Samsung faces new US patent suit
Samsung is one of 10 electronics companies facing claims that it infringed two patents covering an authentication system for unlocking a mobile device.
On January 22, Puerto Rican company Tierra Intelectual Borinquen (TIB) filed 10 near-identical lawsuits at the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, demanding a jury trial and unspecified damages.
One invention is described as a “user selection of computer login”, while the other is called “user-selectable signatures”. TIB has named Samsung, HTC, LG Electronics, Sony, Toshiba, Acer, Asustek Computer, Kyocera, Pantech, and ZTE in the suit.
The ‘078’ patent, issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in March 2008, protects an invention for a “computer-implemented method for creating a signature for subsequent authorisation”.
The ‘725’ patent, approved in May 2010, is called “user-selectable signatures”. The invention covers a “computer-implemented process for creating a signature based on user input signals from user-selectable input devices”.
TIB says it owns all rights to both patents, which protect a system that allows people to choose between a password, face recognition or some other login method, to unlock a mobile phone. According to USPTO documents, the company acquired the rights from an individual named Gary Odom. TIB has another similar patent pending at the USPTO.
Some of the tech companies’ products that allegedly infringe the patents include Samsung’s Galaxy Note 10.1 tablet and Galaxy S111 mobile phone, HG Evo LTE smartphone, LG Escape mobile phone, Sony Xperia TL mobile phone and Toshiba Excite™ 10se tablet.
“The inventions seem like fairly simple concepts,” said Steve Auvil, partner at Squire Sanders in Cleveland. He said that did not mean they would be easy to defend against in court, adding: “The defendants will be highly motivated to find prior art to invalidate the patent.”
Little is known of the Puerto Rican company TIB, but Auvil said that “on the surface” it appeared to be a non-practising entity (NPE), a company that licenses its patents but does not sell products covered by the inventions.
This is because plaintiffs typically describe how they have commercialised their patents and provide some evidence of sales. TIB has not offered any such evidence in its lawuit, and its choice of court provides another sign that it might be an NPE.
The eastern district of Texas is the top US venue for filing patent lawsuits, partly because of its special rules to expedite patent cases. More than 1,260 patent cases were filed at the court in 2012, up from 418 the previous year. In particular, NPEs favour the court over other venues because it is considered to be plaintiff-friendly.
Peter Corless, partner at Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP in Boston, said he assumed that TIB was an NPE, and that the case sheds more light on the threat that such entities pose for big companies.
“Some people refer to NPE’s rather disparagingly, calling them ‘patent trolls’, but they are not necessarily doing anything wrong. It’s not unusual for NPE’s to assert their rights, and if a settlement offer is reasonable then it can be good for companies to settle.”
Auvil said it was highly likely that the 10 cases would be combined into one, either by the judge or by negotiation between the parties.
