Berman said in one publication:
""It's the user of tech that is liable under patent law," added Berman. "There are several large companies that actually cite our patents in their patent documentation, like Real."
Of course other patent holders cite their patents.. it's REQUIRED by the patent office to disclose any prior art and patents they can find.
It's not a validation that their patent is valid.
The huge problem with Acacia is this: (to use a car analogy).
They patented a personal transport with 4 wheels.
Someone else cited them in their own patent, but called it a car with low ride suspension.
Acacia comes out to sue the auto dealers for patent infringement of selling cars with wheels, which they say is the same as a personal transport. They could sue the manufacturer, but they have deep pockets, so they pick on the smaller dealerships that have tight margins and high overhead (ie. inventory).
In this simple example, Acacia is looking to sue everyone for a broad patent claim... the problem is that so many companies were making "personal transports" prior to their patent, that the patent claims should be invalid.
But why would the USPTO grant this fictiious patent then if there was prior art? The language in this patent was so obscure and science fiction like, talking about the ability to turn invisible, transform into a robot,etc.. that the patent office thought it was novel and new. but acacia decided to just focus on the broader claim of a car with wheels.
But some auto dealerships decided to fight..they didn't want to pay someone a licensing fee for the sales of their pimp-mo-biles. So these dealerships fight back by challenging the big bad patent.
Hope you have enjoyed this analogy to explain how absurd this Acacia patent is.
Fight the Patent!
|