And the Internet Won: Parallel Networks Versus Website Operators

Parallel Networks v. Abercombie & Fitch, et al. (Fed. Cir. 2013)

Back in 2010 Parallel Networks sued about 120 different companies in a single patent infringement lawsuit – alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 6,446,111. The patent covers the use of individualized applets on handheld devices to speed up data transfer rates but have been asserted against almost anyone involved in ecommerce. The original owner EpicRealm created some buzz back in 2000 with $75 million in venture financing. However, the company was squeezed out by Akamai. The patents are basically all that is left, and the Federal Circuit has largely eliminated their power (at least of the '111 patent) by affirming E.D.Tex. District Court Judge Davis's narrowing claim construction and resulting summary judgment of noninfringement.

The decision is primarily a detailed claim construction analysis that focuses on defining the scope of claim terms with a focus on how those terms are used in the claims and how the invention is described in the specification.

8 thoughts on “And the Internet Won: Parallel Networks Versus Website Operators

  1. The case reminds one of the Selden patent. Others had tried to make land locomotives, but the weight of the engine was too great. Selden invented in the late’70s an engine that was light enough to be placed in a carriage, then he claimed the “horseless” carriage.

    Then he held his patent in the patent office for nearly two decades, slow pacing his responses, which then allowed one two years to respond to an action. When the patent issued in ’95, its value was immediately apparent.

    A group of automobile manufactures formed a cabal, licensing patent to the industry, and sharing revenue with Seldon. Henry Ford was denied a license — he was undercutting prices because of his new mass assembly techniques.

    Ford took the association to court, and “won” at the 2nd Circuit, which limited the broad claims to the engine that Seldon had in fact invented. The industry was not using that engine, but was instead using a type of engine invented in Germany by Daimler, IIRC.

    Seems like history repeating itself here.

    For futher reading:

    link to kcstudio.com

  2. LOL – accuse others of that which you do – clearly the topic here is one of your favorite troll baits (and Prof. Crouch need not even introduce a separate thread as witness your predilection of spontaneously taking snippets of new patents and sniffing them.

    I love the way you do that (not).

  3. This decision appears to be void of any real news and more likely is simple troll bait.

    Do we really need more of this?

    Probably not since we already have you.

  4. The decision is primarily a detailed claim construction analysis that focuses on defining the scope of claim terms with a focus on how those terms are used in the claims and how the invention is described in the specification.

    No. This is not real news.

  5. A mass patent suit against 120 major companies settled by S.J. without even any multi-million dollar trials is not real news?
    [Dennis also posts big $ verdicts for patent owners.]

  6. This decision appears to be void of any real news and more likely is simple troll bait.

    Do we really need more of this?

Comments are closed.