//
you're reading...
IP, Patent

Patent-ly Clueless Law Firm Opens Its Mouth, Revealing All Doubt

In a blatant attempt to pander to potential clients known for unashamedly infringing on other’s patent rights, California law firm Wang, Hartmann, Gibbs & Cauley, PC repeatedly drops the “T” bomb (despite claiming to “engage in IP litigation to defend our clients’ IP rights”) and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of both patent reform and the so-called “non-practicing” patent owners.  Wang swings and misses right off the bat, erroneously claiming that “[t]he increase in patent litigation has moved Congress to consider legislation to stem the practices of ‘patent trolls.'” In addition, its definition of a “troll” basically includes any use of a patent other than for artwork. It’s hard to know where to begin, since the piece is basically a stream-of-consciousness diatribe with a few non-sequitur headings thrown in for good measure.

First, with respect to patent reform, nothing in the legislation specifically addresses patent owners of the “non-practicing” variety (nor should it, since these are the best kind of patent owners, but that’s beside the point).  Second, the article only mentions (at least in headings) two of the many changes being considered by congress, one of which has been eliminated from the bill for basically the entire last session of congress!  Nowhere does the Wang article explain what the “first-to-file” change has to do with NPEs.  Even worse, the authors devote two full paragraphs to explaining damages provisions long since dropped from consideration.

Of course, as bad as its understanding of the patent legislation is, the authors clearly do not understand the purpose of patents in the first place.  Using the derogatory “T” word (meaning something bad must be ahead), the firm describes trolls as “individuals and companies that use patents to license revenue (sic) from other companies or to file-patent infringement lawsuits — rather than to build and sell products using the patented inventions.”  Unless you’re going to hang it on your wall for everyone to admire, the only way to “use” a patent is to license it or assert it in a lawsuit or ITC proceeding to stop someone from infringing.  Sure, a patent owner can build and sell products that incorporate inventions described in the patents, but I promise you right now, those patents won’t lift a finger … they’ll just sit in the file cabinet (or on the wall, if you prefer) collecting dust.

The firm also demonstrates a complete misunderstanding about how patent investors operate.  While the article refers to “trolls” pretty broadly, the context of investors is fairly obvious despite the author’s lack of verbal skill.  The article claims that these evil-doers “hold a patent, much like a stock investment, until it can be licensed to another company” and “are reminiscent of cyber-squatters who bought up Internet domain names during the dot-com boom.”  If you are a patent owner and can find a buyer who will pay you cash money in exchange for your patent on the off-chance that some day, some one might be infringing or will want to take a license, pinch yourself (or don’t) because you’re obviously dreaming.  Patent buyers (perhaps other than Intellectual Ventures who buy anything with a 7 digit number) operate in the here and now, not on speculation.

The firm’s poster child for patent ownership? Lodsys. While Lodsys’s decision to target microscopic software companies makes it an easy scapegoat, the firm’s main criticism of this patent owner is that it expects a license payment “even if the other developer came up with the app that uses similar technology by independent invention.”  I wonder if Wang has ever advised a client to drop IP litigation and decline to “defend [its] client’s rights” because the opponent engaged in “independent invention.”

Oh, and I’m not being overly harsh on the whole “pandering” comment … not only did Wang post this garbage on its website, it also took out a press release, ensuring its amateurish ramblings get broad exposure.

So, in summary, this firm can’t read a piece of legislation, doesn’t believe patents should be enforced, can barely string together a coherent sentence, and generally has no concept of how to construct a persuasive argument.  In short, all I can say is that I hope my friends who are busy asserting the rights of patent owners have the opportunity to oppose the folks over at Wang, Hartmann, Gibbs & Cauley, PC.

Advertisements

Discussion

9 thoughts on “Patent-ly Clueless Law Firm Opens Its Mouth, Revealing All Doubt

  1. You may want to consider that the authors were not referring to patent legislation in their piece about legislators considering legislation against NPE’s. I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but congress sometimes considers things behind closed doors. And far be it from me to bring even more bad news, but I’m pretty sure that there were several legislators proposing anti-troll legislation of some form or fashion in the news over the last few years although I didn’t care enough to bookmark the articles. Ask Kev over at patentdocs if you’re interested, he’ll know.

    “I wonder if Wang has ever advised a client to drop IP litigation and decline to “defend [its] client’s rights” because the opponent engaged in “independent invention.””

    I don’t know if he ever phrased it like that, but he may have said something like “sometimes it is best to not be a dick”. That’s something I might say.

    Posted by 6 | August 17, 2011, 1:29 am
    • “You may want to consider that the authors were not referring to patent legislation in their piece about legislators considering legislation against NPE’s. I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news, but congress sometimes considers things behind closed doors.”

      I re-read the article. I’m not inclined to give the authors the benefit of the doubt when they comment about damages reform provisions that have been eliminated from the bill for quite some time.

      Posted by Patrick | August 17, 2011, 7:55 am
  2. you mean removing all doubt, not revealing all doubt.

    Posted by BT | August 19, 2011, 8:30 am
  3. I think this article is right on.
    Note that the firm has 15 attorneys, only 3 of whom are registered patent attorneys. Some of them might be very sharp litigators, but let me know how your History or Linguistics degree is going to help you understand the technology you are seeking to litigate.
    By the way, in my opinion, if one of the companies this firm refers to so derisively as “trolls” came to them with a $10k retainer to assert their patent rights, that check would not even hit the table before it was snatched.

    Posted by MPK | August 19, 2011, 9:32 am
    • MPK –
      Thanks for reading. I’m beginning to suspect that this article (or possibly their whole website) is designed by “marketing specialists” who possibly don’t even speak English as a primary language. Of course, that doesn’t matter. If you outsource your marketing efforts, you have outsourced your reputation.

      Posted by Patrick | August 20, 2011, 11:45 am
  4. brilliant as always

    Posted by Topeka (@topeka_brooks) | August 19, 2011, 12:23 pm
  5. “Patent trolls’ aims are not to further innovation in products or services. Instead, they hold a patent, much like a stock investment, until it can be licensed to another company that is developing a similar product using the patented technology.”

    Surely, by definition, the fact that the granted patent exists means that innovation has already been furthered?

    “However, Lodsys did not develop the technology for which it holds the patents. An independent inventor did before selling the patent rights to Lodsys.”

    So in fact innovation was incentivised for that inventor, as he obtained value for his innovation? I just dont understand what the problem is with trolls? The problem lies with companies that dont use the patents system properly in the first place, and dont first establish what the state of the art is from the patents database before developing their own products that improve on these, but dont infringe…

    Posted by Mike B | August 21, 2011, 4:39 pm
  6. Not surprised. This firm uses “Findlaw” who make websites for lawyers. They are infamous for bad SEO moves and probably even wrote the article completely. Regardless, if this firm uses Findlaw then that’s their fault

    Posted by Gdeirt | August 25, 2011, 10:20 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: