Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Patent Troll Sues Dell, HP, 10 Others Over 3G, 4G CDMA Tech

By - Source: MJ | B 28 comments

Golden Bridge Technologies (GBT), an intellectual property company focused on CDMA technologies, has launched a lawsuit claiming rights to an CDMA enhancement technology that is used in 3G and 4G networks.

GBT is targeting Samsung, ZTE, Sony, HP, RIM, LG, HTC, Pantech, Dell, Huawei, Sierra Wireless, as well as Motorola, alleging infringement of its 6,574,267 and 7,359,427 patents, both entitled "Rach ramp-up acknowledgement." The patents, which have gone through an extensive revision period over the past few years, were filed in 1999 and 2003, respectively, and granted in 2003 and 2008, respectively. the documents describe a CDMA system using spread-spectrum modulation that achieves "reliable high data throughput and low delay."

This specific system consists of an approach of:

"receiving at a first RS (remote station)-spread-spectrum receiver the broadcast common-synchronization channel, and determining frame timing from the frame-timing signal, and transmitting from a first RS-spread-spectrum transmitter an access-burst signal.

The access-burst signal has a plurality of segments, which have a plurality of power levels. At the BS (base station)-spread-spectrum receiver the access-burst signal is received at a detected-power level. In response to receiving the access-burst signal, the BS-spread-spectrum transmitter transmits to the first RS-spread-spectrum receiver an acknowledgment signal.

The first RS-spread-spectrum receiver receives the acknowledgment signal, and in response to receiving the acknowledgment signal, the first RS-spread-spectrum transmitter transmits to the BS-spread-spectrum receiver, a spread-spectrum signal having data."

GBT alleges that, in total, more than 200 3G and 4G LTE cell phones and tablets offered by the lawsuit targets are infringing on its patent. The company asks for triple damages for "willful" past and present patent infringement. There is no request to halt any product shipments and sales.

GBT, based in Long Branch, New Jersey is a relatively old IP company by today's standards. The firm owns 50 patents in the CDMA space and was formed in 1995 "by a consortium of telecommunication technology investors, scientists and intellectual property attorneys." Its primary business is "the creation, licensing and enforcement of Wideband CDMA technology and intellectual property," but it does not actively manufacture any products.

Discuss
Display all 28 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 20 Hide
    alhanelem , April 23, 2012 8:51 PM
    the patent system is like the rules toddlers use for the possession of toys.
    THATS MINE, MINE and MINE!
  • 11 Hide
    Murissokah , April 23, 2012 8:49 PM
    Patent troll is trolling companies for its patents... big surprise here.
Other Comments
  • 11 Hide
    Murissokah , April 23, 2012 8:49 PM
    Patent troll is trolling companies for its patents... big surprise here.
  • 20 Hide
    alhanelem , April 23, 2012 8:51 PM
    the patent system is like the rules toddlers use for the possession of toys.
    THATS MINE, MINE and MINE!
  • 3 Hide
    Gundam288 , April 23, 2012 9:10 PM
    I think the fun part is going to be motorola as they split the company in 2011. (one is now phones (mobility, which is now owned by google.), the other is radios (soultions, which currently uses the old corp. HQ and still makes radios there, shocking i know....))

    Dunno how that is going to work out, but it should be intresting how it plays out if the court DOES find GBT is right. (doubt it tho)
  • 2 Hide
    eddieroolz , April 23, 2012 9:33 PM
    How messed up.
  • 3 Hide
    subaru41 , April 23, 2012 9:36 PM
    LOL. When I read "Patent troll sues...." the first thing that popped in my head was that this article was about Apple Inc.
  • 6 Hide
    TheZander , April 23, 2012 9:42 PM
    "...but it does not actively manufacture any products."

    This is the line they should focus on right here. What good is a patent if you're not making and selling anything with it? You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.
  • 3 Hide
    wesleywatson , April 23, 2012 10:05 PM
    TheZander"...but it does not actively manufacture any products."This is the line they should focus on right here. What good is a patent if you're not making and selling anything with it? You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.

    Some companies make money by doing research and development, and the ability to hold a patent allows them to do the work that they do. They create new technologies, and then license them to companies to manufacture. It's a prime example of division of labor. What if these are real scientists and engineers protecting their work from being taken by all these companies?
  • 6 Hide
    freggo , April 23, 2012 10:26 PM
    Getting soooo tired of this patent crap :-(
  • 8 Hide
    walter87 , April 23, 2012 10:32 PM
    LOL file a lawsuit to the actual phone/device manufacturers and not Qualcomm...
    Qualcomm designed CDMA and holds most patents for that form of spread-spectrum modulation.

    Qualcomm should release a statement to back up their suppliers and make this troll go away.
  • 1 Hide
    KNO3 , April 23, 2012 10:46 PM
    Quote:
    "...but it does not actively manufacture any products."This is the line they should focus on right here. What good is a patent if you're not making and selling anything with it? You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.


    This is like saying that if my neighbor doesn't ever drive his truck and it just sits in is driveway I should be able to drive it to work everyday without permission.
  • 6 Hide
    Andy Chow , April 23, 2012 11:02 PM
    KNO3This is like saying that if my neighbor doesn't ever drive his truck and it just sits in is driveway I should be able to drive it to work everyday without permission.


    That's actually a bad example. Because a patent isn't a product, it's an idea. For example, when you stake your claim for mineral rights, you have to prove that you're actively exploiting those minerals within a three years period or you'll lose your claim. You never pay for the land (unless it's already owned, most land up north isn't). And you don't pay for the minerals either.

    You just pay for the right to have that exclusivity if you can show that you're using that opportunity within a reasonable time (to obtain financing, for example). Patent laws should be the same. Lest companies just start filing patents they will never use just to prevent their competitors from selling said product (cough..Apple, cough).

    Your example should be more like: your neighbor doesn't drive his truck, but because he owns it, you're never going to be able to build or buy your own truck, because he own the idea of a truck.
  • -2 Hide
    Anonymous , April 24, 2012 1:29 AM
    Use it or loose it.

    If a "company" doesn't produce a product that uses a "patent" in it's "portfolio" it should be void after a period of time.
  • 2 Hide
    wildkitten , April 24, 2012 4:09 AM
    dane1234Use it or loose it.If a "company" doesn't produce a product that uses a "patent" in it's "portfolio" it should be void after a period of time.

    I disagree with this. While I hate patent trolls as much as anyone, we have to be careful not to lump those who do genuine work and come up with ideas and then, instead of trying to invest the money to manufacture a product themselves, insteads comes up with a licencing agreement with a company or companies to produce products based on those inventions.

    Now the article really doesn't make it clear if this company was the one who filed the patents to begin with. Since the company was formed in 1995 and the patents were filed later than that they may be the original holders and developers of the technology. If so, they aren't neccessarily patent trolls.
  • 1 Hide
    shqtth , April 24, 2012 5:41 AM
    Something fishy. Why they taking this long to sue? Also CDMA technology has been out for a very long time. So its not a new thing. So why Sue now?
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , April 24, 2012 5:55 AM
    Patents are getting out of hand. If you have no real interest in producing said product a patent should always be denied. We are talking about innovation here and to remove a technology just from the market just because you own a patent on it is stupidity. Ideas should not be owned. Ideas should be contributed to further the life of all others. When I see behavior like this its obvious that some companies don't care. Where do we draw the line? What if the cure for cancer is found but never used because of a patent? Things like this could have serious implications.. This is why we need to rethink and change patent laws.
  • 0 Hide
    wildkitten , April 24, 2012 7:15 AM
    Andy ChowThat's actually a bad example. Because a patent isn't a product, it's an idea. For example, when you stake your claim for mineral rights, you have to prove that you're actively exploiting those minerals within a three years period or you'll lose your claim. You never pay for the land (unless it's already owned, most land up north isn't). And you don't pay for the minerals either.You just pay for the right to have that exclusivity if you can show that you're using that opportunity within a reasonable time (to obtain financing, for example). Patent laws should be the same. Lest companies just start filing patents they will never use just to prevent their competitors from selling said product (cough..Apple, cough).Your example should be more like: your neighbor doesn't drive his truck, but because he owns it, you're never going to be able to build or buy your own truck, because he own the idea of a truck.

    Except here is the problem with your analogy. If someone who comes up with an idea needs to then turn around and put in start up capital to create a product based on the invention, then you create a lot more financial burden thus less incentive for people to do research. You also have the potential to get a glut of manufacturing that just isn't needed and can't be supported. Imagine where we would be technology wise if people actually were required to make the physical product on their own idea? We may still be using punch cards. We almost certainly would not be discussing it on an internet comment board such as this because I can't see how it would exist.

    Now agreed, people need to at least come up with licencing agreements, but at the same time, people who come up with ideas do so to make money off of it. I can see some companies coming up with ideas in R&D and if there is no current market that can support it, they may need to sit on it for some time. What do you do in that case? You just can't strip the rights from someone just because there may not be a market for a product at the time it's come up with. Your mine analogy doesn't hold up with this because the miner only went to get the minerals because there was already market demand.

    Now that being said, yes, we have to do something about companies whose sole purpose is just to sue other people. We need very serious patent and tort reform in the US. The problem is in this case the article is sort of murky. The company was founded in 1995, but the patents weren't filed until post 2000. Did they come up with these ideas themselves? Well, the article says the company was founded not just by lawyers, but by scientists as well, that suggests the possibility this isn't a company that exists to buy obscure patents just to sue someone else.

    Let's just not throw swing the pendulum to far to the other side where we stifle innovation while correcting this problem.
  • 0 Hide
    wildkitten , April 24, 2012 7:22 AM
    wartech0Patents are getting out of hand. If you have no real interest in producing said product a patent should always be denied. We are talking about innovation here and to remove a technology just from the market just because you own a patent on it is stupidity. Ideas should not be owned. Ideas should be contributed to further the life of all others. When I see behavior like this its obvious that some companies don't care. Where do we draw the line? What if the cure for cancer is found but never used because of a patent? Things like this could have serious implications.. This is why we need to rethink and change patent laws.


    I'm sorry, but did you even think of what you were typing? If someone were to find a cure for cancer, there is no reason they wouldn't do something with it. They would likely be one of the richest people in the world.

    Conversely, if you denied the ability to patent things like medicine, guess what, people stop trying to come up with it.

    Patents being violated in the pharmaceutical industry is actually hurting R&D into new drugs. These companies have to put in literally tens of millions of dollars, not to mention many years, into research and testing before they can even make a single penny. If they didn't have a patent on there idea, a competitor could come in and immediately create the product with no investment into coming up with it.

    I think it's rather obvious you aren't in a field where you try to come up with ideas and you have a financial stake with what you come up with.
  • 0 Hide
    dreadlokz , April 24, 2012 8:09 AM
    $_$
    I love patent trolls! Is the only kind of trolls I love ;p
  • -1 Hide
    kuaimanganeu , April 24, 2012 10:16 AM
    You're not using it to further your business. You're not even manufacturing and selling goods to the public that are related to the patent. Its purpose is simply to troll and sue.
  • -3 Hide
    pepe2907 , April 24, 2012 12:48 PM
    wildkitten ... well, if you plan to produce some medicine, you'll research it anyway, isn't that right? OK, it may, or may not higher the financial burden for some researchers, but we should actually think what cares more burden /as a complete, to the society as a whole if you like/ - a maybe little higher price of research or a wronged IP system. And do we need research to be made just to be made research? Or would we like research to be made so goods be made out of it?
    Well, things are never simple, but it clarifies more and more some changes appear to be necessary.
Display more comments