NYTimes leads group defense in mobile patent suit

Aug 28, 2012 by Ryan Nakashima
This combination of Associated Press file photos shows the The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Va., left, and The New York Times building in New York, right. The Times is leading the defense of a diverse group of companies that use technology they assumed was free: sending text messages with Web links to mobile phones. However, the technology was patented by inventor Richard J. Helferich, who filed an outline of how such a system would work with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in September 1997. Since 2008, his company has filed 23 suits against companies. (AP Photo/File)

The New York Times Co. is girding for a legal battle that many larger organizations have avoided. The Times is leading the defense of a diverse group of companies that use technology they assumed was free: sending text messages with Web links to mobile phones.

The technology was patented by inventor Richard J. Helferich, who filed an outline of how such a system would work with the U.S. and Trademark Office in September 1997. He was granted several patents on the method, giving him the right to sue companies that use it without permission.

Since 2008, his company, Helferich , has filed 23 suits against companies ranging from Co. to the , claiming they are infringing on his intellectual property.

HPL offers companies the chance to settle by paying a one-time fee of $750,000. Many companies gladly pay, rather than getting bogged down in a court fight that could cost millions. Roughly 100 companies have settled with HPL already, it says, including Apple Inc., The . and McDonald's Corp.

The Times' general counsel, Kenneth Richieri, says he wants to prevent Helferich's patents from becoming a burden on activities that are commonplace in the digital age.

"In some ways, it's a tax for being on the Internet," Richieri said. "Millions and millions of dollars collectively is going out of the pockets of people who earned it to people who, in my opinion, didn't do anything."

If the Times loses, it's likely it will have to pay more than the $750,000 that HPL initially sought to continue using the technology. The Times has used it to alert readers by mobile phone of breaking news or .

Steven Lisa, a registered patent attorney who represents HPL, would not comment on the specifics of any settlements.

The U.S. is designed to protect inventors and allow them to profit from their ideas. Where would General Electric be without legal protection for 's light bulb? What might have become of AT&T if competitors had been free to copy Alexander Graham Bell's telephone? The patent office views its role as vital to the growth of the U.S. economy, and last year, it issued around 245,000 patents.

HPL's cases, however, fit into a controversial category. Opponents point out that HPL doesn't make products or provide services. They say it simply uses patents to seek licensing fees from others who actually do business. Critics label such companies "patent trolls".

"You really have to wonder what contribution they are making to our economy or our society, or if it's just a drain," said Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley.

Patent trolling is legal. The patent office doesn't require inventors to put their ideas into action.

In 2011, entities like HPL sued 5,073 companies in the U.S. for infringing on patents that they either got on their own or acquired. That was more than double the number in 2009, according to PatentFreedom, a research organization that offers consulting advice for defendants in patent lawsuits.

PatentFreedom estimates the typical cost of a patent defense is $1 million to $5 million. Taking the low estimate, multiplied by the number of defendants, it sees such suits as a drag on the economy of more than $5 billion a year.

"Law firms are doing very well at this. Operating companies are not," says Daniel McCurdy, the founder of PatentFreedom.

The Times is fighting the case on two fronts: at the U.S. and in the courts. Beginning late last year, it filed a number of complaints with the patent office on grounds that the government issued the patents incorrectly. The Times' legal team notes, for instance, that Intel Corp. received a similar patent in February 1996, some 18 months before Helferich got his. A few of the complaints have initially been found in the Times' favor, according to the newspaper company's outside counsel, Brian Buroker, although HPL is appealing. The process could take 18 months to complete.

The Times is also fighting the case in the U.S. District Court in Chicago, where it argues HPL already receives licensing fees from cellphone manufacturers for the same technology and therefore shouldn't be allowed to double dip and charge content providers.

The Times is spearheading the defense of a group that also includes CBS Corp., Comcast Corp.'s TV channels Bravo and G4 and J.C. Penney Co., according to court filings. HPL sued The . in July 2010; Bravo, G4 and CBS in October 2011 and J.C. Penney in December 2011.

The technology in dispute has become a key part of the companies' marketing campaigns. CBS texts followers to prompt them to visit its website for exclusive pictures and video to shows such as "Big Brother." Bravo sends messages to viewers' mobile phones to get them to participate in live online chats and polls. J.C. Penney lets shoppers with mobile phones know about sweepstakes and giveaways.

Although the lawsuits were filed separately, the defendants are saving money by sharing strategies and resources instead of fighting the lawsuits on their own. The lawsuit against the Times is scheduled to go through at least the middle of next year.

Some see the case as highlighting the need for patent reform.

Berkeley's Schultz says it should be easier for defendants to force the patent office to re-examine its past decisions on issuing patents, and easier for patents to be struck down in court. That way, patent holders would be less able to make a business out of extracting settlements by using the threat of costly litigation.

Some changes are coming. Last September, President Barack Obama signed into law the first major change in patent law in six decades. It is aimed at streamlining the patent process, reducing costly legal battles and giving the more money to process applications in a timely fashion.

Certain parts of the law won't take effect until March, but a provision that took effect right away has made it more difficult for patent holders to name dozens of defendants in a single suit. That has led to a decreased number of companies sued. PatentFreedom estimates the number of defendants this year will fall to around 3,500.

Explore further: Out-of-patience investors sell off Amazon

5 /5 (2 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Patent holder sues smart phone makers over patents

Jul 09, 2010

(AP) -- The patent-holding company that won a settlement of more than $600 million from the maker of the BlackBerry said Friday it has sued six other companies in the smart phone industry.

HTC accuses Apple of patent infringement

Aug 16, 2011

Taiwan's HTC Corp. accused Apple of patent infringement on Tuesday in the latest salvo in an ongoing legal battle between the smartphone giants.

Recommended for you

Out-of-patience investors sell off Amazon

Oct 24, 2014

Amazon has long acted like an ideal customer on its own website: a freewheeling big spender with no worries about balancing a checkbook. Investors confident in founder and CEO Jeff Bezos' invest-and-expand ...

States ascend into the cloud

Oct 24, 2014

Seven years ago, the state of Delaware started moving computer servers out of closets and from under workers' desks to create a consolidated data center and a virtual computing climate.

Microsoft drops Nokia name from smartphones

Oct 24, 2014

Microsoft said Friday it was dropping the Nokia name from its Lumia smartphones, rebranding following the acquisition earlier this year of the Finnish group's handset division.

Amazon's loss makes holidays a question mark

Oct 24, 2014

Amazon's trademark smile icon is becoming more of a grimace. The world's largest online retailer reported a wider third-quarter loss than analysts expected and gave a disappointing holiday forecast.

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Aloken
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2012
Since 2008, his company, Helferich Patent Licensing, has filed 23 suits...


The name of the company is enough to discredit his patents. Just another patent troll who makes no use whatsoever of his patents besides suing others.
PPihkala
3 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2012
I recently learned that US patent system has been changed in other way too: First to file will get the patent, even if he/she is not the inventor. This will promote trolling too. But another big problem is the patent office backlog, meaning that it will take years to get patent granted.
Ophelia
1.3 / 5 (3) Aug 28, 2012
@aloken: Just how is someone like Helferich in his position supposed to make use of his invention?

Did Helferich bring patentable technology to the public? If so, he should be paid somehow for it. That's the purpose to the patent provision in the Constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

See that "To promote". Explain how denying Helferich any income would promote anything. It would only discourage people from filing patent applications and spreading knowledge.

The people who wrote the Constitution could have written "and are doing something with it". But they didn't. They chose to emphasize disclosure in return for the patent. Not disclosure plus practice for the patent.
Ophelia
not rated yet Aug 28, 2012
@PPihkala: What you wrote is absolute nonsense. And here's why. First, you still have to be an inventor. You don't get a patent simply because you file.

Second, when two applications claim the same invention, the Patent Office declares an interference proceeding. The burden of proving first inventorship is placed on the second in time filer - who wins only something like 5% or less of the time anyway. So, it has always been a "race to the patent office" except that most people didn't realize it.

The second thing is that an interference can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars - one hell of a lot more than just filing an application in the first place. Waiting to file is in almost all cases an unjustified financial gamble.

The disinformation spread about first to file is simply ridiculous. Interference cases are declared at the rate of a percent or two per year anyway. And first filer almost always wins anyway. The effects of change are neglible.

Jotaf
not rated yet Aug 28, 2012
It's been said again and again that many patent applications are ridiculous. Patenting round corners on icons is ridiculous, as well as links on text messages. Both links and text messages (which, by definition, allow anyone to trivially send any text, including links) existed well before this guy came along.

The strongest argument in my opinion is this:

"Just how is someone like Helferich in his position supposed to make use of his invention?"

I get it. But if you "invent" something that no one can market, that has no business model except for racketeering in court, then what are you doing? That's no light bulb no matter how you put it. We need some other protection for true inventors.
Ophelia
not rated yet Aug 28, 2012
@jotaf: First, don't assume what has been patented is what is stated in some news article. It is almost always much, much more involved than that.

Second, Helferich has 46 patents issued to him. Is he just supposed to have released all of that technology for free? Built his own internet? What?

I've worked with many inventors, particularly individuals. Oftentimes, they can't get funding to pursue a business (or when they do the venture capitalist sharks almost always end up with control and the inventor ends up out in the cold) and don't have the resources to do it on their own. Again, are they supposed to just give their technology away for free?

I don't know if Helferich's patent is valid or not. But assuming it is, why would you ever defend a large company who just wants to use technology it DID NOT invent and not pay for what they use? Are you saying they are in the morally superior position?
alfie_null
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2012
Too much law. Too many lawyers. Consider if all this energy were put in to developing new technology instead.