claims 21, 22) apparently survived the IPR. After the IPR, the case was continued in Texas, again as is customary.
Unfortunately for Uniloc and fortunately for the defendants, Uniloc hadn’t alleged infringement of these claims, so it tried to do so after the IPR. The court found this was too late, and dismissed with prejudice. It does not look like Uniloc got any money from Laminar Research or a number of these other defendants. However, I agree that it was apparently a waste of time for the parties involved, and likely cost Laminar some real legal fees.
The whole thing seems irrational to me because patent troll cases like this should settle early.
I will have to provide some guidelines here for startups dealing with patent trolls. That’s if you and others on HN are okay with it, i.e., to educate versus being promotional.