Eolas v. Everyone you've ever heard of
I haven't had time to delve into the language of the patent, but this reeks of utter nonsense to me so far. In my layman's oppinion, Eolas may have made a crucial mistake however, taking aim at so many large targets at once -- with one untested patent, and another which Microsoft already came rather close to beating.
Take the leap to read the whole
Eolas Technologies Files Infringement Lawsuit
Eolas Technologies conducts leading-edge research and development to create innovative technologies in data analysis, visualization, collaboration and networking. During the past 15 years, Eolas' innovations have enabled corporations around the world to enhance their products and improve their customers' website experiences.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, includes claims related to two Eolas patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 ('906 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 ('985 Patent).
The '906 Patent embodies technology first demonstrated publicly in 1993, enabling Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications. This advanced browser technology provides rich interactive online experiences for more than a billion Web users worldwide. The Patent Office granted the '906 Patent in November 1998.
The '906 Patent was the subject of prior litigation against Microsoft Corp. that resulted in a 2004 federal judgment of more than $565 million in favor of Eolas. The USPTO has affirmed the validity of the '906 Patent in three separate proceedings, including two patent reexaminations, the most recent of which concluded in February 2009.
Dr. Michael D. Doyle, chairman of Eolas, says the lawsuit is an effort to protect the company's patented technology.
"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. The primary reason for this has been the success of the U.S. patent system in allowing the innovative company in a field to develop and market its new inventions without having competitors unfairly profit from the innovator's hard work," says Dr. Doyle. "We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else's innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair. All we want is what's fair."
Mike McKool, head of the national law firm McKool Smith and lead counsel for Eolas, says he hopes the lawsuit will put an end to the widespread unauthorized use of the company's technology patents.
"What distinguishes this case from most patent suits is that so many established companies named as defendants are infringing a patent that has been ruled valid by the Patent Office on three occasions," says Mr. McKool.
The lawsuit includes some of the world's leading companies based on their unlicensed use of the Eolas patents in websites and other products.
The companies named as defendants include San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: ADBE); Seattle-based Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN); Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: APPL); Newton, Mass.-based Argosy Publishing Inc.; Dallas-based Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI); Vernon Hills, Ill.-based CDW Corp.; New York-based Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C); San Jose, Calif.-based eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY); Plano, Texas-based Frito-Lay Inc. [a subsidiary of Purchase, New York-based PepsiCo Inc. (NYSE: PEP)]; Scottsdale, Ariz.-based The Go Daddy Group Inc.; Mountain View, Calif.-based Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG); Plano, Texas-based J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP); New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM); Boulder, Colo.-based New Frontier Media Inc. (Nasdaq: NOOF); Delray Beach, FL-based Office Depot Inc. (NYSE: ODP); Plano, Texas-based Perot Systems Corp. (NYSE: PER); Chicago, Ill.-based Playboy Enterprises International Inc. (NYSE: PLA); Plano, Texas-based Rent-A-Center Inc. (Nasdaq: RCII); Framingham, Mass.-based Staples Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLS); Santa Clara, Calif.-based Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq: JAVA); Dallas-based Texas Instruments Inc. (NYSE: TXN); Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO); and San Bruno, Calif.-based YouTube LLC, a subsidiary of Google Inc.<
The case is Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 6:09-cv-446.
For more information or to interview Mr. McKool about the case, please contact REDACTED