Court Says Cisco Has No Right To Sue To Invalidate A Patent That Is Being Used Against Its Customers

from the that-just-seems-wrong dept

Yet another unfortunate patent decision has come out of the appeals court for the federal circuit. This involves a case where certain customers of Cisco products were being sued for patent infringement by TR Labs, and part of its argument was that certain Cisco equipment resulted in the infringement by those customers. In response, Cisco filed a lawsuit in federal court, asking for a declaratory judgment that TR Labs’ patents were invalid. TR Labs hit back that it had not sued Cisco, had no intention of suing Cisco, and thus Cisco could not sue for declaratory judgment. Unfortunately, the lower courts and now the appeals court have agreed that Cisco has no basis to bring a lawsuit, because there is no direct threat against it.

There are reasons why it makes sense to require an actual potential dispute before allowing someone to bring a declaratory judgment action, but it seems silly to argue that Cisco can’t file this lawsuit. After all, its business can clearly be impacted by TR Labs’ lawsuits. First, it automatically makes Cisco’s offerings more expensive, in that buyers may either face increased liability or direct licensing costs just to use those products. Thus, Cisco has a direct financial stake in the outcome of those lawsuits and has a very good reason to see the patents invalidated. Unfortunately, the court just doesn’t think that’s enough:


In the circumstances presented here, that interest is simply insufficient to give rise to a current, justiciable case or
controversy upon which federal declaratory judgment
jurisdiction may be predicated

Of course, a better solution all around would be to make it much easier for anyone to get bad patents thrown out, but that’s just not how our patent system works, unfortunately.



Filed Under: , ,
Companies: cisco, tr labs

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Court Says Cisco Has No Right To Sue To Invalidate A Patent That Is Being Used Against Its Customers”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
27 Comments
RonKaminskysays:

Re:

Yes, but said customer would still be liable for any kind of judgment of the court, if, for example, the court found that the case was so frivolous that it wanted to award the other side’s legal fees. Not very likely in the US, but still possible.

IANAL, but I suspect that US law disallows any kind of indemnification by a third party for such fees or other monetary liabilities.

Either get one of the customers to ask that Cisco be joined as a co-defendant on the grounds that they’re the manufacturer of the equipment, or have one of them move to dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant sued does not manufacture the equipment, they merely use it as intended by the manufacturer, and that any claims by the plaintiff are invalid due to patent exhaustion. Better yet, have all the defendants do this, forcing TR Labs to face Cisco’s attorneys in multiple venues and potentially multiple awards of costs and fees.

Nothing to see heresays:

Re:

I had the same thought. If TR labs is only going after Cisco customers, they are obviously not in it for the money, or they would go after Cisco directly, so they must have a goal of forcing customers to another vendor’s equipment. Right?

What if all of cisco’s customers filed a negligence suit against Cisco for making them vulnerable to the lawsuit? Could Cisco then go after TD labs?

Re: Re:

I think it’s tactical. Cisco has the lawyers and the intimate knowledge of their products to successfully show that either a) the products don’t infringe or b) the patent is invalid due to prior art and such. For TR Labs, suing Cisco is a big risk. But the customers don’t have intimate knowledge of Cisco’s hardware and firmware. They’re not in a position to turn up prior art, nor to show that the hardware doesn’t work the way TR Labs says it does. Plus for the customers settling simply means an extra cost, another check to write, whereas for Cisco it’d damage their entire business. So the customers are more apt to settle while Cisco may see it as something they have to fight. That all makes the customers less risky to sue.

Nothing to see heresays:

Re:

I had the same thought. If TR labs is only going after Cisco customers, they are obviously not in it for the money, or they would go after Cisco directly, so they must have a goal of forcing customers to another vendor’s equipment. Right?

What if all of cisco’s customers filed a negligence suit against Cisco for making them vulnerable to the lawsuit? Could Cisco then go after TD labs?

Gwizsays:

Of course, a better solution all around would be to make it much easier for anyone to get bad patents thrown out, but that’s just not how our patent system works, unfortunately.

Did you catch that last paragraph of the article there, Blue?

That’s Mike offering up a solution to a problem he sees. He even wrote it in simple words that you can understand.

But wait...

“Of course, a better solution all around would be to make it much easier for anyone to get bad patents thrown out, but that’s just not how our patent system works, unfortunately.”

But wait, isn’t that what an ex parte re-exam request is? Couldn’t Cisco have filed that instead of DJ?

Oddly, this ruling makes perfect sense to me, given Cisco is not a party to the suit. They should be, it’s their equipment, but they are not named.

Besides which, this is exactly right:

“I think it’s tactical. Cisco has the lawyers and the intimate knowledge of their products to successfully show that either a) the products don’t infringe or b) the patent is invalid due to prior art and such. For TR Labs, suing Cisco is a big risk. But the customers don’t have intimate knowledge of Cisco’s hardware and firmware. They’re not in a position to turn up prior art, nor to show that the hardware doesn’t work the way TR Labs says it does. Plus for the customers settling simply means an extra cost, another check to write, whereas for Cisco it’d damage their entire business. So the customers are more apt to settle while Cisco may see it as something they have to fight. That all makes the customers less risky to sue.”

Personally, I would not want to set the precedent that people not part of a lawsuit can come in and say whatever’s being sued over isn’t valid. Think of what havoc grandparents could wreak on custody battles, just for example.

Just sayin’,

IPTT

James Burkhardtsays:

Re: But wait...

Which doesn’t automatically shut down lawsuits. So even if Cisco files for an ex parte reexam and its granted, Shumk A is still getting sued during the multi year review process.

As for your concerns, You are grossly oversimplifying the case, and how the ruling could/would be phrased. That ruling could easily say that when a patent holder sues or threatens to sue an end consumer rather than a 3rd “middle man” party who functions as the de facto accused infringing party, the 3rd party has clear grounds to intercede on behalf of its customers and prove its product . It provides clear guidelines indicating a very narrow subset of cases in which a non-infringer who is unlikely to fight a suit is being sued in favor of the true infringer, who would have fight the suit.

more dissembling by Masnick

‘make it much easier for anyone to get bad patents thrown out’

Invention thieves definition of ‘bad patents’: those we are sued over

Masnick and his monkeys have an unreported conflict of interest-
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1

They sell blog filler and “insights” to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world?s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are hacks representing themselves as legitimate journalists receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don?t have any.

For the truth, please see…
https://www.facebook.com/pi.ausa.5
http://piausa.wordpress.com/

Gwizsays:

Re: more dissembling by Masnick

For the truth, please see…

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Karl has already dug into some of your so called “truth” here:

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130412/09091522689/heres-another-inventor-who-willingly-gave-his-greatest-idea-away-order-to-establish-it-as-global-standard.shtml#c406

GrendelVSsays:

It's about "having standing" to sue

If the court allowed Cisco to sue in this case, they would have to allow the EFF and ACLU to sue on behalf of all US citizens to halt NSA spying on them. The EFF and ACLU have been told in several cases that they have to have someone who can claim they KNOW they were spied on, and be able to PROVE it, before they can file a case.

BernardoVerdasays:

Re: It's about "having standing" to sue

“If the court allowed Cisco to sue in this case, they would have to allow the EFF and ACLU to sue on behalf of all US citizens to halt NSA spying on them. The EFF and ACLU have been told in several cases that they have to have someone who can claim they KNOW they were spied on, and be able to PROVE it, before they can file a case.”

I voted this “funny”.
But only because it’s “black humour”.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
13:40 It's Great That Winnie The Pooh Is In The Public Domain; But He Should Have Been Free In 1982 (Or Earlier) (35)
12:06 Norton 360 Now Comes With Crypto Mining Capabilities And Sketchy Removal Process (28)
10:45 Chinese Government Dragnet Now Folding In American Social Media Platforms To Silence Dissent (14)
10:40 Daily Deal: The 2022 Ultimate Cybersecurity Analyst Preparation Bundle (0)
09:29 A Fight Between Facebook And The British Medical Journal Highlights The Difficulty Of Moderating 'Medical Misinformation' (9)
06:29 Court Ruling Paves The Way For Better, More Reliable Wi-Fi (4)
20:12 Eighth Circuit (Again) Says There's Nothing Wrong With Detaining Innocent Minors At Gunpoint (15)
15:48 China's Regulatory War On Its Gaming Industry Racks Up 14k Casualties (10)
13:31 Chinese Government Fines Local Car Dealerships For Surveilling While Not Being The Government (5)
12:08 Eric Clapton Pretends To Regret The Decision To Sue Random German Woman Who Listed A Bootleg Of One Of His CDs On Ebay (29)
10:44 ICE Is So Toxic That The DHS's Investigative Wing Is Asking To Be Completely Separated From It (29)
10:39 Daily Deal: The 2022 Complete Raspberry Pi And Arduino Developer Bundle (0)
09:31 Google Blocked An Article About Police From The Intercept... Because The Title Included A Phrase That Was Also A Movie Title (24)
06:22 Wireless Carriers Balk At FAA Demand For 5G Deployment Delays Amid Shaky Safety Concerns (16)
19:53 Tenth Circuit Denies Qualified Immunity To Social Worker Who Fabricated A Mother's Confession Of Child Abuse (35)
15:39 Sci-Hub's Creator Thinks Academic Publishers, Not Her Site, Are The Real Threat To Science, And Says: 'Any Law Against Knowledge Is Fundamentally Unjust' (34)
13:32 Federal Court Tells Proud Boys Defendants That Raiding The Capitol Building Isn't Covered By The First Amendment (25)
12:14 US Courts Realizing They Have A Judge Alan Albright Sized Problem In Waco (17)
10:44 Boston Police Department Used Forfeiture Funds To Hide Purchase Of Surveillance Tech From City Reps (16)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Ultimate Microsoft Excel Training Bundle (0)
09:20 NY Senator Proposes Ridiculously Unconstitutional Social Media Law That Is The Mirror Opposite Of Equally Unconstitutional Laws In Florida & Texas (25)
06:12 Telecom Monopolies Are Exploiting Crappy U.S. Broadband Maps To Block Community Broadband Grant Requests (7)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of 2021 At Techdirt (17)
10:00 Gaming Like It's 1926: Join The Fourth Annual Public Domain Game Jam (6)
09:00 New Year's Message: The Arc Of The Moral Universe Is A Twisty Path (33)
19:39 DHS, ICE Begin Body Camera Pilot Program With Surprisingly Good Policies In Place (7)
15:29 Remembering Techdirt Contributors Sherwin And Elliot (1)
13:32 DC Metro PD's Powerful Review Panel Keeps Giving Bad Cops Their Jobs Back (6)
12:11 Missouri Governor Still Expects Journalists To Be Prosecuted For Showing How His Admin Leaked Teacher Social Security Numbers (39)
10:48 Oversight Board Overturning Instagram Takedown Of Ayahuasca Post Demonstrates The Impossibility Of Content Moderation (10)
More arrow
This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it